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
Here's what was posted in the release notes for EE 4.2 when these kinds of things were originally added:

Added divine attacks for Light Knife (Desna), One-Handed Blunt (Asmodeus), One-Handed Fencing (Norgorber), One-Handed Sword (Iomedae and Sarenrae), Piercing Polearm (Gozreh), and Two-Handed Sword (Gorum and Lamashtu). They are all trainable at the Seminary. These are currently trainable with the associated deity's domains as a prerequisite, but will eventually be a faction-reward for membership in the appropriate church. You will NOT be allowed to unlearn these Feats or be refunded XP for these Feats if you do not worship the associated deity and can no longer slot the Feat once church factions and alignments go live.

[Cut larger list of specific attacks with specific deity/weapon info, see original blog post for details.]

Added Channel Positive Energy and Channel Negative Energy utility feats at the Temple. These are currently trainable to anyone who meets the requirements, but will eventually be a faction-reward for membership in the appropriate church. You will NOT be allowed to unlearn these Feats or be refunded XP for these Feats if you do not worship the associated deity and can no longer slot the Feat once church factions and alignments go live. Channel Positive Energy will be available to Good aligned Deities, Channel Negative Energy available to Evil aligned deities, and both will be available to Neutral aligned deities.


So yes, the intention has always been that deity-specific feats require that you essentially be a follower of that deity with good (or even exceptional) standing with that deity to make use of them, and that's a large reason why the deities made it into the roadmap.

The points made above that all those statements were made with an expectation that all players were paying close attention to the blog posts, and that those deity restrictions would be in the game sooner rather than later, are well taken. The feat descriptions for the sanctified attacks on the trainer window do at least state that they're faction attacks for specific deities, but don't go into detail about what that means, and there isn't any mention of good/evil on the channeling feats.

We haven't decided exactly how this will all play out, but I can pretty much guarantee that learning deity-specific feats for deities you don't plan on following will turn around and bite you to at least some degree. Exactly what degree is still to be decided, and we'll discuss that in more detail when we get closer to implementing deities. Until then, I'll take a look at adding more warnings to the feat descriptions.
Bob
That is indeed where Goblinary gets its updates from, and I believe the latest official contact info is here.
Bob
Bringslite
I was under the impression that the 25 influence was not "spent" if your raid succeeds. Is that not true?

Influence from a feud is only preserved if it's invested into a captured holding. That's because you're basically transferring banked influence from the feud to the holding directly. Then when the feud ends, there isn't any influence left in it to return to the company and 25% of nothing is nothing, so there's no influence lost until the holding gets torn down later. On the other hand, you also don't get any influence back when the feud ends, since it's now in the holding.

Raids don't have anywhere to transfer their influence, so you've still got all your influence banked in the feud when it ends. We then take our 25% cut when the feud influence is returned to the company.
Bob
Bringslite
@Bob- For the sake of discussion, how difficult would it be to increase the "Loot" result from raids to 5% from every vault in a Holding?

Let's face it, PVP deserves some love too. You have players that are fans of PVP in all of it's various styles. Eventually, if it is kept so unrewarding (on the simple low aspect of getting some loot for risk), you will lose some of those to newer and more fulfilling games.

Technically, it probably wouldn't be all that difficult, and it's certainly in line with our original intentions toward looting of vaults.

I do have some concern that making holding vaults vulnerable to loss, particularly right now when there aren't a lot of people to defend them, could lead to everyone just avoid their use. There might also be other ways to game the system that players would fall back to instead. I'd want to consider those kinds of things carefully, and think about whether or not some other systems needed to be in place before opening all those vaults up to that level of risk.

I'd also be a bit concerned about anything left in a holding vault by players who might consider coming back to the game. Those vaults were relatively safe when things were put there, at least in the sense that you could always retake the hex and get access to your hidden vaults. At the very least, we'd probably want to warn everyone that anything they'd left there was becoming vulnerable.

