Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

All posts created by Azure_Zero

Azure_Zero
definitely not user friendly in parts
Azure_Zero
@Bringslite
If the Game was marketed correctly with the right Title, more of the PVPers would of Kickstarted and joined the game.
It should of been marketed as Fantasy EVE Online, and it might of caught the attention of the PVPers.

But with game markets now a days you have to be the first to market with the idea and get it right, and not just do another CoD or PUBG clone
Azure_Zero
True most of Pathfinder TT is on the Coop side fighting monsters, doing quests, … etc.
But remember where we are in the Pathfinder world.
It is the River Kingdoms, where kingdoms have been fighting each other using various methods and means to expand.
So yeah PVP and PVE have to be in balance here, since players are also content.

You can't lock yourself into a little piece of the world and NEVER expect to get PVP coming to your door.
Look at the HRC for example, we kept basically to ourselves didn't attack anyone, and got Wiped out in week of attacks because one group didn't like the HRC controlling an area they really could not call a settlement.

Now I agree with Paddy, Kenton and a few others that Pathfinder Online SHOULD NEVER of been called Pathfinder Online in the first place,
due to this being a big divergence from the Coop/quest game style found in Table Top play to the PVP style of play found in EVE Online.
It should of been called "Battle for the River Kingdoms: a Pathfinder online Game."
Reasons: 1 inform the player this is a PVP game with PVE elements, 2 it uses the Pathfinder setting, 3 kingdoms are player made.
Azure_Zero
@Harad Navar
I envisioned Light Shield and Dark Sword groups as polar opposites for PVP, and that both would help/harm certain opposing escalations.
I also setup the Guard Role to oppose the Bandit and Warlord Roles.
I set it up so there was one dead to rights Good aligned settlement role for heavy PVP with PVE support, while the evil and neutral aligned have a few settlement role options for PVP minded groups so they can fight amongst themselves.

Remember folks this is a territory control game.
Hence why I made all settlement roles have both PVP and PVE in mind, so that a PVE heavy role could fight back against a PVP heavy role should a fight start between them.
Azure_Zero
Hmm, we could have the Settlement Type/Role influence what Organisation Factions can and can not join that settlement,
Each Organisation Faction should have at least two Settlement Roles it could join.

Now the Builder role will be the only settlement role open to Every Organisation faction since every faction will need supply in some way.

Like;
Sczarni faction can join either Bandit or Merchant settlements
Liberty's Edge faction can join either Light Shield or Guard settlements
Poisoned Lodge Faction can join either Dark Sword, Merchant, or Warlord settlements
Azure_Zero
@Giorgio
This is More a Settlement Type of faction level, not organisation level factions , though some of the organisations could be referenced in the settlement type as a few fall under the same settlement type/faction.
That and the list only covers a small area in the PFO world, there are a ton more.
Azure_Zero
Harad Navar
I like it very much.
1) How would you envision advancement inside of the factions?
2) [Edit] Would leaders/officers of factions have same rights to faction holdings as settlement company leaders/officers have with territory control holdings?
3) Would factions have a measure like influence to be able to place faction based holdings/outposts?

1) Didn't think about advancement for settlement factions, it would require some more thought as it was more to give some basic tools to assist in a specific play style for the settlement.
2) once the founding company chooses the settlement faction/role, all banner companies and settlement members join that faction, so everyone in that settlement has access to these special holdings, outposts and camps but only have what the founder company has chosen.
3) This faction idea does not have a special influence meter, but thinking it over, it should.
The question is how to measure gain, as each one should be based on it's role and not be general.
Azure_Zero
@ Brings
When I did the Factions I generalised them, since a few PF settlement examples are almost identical.
I tried structuring parts of the idea using existing code and features and I do admit some could be more work then expected.

Since each faction as a modified Feud+raid system, it could reuse a lot of the Feud+raid system
Almost all of the items already have a Base in game already.
Some of the passive features of each faction could take some time to make.
The Only hard part I see is making the Requirements, since the alignment system is not in yet, and it would need checking settlement buildings and denying the removal of buildings once the choice is made.
Azure_Zero
Factions did get me thinking of the settlements found in APs, modules, and novels…
related Tangent from this thread: Settlement Factions.
Azure_Zero
I'll admit this is a first rough draft that is not completely balanced, but gives an idea of what I mean.