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
Edam
The amount of social points provided by current Seneschal achievements has already been bumped well above the norm. The problem is all current Seneschal achievements are currently T1 common meaning there are only 4 you can get.

True, they're already artificially boosted, but boosting them more shouldn't be a problem. Plus, if we're going to have temporary numbers, we should probably isolate them as much as possible, so they're a good candidate for further boosting (as opposed to lowering the requirements) until we can add more achievements.

Edam
Is it possible to make the codex collection using T2 recipes and codex collection using T3 recipes T2+0 common and T3+0 common achievements somehow ? That would add two more.

The T2/3 codex recipe variants do in fact give T2/3 achievements at that stage, but then the resulting codexes are identical regardless of which tier of recipes were used. As a result, when the Seneschal starts bundling them into collections, we no longer know which tier of recipes were used at the previous stage, so we can't adjust the resulting achievements.

Bob
Flari-Merchant
Bob
I don't have a great answer on the social issue yet, so for now perhaps I should fall back on something similar to what we've done with Spellcraft. In that case, we temporarily dropped the achievement requirement for advancement, since we don't offer the related achievements yet. As a result, you can advance a lot more easily in Spellcraft than you'll eventually be able to, but that's balanced by the fact that Spellcraft currently isn't as useful as most other skills. The same is kind of true for Seneschal, since refining codex collections is really only meant to be a small part of what Seneschal is for. As a result, it probably wouldn't be unfair to temporarily allow players to advance through those ranks more easily, either by temporarily lowering the Social requirements or by temporarily raising the amount of Social points provided by the Seneschal achievements. Either solution would be pretty obviously temporary. When we can get to more Social achievements, we'd rebalance things again. I'll add some notes to look at doing that with EE 15, unless any of you can point out some flaws I'm missing.

On the Feature Feat front, it looks like the best solution would be to just add it to Passionate in the Workshop with all the other refining skills, since I think it was meant to be added there and just didn't happen. Again, I'll try to get that in for EE 15, unless some of you want to talk me out of it.

The only reason that we could hand-wave this for the future is if we don't have to have higher level buildings BEFORE that future. I am sure that just like myself, no one wants you two to work yourselves until exhausted or dead, so that is a consideration too. Seriously though, it would be nice to have things in the correct order for a line of mechanics that involves actual character power levels.

I don't like using temporary numbers, but at least in this case they're very obviously temporary. Even more importantly, they're incredibly easy to change and won't break anything when they're put back to the proper values. It does mean people will be able to temporarily advance in Seneschal very easily, but given the high XP expense for just getting a boost on crits, that doesn't feel imbalanced to me.

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.


Flari-Merchant
PS: If Engineers can really score +5 buildings with all +5 mats and +3 codex collections, then the problem is not super critical. I am not sure if Azoth can be used to boost crits on them or if Azoth can be used to boost skill for settlement buildings. It should, though, be a "doable" thing to make these buildings without Azoth as pointed out above.

A maxed-out Engineer can craft some +5 structure kits using just +3 codex collections with +5's of everything else. Other recipes that require a higher balance of codex collections will require mostly +4's. I didn't check every possibility, but I suspect such an Engineer would rarely be required to use a +5 codex collection, or likely no more than 1. And yes, you can use Azoth to either automatically get the structure kit to +5 (the specific amount will depend on how close you get, so in some cases it could be a pretty trivial amount) or to up your chances for crits on the codex collections. However, Seneschals should always have at least some chance for crits on those, so the Azoth isn't required, it just makes things a little easier.
Bob
Edam
  • Azoth are offered for codexes but do nothing.

  • This was fixed in EE 14. The button for Azoth still shows up when you've added all your ingredients, but it shows the maximum amount of Azoth that can be applied as zero. You're also properly blocked from adding any Azoth.
    Bob
    I don't have a great answer on the social issue yet, so for now perhaps I should fall back on something similar to what we've done with Spellcraft. In that case, we temporarily dropped the achievement requirement for advancement, since we don't offer the related achievements yet. As a result, you can advance a lot more easily in Spellcraft than you'll eventually be able to, but that's balanced by the fact that Spellcraft currently isn't as useful as most other skills. The same is kind of true for Seneschal, since refining codex collections is really only meant to be a small part of what Seneschal is for. As a result, it probably wouldn't be unfair to temporarily allow players to advance through those ranks more easily, either by temporarily lowering the Social requirements or by temporarily raising the amount of Social points provided by the Seneschal achievements. Either solution would be pretty obviously temporary. When we can get to more Social achievements, we'd rebalance things again. I'll add some notes to look at doing that with EE 15, unless any of you can point out some flaws I'm missing.

    On the Feature Feat front, it looks like the best solution would be to just add it to Passionate in the Workshop with all the other refining skills, since I think it was meant to be added there and just didn't happen. Again, I'll try to get that in for EE 15, unless some of you want to talk me out of it.
    Bob
    Caldeathe Baequiannia
    1) once the rules are (relatively) written in stone, can they get their own post that people can't reply to but which contains a link to a thread where they can reply and comments are encouraged. (Preferably a post in some sort of "Rules updates, Additions, and Consolidations" sub-forum where no-one but Paizo employees can post)

    Yes, I'll do something along these lines. At the very least, I'll make it it's own topic where the original post can always be kept up-to-date regardless of how many replies are put after it.

    Caldeathe Baequiannia
    2) do you intend any mechanism for removal of companies in which there is no active player to challenge? We might get some significant hex cleaning if the settlement-company to which a dead company is pledged could challenge its holdings without expending resources on a feud/siege, with the successfully challenged company losing their holdings and having the majority of their influence returned to the them.

