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
I like that there will be coin available as lootz for raiding. That will stir up all kinds of activity. It might be nice if there were a Holding specific option for ON/OFF at each location.

When we let the companies set their taxes, we'll have to think about whether or not to do that on a per holding basis, or on a company-wide basis. If the latter, then we could consider on/off per location, but at that point we might just say that you can set it per holding, but that we grab the default values from some company-wide defaults. We'll design those details when we get there.

Flari-Merchant
So I see "Sales" is in your list. Does that mean that sales from Holdings are definitely going to be "a thing"?

Good catch, but I was just basically copying over the default NPC settlement values and they came with it. However, we did originally plan to provide some limited sales ability at trading posts, and still hope to do that at some point.
Bob
Azure_Zero
Surprised you didn't include taxing the Power gained at Inn holdings.

For now, we've restricted taxes to actions where we can easily display the tax before you get charged. That generally means cases where there's a UI being displayed before a button is pressed. We'd like to eventually look at taxes that can be charged more "in the moment," but we'll need fancier systems for warning you what the current tax is before you start to get charged. Certainly possible to do, just more complicated than these initial taxes.
Bob
Flari-Merchant
Why though build a system to try and concentrate economic activity in areas that players will endeavor to build up, only to turn around and diffuse it back to even more scattered than it is now?

We still want economic activity to be concentrated, and definitely want Auction House upgrades to help drive activity to particular settlements. We're just concerned that there may be some base level of offline item sales that's more essential for supporting day-to-day gameplay for some player segments than we'd originally thought.

Flari-Merchant
And are you not concerned that this will lessen the value of your Player Housing?

This was definitely a concern, though depending on exactly how we implemented any additional auction capabilities, the studios could still serve functions that some base-level capabilities wouldn't. For example, if you only had a +0 Auction House, you couldn't sell T2+3 and above stuff from your profession there, but you could at your studio. And if we restricted minimal auction capability (whether at holdings or Taverns or Black Markets or… ) to only non-upgradable items, then you'd still only be able to sell most crafted and refined items at studios wherever there isn't an Auction House. It's all in the details.
Bob
Currently, taxes only operate in settlements, meaning some taxes can be completely avoided at holdings, though admittedly at some disadvantage. To fix that, we're looking at charging taxes at holdings and depositing the payments into the Holding Upkeep vault. Eventually, we want to set things up so that the companies can set their own tax rates, but as a short-term solution, we're looking at having companies that are part of a settlement charge the same rates as the settlement, and having companies that aren't part of a settlement charge the following:

Non-Members (same as NPC towns):
Sales: 5%
Training: 20%
Crafting: 1c per 1800 seconds
Mules: 10c per tier/upgrade

Members:
Sales: 3%
Training: 12%
Crafting: 1c per 3200 seconds
Mules: 6c per tier/upgrade


Thoughts?
Bob
There are definitely lots of issues with the lack of information about distant Auction Houses, and it's a good point that some of the frustrations that causes could get worse if there were even more Auction Houses out there. Of course, that's mostly a point in favor of fixing the information problem first, which is something we'd eventually like to look into anyway. That's probably a pretty complex task though, so not something we could just squeeze into the schedule at an opportune moment.
Bob
Even if every settlement would choose to place either an Auction House or a nearby auction-enabled holding, we'd be offering an acceptably-meaningful choice as long as the exact choice was interesting and fun in some way compared to us simply guaranteeing minimal auction functionality in every settlement. For example, is it helpful to place such a holding between the settlement and a nearby monster hex? Does that greatly increase that monster hex's desirability to adventurers as a destination, while only slightly lowering the desirability of the settlement as a destination? That would make exact placement an interesting choice, even if everyone chose to at least place something.

On the other hand, if the holding is just a generally less useful choice that everyone feels compelled to fall back to, and mostly added a layer of annoyance in having to leave the settlement for such basic functionality, then that might add more annoyance than fun to the game. Technically it's meaningful, but possibly not the right kind of meaningful.
Bob
We wouldn't want to mess with the need for resources to move around the map, or with the need to check different Auction Houses when looking for specific items or for better deals. Getting to the point where there's a robust, dynamic economy that incentivizes buying low, selling high, and making risky trips to and from different Auction Houses is essential to making the looting, gathering, refining and crafting of items both interesting and rewarding. That's particularly true for those players most interested in focusing on the economic aspects of acquiring power. In that regard, we do have some concerns about providing a full Auction House at every settlement, which potentially makes the economics a little too similar between settlements.

