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

If you what holdings to go pop and WITH OUT the activity tax, we just make a timer that counts how long it has been since the HOLDING's HOLDING vault was accessed (it'll be checking bulk numbers and looking for a difference in values),
if that hexes holding vault has not been accessed in over say 3 months it sets all holdings and outposts to +0/+0 and degrades them like in a capture in a feud and only tehy have a week to access the vault and crank back up the holding and outposts, if they fail to do so, the next holding that goes in that spot takes ALL the stuff that was in the holding's vaults before it.
It probably wouldn't be very difficult to add a "last time the Holding Secure vault was checked" value to holdings, and then the easiest thing to do would be to shut down the holding any day that value was more than X days in the past. The holding would then follow the standard process of getting destroyed if it was shut down for 7-8 days in a row.

While this would pretty effectively clear out completely unused holdings, I'm not sure it sets a high enough bar per additional holding to make the expansion decision much more interesting. I do like that it's a task that should already be happening for any truly useful holding, so it only "adds" a task for those cases where someone expands beyond what they're putting to use.

Bob, There is a Holding in Rotter's Hole 2 that Shuts down every other day, this means it is NOT being attended to at all, if there was a access timer like proposed the holding would of popped already.
I think one of the Things that NEEDS to be done, if the game resets is a name change, no exception.
The name of the game CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT reference the Pathfinder system, it causes an expectation that the game is using the Pathfinder RPG System and it turns folks off after they enter the game and see the Truth/Lie that this is NOT Pathfinder, but fantasy Eve.
If you're considering a wipe, or even just shaking up player homes to concentrate everyone into a couple settlements (we players could do this voluntarily without intervention), I'd just like to point out that the previous approach of recruiting all the "hardcore PvP'ers" into one alliance didn't work out very well for the game's population. smile A lot of players aren't (weren't) into that, they want(ed) to build settlements and interact with the world, not wage constant war.

Well unfortunately this game was based on a PVP design, so PVP was needed to be expected.
Azure, your idea has merit but…. and it is a big but… it may not work at all.

It is not the lack of real estate that drives people away from engaging in this game for longer than a cursory kicking of the tires.

Here is breakdown of the stuff I have heard in General in the past several weeks, in no particular order.

1. People are expecting a D2O MMO experience like Owlcat Games Kingmaker with a understood Pathfinder level 1 to 20 progression. They don't see that and leave.
2. Mechanics are too hard to understand. Keywords? What the hell is that? Why can't I train this feat? What do you mean by being gated? Why can't my longbow achievements be used for qualify for shortbow…. a bow is a bow? New players find understanding the game mechanics problematic. The tutorials don't cut it. Frustrated, they leave.
3. Why doesn't armor, weapons, etc drop from mobs? They do in tabletop.
4. New players run out of coin too fast and are asking how they can get more. More frustration.
5. Where are the quests? Tabletop players expect quests like they get in tabletop or by playing Owlcat's Kingmaker. The Find your Path tutorials they don't consider proper quests.
6. Where are the dungeons? Pathfinder had dungeons. This isn't Pathfinder without dungeons. How can you have a game without dungeons?
7. I am here. What am I supposed to do now?
8. Why do I have to join a settlement? Why am I being forced to join a settlement? I want to do my own thing.
9. The game seems incomplete.

There is a bunch more of a similar nature, basically around how difficult the game if for a solo player, how hard the game is too understand, the lack of entry level content for new players.

Only ONE person asked how can he get his own settlement.
Only ONE person commented the game seemed empty. I wasn't certain if he was referring to the lack of other players or the lack of content as maybe he expected to find quests or direction on what do from every NPC he bumped into in Thornkeep.

I wasn't on 24/7 for the last several weeks so obviously, I haven't heard every inquiry. But I noted enough in General that lack of expansion space and the lack of a player population was not high. It came down to basically two things - the game is very hard to understand the game mechanics and the lack of ready to serve content.

That is why the new player experience is failing to retain the new players. It is not - the map is too big, the world is empty or all the hexes have been claimed.

Your solution does not address the fundamental issues that reading General Chat over the last few weeks revealed. The new players are, in essence, telling us what is wrong with the game with their questions. We need to listen and learn what the real issues are so they feel the game is worth more than a night or two of poking around and finding the experience unrewarding.

I can say all 9 points are very valid and I do see them, but I'll add another I've seen
* Are their any NPC shops to sell or buy stuff?

Something else that needs to be done is the removal of all those useless tokens, or a freaking way to convert them to the useful ones i.e curing tokens.