I also have a related concern that this at least initially would be most rewarding when discovering a hex with lots of "abandoned" vaults in it, which in turn would likely be in hexes that would only be defended by guards rather than by actual players. There might even be cases where it was worth putting up an undefended holding just so you could raid it and get at those vaults. There are a lot of weird possibilities out there as a result of people depositing things where they thought they were safe, things that generally wouldn't be a problem if the risks were made clearer upfront.
Bob
I made the following changes to the public spreadsheet to cover various changes through EE 15.1:

  • Passionate in the Workshop provides Seneschal bonuses.
  • Increased Combat Expertise’s effects to 5 rounds and cooldown to 12 seconds.
  • Medium Armor Proficiency 3 allows STR 30 or INT 30 to meet its ability requirements.
  • Heavy Blade, Light Blade, Hammer and Polearm Proficiency 3 allow STR/DEX 18 and (STR/DEX 20 or WIS 20), as appropriate, to meet their ability requirements.
  • Mordant Spire events grant the new Unshrouder achievement.
  • Seneschal achievements temporarily provide enough Social Category Points to meet Seneschal 20 prerequisites.
  • Truesilver Shirt includes Military keyword to match Archer 14.
  • Extravant Padded Armor has the Sage, Inscribed and Attuned keywords to match Guide 14, instead of the Shadowskin, Camouflaged and Stealthy keywords.
  • The recipe for Guild House Structure Kits now calls for Guild Codex Collections, which are refined from Guild Codexes, which are crafted from Rogue, Expert and Freeholder Expandables in any combination.
  • Added Azoth info for recipes that allow it. Refining recipes use the exact amount listed, crafting recipes use a pro-rated amount based on how close you are to the next plus.
  • Added Base Type, Weapon Category and Ammo Category to all the weapons
Bob
Even if armor is always tied to hitpoints, we may be able to lower the difference in hit points when a character capable of wearing T3 armor wears appropriate T2 armor instead. Right now, the difference in those cases is so high that it's very hard to accept a hitpoint tradeoff in exchange for lower losses on death. Bring them a bit closer, maybe you'll decide to leave the T3 in the vault on days when you're expecting less trouble. Then again, maybe not. Some people will certainly prefer to always be as prepared as possible, even if they have to pay for that privilege each time they take a durability hit, and even if those costs eat into their profitability over time. That's a completely valid choice for those who prefer to play that way.
Bob
Bringslite
I think that the craft times should be looked at. I can craft 2+ Keeps in the time it takes to craft 1 set of T3 armor. Seems a bit wonky.

It's admittedly a bit weird, but the structure kits are essentially treated as high-end T2 (equipment we expect all settlements to make and use regularly), so their crafting times and ingredient lists reflect that. T3 armor was designed as "wear it when you really desparately need it" armor, so it takes longer and uses more expensive ingredients. Just think of it as requiring ridiculous levels of craftsmanship.

Part of the issue here stems from the way structure kits work, in that going from +0 to +5 feels kind of like going all the way from low-end T2 to high-end T3. That's a much wider span than most items have, and the crafting system doesn't have a good way to handle that. For the most part, we let the rapidly ramping upkeep requirements take care of that instead.

There's clearly some work we need to do if we're going to truly make T3 equipment more "special occasion" equipment, the way it was originally intended to be. Hopefully we'll have a chance to look at that more closely sometime soon.
Bob
We have had some discussions about this kind of thing, and it's something we'd like to look at regardless of population. Even if having more people lets you spread out the workload more easily, perhaps there are better ways to move goods around that still put the goods at risk, but don't feel as much like a chore. We've done much the same thing for guarding territory, where you don't have to hang around your holdings all the time, but can instead depend on your guards to fend off the initial attack while you swoop in later as needed. We can probably apply similar reasoning to the movement of bulk resources, though there will probably be a fair amount of work involved to implement anything that moves goods from one hex to another.
Bob
I do want to revisit influence soon. Partially that's because I want to bring back Max Influence, but in a way that better scales well for varying levels of player activity. That's admittedly looking at limiting total influence rather than makign influence easier to earn, but we'll probably need to look at adjusting the amount earned in the first place so that it scales as well. Without tackling both aspects, the system as a whole won't scale, just parts of it.

For the moment we're pretty bogged down with Social Features and Enchanting, but tackling this is certainly worthy of consideration as we're discussing what to do once those are done.
Bob
Maxen
Oh, right. To that end, we need a “hide” feature. City of Heroes had that option, which I exercised when I got on for a bit and didn’t want to be bothered.

That's another bit we'd like to get to, but may not go in right away. Currently, anyone can check to see if you're on by whispering at you, so we'll initially be fairly consistent with that, though admittedly in a way that makes it even easier to check in on people. On the other hand, this will at least be restricted to Friends at first, and perhaps company members soon after. However, we intend to add a privacy feature eventually that covers every way to check someone's online status.