On the other hand, we've always had the goal of letting individual players largely focus on their own preferred style of gameplay, be that adventuring, crafting, trading, PvP, and then using larger game systems to push interactions between those different styles. Auction Houses are an extremely important part of that system, because that's where players who earned rewards from one style of gameplay trade those rewards away for things they need that were rewarded to other players for different styles of gameplay. Adventurers sell recipes they've looted, then buy equipment sold by crafters, who buy refined goods sold by refiners, who buy resources sold by gatherers, and on and on. Admittedly some of that transfer can be done by in-game trades or within company vaults, but the Auction Houses are the intended mechanism for handling things better while offline.

Our particular concern here is for adventurers, including both gatherers and looters. We want them to care a bit about global economics, choosing targets in part because the rewards for those targets are more valuable. However, if they have to travel long distances in order to sell their loot/mats, then we're incentivizing them to play in ways they may not find as interesting. We never wanted to push players who like gathering resources and killing mobs to spend a lot of their time running past nodes and mobs to avoid getting overloaded or risking their mules. Instead, our intention was always for them to sell their stuff to players with more of a trading bent, who would gladly take on the task of moving goods from a settlement with low prices to a settlement with high prices.

So, the trick is deciding just how much auction capability is needed for each role, and how dependable those capabilities need to be. Our thinking when coming up with the Auction House upgrades was that adventurers should at least be able to sell everything looted/gathered at any Auction House, which they're acquiring constantly and have limited control over what they get. However, they'd be willing to travel greater distances for equipment, which they don't buy as regularly, so we put the tier/upgrade restrictions on that. On the other hand, we felt like crafters and refiners are a lot more invested in the economic side of the game and have lots of control over what they producer. They'd be able to restrict their production to match the available Auction House, or would be more willing to transport things to another Auction House.

Maybe just adding more options (like auctions at holdings) with at-least-minimal auction capabilities would be enough to meet that need for adventurers. Arguably, that could mean that settlements without an Auction House or an auction-capable holding in their core 6 wouldn't be very popular destinations for adventurers, and perhaps that would be sufficient incentive that most would provide it while still being an interesting choice not to. It's certainly not as dependable as saying that every settlement has some level of auction capability, or can have some auction capability at almost no cost. Then again settlements can block unaffiliated players from using the Auction House, so it's never completely dependable anyway.

On a related note, we admit the Auction Houses aren't very fire-and-forget. You currently need to return to the hex at some point to get your money, or to put items that didn't sell back up for sale. Long-term, we're looking at sweeping earnings back into your Abadar Credits during Daily Maintenance, and we'd like to eventually make it possible to use Auction Houses from a distance, at the very least to put something that didn't sell back up for sale. Not saying these capabilities would be added soon, just that they should be kept in mind when thinking about how Auction Houses should ultimately work.
Bob
Azure_Zero
The Large spot by the Tavern tends to have a large building there, so I don't think setting one spot to decide if it is not upgradeable is a good idea, though if I had to choose a large spot for that idea, I'd suggest the Lower spot and not any of the two higher spots.

Ah, should have been clearer that by "spot" I just meant something like a bulletin board in the Tavern or a trader's tent out back that acted as a "door" to the restricted Auction House, not one of the spots/slots for placing dynamic structures.

Azure_Zero
But before we can have any real look at this idea we need a better idea as to what an Upgraded Auction House would offer over a basic +0 Auction House.

Ask and thou shalt have already received.
Bob
We're planning to make the Guild House recipe a little more flexible so that expert and freeholder expendables can be used alongside rogue expendables. It's the only structure that teaches such disparate skills while only allowing expendables from one skill in its construction, and rogue expendables aren't the most common, so this should make things a little more balanced.

This change isn't likely to happen until we make a 15.1, and we're not 100% positive on the implementation details, but it will probably involve the following:

  • Add a second stock value to Rogue, Expert and Freeholder Expendables, called Guild Recipe (Tier X).
  • Add tiered Guild Codex recipes that use Guild recipes.
  • Add Guild Codex Collection recipes that use Guild Codices.
  • Change the Guild House recipe to use Guild Codex Collections.
  • Allow players to trade Rogue Codex Collections to GMs for Guild Codex Collections, since the same ingredients could have been used to make Guild Codex Collections anyway.

We'll have these changes ready in plenty of time before you need to have the higher pluses of Guild Houses ready, so you may want to hold off on refining any more Rogue Codices than you need for +0-2 until these changes are in.
Bob
Father Bronin
Something is off here. I think you mean t1 for level 0-2 and t2 for level 3-5
OR is it t2 for level 0-2 and t3 for level 3-5?

+0: T2/+2
+1: T2/+3
+2: T2/+5
+3: T2/+1
+4: T2/+3
+5: T2/+5

Ah, the dangers of using copy/paste to fill out a table. Your second proposal is correct, I'd meant to use T2 for +0-2 and T3 for +3-5. The basic idea is that Thornkeep and other NPC settlements train some feats up into T2, so we wanted the progression to start with the T2/+2 equipment those feats require.

I edited my prior post with the right numbers.