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
I certainly understand why respecs would be tempting, particularly when the game is still in development and so much can change. The tricky part is that some of our design decisions, particularly the way we handle achievements, were made with the assumption that no respecs would be allowed. A lot of thinking would need to go into working around any such change, along with a fair amount of implementation work.

Not saying it's impossible, just that it's a bigger issue than it might seem at first.
Bob
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Having a need for coin sinks is fine and all, but there isn't enough coin generated per escalation to cover for the cost of doing a three or four day escalation for one party. It's a negative sum equation.

There's definitely not sufficient coin generated on its own, but I'm also assuming that all the other items dropped will be sold at the auction house for coin. If not, you still got that much value in items, so that still needs to be considered when thinking about profits.

I'm also assuming that characters won't be using expensive crafted ammo throughout. Not all characters will use ammo in the first place, ammo-using characters will ideally mix in some non-ammo attacks when possible, and I'm assuming some makeshift and salvaged ammo will get used against smaller encounters or weaker enemies. Basically, I'm assuming that players will take reasonable measures to minimize their ammunition costs, and that the more expensive ammo is, the more seriously they'll take those measures.

Between all that, I still think that most parties will generate far more value in loot than they consume in ammunition and other supplies most of the time. Sometimes other considerations will make it worth cutting into those profits, like killing an escalation off quickly to prevent someone else from finishing off the boss, or eliminating an escalation that's successfully raiding your holdings. Then it's just a question of whether or not you can afford to take that loss at that time.

Paddy Fitzpatrick
Plus new players who want to play arranged character won't be able to afford this. They won't have years of experience built up, few to no expendables and still take a really high ammo cost? These new players coming in on the humble bundle could be wasting their xp thinking they get to play a wizard before all of this drops. How will this be balanced for them?

New players will actually be pretty close to current levels of effectiveness just using salvaged ammo, and above current levels when using T1 +0, so this should work out reasonably well for them. When they have to fall back to makeshift ammo, they should still be able to kill goblins and such, which are reasonably rewarding for someone at that level.

Wizards in particular have an advantage at first, in that their initial basic attacks don't require ammo. About the time the fact that those can't be upgraded starts to be a problem, they have the option of picking up a Mastery skill, adding some non-ammo attacks to choose from.

Paddy Fitzpatrick
Then we are told to just simply branch out as if we could flip a switch on our feats? The xp rate right now does not allow for such branching out. Are we supposed to spend another year of xp to get some melee feats now due to this? What other changes may come that could render other builds null and void and require another year of retraining.

Now if after every major rebalancing a Respec was offered, this kind of development model would work well. We get a chance to adapt to changing circumstances, reconsider our builds, and then go do the appropriate achievements to grind out the rest. But when you are committed to a build that requires one to two years of real time to finish, how can anyone be expected to keep doing this? If I had known this was going to happen I never would have made a wizard at all. This game makes you commit to a single build for a very long time, but now we are told to respect without being given a means to reasonably do so,

We tried to provide lots of warning all along that ammo was coming, and that there were advantages to giving yourself a mix of capabilities. We've also worked hard to make sure that even without crafted ammo you're still reasonably effective. Plus, when you have good ammo, you're extremely effective.

And again, wizards have a great option in adding some Mastery skills. Those have also been rebalanced a bit and should be more effective than before.

Paddy Fitzpatrick
With all this in mind, how is simply implementing something just to see what happens a good thing? Why not do more playtesting to tweak the imbalances now and get it right the first time?

We're implementing ammo not just to see what happens, but because the lack of it is causing serious issues that need to be addressed. We've done what we can to verify that the numbers we've chosen match up to our underlying design assumptions about how players will react to ammunition costs when those are truly meaningful, and that's really all that can be done when running on test servers. I believe our assumptions are basically correct, but I do want to reassure everyone that if they turn out to be not quite perfect, we'll adjust things as needed.
Bob
It is true that there's theoretically no limit on the amount of coin that can be obtained by killing mobs, but there's a limit to how much time players on average are going to spend doing that, and at a certain point you just can't kill mobs any faster. In theory, the more time spent killing mobs, whether due to more players or more time spent killing per player, the higher the demand for gear/training/supplies. Ideally, the supply of coin thus goes up at roughly the same rate the demand for things coin can be spent on rises. Initially, that will indeed result in prices going up, but hopefully those with some inclination toward gathering and crafting respond to those higher prices by spending more time on those activities, bringing things back into balance. If players don't respond to those price changes as expected, or if gear/etc demand doesn't rise relatively evenly with looting activity, then we'll have to reevaluate some of those supply/demand curves and see about ways to further regulate the money supply, or to more tightly link increases in money supply to increases in demand (bigger dependency on ammo and consumables to kill mobs quickly, link coin generation to item churn more tightly). Ammo alone may go a long way toward helping with this, since kills require ammo, but it's only worth using the ammo when the rewards are high enough. That helps supply and demand self-regulate on that front.
Bob
HowardWdW
Bob, when looking at the XP cost to go from 14 to 17 I think you just looked at the cost for raising that skill rank. However in order to raise that rank you need ability score increases beyond that gained from the rank itself. To get to level 17 miner I had to train Tanner, Smelter and Sawyer each to rank 10 also, plus some armor feats.

