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
NightmareSr
Well any possibility of changing that at some point?
I was contemplating buying a base camp since money is a bit tight for the $100 but eventually I would probably buy a Freehold and then the base camp would be useless for me whenever I had the freehold active. Not sure if others look at it that way but just thought there could be more revenue from just changing the restriction on usage a little.

It's certainly possible, but we do generally want to limit placement of items that are very similar by a single character, even though we might sell more without such limits. At the very least, we don't want big spenders to have an outsized capability for placing buildings/camps. Adding this particular case in wouldn't be a huge deal, but we'd be more likely to do it (or at least to prioritize the work) if lots of people feel like freeholds and base camps fill very different needs and that they'd really like one of each. Ideally, they'd also really want to have one of each significantly more than they'd just like to have 2 freeholds or 2 base camps. However, they both provide basically the same capabilities (placing in the wild, power regeneration, vault storage), just with slightly different upkeep, longevity and cooldown rules. Though the freehold can be more permanent than the base camp (eventually we intend to have rules for attacking and tearing down freeholds, so they won't always be as permanent as they are now), and lends itself to that because you pay 1 silver coin every time it's placed, it also has a shorter cooldown than the base camp and can thus be moved around more often. For the most part, freeholds offer the same or better capabilities compared to a base camp, in exchange for a relatively small silver cost (and the more expensive store price). That said, I could probably be pretty easily convinced that the difference between a mildly permanent wilderness home and a 5-days-at-most wilderness camp could lead lots of players to want the ability to place one freehold and keep it there as long as they can, while using base camps as more of a mobile home. I'm certainly interested in hearing how likely others would to buy both, or if folks feel like that just lets individual characters put down too many premium buildings in the wild at once.
Bob
NightmareSr
Is there a reason that only 1 base camp or freehold can be used at a time? I can see only 1 active base camp or just 1 active freehold, but what is the downside to having an active freehold and an active base camp? Seems like if both could be active in different areas then more people would buy one of each, but maybe enough people do that anyway? It just seemed odd to me.

There isn't really a specific downside there, but we lumped the two together because they felt pretty similar, much as we lumped together Adventurer's Cottages and Crafter's Studios. However, those two different groups felt so different from each other in function that we didn't want to say you could only have 1 of the 4 at a time, and instead let you place 1 from each group.
Bob
Smitty
Bob
Yes, you'll have a limited number of Enchantment Points you can equip. Rather than basing that number primarily off of existing feats, there will be a new Enchantment Points feat you can learn to increase that number. We may also add some small increases to other feats if it feels appropriate, like perhaps Wizards can just naturally carry more enchanted items. Ultimately, it won't be possible to completely equip yourself with T3+5 enchanted items, so sometimes it will make sense to enchant a T3 item with a T1 enchantment.
Have added that feat to the wiki yet? Just curious on so cost benefits etc. For planning purposes
It's still not solid enough to post, but the core prerequisite for each rank will be that you're already at the same level of Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue. Also looking at creating similar Expert/Freeholder achievements for those taking that route.
Bob
NightmareSr
Ok now the 1,000 xp makes a bit more sense. I made a female elf to be a 1k archer, and the 1k xp is just barely enough to hit Fighter 1 with having 6 bow attacks. She does ok but the big pain is that it wasn't enough to train enough feats to fill the paper doll (missing defensive and reactive feats).

It's definitely not an unreasonable expectation going in to see a bunch of empty slots and feel like you haven't really created your initial character until you've filled them in. We could potentially provide just enough initial XP to fill in all the basics, but there are so many options available that it would be easy to spend on extraneous things and still find yourself short on those feats. We'd probably need more restrictions/warnings to keep that from happening.

