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.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

All posts created by Azure_Zero

I would rather see security cost coin. It would be paid by the taxes collected in that location. After all, isn’t that how it works in real life? I don’t know many security guards who work for a loaf of bread and a cord of wood…well unless we’re talking about some third world country.

Point being, security should be paid a wage. Wages come from taxes. If you have a tax deficit, you have to make up the short fall with a coin deposit to that holding bank. No different than making up a bulk resource shortfall to make sure your holdings don’t go belly up.

I agree coin is Not a great cost for Security, that and it is an easy scape goat.
Security should cost something that has meaning.

I'd rather it be something else, Like having say;
High Security reduces Outpost Bulk Production by 10%
Medium Security Has not impact on Outpost Bulk Production
Low Security increases Outpost Bulk Production by 10%

This way you can choose to secure your high value hexes, and make the poorest hexes somewhat usable even if it is a poorly secure area.
While I can agree that global browsing should be put in, But I do not believe remote buying should be in.
As I believe you should still need to Go that the Original AH that the goods were put up in to buy them, as blacklisting and denying other settlements access to your AH is something you forgot about.
And being able to buy goods in say TK and then a few moments later relisting them in Talonguard for pick up, it's teleporting Goods from one side of the map to the other bypassing a lot of bandit territory.
Surprised you didn't include taxing the Power gained at Inn holdings.
I can agree that it is problematic for a settlement to have no Auction House when trying to sell things,

But I thought of something else, you could have a New building (or buildings), called the Black Market that functions as an Auction House for selling stuff, but is way more limited in what can be put up.
The basic Black Market idea is that folks can only put up; raw, salvaged and maybe some T1 items.
Though if it were a series of buildings they would be like the temples in that each one is specialized.
Black Market(Mats) would cover; Raw and Salvaged Mats, T1 Gear (up to +3), and Salvaged Ammo and tokens
Black Market(Refined) would cover; Refined Items and consumables (T1 and T2 only, up to +3)
Black Market(Products) would cover; End Products (gear) (T1 and T2 Only, up to +3)
The Large spot by the Tavern tends to have a large building there, so I don't think setting one spot to decide if it is not upgradeable is a good idea, though if I had to choose a large spot for that idea, I'd suggest the Lower spot and not any of the two higher spots.

But before we can have any real look at this idea we need a better idea as to what an Upgraded Auction House would offer over a basic +0 Auction House.
Let's back on topic about new Outposts and Holdings….
I know the T3 restriction part would be extra code, though In the beginning I don't mind if the holding allows T3 crafting, it'll just be that folks would need to remind themselves about the risk in crafting something in a holding for over a week or a month in that they might lose it if the holding gets destroyed or captured (this case would need some thinking about).

Interestingly, refining/crafting projects will still finish up even if the building handling them is destroyed, and the results will still be deposited in the appropriate vault. As long as you have Withdrawal privileges, or re-establish them later, you can retrieve the results.

well, that sounds bad…
It would be nice if the finished good, if the holdings was captured during the crafting process, was instead dumped as a reward into the Holding's Holding vault instead for the victors.
If you were going to add crafting to holdings then ammo making (bowyer, artificer, iconographer) would be more logical. It is something you are more likely to need to do "out in the wild" from both a gameplay and roleplay point of view. Ammo crafting could actually be added to existing holdings with no crafts. Bowyer to Watchtowers, iconographer to Barracks and artificer to Libraries for example.

That is a Good idea, I forgot about ammo, but though I've see it more as; Bowyer added to both Watchtowers and Barracks, iconographer added to Shrines, and artificer to Libraries. The problem is it opens weapon and ammo production which should be done already in-settlement, out of settlement, which has it's own problems.
Now adding crafting to existing holdings would have their Bulk resource costs raised even higher to balance them with the rest and with Watchtowers and Barracks already having some problematic requirements and being the ONLY holdings with Great security DI, it would be terrible for settlements.

The other issue would be balance with regard to existing settlements. Introducing a batch of new craft holdings that "fill the gaps" for one group but do not help some other group at all is likely to stir up a few rumblings.

