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
Azure_Zero
I also hope my idea of a Holding Security effecting Monster/Home hexes is one that Goblinworks would look at.

We're open to things along those lines. For the moment, hex security was just a really quick, simple system we could put in to give companies a greater sense of control over the territory they'd claimed. We've always intended to add more depth to that area of the game over time.
Bob
The question of whether or not to add another bulk resources sink is basically whether or not we want there to be a tradeoff between whatever the sink is paying for (in this case hex security) and overall settlement levels. There's a strict limit to how much bulk can be produced each day. Holding upkeep is sort of a bulk resource sink, but it's mostly a cost of production, limiting the total amount of bulk resources that can be produced. Companies can choose to have less optimal bulk resource production for a variety of reasons (e.g. preferring an inn for power refills, preferring a watchtower for better defenses, preferring particular holdings for DI reasons), and those choices lower the overall ability of those companies, and the server as a whole, to pay for structure upkeep and settlement levels. We could certainly add hex security as another sink feeding into those tradeoffs, but we'd want to be careful about how everything balances out.

Coin doesn't have nearly as strict a production limit, since generally speaking there's no limit to how many mobs can be killed each day. As a result, coin sinks do result in tradeoffs for groups/individuals choosing to spend their coin on one thing instead of another, but they also lower the money supply and thus lower prices, so there's less of a system-wide tradeoff involved.
Bob
Bringslite
Azure_Zero
If I recall T2 gear is SUPPOSE to be the PVP gear of choice since it is; cheap, easy to make, and still powerful.
I have a hard time believing that some of those who can afford it will forgo T3 and fight in T2. That isn't human behavior in competition. Would need some sort of huge complicated rule system.

T3 is supposed to be rare enough that it would be very difficult to keep in stock during a long-term PvP struggle, while T2 is affordable enough to keep in stock for even the longest war. Also, there are supposed to be limits to what you can wear, or at least safely wear, once things like threading and enchantment limits come in. As a result, often the best choice will be to limit how much T3 stuff you're wearing.
Bob
Bringslite
Assuming Enchantment isn't EE16 but rather EE15.x…

Numbers are just numbers, but we're treating Enchanting as EE16, both because of the amount of time involved and the overall impact on the game. We're currently thinking it'll be ready around the end of October, but we're still in early days on implementing it. That said, on a local build I can give myself an enchanted item, and the simpler ones do in fact give me the appropriate stat bonuses when equipped.
Bob
Bringslite
Not everyone agrees with me but this game does seem to have "stick" all out of proportion to "carrot" in many of the mechanics. It could be simply lack of a healthy population. That is probably key to most everything.

I'll say this: I am not sure what I would do(as far as playing on) if The Commonwealth lost a lvl 20 sett or two. It was/is a hell of a lot of work…

In general, we're in agreement here that the game needs more carrots and less sticks. Switching to the half-support mechanic was a step in that direction, and one that we could do pretty easily, but ultimately we hope to find ways to make support feel more like a carrot than a stick. Those are just going to take more work.
Bob
Smitty
Not all this goes in this thread but is related to what some of yall are talking about so im putting it here.
The work required to take over a vacant settlement that is shut down is way out of portion from what it should take - If there is no keep and the settlement is in shutdown mode- why require a siege to take over the settlement?
Currently what is needed is for a group to make a supply train - clear the core 6- have the founding settlement company feud the target founding company and all companies that are going to be involved in taking over the settlement do the same.. and keep those feuds going until the bulk in the settlement is reduced to 0 and then the buildings destroyed ..

All of that to “attack ???“ a ghost town ???

You want to talk about zero fun and things that are a chore - at least with a mule you get to stock holdings that produce more resources or allow you settlement to run higher. Taking a ghost town with the current rules reminds me of my service days where things were done just to demonstrate my ignorance through the chain of command..
Taking over a ghost town should to be like our old system - if you surround the settlement for ? 4 weeks ?? and nobody puts up a keep / reactivates the settlement or tries to kick you out - that surrounding group should be awarded the settlement.

I'll be rewriting the siege rules shortly to take into account structure upgrades, and while doing that I was planning on easing up the requirements for sieging smaller settlements a bit. In particular, the requirement to completely surround the target settlement was primarily put in place so that I wasn't suddenly swamped with siege declarations. Given that there haven't been any sieges yet, I think it's safe to make that aspect a bit easier.

Also, we do eventually plan on setting some level of minimum maintenance for settlements, with failure to meet that minimum resulting in the settlement becoming abandoned. At that point, the settlement would be claimable simply be surrounding it with holdings and outposts (2 per hex). One possible simple version would be that any settlement that's inactive for over a month or two would be abandoned. It's not exactly a high bar to meet, but we've been reticent to put any additional requirements in too quickly. Still, it might be worth considering while I'm in the middle of a quick rules update.

