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
I'm already planning on moving out any deadlines to give everyone plenty of time for any auctions. Want to make sure this plan, or this plan with some tweaks, is the best option to move forward with before making it official. Hoping to finalize things over the next few days.

My plan was for the bids to be blind. That's partially because it incentives grouping together to make the best possible bid, where open bids give the larger groups an opportunity to wait and see how best to group their bids. In turn, that increases the likelihood of one large group locking down most of the hexes, where my goal was to distribute them more evenly. Not that I mind if they get traded around afterward and those specific hexes mostly wind up in the hands of the nearest settlements, just that lots of groups have mentioned difficulties lining up their needed territory and I want as many of them as possible to have a good chance of getting at least one more hex somewhere when all the dust settles.

I also included the part about reducing bids to the minimum needed to win each hex so everyone can safely bid the maximum they'd be willing to pay, knowing that they won't wind up paying more than they would have if nobody else bid very highly for that hex. That should make up for the added risks of not being able to raise bids incrementally.

However, while I don't plan on displaying any bid amounts so groups can raise their bids accordingly, I would allow groups to adjust their bids right up until the deadline. That's mostly to cover cases where a group sent in its bid early, then found a couple more Blessings at the last minute.
Bob
Azure_Zero
Curious, if GW would be interesting in my notes and or Videos….
as I believe these should be thought about before any major upgrading goes in so was during the upgrade,
files are noted/bookmarked and things get prepared for adding these new features.

I'd be happy to take a quick look, but it's important to note that our initial upgrade plan is just to get the current game code and content running in the latest version of Unity. We'll get some bug fixes as part of that, and there may be some features we can just check a box and turn on, but bigger features made possible by newer engines often require lots of new art and changes to the graphic pipeline. We'll be pretty limited in our ability to take advantage of those at first. We're most likely to look at various pain points that the current engine makes difficult to fix, like slow vault/inventory lists and problems with alt-tab, than at the big graphic improvements newer engines brag about, at least initially.
Bob
Only two left! With Staalgard 1-6-6 completed, here's the status of the remaining sequences:

  • -4,5 (Concordia 4-5): The Wrath of Nhur Athemon (4 of 5) at 50000 strength.
  • -20,10 (Sunholm 5-5-6): Duergar Slavers (3 of 5) at 0 strength.
Bob
Some quick progress here with one more sequence completed (Staalgard 4-4) and another close behind! Here's the status of the remaining three sequences:

  • -3,-7 (Staalgard 1-6-6): Seekers from the Citadel (5 of 5) at 41551 strength.
  • -4,5 (Concordia 4-5): The Wrath of Nhur Athemon (4 of 5) at 50000 strength.
  • -20,10 (Sunholm 5-5-6): Duergar Slavers (3 of 5) at 0 strength.
Bob
And then there were four! With Forgeholm 4-4-4-5 completed, here's the status of the remaining sequences:

  • -1,-3 (Staalgard 4-4): Gathering of Legends (6 of 6) at 34565.5 strength.
  • -3,-7 (Staalgard 1-6-6): Seekers from the Citadel (5 of 5) at 110763 strength.
  • -4,5 (Concordia 4-5): The Wrath of Nhur Athemon (4 of 5) at 50000 strength.
  • -20,10 (Sunholm 5-5-6): Duergar Slavers (3 of 5) at 0 strength.
Bob
Edam
If someone trades in a hex for one of the new ones - is the hex they traded now available for someone else to trade for? or just bid for ? or does it become vacant?

I'm thinking the traded away hex would initially become available to be traded again, rinse and repeat until nobody is looking to trade any more, then the last ten hexes traded away would be available for bidding. That would only work though if we cycle through them pretty quickly, so interested parties would need to keep a close eye on the forums while trading is going on, which could last several days. Something like "any hex that goes 48 hours without receiving a trade offer will no longer be available for trading" would probably work, with all trades hopefully finishing up in less than a week.
Bob
malmuerta
AN,
The Bandit Alliance has contracted out in the past to assist settlements in territory takeovers. Let them spend the Blessings on the hexes and then contract us. You can wait out the grace period and then with our help capture the one(s) you want.
Talk to Kenton Stone for our contract rates.
-Mooch

Or, use this post as a threat, bid on the hexes you want, post your claim, and then dare anyone to cross you.

Absolutely, we're not planning on enforcing anything about this auction beyond the basic rules and the 1-week building rights. We wouldn't post anything about individual bids, but there's nothing stopping anyone from posting theirs if they wish. And once the holdings are built in those hexes, we won't protect those holdings any more than any other holdings. That's part of why we weren't too concerned about larger groups having advantages in the bidding. After all, those same groups have advantages for taking and holding territory, and it's helpful for the initial distribution to recognize that.
Bob
Edam
The fact you have to demolish or capture a hex to transfer it between two companies you basically own has always seemed a bit stupid and annoying smile Fair enough if you are being feuded but otherwise you should be able to just transfer it or trade it.

Definitely high on the list of features we'd like to add.
Bob
Edam
In terms of the proposed trading:
  • can a settlement trade for more than one hex or is there a limit of one per settlement
  • if you trade for a hex/hexes can you also then bid for another one

I think it would be fine for a single settlement to trade for multiple hexes, assuming they have enough hexes to trade away.

Likewise, bidding after trading seems fine. I'd prefer not to lock someone out of increasing their total territory just because they chose to lock in a particular location. However, it does feel a bit like double-dipping, which is part of why I like the idea of at least some small cost for trading.
Bob
Edam
With bidding for a hex, it is limited to settlement owners who can only win one hex - so effectively one per settlement. Though there are people in game who own multiple settlements so they could work around that. The system definitely favors groups or individuals with multiple settlements.

I thought about restricting bids to one per settlement, but decided instead to just incentivize alliances to bundle all their bids into one large bid. If they send in a second bid through another company/settlement, they have to bank the Blessings for that bid in a separate vault, making them unavailable for the larger bid, which in turn could prevent them from getting their top choice. And if they break their bids up enough, they might not win anything.

All that said, yes, any auction system would favor the most powerful groups for getting their top choice. Since that's inevitable in an auction (at least without bonuses for less powerful bidders, which are hard to set fairly), I just tried to moderate it enough to prevent a small number of groups from winning multiple auctions each.