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
Flari-Merchant
An AH setting that allows lower grade materials to be included as buyable on Bid orders. Like I might accept all grades of Tansey leaves with a single buy order.

I long ago filed a feature request for something along these lines, and ideally for being able to place bids and view offers by stocks instead of by specific item. Just haven't been able to get it to the top of the priority list. If the lack of it is causing lots of you problems, let me know and we'll see about bumping it up.
Bob
Flari-Merchant
I have a question and then I will fall silent on this subject as well as the other that I promised to stop posting in.

Have any of the Dev team tried the life (in this game) of playing The Merchant? The cycle of gathering and refining and crafting, to sell, or trying to fill some of those aspects of the cycle with AH purchasing? I doubt that you have because it is very time consuming and you have none to spare.

If you have, you would immediately understand that it is not easy nor does it really feel rewarding at this point for the effort. Creating an atmosphere with hundreds of more places to have to travel to will not improve things.

If I am right and you have not tried this for a decently lengthy period, why will you not give serious consideration to those who do play that type in THIS GAME? Forget other games with larger populations. These proposal may be fine for games with large pops. Just not here and now.

Look at the feed back in the "For Lack of an AH" thread. These days, how often do you get that much negative feedback across all spectrums of player groups? Implementing Holding selling will just be a terrible idea on top of AHs for all. I am not saying that the whole game will immediately collapse. I am saying that it will damage the economic play of the game and make it less than it could be. It is counter intuitive to AHs being important. It is counter intuitive to Premium Player Housing and I don't even own one.

Now I am done here too.

Lisa does a lot of this, and I've toyed with it from time to time. As you say though, it's a time-consuming endeavor, so there's a limit to how much time any of us can spend playing that way while dabbling in other playstyles as well. Of course, that's why we asked for feedback, to supplement our own experiences.

As for sales at holdings, I doubt we'll get to that anytime soon unless we become convinced that's a great short-term idea (clearly the feedback so far doesn't agree with this), and we'll certainly put some thought into whether there are other auction improvements we should implement before doing so.
Bob
Someday we can revisit scarcity and overstripping when we provide more tools that allow the community to more meaningfully resist overstripping of scarce resources, which is going to be a particularly tricky issue for T3 resources that can only be found in monster hexes that therefore can't be claimed. Encouraging trade by making other resources equally scarce helps, but something stronger is needed in case someone cares more about preventing others from access to a resource than about getting another resource for themselves. As is, there's little players can do to block that, making it tough for us to balance between wanting to incentivize a more dynamic economy and risking the possibility that significant player segments find it virtually impossible to get the equipment they need. If those player segments had more recourse to fight over the things they need, more scarcity could be allowed.

Still, Black is only widely available in 2 hexes and mildly available in 3 more. Shadowskin is likewise only widely available in 2 hexes and mildly available in 2 more. Admittedly, none of them can be meaningfully stripped at this point, but those two resources should at least require some travel for most groups to gather, and thus provide some incentive for those near them to gather them efficiently and offer them for sale elsewhere. Not as much as if they can act as a cartel, but there should still be some profitability there.
Bob
Giorgio
Bob, are anymore resource distribution changes expected after the EE15 update? I want to know if I should hold off my resource mapping efforts until before or after the next major update,

The only planned change is a switch from Synthesis Essence to Cryptic Essence in hex -4,5. It was a quick change that doesn't substantially alter the balance of essences, made purely because Cryptic is more appropriate for mountain hexes.
Bob
Giorgio
Making these Hexes blueshields is a workable alternative or not? (until resources for terrain pass and art are made available)

Just about any change will require some code work unfortunately, and I suspect that adding a differently-colored icon is something even my minimal art skills can take care of relatively quickly (fingers crossed). Still, this could be a fallback when we have a chance to put some work into this.
Bob
Giorgio
This idea has merit, but I feel like it tyes to a bigger pictures of companies being not very useful in general (there is no real incentive to stay in a company and not "hop around", except for Feud and Warfare requirements) as everything seems to be geared to "settlement" level systems.