A lot of the issue stems from our desire to let new players branch out in almost any direction right away, rather than restricting their choices. As such, we didn't really intend for people to think of those empty slots as the basics of their character, just as options they'll get to fill in as they advance, and that they can fill in any order. We may just need to do a better job of pointing that out, possibly even just having something in the tooltip for blank slots with advice on when you might want to look at learning an applicable feat, or even just some vague language reflecting that these are feats you'll add as you advance.
Bob
We don't have any immediate plans for focusing on max influence. We're also very conscious of the need to take into account the current population. One of our goals is to find a way to have the system dynamically balance itself relative to changing population and activity levels, so that it wouldn't require constant tweaking as the population shifts. With the current population, we'd generally only want to be shutting down outposts for companies that are effectively inactive for extended periods of time, or for those with a whole lot of buildings but who are only minimally active. We won't introduce anything if we're not convinced it hits a reasonable balance at the time it goes out.
Bob
Edam
Influence decay (you lose x% of your current influence a week and need to keep it topped up) would work better than a cap.

The reason we use a cap is because of the influence that's banked in buildings and feuds. We could theoretically decay that, then close down any buildings that don't have enough banked in them, but it seemed easier to just see if banked + available was greater than the cap. Switching now would be a pretty significant change.

It's possible that we could introduce a fairly simple system where your max goes up each day (or week) based on the amount of influence earned during that time, and at the same time drops by x%. That way we could pretty easily display something showing your current max, the influence you've earned since the max was last calculated, and what that means your max would be the next time it's calculated.

That would be pretty straight-forward, but there wouldn't be much of a buffer on things. Slack off for just a short time and outposts start shutting down. The system we're thinking of using would be more like the one for Max DI, which buffers things so that the max rises quickly to its equilibrium state, but falls slowly when you temporarily slack off a bit. However, the overall feel would be that your max "decays" if your company slows down for an extended time.


Bob
We've occasionally talked about upping the initial amount of XP a bit. The current amount was chosen in part because it's enough to get through a role tutorial so that you can get a feel for a complete character before being asked to wait for more XP, but still a small enough amount that most new players will be introduced to the concept of waiting for XP well before they get the feeling that the leveling pace is based on grinding achievements as opposed to the pace of XP gain. A small increase could be done pretty easily, but we haven't convinced ourselves yet that it wouldn't just increase the frustration when new players finally run out of the initial XP.

More significant changes would require even more serious rethinking of the risks involved. We'll be thinking about this and related issues when we start tackling "free trials," which we'll hopefully get to soon.
Bob
Edam
Also how high a level gatherer will we need ? Will being just T3 suffice or do they need to be higher?

I hadn't really gotten to that point, but this would be a good opportunity to make higher gathering ranks matter more. It looks like I could pretty easily set all these new mats to require something like ranks of 3/10/17 to gather each tier, instead of the traditional 0/7/14. Cole also thinks it would be pretty easy for us to adjust the gathering system to require extra ranks depending on how drained each mat is, which someone suggested a while ago. Between the two, we could make every single rank matter pretty significantly. We'll give that some more thought, see if we can sneak it in while we're making some other changes to the gathering system that are necessary for Enchanting (specifically, blocking gushers for these mats).
Bob
Bringslite
1. Some of the new mats will be in limited map areas. Will there be something new for mining, scavenging, forester and dowsing?

Yes, there'll be new mats for all gathering skills.

Bringslite
2. Will we be able to put multiple enchants on single items with shared "Valid Enchant Groups"?

Not in the initial implementation. We're considering adding that in the future, but there'd be a fair amount of work involved to make sure the enchantments don't conflict in weird ways.
Bob
Smitty
You can create a company ( I would suggest 2, will explain why later) - You can get your players to join this company ( these companies). Make sure you get 6 characters into each –
Once you have 6 characters in those companies they will begin to earn influence

FYI, the 6 character requirement was removed in EE 12, at least temporarily. It used to be that each company's Max Influence was set based on the number of characters in the company, with the max being zero for less than 6 members. For now, Max Influence is simply 1 million for each company, regardless of the number of members. We do plan on re-introducing Max Influence at some point, but we need to do so in a way that can't be overly gamed through trial accounts, since we also want to bring something along those lines back again.