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
The Guild House models need another pass to clear up a short list of visual glitches, and I've added the signs to that list.
Bob
NightmareSr
What about making the Emerald Spire the PVP arena zone? Gives a big structure to mark the spot already and is in a monster hex, plus it is darn close to the center of the entire map.

That's such a brilliant idea that apparently it's already 90% set up that way. There's a quest NPC in the courtyard, but she'll just ignore you. Looks like there's one big encounter site really close to the walls, which somehow wound up a little below the terrain and must have escaped notice when the area was originally cleared. I should fix that one anyway because it already causes problems with the walls. I'll clean up some of the other nearby uneven ones at the same time, provide a little more room to fight around the outside. Shouldn't be a significant change for the way the hex already works overall, but will provide a relatively central place for arranged PvP. Even without any changes, it would probably work pretty well if you just clear any nearby encounters first. It's really unlikely that any new encounters would spawn nearby while you're in the area.
Bob
NightmareSr
Maybe Rotter's Hole could stay like it is but Bob could open Fort Inevitable as a TK copy, for layout and buildings, with the exception that it's security would be the same as rotter's Hole? (just thinking outside the box)

We've been considering lower-effort ways to get Fort Inevitable in, and duplicating/emulating Thornkeep is one possibility. Unfortunately, even that's still a fair amount of work, so we keep having to push it off in favor of other priorities.

Fictionally, the funny thing is that Thornkeep should probably have a lower security setting than Fort Inevitable, since the Hellknights keep order with a much heavier hand than Baron Blackshield does. Of course, our main reason for high security settings in the NPC settlements was mostly to provide a safe place for newer players while also saying that those with lower reputations have limited options if they don't somehow manage to maintain their own settlement that allows them in. We're certainly willing to bend the fiction where needed, but making Fort Inevitable safe for low-rep characters might be too big a step.

If the main issue is not having a relatively safe space to try out PvP without rep hits and without interference from gurards or monsters, then it occurs to me that the easiest option might be for me to clear out a small space in one of the monster hexes near Thornkeep so that nothing spawns there. As a monster hex, there'd already be no rep hits, so that's not really changing anything. I could mark the area off with some simple posts so it was more obvious, perhaps throw in a few objects to fight around, like tents. It'd still be possible for monsters to follow someone into the area, but pretty unlikely if those sparring stay in the marked area. I could probably look into that after Enchanting if a fair number of people would find it useful.

Of course, for those just interested in trying out PvP with no consequences, the truly easiest thing is to do so on Zog (the test servers). It's not quite as satisfying as fighting with your actual characters, but you can try out different builds and fight without worrying about equipment damage or any other negative consequences. Anyone interested in playing on Zog can just email customer.support@pathfinderonline.com and I'll get you set up. I can also hand out XP, achievements and items so you can advance your character as desired.
Bob
You are a Troll
Also, please think about how the overlapping keyword issue works with wearable. Some higher level wearables are useless because lower level gear (of the same slot) gives the same keyword.

Enchanting will actually help with this, in that the higher-level gear can get higher-level enchantments than the lower-level gear. Wherever there isn't duplication, you don't have as many options to get the keywords you want with the best possible enchantments.
Bob
Schedim
Will those materials additions be to the a-bit-boring essence nodes? One (a bit stupid) reason for me to not develop that skill is the lack of the variation in the gathering results…

Yup. Since I'll be adding approximately the same number of new mats to each node type, the number of mats available at essence nodes will increase by a significantly higher percentage than the number of mats available at other nodes.
Bob
Schedim
I hope the "simplified things there a bit" is not just a little bit or that the scopes are going to widen a bit in the future as I think to restrictive systems are a bit booring. Of course some restrictions are good for immersion and theme … but not too much!

They're pretty restricted at the moment, and in many cases I was simplifying out even tighter restrictions. For example, many of the weapon enchantments are restricted to particular types of weapons. In some cases that's for immersion and theme, in others it's because those enchantments don't balance well with feats/attacks already available for other weapons.

