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
Glad to hear you're liking the new keeps. Our goal is in fact to eventually have a final battle for the keep when attacking a settlement, but we've got a lot of work to do before we can get there.

As for putting one down out in the world, I don't have an easy way to do that right now without basically adding it in as part of an update. There'd probably also need to be some terrain changes and I'd want to move mobs away from it, since they'd just jump up the walls at every opportunity. I'll have to think about it some more, but maybe there's a hex out there just screaming for an old abandoned castle.
Bob
Yes, we can still contact account holders for what are called transactional emails, like those about password resets, email address changes, or billing problems. However, marketing emails require more explicit consent.

We may someday look into not requiring a unique email address for each account, but knowing that each account has a unique address simplifies a lot of things for us. Just as one example, if you use the link for a forgotten password, we can send you a link to reset the password for the first account we find with that address, knowing that's the only account involved. If we allowed multiple accounts to have the same address, then we'd have to check all our accounts each time and send links to reset the passwords on all of them.

There is, however, a nifty trick for getting around creating new emails called Plus Addressing, which is supported by Gmail, Outlook and many others. For email systems that support it, all email sent to username+whatever@isp.com goes to username@isp.com. So if you have three accounts, you could set the email addresses for each of them to username+1@isp.com, username+2@isp.com and username+3@isp.com. We'll see each as a unique address, but you don't need to create unique accounts for each one.
Bob
We do intend to look at making more of the vaults vulnerable, but that's going to require careful consideration. We may need more warnings before things become vulnerable, more notice of impending raids or ongoing losses, and possibly even some safeguards to prevent either major losses or a general unwillingness to use vulnerable vaults at all. Doing it right will take time, so we want to be very careful about making even small changes until we're able to dedicate enough time to the issue.
Bob
It is admittedly fairly easy to transfer bulk from the secure vault to another vault to protect it from raids, but it does at least require some regular effort to do so consistently. That particular mechanic was primarily meant to incentivize companies to at least occasionally check on their vaults, since the losses could get significant if stockpiles got too big. For raiders, well-managed holdings will at least be worth a full day's production, but if you find one that's built up a stockpile, keep hitting that one until the payout drops, then let it build up again.

In terms of PvP rewards, we're still working on moving toward a more Opt-In style of PvP. Some of that has been started over the course of the roadmap, and we plan to do more. As it becomes clearer to players when they're opening themselves up to PvP, along what the risks and rewards are at each stage, we'll feel more comfortable increasing the potential losses in various places. Population does come into account there, since the risk of losses for undefended territory will be high until there are more defenders available, so the risks and rewards aren't as easy to balance right now. Of course, there's an argument that companies/settlements shouldn't hold more territory than they can defend, but we also don't want to overly punish everyone who's putting a lot of effort into making as much of the world alive and active as possible. After we take care of some other priorities, we'll take another look and see what we can do in this area.
Bob
FYI, I updated the Release Notes to say that I'll also exchange Expert and Freeholder Codexes/Collections for Guild Codexes/Collections.
Bob
This can be a little tricky to be exact about, since knowledge skills are tied to loot tables, and then specific mobs call for specific loot tables. There are also some groups that call for a mix of loot tables, so a full and exact accounting requires a lot of cross-referencing and double-checking to be sure it's all correct. There are also some named mobs from Events that are basically renamed versions of other mobs, and accounting for all of those would take a lot of time.

Loot table names also don't necessary really say much about the particular mob, as we often re-used loot tables for mobs that felt like they should have the same loot, even if the mobs themselves are very different. Looking through them now, there may be some cases where we didn't look carefully enough at which knowledge skill would be applied as a result and should probably make new loot tables for them to switch those around a bit.

All that said, I did a quick pass through the spreadsheets for mobs in general and their loot tables, but not for named event mobs, and here's what I came up with:

  • Arcana: Necromancers, Crystals
  • Local: Knights (Knights, Mercenaries, Crusaders, Moloch Knights, Mordant Spire Elves), Goblins, Cultists (Mercenary Mages, Bandit Mages, Lamashtu Cultists, River Shepherds, Moloch Cultists, Razmiran Cultists, unspecified Cultists), Bandits (Bandits, Rangers, Razmiran Recruiters/Fanatics), Raiders
  • Geography: Ogres (Ogres, Crystal Ogres)
  • Planes: Elementals, Outsiders (Hellhounds, Moloch Hounds)
  • Dungeoneering: Duergar, Dark Elves
  • History: Skeletons, Liches, Tians
  • Survival (filed a bug to research this, original design docs say we should be using Nature for loot bonuses, not Survival, but maybe we switched for a reason): Animals (Wolves, Goblin Dogs)
Bob
EE 15.1 is now running on EE 15.1. I'll get the final release notes posted to a blog shortly.
Bob
You are a Troll
Huh…wow..who knew? LOL - I have seen plenty enough Shut Down Holdings but I don't think I have ever seen one destroy itself for lack of bulk. This must be a very fringe/edge case where the outposts can't make enough bulk for seven straight days to support the Holding given that the Holding will eat anything available (yes I know, at 4x the rate) and Outposts continue to generate bulk even when the holding is shut down. Maybe this is only really a viable mechanic when a holding is paired with only a single outpost or the outposts placed are completely wrong for the terrain rating? Because if this is designed to remove Holdings from inactive companies, I don't think it is ever going to work…?

True, it doesn't take much production from the outposts to make the upkeep payment at least once per week, but it does happen occasionally. Outposts being overrun can block a day's output, and raids can cut into any stocked up bulk resources that the outposts aren't producing, forcing the 4-1 conversion. Sometimes that's just enough to make the difference.

To some degree, the system is meant to keep companies from withdrawing all their bulk resources every day and never making upkeep payments. You can still do that to some degree if you're willing to accept a shut down holding most of the time, but then you run the risk that a well-timed raid will result in the destruction of your holding.

I'm hesitant to make holding management any more difficult right now, but long-term I think there's room for making things a little tougher. We already limit outpost production by holding upgrade, and we could treat a shut down holding as a +0, for example. That would just make things harder on companies running at higher upgrades, which seems fair. Not a high priority right now, but worth revisiting when the time's right.
Bob
We're deploying EE 15.1 today, so Daily Maintenance will take a bit longer than usual.
Bob
If a holding fails its upkeep payment, it is shutdown for the day. If it remains shut down for 7 more days, then it is scheduled for destruction the following day, regardless of whether there's enough bulk resources in the vault the next day. That started in EE8, coincidentally exactly two years ago today. Technically, it's supposed to be 7 total days instead of 7 more days, but that's a bug for another time.

The holding is still scheduled for destruction the next day, but as of EE 15.1 (deploying today, fingers crossed), the holding will make one last attempt at paying upkeep right before destroying itself. If it succeeds, it will reactivate and avoid destruction.