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

I know I'm pushing my luck here bugging you so much, but… Would it be possible to just connect the character's "History" tab to all AHs on the server?

Good thought, but we actually store the history information on the hex server where the sale was posted and not with the character. As a result, this would involve dealing with issues similar to those for being able to see the bids/sales at other auction houses.
We're down to our last few known bugs and hope to get a build up on Zog Tuesday or Wednesday next week. On the positive side, the amount of time we've spent looking at the build on Chitterwood and polishing things up means we've already taken care of quite a few nitpicky details. On the negative side, it's clear this is one heck of a big update, both in terms of content and in terms of complex systems, with lots of variants to try out. At this point I'm guessing that we'll spend at least a full week on Zog before we're ready to go to Live, possibly a little longer. As always, if anyone needs access to Zog to take a look at the test builds, send email to and I'll give you access. It helps to get the access in advance, particularly if you want to set something up in the current build so that you can see what happens when the new build goes up, like if you want to start a crafting project at the keep and want to make sure it will still get delivered after the keep disappears to be replaced with a new Keep Structure Kit +0.
Please do something to make setting high security more than a preference of play style-

Make it so you can only switch security settings at down time -

This is already the case, though that may not be obvious. When a holding's security setting is changed, it doesn't actually take effect until after the next downtime (when daily upkeep is paid). When a settlement's security setting is changed, it doesn't actually take effect until the next Monday downtime (when weekly upkeep is paid).

have low sec cost 3 less of the primary resource and High sec cost 3 more of the primary resource
Low Sec cost less in daily upkeep
Medium sec bulk generation stays the same
High sec cost more in daily upkeep
.. Everyone here loves “meaningful choices” as a reason to do something or not do something - make setting holdings to high sec mean something different than setting it to low security.. ( you are basically stating guards are everywhere in the high security hex so you cant attack - make those guards cost more..)

Something like this could certainly be done. The big question is whether or not having high security is clearly better than having low security, since the protection (or lack thereof) goes to everyone in the hex. Because of that, either is an advantage depending on what you want to do. Higher security means you can't be attacked as easily, but it also makes it harder to prevent others from gathering in your territory. Eventually we want more complicated settings, like guards that protect members and allies only, or rules you can set up about unaffiliated gatherers that make it easier to prevent poaching. At that point, it would be clearer that more security is always helpful to the owners, and thus should cost more coin/resources.

At the very least - since it takes 2 days of notification to take over territory - make feuds able to be started immediately ( why do we have to wait an hour, anyone you do find is going to be gone or done with a gusher before the feud even starts)-

For the most part, that's the feud delay doing its job. If a player is in a relatively safe hex and knows there aren't any relevant feuds active or pending, then they can plan accordingly. If feuds become active immediately, then there's no warning and no ability to adjust your plans. That said, an hour may be more than is necessary now that we've got the separate 48-hour delay before capturing becomes active. Certainly worth considering.
Would you be able to get in a simple notification of buys/sells or a remote viewing feature to see these new AHs along with the introduction of this?

It might go down a bit easier if we could see these locations if you think that having many more about the map really is better. One of the main objections is having lots of extra places to run to and check if they are supposed to be loot and far range gather dumping sites…

Potentially, but those kinds of things would be much more complicated and would turn this into more of a full-blown feature than the relatively quick tweak we were envisioning. However, part of the point of posting this for discussion was to see if things like this had to be done around the same time to make it work, in which case we wouldn't just make the tweak now.
It was in the plans to allow a race change at some point, because GW realized so many Races were to follow later, and people had to make do with the 3 we have now. I do not think this has a priority now, but I expect them to come back to this once the game goes into open release/gets more success/more revenue. This is what I recall, Bob may correct/confirm/add to this. smile

Pretty much. I believe one of the ideas thrown around was to allow one-time changes to new races, on the principle that the new race was what you really wanted to be but hadn't been available when you made your initial choice. For example, you could switch a character from dwarf to gnome if you created your character before gnomes became available, but you couldn't switch from dwarf to elf because elves were available when you made the original choice. However, you couldn't switch to gnome when those become available and then to halfling when those become available.
What kind of "loot" do you get and what do you do with it? I get coins, I get tokens, I get an occasional recipe/expandable and I get a little bit of salvageable materials. I get very little actual ready raw mats. That is what drops.

That's pretty much what I see from the "looting mobs" side, but I also tend to be one of those players who just can't walk past a node without gathering from it, at least when I'm on my own. As a result, I've often got kind of a mix of loot and mats whenever I arrive somewhere. I've also generally found that I'm relatively loaded up with stuff whenever I arrive at another settlement, even a nearby one, at least enough that I'd like to get rid of some stuff before heading out of town. Back when I played more independently, I'd always stop at the Auction House before leaving town and put everything I didn't need up for sale. Sometimes I'd also buy a bunch of whatever was cheap there and take it with me to the next settlement to try to sell it there, but I'd always leave myself room for as much loot and mats as I expected to pick up along the way. When we introduced the structure kits and only some player settlements had Auction Houses, I started finding myself having to plan on making mule runs later (during which I wouldn't want to do much combat and risk the larger load of items), or running from one settlement to another without killing anything or gathering because I was already overloaded. There's nothing wrong with that, but for players who primarily enjoy combat and/or gathering, that's the design incentivizing them to avoid their preferred behavior. Personally, I started just routing myself through only settlements that had Auction Houses most of the time. If I needed to go to a distant settlement for advanced training, I'd do so, but often wound up just leaving stuff in the bank that I wasn't sure I'd ever bother to do anything with.