Often, the restrictions are there to keep a character from equipping too many similar enchantments. For example, with resistance bonuses only allowed on armor (1), neck (1) and rings (2), it's only possible to have 4 such enchantments, and there are no combinations available that will cover every type of energy resistance.

That said, I've already opened this up a bit in at least one case, and will likely do so again, particularly where it makes sense to bring more Pathfinder content into the game. Specifically, I needed to add some enchantments for gloves and boots. The new Deliquescent enchantment (for gloves) will add Acid Bonus Damage when doing Physical Damage with One-Handed/Two-Handed Melee weapons, making it pretty similar to some weapon enchantments. However, since of its advantages is that it lets you get around that restriction, I'm trying to balance that out by having it do a bit less damage than the general weapon enchantments, and ideally to be just slightly lower-powered on average than the other glove enchantments. That's the kind of thing I'd look at doing any time an enchantment gets opened up for an alternative type of gear. In some cases it probably won't be necessary, in others it will be essential.
Bob
Bringslite
I don't know if this is occurring to anyone suggesting "lowering craft times" over "adding actual queues" so this is a point rather than an answer: I imagine (no real knowledge) that lowering craft time would be far more simple than adding queues. Just a guess, to be honest.

From a purely technical standpoint, yes, adjusting crafting times can probably be done pretty easily in the spreadsheets (as long as we're just changing values, not the actual formula), while adding queues takes a whole bunch of code. However, it would be a pretty big balance change that would require a lot of consideration, and would probably challenge a lot of our design assumptions. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done, just that whenever those assumptions are challenged, we need to put a lot of thought and discussion into what that means for the rest of the game.
Bob
NightmareSr
Another thought with this: It would probably help a lot if there was a beginning tutorial having the player open the paperdoll and hover to show the (to be added tooltips) and have a trainee feat in each slot possibly showing keywords. The feats don't need to do much ability wise, but just being there as an interactive example would help a lot I think.

Trainee feats is an interesting possibility, particularly because I can probably do that in the spreadsheets without requiring any new code. Not only would they fill in some slots, I could probably just write something into their descriptions making clear that you'll replace them as you advance, not right away. Might be able to kill two birds with one uncoded stone. I'll file a feature request to look into that when I have a chance.
Bob
You are a Troll
How about a Company tax for toons like there is for smallholdings? Once the toon runs out of coin to pay the small tax to the company (coin sink?) the toon gets kicked from the company.

We've vaguely considered membership fees, and they could have some use here in terms of membership counts. We might run into issues if we wound up kicking everyone out of a company (there'd be nobody left to accept members, so all the vaults would become inaccessible), so we might be better off converting them to some kind of "inactive" state that can be returned to "active" by starting to pay dues again. We could also look at demoting leaders who haven't paid their dues, which would help with cases where leadership goes inactive. There are certainly some possibilities here.
Bob
Azure_Zero
Edam
At the very least if you reintroduce max caps it needs to be based on activity not number of signed up (usually unsubbed and often free trial) characters.

If a group is inactive, active folks can take their stuff, and they take a hit for the losses.
If small groups hits the cap too easily, then Bob can change the formula, OR make it that every company has the same cap.

We do want territory to slowly shutdown if a company doesn't remain minimally active enough to justify all of its banked influence, even if nobody attacks them. There should be at least some technical gameplay mechanic that says "We've earned, and are continuing to earn, our shot at controlling territory and feuding other companies." Since the measure for earning that shot in the first place is influence, and influence is earned through specific activities, some level of continued activity is an appropriate requirement for maintaining that influence. Based on various design assumptions, we originally thought that membership numbers (once we removed unsubscribed accounts) would be a reasonable proxy for base activity levels. Free trials and other issues convinced us that we need something a little more sophisticated than that, so we won't be going back to the original design.