Unfortunately this game was designed as fantasy EVE, not D&D online so already there are are number of problems with it having the Pathfinder name.
Basically what new players are saying by BlackMoria's account is the only way this whole thing can be fixed, is if the game was based on the OGL D20 license and it's tabletop mechanics, and it becomes more of a theme park MMO.
Now this in my mind would require a NEW Kickstarter/indiegogo campaign and the game would need to be called PFO 2, or some other name.
Now after the new PFO2 is done either the first PFO continues, or is closed down, if it's closed down all PFO characters whom have over a year of game time can get transfered into PFO 2 with bonus perks based on various things like; DT, premium items, time active, settlement rank, etc.
And the independent settlements? We still have those. They don't get a say or a chance at this because the criteria for running for a settlement leader slot is alliances?

Truly independent settlements don't really exist anymore, all of them have a connection with a alliance in one way or another.
But we could also group all the independent settlements into one new settlement and they setup a democracy.
That depends on your point of view. Remember that just about all of the Settlements in the game now(maybe all?) were pre awarded. That set a stage for the "haves" and the "have no chancers". Or maybe it is inaccurate to state that as there has never been a sufficient incoming group sticking around long enough to try and build a settlement from nothing.

A year in to a reset might look different if everyone had to earn(through some type of gameplay) a spot to put their Settlement.

There's actually been a fair amount of settlement turnover since launch. Many are indeed still from the Land Rush, and some may just still carry the original name. There are even two claimable settlements right now, though it probably wouldn't be easy to claim the hexes around them.

If we start to feel the population is ready for it, we can also start opening up some of the placeholder settlements. However, if we don't put some kind of tendency in for territory to be lost through game mechanics, as opposed to just through PvP, the tendency will always be for the world to fill up as quickly as it can, and then stay full.
Bob, This game is Based on Territorial PVP, PVP should be the biggest control of holdings, but the game's current population is way TOO small for that element to work right.
I know every hex is taken, so what do I do, I target a known dead company and take their hexes and they are easy to find if one thinks and scouts for information and tracks their targets before going at the dead company.

If this game gets restarted on a MUCH smaller map a with the notes I posted it may work.
Wow. Nice idea, but who get to be settlement leaders of the 2 or 3 settlements? Because you risk turning this into a Game of Thrones without the White Walkers or Dragons.

Which of all the settlement leaders get to be King for the two or three settlements and the rest of the settlement leaders get told to sod off - thanks for jumping through all the hoops and stuff to become settlement leaders but go to the back of the bus now because of now you are under new management. Who decides this and how? Elections? The top two or three leaders of the most developed settlements are the leaders? Game of Thrones style? All hail Emperor Bob?

That is going to be a stumbling block. Only several settlement leaders remain, the rest get told 'thanks for playing but give up your driver seat and get to the back of the bus'.

And what if players don't like any of the royal rumps installed in the select few seats of power. What is their recourse? The current rules make the settlement leader near invincible. They can't be deposed - either Bob must remove them or they must step down. So, settlement leadership rules would have to be reworked perhaps. Because I don't see reducing all the settlement leaders down to two or three being without a whole lot of angst.

Well depending on how each alliance operates and thinks it could be done a number of ways, leaders could be selected diplomatically, or the head of the alliance takes all power and there could be other variants of this.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Double post.

More like a triple post, and your kinda agreeing to my outline of how it should be done.
If they are going to do it, they should go all the way and wipe the board once the Unity Upgrade gets done and completely relaunch the game. Otherwise, even if the suggestions on reducing influence to (hopefully) open up some hexes to new players is implemented, I don't think the game is going to go anywhere.

I agree with Harneloot, I think that I would actually enjoy a hard reset as long as we don't lose the XP we paid for. Bob could limit the number of settlements to say 5 or 6 and let the current factions determine which one of their current settlements do they want to keep or if they want to move to a new location on the map. Give each settlement their own core 6 in holdings that they can choose and some stock bulk to keep a level 1 or 2 settlement going for a couple of months. Let everyone build their toons again, as someone said, each toon would still need to clear gates to get to T2 or T3. A vast majority of hexes on the map would be open and as companies form and gain influence, they can put down holdings again to keep their settlement going.

With the right promotion on the relaunch and the hard reset, there could be a lot of new interest in the game.

doing the reset is being discussed here
The wipe (as I already suggested!) would need to give back all the XP everyone had already paid for over the years. Which means, what, I would start the game with around 4 million xp or so at this point? However, everyone would still be gated behind the same stat point, achievement, gear, mats, support level etc, etc, etc gates.

I really think this is the ONLY way to give this game a realistic chance of seeing a real vibrant LIFE in the RIver Kingdoms.

Re-BOOT the game right after the Unity upgrade and pull in the ToT!!!

(hey, a person can dream can't they?)


I kinda liked the game better when we had the war of Towers in some ways, but I admit holdings are nice in that a settlement could use then as a auxiliary trainer if they couldn't fit that trainer into their settlement.