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
Bringslite
NightmareSr
Oh ok, I've been gathering with Freeholder feats and gotten gushers. But once I've dropped a harvester kit I switch my feats to my rogue feats for killing (with help). Been getting 200-250 from the gushers, so I wonder if the feat during the gushers matters or the feat when the gushers pops up? Hmm interesting either way.
It is said that yes, while doing a "gusher" the higher the particular gathering skill, the better the haul. So some of the bonuses for feats actually being used and armor do make a difference.

Yup, every harvesting production cycle, we check your gathering skill for that raw material and use that number when rolling to see how much gets added to the husk that cycle. Best to keep your gathering feats/equipment slotted until you really need your rogue feats to hold off the mob waves.
Bob
We have indeed had some discussions about possible "auto-caravans," but it's likely that any short-term implementation of this would be more akin to the way that we simulate "moving" bulk resources from the Outposts to the Holdings each day. One possibility we've considered would be a system for specifying where excess bulk resources at a particular holding should be sent, then putting limited amounts of those resources in an escrow vault every PvP day (perhaps you'd set your own intervals, since likely this would have to break hex protection in order to open every delivery to possible theft). If the holding is successfully raided that day, then everything in the vault would go in the husk like that day's Outpost deliveries and 5% of the upkeep vault's bulk resources. If not, then the resources would be delivered to their destination during the next Daily Maintenance (it's simpler and safer for us to transfer items between hexes only during Daily Maintenance).

Basically, the idea would be to simulate the caravans, rather than to implement actual caravans, but still capture the important balance aspects. Specifically, we'd still want the transported bulk to be at risk, and we'd still want there to be significant advantages to transporting the bulk yourself instead (more timing choices, easier to adjust amounts on the fly, move more stuff at once). The very rough design above was just the first semi-feasible idea that occurred to us in our original discussions, and perhaps other methods would be better and/or more feasible. I only present it here as an example of one way to simulate caravans, and even this version would requiring scheduling a fair amount of work. Just not nearly as much as actual auto-caravans, which we could switch to later when other systems are in place to make implementing it easier (e.g. actual road systems that the game recognizes and can keep the caravans on).
Bob
Hmm, I'm not remembering those conversations, but perhaps I just need a reminder to jog my memory. I didn't find anything with a quick search, but if any of you can point me toward something along those lines, I could probably get a better handle on what was discussed and what thoughts we might've already had on that topic here. I'd have some concerns about such a system bypassing the desired market systems, since ultimately you're supposed to be able to convert anything by selling things you don't need and using the proceeds to purchase the things you do need. It's possible that a high enough expense ratio would make conversion a viable alternative in desperate times, while still leaving trade/conquest as the only truly viable long-term methods for supporting a settlement, but that could be a tricky balance.

In terms of difficulty, it would really depend on how much we can leverage the systems and data that are already in place. We could do this using recipes, but we'd probably need to add a few new capabilities, like refining recipes that don't result in pluses (since bulk resources don't have pluses), and possibly a third stock value for raw materials. That wouldn't be trivial, but likely wouldn't be too hard. I suspect that would make the most sense and be the easiest way to implement something like this.
Bob
Azure_Zero
Anyone know where the link to the Wiki is?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UsN8eNlnD7iM_XcFYRvVJJDGTM-0ShcOTQyGcgrxqA0
Bob
Unfortunately, the version of Unity we're on has some issues with alt-tabbing in/out of fullscreen on many (if not most) PCs. That's one of many reasons we want to upgrade versions, but that's going to be a pretty big undertaking. On my PCs, I find it safest to play in windowed mode, plus it gives me more control over screen size so I can find the best balance between screen size and performance.
Bob
That's a new one. We added a timer a while ago to make sure the mobs all become vulnerable if they take too long getting to their target location, but that doesn't help on hills like that. We'll take another look and see what we can do about cases like this, which are hopefully very rare.
Bob
Since the release of EE 15, structures have had their Trainer Levels, Facility Ratings, and Auction House tier/upgrade restrictions set based on the current Settlement Level plus double the upgrade value of the structure, after subtracting 3 and the number of 30-day “months” that have passed since May 1, with a maximum of 20, if that provides better values than the structure itself does. That's a lot of math, but it basically provides a grace period where it wass possible to maintain the equivalent of a Level 20 Settlement with just +2 structures for the first couple months, then +3 structures for the next couple months, then +4, and finally +5 structures will be required to get maximum Trainer Levels and Facility Ratings.

Since today marks the fourth 30-day "month" since May 1, and thus the first day that +4 structures are required in order to get the best possible Trainer Levels, Facility Ratings, and Auction House tier/upgrade restrictions, this is a good time to remind everyone of the last remaining dates for these grace period bonuses:

  • August 29: Structure +4 and Settlement Level 19-20 required for maximum performance. Structures +0-4 get the equivalent of a 1-3 Settlement Level bonus (+4's subject to max) at Settlement Levels 18-20.
  • September 28: Structure +4 and Settlement Level 20 required for maximum performance. Structures +0-4 get the equivalent of a 1-2 Settlement Level bonus at Settlement Levels 19-20.
  • October 28: Structure +5 required for maximum performance, regardless of Settlement Level. Structures +0-4 get the equivalent of a 1 Settlement Level bonus at Settlement Level 20.
  • November 27: Grace period ends, all structures operate purely based on their upgrades.
Bob
Suave
My +5 Manors at Hexes (-18,13) & (-19,13) are producing 12 Trade goods instead of 6 Trade Goods & 6 Ore. It will ease holding management if they were producing as advertised as that is how I planned the Outposts supporting each Holdings,

I can't look at your Holding Management window to see what it's telling you about bonus resources until we get the bug fixed blocking everyone but the character that placed the Manor from viewing it (normally I'd just temporarily make myself a company leader to see that), but looking at your outposts, you should be getting 6 extra trade goods per day, but no extra ore. That's because one of the requirements for getting each bonus bulk resource from the holding is that your outposts produce at least one of that specific resource that day, and neither of your outposts produces ore.
Bob
It's certainly a possibility, and upgrading to the latest version of Unity may very well make it easier to support Linux than it would be now. However, there would still be at least some work involved, both in upfront work and in on-going support/testing, so we'll have to consider the costs and benefits at that time.
Bob
Turns out the answer is pretty simple: The Manor and Hermitage are in the middle of different code paths when checking permissions for Holding Management than other holdings. Most holdings, when you click on the toolbox, check your permissions and use that info to decide what to display in the Holding Management window. The Manor and Hermitage, when you click on the door, check your permissions and use that info to decide whether or not to put the Holding Management option in the initial window at all. Unfortunately, the Manor and Hermitage are doing a slightly different check, and apparently they're checking "is this the person who placed the holding?" instead of "is this person a leader of the holding's company?"

We'll need to do a code update to properly fix this, but meanwhile, if you remember which character placed the holding, that character can still access the Holding Management window. If you can't remember the character, contact customer.support@pathfinderonline.com and we'll use some GM tools to figure it out for you.