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
Are there firm numbers for the totals for upkeeps at various settlement levels yet?

Not yet. My plan is to make the numbers for Settlement Level 20 slightly less than the upkeep cost for a full suite of S/M/L structures at +5 (assuming even usage of all bulk resources) and work my way down from there, but I still have to do all the math. Based on my very quick initial calculations, it looked like that meant roughly double the current upkeep numbers.
Bob
Our original blog posts about companies briefly mentioned rules for managing company leadership, particularly succession, and implied pretty strongly that companies would be managed for the benefit of their active members. In many ways, the proposed challenge rules are just my way of saying "sorry we haven't gotten those implemented yet, here's what I can do manually in the meantime."

On the other hand, even with all the rules we hoped to implement eventually, leaders about to go inactive could theoretically just boot everyone else from the company before doing so, leaving no other members to take over in their absence. Since the currently inactive leaders might have overlooked doing that while there wasn't any policy for demoting them while inactive, the ability to protest a challenge seemed appropriate.
Bob
Edam
"provided the actual settlement level is 20 or above"

Is the "above" there a typo or will we eventually be able to have settlement levels above 20 ?

Good catch. Just a copy/paste typo, now fixed.
Bob
The failure penalty in this case isn't really meant to be very significant, since it's at most 15 silver per week, and is far lower for smaller settlements running at lower settlement levels. It's really just meant to be expensive enough to dissuade groups from waging wars just to lock the defending settlement down in some ways (like keeping its PvP windows constant), particularly since half the expense would be handed over to the defending settlement if it isn't defeated.

It also gives the defending settlement a small reward for victory, without being gameable because the reward isn't created out of thin air.
Bob
Mistwalker
How about this:

Non settlement controlling companies do not get touched.

Settlement controlling companies get a name change, a new company with the old name is created and all of the unsubbed characters are moved to it, at their present rank, with say a 1000 influence.

Would this address everyone's concerns/issues?

Founding Companies are actually already covered, for the most part. The official owners of the settlements, who have to be active, can contact me at any time to demote leaders of those companies. If I notice a settlement owner/co-owner is inactive (possibly because of grumbling by settlement members), they're given a reasonable amount of time to reactivate or name new owners, otherwise the settlement succession rules kick in. The leadership challenges rules would only really be useful for founding companies in cases where a settlement owner/co-owner is still on an active account, but isn't logging in and doesn't respond to emails, which hasn't been a big issue.

Bob
Midnight
Disregarding the players who suspended their subscriptions during crippled development of a long overdue game (and who far outnumber the actives) would seem to be a serious misstep, in my opinion. And why in the heck would active players even have remained in leaderless companies? It still smells like alts hoping to gain undeserved rewards.

Inactive players definitely wouldn't be disregarded. Every effort would be made to contact them, and as long as they respond with a protest, they wouldn't be demoted unless there are active leaders and all the active leaders who respond vote against the protest. In such a case, there likely wouldn't be much of a company to return to anyway, as I'd expect the current active leaders to strip the company clean and start a new one if they didn't have the option of demoting the challenged leader.

The goal is to provide lots of protection for inactive leaders who are even vaguely considering returning at some point, while making some allowance for company members who are deeply invested in a company to keep it viable when inactive leaders can't even be contacted. Challenging the inactive leaders is actually pretty risky, since they have a pretty good chance of successfully protesting the challenge, or they could choose to return to the game and clear the company out, but at least then the company knows where they stand and can move on.
Bob
Here's a proposal for easing settlements into the need to have +5 structures to support training/crafting that they currently have available based purely on their settlement level upkeep:

When structure upgrades are initially made available on Live, the Trainer Level and Facility Rating for each structure will be the greater of:

  • The Trainer Level and Facility Rating listed in the spreadsheet for that structure at that upgrade.
  • The Trainer Level and Facility Rating listed in the spreadsheet for a settlement at that structure's Adjusted Settlement Level. The Adjusted Settlement Level is calculated by taking the current Settlement Level, adding double the plus value of the current structure, subtracting 3, then subtracting the number of months since upgrades became available (starting at zero), with a maximum of 20 and a minimum of 9.