The New crafting holdings should fill in gaps for buildings that do not make weapons or Armour, since each settlement should already have those in house.
Now I mentioned above that ammo should be made in settlement with one main reason being to keep a lower force projection when wars or escalation raids break out.

So the Only product crafting that should be made as holdings should be:
Alchemist, Engineer, and Jeweler.
since the rest produce either a weapon or armour which should already be again be in settlement to begin with.
Though IF weapon and Armour producing holdings were made they should remain separate holdings and Not integrated into an existing holding.
So Iconographer would be at a Temple Holding, not a shrine holding, and Bowyer would be at the Bowyer Holding, not the Watchtower and or Barracks.

The Holdings I put in the OP are examples that are made, with the Crafted Goods reflecting the Bulk resource requirements (generally the first two resources, third not so much);
Example, The Jeweler Holding Uses Ore(The Smelted Goods) and Stone (The Gem cutter Goods)
The Engineer Holding was a bit harder to decide on what should go first (Wood or Ore) and decide the next resource since it is more useful and should be more self-sufficent and not problematic to place.
Now since it Makes a Lot of Wooden buildings, and Given the about half the Hexes are Wood, Wood was put first then trade since trade is generated by a lot of holdings outpost combos and trade can represent most of the other refined items used in products made with engineer crafting.

Now If weapon and or armour holdings were to be made I'd imagine the bulk resource requirements would be like this;
Armour: (Ore, Trade, Food) (Good in Mountains, Highlands and can pass in Croplands)
Weapon: (Ore, Food, Stone) (Good in Highlands, Mountains, and Croplands)
Leather: (Trade, Food, Wood) (Good or Passes in all Hexes)
Bowyer: (Wood, Trade, Ore) (Good In Forest)
Tailor: (Trade, Food, Stone) (Good or Passes in all Hexes)
Iconographer: (Trade, Ore, Food) (Good in Croplands, Passes in Highlands and Mountains)
Artificer: (Wood, Food, Stone) (Good in Forest)

previous added
Alchemist(Trade,Food,Stone) (Good or Passes in all Hexes)
Engineer(Wood, Trade,Stone) (Good in Forest)
Jeweler(Ore,Stone,Trade) (Good in Mountains, and Highlands)

Since I believe they best represent the refined goods that are used in making the end products while spreading as much support for different hex types
I know the T3 restriction part would be extra code, though In the beginning I don't mind if the holding allows T3 crafting, it'll just be that folks would need to remind themselves about the risk in crafting something in a holding for over a week or a month in that they might lose it if the holding gets destroyed or captured (this case would need some thinking about).

I've looked over all the holdings, outposts and Hex combos and The two new Outposts would help as would the two new holdings.
As the two new outposts will help with certain existing holdings and hexes.
The two new holdings fix an issue with a number of holding, outpost, and hex combos; the crap ton of trade goods that can get made and the pain it is to get food, since most bulk resource orders where food and trade are together of put FOOD before TRADE GOODS, and we have two FoodnTrade outposts, and one gives better trade which compounds the problem.
This is where the new Holdings come in that they Take Trade Goods as a resource allowing the company to collect some food from the outposts.
I was looking over a the Holdings, Outposts, and Hex resources again and thought there should be more options for setting up your claimed hexes.

For Example We have only a 3 outposts that produce mixed resources, I think it would be nice to have at least two more Mixed outposts
The Jeweler Outpost (50% Stone(Stone), 50% Ore(ore))
The Woodsman Outpost (50% Wood(Wood), 50% Trade Goods (Wood)).

A two New Holdings that'll help deal with the new Bulk Requirements and give some finished Product support to settlements.
The Jeweler Holding (Resource: Ore, Stone, Trade) (Skill: End Product: Jeweler (No T3 products))
The Engineer Holding (Resource: Wood, Trade, Stone) (Skill: End Product: Engineer (No T3 products))

I know that it'll be work, but reusing models and some tweaked scripts they could easily be put in.