    Not right yet, but when we have a chance to revisit Max Influence, the plan is to make it so that an inactive company would lose influence over a reasonable period of time, shutting down their outposts and eventually resulting in the holdings being shut down and removed when they run out of bulk resources.
    Bob
    Father Bronin
    Four weeks seems pretty short. If I lose internet access for 6 weeks I can be removed as a company leader?

    Since there has to be a challenge, you'd pretty much have to have created a situation in which members of your company were bothered enough by your lack of activity to file the challenge. You'd also have to not respond to that warning email within 2 weeks and not have any other active leader prepared to defend your leadership.

    Of course, as I've suggested elsewhere, you may want to restrict active leadership somewhat, which could leave nobody to veto the challenge. However, just make sure there are active Officers in the company who would promote you back to leader when you return, since those are the people who would become leaders if you don't protest in time.
    Bob
    Caldeathe Baequiannia
    Smitty
    without direct developer involvement-

    Let the players sort it out.
    This is the sticking point. The as-proposed design included mechanisms for players to decide leadership issues among themselves. Unfortunately, in the absence of those tools, we are left with no choice except developer involvement. That's complex code, that requires among other things, a way to poll players in game. It appears that Bob is willing to take the heat and effort, probably because the charters concept does not offer an acceptable return on programming investment at this time. Since Bob has indicated he wants to do it, I think we have to step back and be prepared to deal with problems as they arise.

    Yes, until we can implement in-game mechanics, things like this do require our direct involvement, but I tried to write the rules up so that they allow as little leeway as possible. That way I'm not making big decisions so much as just facilitating a process. The exception is the part about rejecting frivolous/repetitive challenges, but that's about keeping the workload to a minimum and avoiding bothering inactive players with constant emails.
    Bob
    Quick edits to the original proposal: Added the ability of active leaders to veto the challenge at any time, and added a two-week time limit for approving/disapproving any protests.
    Bob
    Smitty
    The original group decides to give PFO a shot again ( GW and Paizo should support that idea)- All the original leaders of that company come back- they are expecting that they have a company with a 1k-1.5k influence.

    With this “ email us if you want to keep the company idea” - these guys would be ousted from their own company .. not by players but by the developers of the game and the policies of the company..

    There is certainly a risk that inactive leaders would feel their company was taken from them during their absence, and would have similar feelings to it as if we had emptied their inventory or their vaults in Thornkeep. On the other hand, the various write-ups about companies often included mentions of eventual voting/succession rules, so there was always some implication that leadership could eventually pass to someone else if a player went inactive.

    That said, I did want to provide some protections for inactive leaders in the challenge rules, particularly for those who set up their companies as largely personal companies, as opposed to more truly shared ventures. If all of the company leaders are inactive, then they'd only get demoted if they don't respond with a protest within two weeks, since there's nobody around to deny their protest. If there are still some active leaders, then those active leaders have the capability to strip the company of everything, so the inactive leaders can't expect to return to much of a company anyway if they don't maintain good relations with those active leaders.

    This does make me think that it would be a good idea to let any active leader veto the challenge upfront. That way, when the active leadership is intentionally holding the company for inactive leaders, they can veto the challenge just in case the inactive leaders wouldn't be able to respond with a protest in time. I do still want to make it possible for non-leaders to successfully challenge leadership when there isn't any active leadership, and there I think it's reasonable to say that if none of the inactive leadership even responds with a protest, then that's enough to justify shuffling the leadership around. I'll add that to the original proposal.
    Bob
    Maxen
    Whatever the likeliness, it is a real possibility that an inactive account could resub and do significant damage to a company or settlement within minutes with no recourse by the other active players. If that happens, I would expect Paizo to look at the logs and investigate the situation. If it's determined that a non-active account was suddenly resubbed and the settlement vault was cleaned out and/or outposts/holdings torn down, I expect that situation to be corrected by reimbursing the company with lost items. I would also expect that player to be removed from the company immediately. This is not unreasonable because we do not have the tools to effectively manage it ourselves.

    This is kind of a tricky question, in large part because each company leader is currently capable of acting unilaterally on every leadership decision. Whether someone resubs (which could just mean they had a billing error they weren't able to take care of quickly enough) or keeps an account constantly active, they're capable of doing a great deal of harm to the company very quickly, and implementing safeguards for that (e.g. making it so that destroying holdings takes unanimous/majority consent, limiting the amount that can be withdrawn from certain vaults each day) will be time-consuming, and for now we've biased toward giving leaders the ability to lead effectively over protecting the companies from those dangers. On the other hand, when it became obvious just how valuable a structure is, and particularly how valuable upgraded structures will be, we removed the ability of settlement leaders to tear them down in-game, instead requiring that they contact us to have the structures torn down with GM commands. That gives us an opportunity to verify that all settlement co-owners agree with the decision. Also, tearing down structures is something we don't really want to encourage anyway. Tearing down holdings is something we expect to see pretty regularly, so we don't really want to turn that into something that you have to wait on a GM for.

    In general, I'd suggest breaking into multiple companies, and spreading the leadership between those companies such that no one leader can do more than a little damage to your settlement/alliance overall. There aren't a lot of in-game safeguards to minimize espionage (and to some degree we always want to allow at least some espionage), so it's important to organize yourselves with the understanding that you could be betrayed at any time. To deal with cases where the restricted leadership goes inactive, leadership challenge rules will allow you to leave alts in place as Officers so that they can take over relatively quickly if that happens.