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 Bob

Bob
Carpe Noctem takes the lead by placing the game's first Statue of Pharasma! Here are the settlement rankings as of today's Daily Maintenance:

  • Carpe Noctem: 788
  • Fort Ouroboros: 700
  • Keeper's Pass: 690
  • University Commons: 689
  • Alderwag: 670
  • Aragon: 666
  • Ozem's Vigil: 603
  • Oak Knoll: 420
  • Talonguard: 399
  • Cauchemar: 362
  • Hammerfall: 326
  • Emerald Lodge: 196
  • Corbenik: 186
  • Callambea: 132
  • Sylva: 130
  • Blackwood Glade: 122
  • Caer Coedwig: 88
  • Golgotha: 87
  • Forgeholm: 78
  • Greystone Keep: 78
  • Staalgard: 76
  • Mediash: 72
  • Hope's End: 71
  • Succinct Prime: 68
  • High Road: 65
  • Veggr Tor: 64
  • Brighthaven: 62
  • Phaeros: 56
  • Middenheim: 53
  • Tavernhold: 52
  • Canis Castrum: 51
  • Concordia: 38
  • Dun Baile: 36
  • Sunholm: 36

Cauchemar also picked up another point in time to be included in the above rankings, and there were some other structure changes after Daily Maintenance that I'll catch in the next pass. If you know of any other changes I should have caught, or spot any discrepancies on the updated Denouement Structures spreadsheet, let me know.
Bob
The settlement scores/ranks as of today's Daily Maintenance are the same as last week's, so just check the previous post for the current info. I'm pretty sure that also means there weren't any changes to the underlying structures/upgrades, so I didn't update the spreadsheet either. Let me know if there's anything I missed.
Bob
Here are the settlement rankings as of today's Daily Maintenance:

  • Fort Ouroboros: 700
  • Keeper's Pass: 690
  • Carpe Noctem: 689
  • University Commons: 689
  • Alderwag: 670
  • Aragon: 666
  • Ozem's Vigil: 603
  • Oak Knoll: 420
  • Talonguard: 399
  • Cauchemar: 361
  • Hammerfall: 326
  • Emerald Lodge: 196
  • Corbenik: 186
  • Callambea: 132
  • Sylva: 130
  • Blackwood Glade: 122
  • Caer Coedwig: 88
  • Golgotha: 87
  • Forgeholm: 78
  • Greystone Keep: 78
  • Staalgard: 76
  • Mediash: 72
  • Hope's End: 71
  • Succinct Prime: 68
  • High Road: 65
  • Veggr Tor: 64
  • Brighthaven: 62
  • Phaeros: 56
  • Middenheim: 53
  • Tavernhold: 52
  • Canis Castrum: 51
  • Concordia: 38
  • Dun Baile: 36
  • Sunholm: 36

I think the only change since last week is one more point for Cauchemar. If you know of any other changes I should have caught, or spot any discrepancies on the updated Denouement Structures spreadsheet, let me know.
Bob
You are a Troll
Tell us Bob, since this is a territory control game, why controlled territory does not figure into these final *calculations* of….well, I am not even sure what they are calculations of actually smile

Though controlled territory isn't the deciding factor in getting a better writeup, it's inherently included due to the DI requirements for running a large settlement. While it's possible for settlements to minimize the number of hexes they have to control by fully upgrading their holdings and making good use of Infrastructure, there's a limit to that and a fair amount of territory needs to be held in order to keep the settlement active.

Since the points are based only on the current structure upgrades of a fully active settlement, they show that the settlement is able to control sufficient territory to cover those structures/upgrades, and that they can obtain enough bulk resources and coins to pay their upkeep. They also had to obtain most of the structure kits along the way, which require a great deal of gathering, looting, refining and crafting. All in all, settlements represent a huge investment in time and effort, across every major aspect of the game, and that's what we're rewarding, regardless of what combination of trade, diplomacy or combat made it possible for a settlement to build and maintain its structures.

All that said, my goal is to reflect the nature of the world in the writeups as well, so I plan to include mention of how much territory a group controls whenever the amount is particularly notable. I'll just have to fit that in to whatever level of descriptive detail a particular settlement earned.

Also, I'll just point out that the ranks I posted aren't final. The actual rewards will be based on each settlement's highest value during the last 4 weeks the game is running, which (fingers crossed) means from October 31 to November 28. There's plenty of time between now and then for settlements to add/upgrade structures for more points, or for settlements to find themselves losing points because they need to downgrade.
Bob
FYI, though Canis Castrum and Sunholm are included in the ranked list, they'll just get the minimal ghost settlement writeups unless someone claims them before we shut down.
Bob
For your enjoyment, here is a ranked list of all the settlements based on their structures as of today's Daily Maintenance:

  • Fort Ouroboros: 700
  • Keeper's Pass: 690
  • Carpe Noctem: 689
  • University Commons: 689
  • Alderwag: 670
  • Aragon: 666
  • Ozem's Vigil: 603
  • Oak Knoll: 420
  • Talonguard: 399
  • Cauchemar: 360
  • Hammerfall: 326
  • Emerald Lodge: 196
  • Corbenik: 186
  • Callambea: 132
  • Sylva: 130
  • Blackwood Glade: 122
  • Caer Coedwig: 88
  • Golgotha: 87
  • Forgeholm: 78
  • Greystone Keep: 78
  • Staalgard: 76
  • Mediash: 72
  • Hope's End: 71
  • Succinct Prime: 68
  • High Road: 65
  • Veggr Tor: 64
  • Brighthaven: 62
  • Phaeros: 56
  • Middenheim: 53
  • Tavernhold: 52
  • Canis Castrum: 51
  • Concordia: 38
  • Dun Baile: 36
  • Sunholm: 36

Please let me know if the numbers for your settlements are lower than you've calculated for yourself based on the Denouement Rules, or for that matter if the numbers for any of your competitors are higher than you've calculated.

A complete list of all the structures these rankings are based on is available in the newly-shared Denouement Structures spreadsheet. As with the rankings, please let me know if any of your structures are missing from the spreadsheet or have too low of an upgrade value, or if any of your competitors have extra structures or too high of upgrade values listed.
Bob
harneloot
I don't know how others feel, but for me, the History of the River Kingdoms has already been written these past 6 years and it somehow doesn't feel right to have any major changes to that history because of what *might* happen during the waning few months of PFO.

My goal is to reflect that history accurately in the writeups, while still providing incentives that keep things interesting in the game's final months. The biggest reward I can offer is more detail and emphasis in the final writeups, along with better stats, but any changes in a settlement's ownership or status at this point won't wipe away that settlement's history. Even if a settlement gets conquered and renamed, there'll still be some mention of the settlement's previous state, just not as much as there would have been if lasted right up until the end.

With that in mind, I'm good with tweaking things a bit to open up some gameplay opportunities that are inline with the way the game's already being played, or to incentivize pursuing some existing gameplay goals a little more aggressively over the next few months. In particular, I'm good with a bit more PvP in the final days than there has been over the last couple years, since there's only a limited time remaining for those interested in PvP to put any of their long-term plans into motion. Preparing for possible attacks has always been important, so it's fair that those preparations be tested at the end, whether in actual PvP or just in scaring off potential PvP. However, I still want tackling escalations and upgrading settlements to be well-rewarded activities in these final months, just as they have been for so many years, and would avoid any changes likely to make PvP overwhelm their importance.
Bob
I tweaked the Settlement Warfare rules to make it slightly easier to siege a settlement without completely surrounding it with siege equipment. That had been the main intention of a previous editing pass, but I'd left in the bit where the defenders could bring in limited bulk resources through any neighboring hex that didn't have "active siege equipment" in it. I've changed that to "active attacker siege equipment or holdings" so attackers can fill the gaps with holdings. It doesn't make a huge difference, and I suspect it won't make sieges much more likely, but it was an easy change to make and was in line with my intentions when removing the requirement for surrounding the settlement with siege equipment.

I looked a little more into allowing holdings to count toward the siege by letting them do a bit less damage than similar siege equipment. It could work, but feels like too big a change to spring on the settlements most effected (the least developed ones) at the last minute. That said, the Settlement Warfare rules have long allowed for a way to take over a settlement without using siege engines, namely to force it into abandonment by taking away all its holdings, then claim it by surrounding it with your own holdings (which are probably already in place as part of taking away the settlement's holdings). There's even two abandoned settlements just waiting to be fought over, with the victors practically guaranteed a writeup given the month of protection that comes with taking over a settlement.
Bob
These are the Release Notes for Open Enrollment v2.7. The release build of OE 2.7 has been running on the Test Server since Friday, August 20 and was deployed to Live on Monday, August 23.

What Is In This Release

This release focuses on speeding up the production of Pharasma statues by making their ingredients easier to obtain and reducing all crafting times to 1/10 their previous settings. The amount of DI generated by Pharasma statues was also increased significantly so that settlements with them will require noticeably less territory to maintain their structures.

Full Release Notes

Statue of Pharasma:
  • Gatherable Pharasma raw materials are three times as likely to drop at nodes than before.
  • Remembrances and Pharasma recipes are three times as likely to drop as loot than before.
  • Bosses from escalations that have Remembrances are guaranteed to drop at least one Remembrance to each party member in their loot.
  • Pharasma statues generate 40 more DI per Index per upgrade than before.

Crafting:
  • All refining/crafting/enchanting times reduced to one-tenth of previous values.
  • NPC settlement crafting taxes increased to 1c per 180 seconds, ten times their previous value.
  • Default company crafting taxes (used at holdings owned by companies not attached to settlements) increased to 1c per 320 seconds, ten times their previous value.
  • Player settlement crafting taxes remain unchanged, but settlement leaders may wish to increase them to balance out the lower crafting times.

Escalations:
  • Escalations no longer lose strength naturally every hour.

Structures:
  • Floating chair fixed on Guild House +3-4.
Bob
We're deploying OE 2.7 to Live this morning, so Daily Maintenance will probably take a little longer than usual.