Effectively, this means the following:

  • Month 0: Only +2 and above structures can operate like they did at settlement level 20, provided the actual settlement level is 19 or above.
  • Month 1: Only +2 and above structures can operate like they did at settlement level 20, provided the actual settlement level is 20.
  • Month 2: Only +3 and above structures can operate like they did at settlement level 20, provided the actual settlement level is 19 or above.
  • Month 3: Only +3 and above structures can operate like they did at settlement level 20, provided the actual settlement level is 20.
  • Month 4: Only +4 and above structures can operate like they did at settlement level 20, provided the actual settlement level is 19 or above.
  • Month 5: Only +4 and above structures can operate like they did at settlement level 20, provided the actual settlement level is 20.
  • Month 6: Only +5 structures can operate like they did at settlement level 20, and do so regardless of settlement levels. Other structures can still get small bonuses if the settlement is running at a high enough level, though at most the equivalent of half an upgrade.
  • Month 7: From this point forward, structures operate according to their individual upgrade settings, regardless of settlement level.

Support would still come purely from Settlement Level, so although higher structure upgrades can operate at very high levels even with a lower Settlement Level for a while, settlement members wouldn't have full support and would have to pay surcharges for training, keeping that from being overly advantageous.


Comments/Questions?

Edit 1: Removed the implication that there might be settlement levels above 20.
Edit 2: Cleaned up the text for months 6 and 7 to make it clearer that settlement level 20 isn't required at that point for +5 structures to operate at their maximum settings.
Bob
There's a little blurb in Rise of the Runelords (Ten Fun Facts About Goblins) stating that goblins "ride wolves or worgs if they can get them," and that "goblins are quick to explain that wolves are NOT dogs." I took advantage of that to provide a little more variety, but we do use the goblin dogs pretty extensively.
Bob
Flari-Merchant
Bob
We're still working out exact details, but one idea is to initially allow a settlement with +2 buildings to be just as good as a settlement can be now, as long as it pays for the extra settlement levels. Then we'd ramp things up over time so that eventually you'd need +3 buildings to do so, then +4, and finally +5.
Well I suppose that would take some of the pressure off of feeling like things have to be ready within 2 months or so. smile When can we find out what you decide about that?

I'll try to post something within the next few days.

Flari-Merchant
Also, do you feel that Building Strength(referring to siege mechanics here) reflects the player cost of the buildings?

I'll have to rewrite the building strength part to be more about structure upgrades than settlement level when this all goes Live, and it would in turn probably have to take into account whatever I do about easing into the need for +5's, but generally speaking you'll at least get greater defense for higher upgrades. That said, like many of our systems, the upgrade costs go up geometrically while the advantages just go up linearly, so later upgrades may only be worthwhile if you're really in a position to take advantage of them.
Bob
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Flari-Merchant
Bottom line: I think that the population is too small right now to burden it with ANY of this support and building req stuff.

We're looking into ways to ease into these requirements, but at the same time we want to provide incentives for going beyond the buildings most of you are getting distributed for free.
Then why req us to build a copy of every building from +1 to +5(sans the free) to get to that "Golden 20"?
It is really very difficult to amass that many recipes/expendables, let alone the raw-then-refined-crits on mats.
In the cases of siege loss, the higher building "hp's strength) certainly don't reflect the cost to build them.

It is kinda turning into, what feels like IMO, a serious chore that virtually looks endless. I mean I know there is an end, I just don't think it is an end we will see… for a year or more. It's not fun to spend so much effort for just this aspect of play.

PS: I simply feel real sad for any Settlement that only has a few active members at this time. Can't imagine what the amounts look like when they review just for the Keep, which doesn't even require codex collections.

We're still working out exact details, but one idea is to initially allow a settlement with +2 buildings to be just as good as a settlement can be now, as long as it pays for the extra settlement levels. Then we'd ramp things up over time so that eventually you'd need +3 buildings to do so, then +4, and finally +5.