These days I'm less independent and more invested in the Bloodstone Swords, so I just put everything in the company bank (aside from automatically converted coins), trusting that Lisa will eventually put it to good use and keep me outfitted in all the equipment I need in return.

What do I do with it? I bank the coin. I bank the recipes and give or trade them to mates. I bank the salvage an lil bit of ready mats so that I have them for my own crafters and for when I ask to have an item I need crafted by another. This, I believe, is fairly typical server wide. Could be wrong but I doubt it.

I do agree that's basically what most folks do. It works out great for those with connections and a more social bent, which seems to describe the current community pretty well. However, Auction Houses ultimately offer more potential buying and selling opportunities for those who prefer to focus on other aspects of the game, so it's important to decide just how essential they (or some subset of their capabilities) really are.
While I can agree that global browsing should be put in, But I do not believe remote buying should be in.
As I believe you should still need to Go that the Original AH that the goods were put up in to buy them, as blacklisting and denying other settlements access to your AH is something you forgot about.
And being able to buy goods in say TK and then a few moments later relisting them in Talonguard for pick up, it's teleporting Goods from one side of the map to the other bypassing a lot of bandit territory.

If we ever introduced any kind of global buying/selling, we'd block the teleporting of goods. If you were in Marchmont and purchased an item for sale in Thornkeep, we'd probably just put the item in your personal vault in Thornkeep, or create some other mechanism that locked it down in Thornkeep until someone went there and picked it up. Likewise, if you wanted to put that item back up for sale remotely, you'd be putting it back up for sale in Thornkeep. Credits would effectively be moving around the map instantly, but not items.

We'd also still respect the rules at each individual AH. A person blacklisted at a particular AH wouldn't be able to view or place either offers or bids there.
I suppose it is mainly a bid buyer's inconvenience.

This actually bothered me as a buyer before there were bids. I just wanted to buy the cheapest Weak Antiseptic I could find and didn't want to have to check 16 raw materials and 2 salvage items each time.

It was also problematic as a seller, since it was harder to figure out the price for an item that hadn't been listed much if I couldn't quickly see the prices other items of the same stock were going for. And of course now it means sometimes staring at a bid for one item, knowing the buyer would probably be perfectly happy with my alternative item from the same stock, but not being sure the buyer will ever see my offer to consider it.

Yes, this is one of my biggest personal pet peeves, why do you ask?
The dynamic state of the game definitely makes it harder to talk about the design. Sadly, the economic system is so complex that I'd be hard-pressed right now to find the time to write up something that really captured the current state of all those moving parts and our longer-terms plans for improvement.

However, perhaps I can reframe the question about "bare minimum auction-like capability" for a settlement. What I mean by "auction-like capability" is primarily "the ability to buy and/or sell certain items on a relatively open market without requiring direct interaction between buyers and sellers." So the question is whether or not some level of that ability is essential to making a settlement viable when competing against settlements that do have Auction Houses (assume a working economy with reasonable availability of goods at mostly-acceptable prices, crazy as that may sound at the moment). As a starter, will settlements without any such ability at all have trouble attracting crafters because those crafters can't easily get ingredients without muling them in themselves or agreeing to just craft what the company/settlement wants from shared vaults? Will they attract significantly less adventurers for advanced training (and the taxes from that training) if those adventurers can't easily dispose of their inventory upon arrival by putting it up for sale?

Perhaps the answer is that there are enough players willing to mule things around as needed, or willing to hire out for mule runs, to keep this from being a major issue. Perhaps there are plenty of playstyles where the lack of "auction-like capability" is balanced out by other advantages of that playstyle. Perhaps completely socialist settlements and other such options are attractive to enough players that such settlements will be numerous and thrive. If so, then the current system for providing those abilities is fine. If it's more like only a few such settlements could likely thrive, then that tempts me to look at things like making it easier to have auction-like capabilities in and/or around settlements, but still leaving it optional.

On the other hand, if it felt more like such settlements would inevitably struggle to attract enough players to keep them competitive, then it raises the question of whether some level of auction-like capabilities is essential, or if there are better methods we could use to make such settlements more viable.

It certainly seems like the general sense here is that settlements are perfectly viable without any kind of Auction Houses, and that many of you want to have such settlements. I just want to make sure we've thought through these issues enough to make a good decision one way or another.

Of course, there's still a separate question of whether or not the lack of ubiquitous Auction Houses annoys players in general, particularly those not quite as willing to just turn all their stuff over to their companies or settlements. That concern is what initially led to this proposal, but there are certainly other things we could do about that if we decide that we should avoid too large an increase of Auction Houses and other auction-like capabilities.
Agreed, scarcity is ridiculously important. We just need to keep working toward a point where the rewards for having scarce resources are strong enough to make players willing to work hard to obtain them (and that it's possible to do so), but the consequences for lacking those resources aren't severe enough to drive players from the game. Unfortunately, that's required us to compromise more on the scarcity front lately, but we'll keep looking for ways to turn that around.