Smitty
Question to you guys and bob and company in regards to settlements in general..
Why not ease up on building settlements - if you make them easier to build the threat of losing them is not as severe - instead of building each building 0,1,2,3,4, and 5 - - why not just make them like holdings - where you build it and place it - and can upgrade it to its maximum number? ( Still would need DI to bank- so you still have to have holdings ).

That just makes more sense to me -

The need to put so much time an energy into a settlement led folks to justifying enormous cost of what it takes to siege one. One of the core pillars of the game is settlement warfare and the current rules make it too expensive to even consider settlement warfare, just food for thought - ease up on siege rules - make settlement warfare not so much a very rare and expensive thing – it is suppose to be one of the selling points of the game.

Basically, we wanted to make settlement growth a slow/steady process where it takes lots of time and work to build a really advanced settlement. Our expectation was that settlement turnover would be more common in the less settled, wilder areas of the map, while the advanced settlements at the center of large nations would remain more stable, though occasionally a nation would fall completely. As such, a basic settlement is pretty cheap to set up, and thus not as big of a loss if it falls. Advanced settlements represent a great deal of effort, and therefore require a great deal of effort to tear down.

Smitty
Not 100% related But Can we have a discussion about influence cost ?
Tearing down and rebuilding hexes - If my company owns a hex and wants to restructure it - why do I need to tear down outpost- wait a day - tear down the holding the next day- and then on the final day- I have to make sure I am on right after downtime to place the new holding ( in case someone notices and snakes the hex ..). This is always felt clumsy to me.. If my company owns the hex I should be able to change holdings and outpost when I want.
Why cant we just upgrade the hex with holdings and outpost in our inventories and overwrite ones already in the hex ?

We'd like to add the ability to replace holdings/outposts without first tearing them down, much as you can raise the Max Upgrade for a holding/outpost from a kit in your inventory, it just hasn't reached the top of our priority list yet.

Smitty
While I’m complaining about outpost and holdings - One more thing that needs to be looked at / talked about –
The reason for the 25% loss when downgrading an outpost/holding .. If I recall this was put in because right after holdings came in, during the time when you could run a +0 holding with +3 outpost and get full bulk . Groups would set the holding to +0 - and then when feuded they would bump the holdings up to +3 for the added guards - and once the threat had passed move them back down to +0 so they wouldn’t use additional resources.
That all has been taken care of with outpost only producing bulk at the same rate the holding is set - So Can we get rid of the self-imposed 25% penalty on influence for reducing a hex? We aren’t allowed to change holding/outpost pluses during a feud so why do we still need the 25% tax in breaking them down or reducing them?-

A large part of that is simply that we wanted companies to lose some influence if buildings get taken from them, and we didn't want to leave things such that companies could see a feud coming and just downgrade or tear down their buildings first to avoid the influence loss. Generally speaking, we weren't picturing that holdings or outposts would be getting downgraded or torn down very often unless a company was forced to do so, and a minor loss of influence felt appropriate in those circumstances.
Bob
Azure_Zero
If you need a tester I don't mind being one.
I just need a FPS counter in the game to see performance and manually note problems for compatibility.

Any change along these lines would definitely be available on Zog for quite a while so everyone could see how it would affect them, and I believe everyone can view FPS using the chat command /ToggleFps.
Bob
You are a Troll
Bob
Bringslite
Do you think that "Bag of Holding" will be included in the Enchanting update?

That's the plan, along with adding the Ring of Protection.

Followed closely by all the Daily Deals from the Kickstarter? I have been waiting years now for my Pointed Toe Shoes…

Enchanting does open the door to completing the Daily Deals, but there's a little more work involved before those will be ready for release. They are, however, high on the list of priorities post-Enchanting.
Bob
Bringslite
Large projects like WoW have allowed player made "Add-Ons" that they have vetted. These "Add-Ons" really facilitate character management and "quality of life" features. It could possibly (if there enough player interest) take large amounts of work off of your plate. In some ways. Any chance that in the switch to "Modern Unity" that you might look into something like that?

Even after the upgrade, I suspect adding that kind of capability would be a pretty large undertaking.
Bob
Azure_Zero
Bob
DirectX vs. OpenGL is something we could experiment with further at some point. Sadly, there usually turn out to be various forgotten dependencies in large projects like ours that result in unforeseen complications, though it's usually possible to work around those eventually.

The only thing I could think of that would cause an issue is having HLSL shaders rather then GLSL shaders.
But given you have a Mac version PFO, I REALLY doubt Goblinworks will have any issues switching the rendering Core from Direct X to OpenGL.

Most likely such a change would go pretty smoothly, though we don't really even have the option right now with the current version of Unity we're on. For that version, all we can do is use a command line parameter to force the game to run in OpenGL, we can't really change how the base game is built until we upgrade at least a little. When we get to that point, we could try it out (assuming we can easily make the change throughout our build pipeline) and see if it results in any performance/compatibility issues for various subsets of players.