Fair point. In theory, those feats are valuable in their own right, so it's not always clear how much to think of that XP as being spent on going from 14 to 17. However, for a character only learning them to get their ability scores up, that does figure into the cost. Of course, that's also part of the argument for taking advantage of broader skills over specialization, but it's certainly possible that hand is overplayed in this case.
Bob
Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
I would like to suggest that notifications for mules also pop into the chat window. Not perfect but it might help give an idea where you lost a mule.

Good point, feature request added.
Bob
Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
There isn't a silver bullet to make this happen but I believe that less magical coin generation would go a long way toward players seeking other ways to get their hands on coin. Might encourage more gathering and selling….

I tend to lean toward a mix of more coin sinks and more items that various roles benefit from but can't make themselves (such as harvesting kits) that will hopefully get sold at auction houses. Admittedly a lot of those items will just get shared out by companies and settlements, but ideally some of them will find their way to auction houses for purchase with coin.
Bob
You are a Troll
So, its going to cost me approximately 1 gold per day in ammo to be slightly less effective than I am now? (T1+4 being the *even* point in terms of damage dealt as stated by Bob).

Well, assuming you go through 1000 T1 +3 arrows/charges each day, and pretty much just stick to that ammo, then that's fairly accurate. Instead, I'd recommend using a mix of perhaps 600 T2 +0 ammunition and 5-600 T1 +0 ammunition for the same price, giving you the ability to be more effective than you currently are when needed in exchange for being slightly less effective when better ammo would be a waste. Ammunition essentially gives you another lever to ramp your effectiveness up and down as needed in exchange for the price of ammunition.

And, of course, I'd also recommend having some non-ammunition attacks to round things out. Specializing in only ammo-using attacks is a tough road unless your character has heavy backing from an organization that values your ability to be extra-effective with expensive ammo. For example, your company or settlement may be willing to support your ammo-use in exchange for clearing high-level escalations more quickly and safely. Or they may be willing to provide high-level ammunition for PvP, where some extra damage could make a huge difference. Without that backing, a more rounded character is probably a more effective option overall.

Bob
Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
Seems like the feedback from Paizo, about gear dropping, has been that they are leery about "loss feelings" and how they will affect player morale.

You're not wrong. Various aspects of the design, including threading, have always been about trying to achieve a balance there. We've always felt that characters need to be risking at least some losses, yet also need to feel like each death isn't a complete loss. I'd agree that we've moved toward thinking the correct balance is a bit more on the protection side than originally conceived, but we definitely haven't moved all the way to protecting players from meaningful losses.
Bob
A lot of players probably would prefer a rotating mini-map, at least at times. I've added a feature request to look into this when we have a chance.
Bob
Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
I think that, bottom line, unless materials can get from nodes to crafters in large quantities and much lower prices than currently then ammunition (even T1) will be too expensive to be even close to reasonable.

When I look at what I can likely sell the raw materials needed to craft Cold iron arrows for and add some for refining and then crafting, I see a price for one Cold Iron Arrow +3 being between 8 and 10cp.

Those prices sound about right. Ultimately, the big test will be seeing whether prices overall settle into a reasonable equilibrium where the price for enough appropriate ammo to kill mob X is reasonably lower than the value of everything looted off that mob. If not, then that will imply that we underestimated the demand for ammo, or possibly that other assumptions we made about the game's economic system need revisiting. At 8-10cp for T1 +3 ammo, and perhaps 2-3cp for T1 +0 and 14-15 cp for T2 +0, I think the loot at various levels should hit that mark right now, but we'll have to see what price fluctuations kick in as features like this get rolled out.