Agreed, and we do plan on revisiting those systems to bring back more advantages to joining and staying with a company. The original plan based Max Influence on company size, with some vague thoughts about eventual ways to discourage company hopping. When we get a chance to look at bringing back some form of the Max Influence system again, we'll certainly talk a bit about how changes to that affect those design goals, and possible other ways to make companies more useful.
Bob
plopmania
Maybe, instead of taxing power gain somehow, Settlements and Holding owners could set a price for "rent a room" for inns. Renting a room would activate the power gain for X time in that specific inn (maybe something like 2 hours).

The inns could have pricing tiers similar to the tax tiers.

That would be an interesting way to handle it, particularly if the appropriate prices for power gain are pretty low. If you'd only want to charge 1c for about as much power as someone is likely to want in 2-4 hours, then you're kind of stuck charging 1c anyway even if someone just wants 20 seconds worth. As such, they'll pay the 1c whether or not they're planning to stop by again that session.

Alternatively, you can offer one-time vs. 2-hour rates, and just let characters choose what's best for them.

These and other options are certainly workable for things we haven't taxed yet, but we avoided them for now because they'd require more work. The things we started with already had UI to hook everything up to, making things a lot easier. We'll add more the more difficult stuff over time.
Bob
Flari-Merchant
Let's say that there were "sales" allowed at some holdings, trade posts alone would not be as bad as ALL, but would there be listing fee taxes like in regular AHs? If those proposed taxes are for companies, you are basically giving sellers a 10% incentive to sell only from holdings…

Yes, the standard 5% sales fee would still apply, and would still be a coin sink. The system does mean that settlements have an incentive to sell their own stuff at their own Auction Houses (since they keep the sales tax, or can charge themselves less tax), and would eventually provide an incentive for less-settlement-minded companies to sell things at their own holdings (primarily since they'd keep the sales tax, though eventually we hope to give them the ability to charge themselves less as well). However, that's balanced against the advantages of selling at the most active Auction Houses (more buyers could mean better prices) and the advantages of charging a lower tax to everyone (could draw more auctions to their location, making it easier to purchase things and in turn possibly even pulling in greater tax revenue overall, but providing the same tax advantage to everyone as a result).
Bob
Giorgio
Default: bare minimum, use a default building like a Tavern or Keep

This here is the trickiest part of the discussion: What is the bare minimum auction-like capability for a viable player settlement? Nothing? Bids only (almost like a light contract system)? Loot/Mats only? T1 only? Some variant of an AH nearby (core 6, neighboring settlement, NPC settlement within reasonable running distance)? An actual Auction House in every settlement? Something else that fills the same needs, or a subset of those needs?
Bob
Flari-Merchant
It looks like you are pretty set on this…

Apologies for giving this impression. The part we're convinced about here is that there are some aspects of dealing with loot and gathered resources that just don't feel quite right yet. Since the selling/trading/disposing of loot after an adventure is a pretty central part of the tabletop Pathfinder experience, we want to get that right for Pathfinder Online as well. The primary tool for doing that in the original design was Auction Houses, so that made us question whether we had overly restricted the use of that tool in player settlements. As we talked through the issue, we also started to question the true viability of a settlement without an Auction House, and believe lacking an Auction House conflicts to at least some degree with our goal of letting players focus largely on their own personal preferred gameplay.

We're not, however, absolutely convinced that this particular proposal (or any variant of it) is the correct way to deal with the situation, and are definitely still debating internally whether or not to implement anything along these lines, as well as the exact details should we decide to move ahead. We do know that this is one of those issues that really needs to be looked at from a variety of angles, so we very much want to get all your feedback instead of just depending on what we 3 think of. Maybe together we'll come up with a specific version of this idea that alleviates everyone's concerns. Maybe there are better alternatives for dealing with the underlying issues. Or maybe we just need to reframe things to make settlements without Auction Houses more clearly cater to those who enjoy working around the lack of local sales capability. We won't commit to a particular course of action until we're convinced it's an appropriate short-term plan, and that it's bringing us closer to our long-term plans.