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
We do plan to steadily introduce PvP-related features, like the previous addition of raiding and the coming addition of settlement warfare, in order to steadily incentivize PvP. Doing so will involve putting more and more things at risk, but we do want to balance that in a way that makes losses feel reasonable, like something you can still come back from. That's a tricky balance we wrestle with constantly. It will ultimately require that players risk losing a great deal if they choose to pursue the highest reaches available in the Echo Woods, but will leave room for safer, quieter ways to advance, even if one is really only biding time for the next attack.
Bob
Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
What happens to the Influence invested in the siege hexes if the Attacker is defeated?

Influence investment in siege equipment is identical to influence investment in holdings or outposts. If the siege equipment is taken over or destroyed, the attacking company would get back most of the influence, minus the standard loss percentage.

Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
Is there any penalty, for the attacker, if they declare war and fail to establish their full siege requirements? They have just "frozen" a player settlement for at least 6 weeks(level wise). Seems like a pretty powerful tool…

There's nothing in the rules like that right now, though my intention was that they do at least burn some influence as a result of feuding the defender. However, I now note that the feud requirements don't kick in until the last bit of establishing the siege, so I should probably put in something saying that similar feuds are required to keep the 6 week establishment window open.


Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
Is there or should there be a cost, above what is written now, to declare "war" on a settlement's existence and then fail? I mean more than not being able to do it again for one month?

That's an interesting possibility. There could be a War Upkeep Cost, and half could be returned to the victor. That could also lessen the sting of being attacked, at least when you're able to successfully defend the settlement.
Bob
Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
You could compromise and take your snap shot of Bulk Stockpiles when the last hex has a siege setup but keep the Settlement Level lock(as written), couldn't you?

Otherwise doesn't this conflict with?:
Bob
Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
You decided to skip reinforcement of Bulk if the ring of the siege is broken? Even though an open approach is a typical way that sieged positions have a chance to get reinforced?

That's in there, though admittedly buried in a pretty long sentence and with some limits on what can be brought in:

  • Bulk resources can be deposited or withdrawn, but the remaining amount of bulk resources that need to be destroyed before the buildings start to take damage can only go up on days where the settlement is not surrounded by active siege equipment, and then only by 100 bulk resources per day per type of bulk resource for each neighboring hex that doesn’t have an active siege engine in it.

So the more you can break the surrounding ring, the more bulk resources you can bring in.

That is a good point. I could allow additional bulk resources to be brought in at that same rate both before and after the siege is established. Essentially, whenever there's a gap in the lines, goods can be brought in, whether that gap is there because the siege equipment wasn't placed yet or because placed siege equipment was deactivated.

I mostly just didn't want to allow unlimited bulk resources to be brought in after the war declaration, but I could be okay with limited amounts being brought in, particularly if the defenders have to earn most of that right by slowing down the placement of the siege engines.
Bob
Mistwalker
1) The attacker has all of the control, even before they have placed all 6 siege engines around the settlement.
-someone declares war on you, and you aren't allowed to prepare any defences?

The biggest reason things are this way is because attacker's can't really know whether or not they're capable of sieging a particular settlement unless they know the settlement's defenses in advance. The attackers could have their siege engines all ready to go, only to find out that the improved defenses mean that they needed to make higher tier/upgrade siege equipment.

The second biggest reason was to give another reason for settlements to run consistently at the same settlement level, and particularly to provide an added bonus to running at settlement level 20. Support certainly incentivizes higher levels, but there's currently little reason to run above 19 unless folks need level 20 training that week. With defenses having to be up in advance, every time you drop your settlement level to save on upkeep for a week, you risk attackers choosing that as the time to declare a war.

Mistwalker
2) This increases Settlement importance and lowers Company importance.
If you only look at the bulk goods in settlement vaults, you are probably missing a lot of bulk resources that are in the settlement.

Largely, since these rules have to be handled by a GM (meaning me), I wanted to keep things relatively easy on myself. Having to look in multiple vaults and remove bits and pieces from each of them would be time-consuming, where just using the settlement upkeep vault will be pretty quick.

In some ways, this could actually be helpful to individual companies in terms of their relationships to their settlements. Currently, there's very little incentive for a settlement to seek more bulk resources from each of its companies than it requires for short-term needs. If the settlement wants to get all those resources into the upkeep vault to act as defenses, then they'll have to reward the more productive companies somehow to make that happen. If your settlement isn't willing to reward your company appropriately, perhaps another settlement will.
Bob
Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
It's going to be one hell of a long post about final EE14 details, isn't it?

It will be both satisfying and tiring to write, the best kind of release notes.
Bob
Tier/Upgrade on kits doesn't affect the amount gathered, only the speed between each wave of harvesting. Gathering a T1 resource like hemp, a T1 +3 kit would go about 8.7 seconds between waves and a T2 +3 kit would go about 5.3 seconds between waves. With 200 waves, that means a T1 +3 kit would spend about 29 minutes harvesting compared to a T2 +3 kit spending about 18 minutes. However, the total time spent on a harvesting kit is also highly dependent on the amount of time spent killing monsters. If that part took you significantly longer for some reason, then the totals could be similar.

Because total time can vary so much that way, the best ways to tell whether or not a better kit is speeding things up are either to refresh the husk every second to time the individual harvesting waves, or you can count the total number of attack waves. The T1 +3 should have had about 29 waves, while the T2 +3 should have have about 18. The exact number varies a bit based on wave timing, but it should have been close to that.

As far as I know all of this is working properly, but do let me know if anyone spots any odd timing on these. Here's the actual formula you should be seeing:

Effort = (400 + (20 * Kit Bonus)) / Resource Tier
Harvesting Wave Time = 4500 / Effort

Kit Bonuses are as follows:

Expert's +0-5: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
Professional's +0-5: 15, 17.5, 20, 22.5, 25, 27.5
Master's +0-5: 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45
Bob
Huran
While you are looking ar Dragoon 14, Archer 14 has a similar problem with the light keyword. These might be as intended if it is showing up in multiple armor feats.

Yup, if I decide to make a change, I'll make it to all of the similar cases.
Bob
As part of implementing the player housing, one of the things we decided they really needed was the ability to give their owners (and members of the owner's party) some long-lasting buffs. Of course, this ran right up against the issue where buffs/debuffs fall off whenever a character crosses a hex border. Since that's obviously something we've always wanted to get fixed, we decided to take the extra time needed to implement a good solution. Cole got that working the other day, and I've been happily running around our internal servers this morning and watching my buffs stay on across multiple border crossings. This should make consumables a lot more useful, along with any other extended buffs.
Bob
It's certainly possible that we could hook bags of holding into a threading system. I guess I'd always thought of it more as a way to protect a small amount of your inventory by putting a few items in the bag, where threading protects a certain number of the items being worn, but they do certainly have some functional similarities.

Magical insurance could also be a good coin drain, but it's also true that we do want a certain amount of gear/item churn. Balancing the need for churn against the pain of loss is always the tricky bit.
Bob
harneloot
Just bumping this now that we are getting closer to see if it can be addressed in this patch. Training an armor feat all the way up to max (level 14) and getting a different weight keyword should not require training a second armor feat all the way up to T3 to make use of that keyword (in my opinion). Thanks.

This is on my list of things to try to look at for EE 14, but things are pretty tight at this point and I may not be able to get to it. It's not a difficult thing to change if I decide to do so, it's just that comparing the utility of a standard keyword vs. an armor-weight keyword is going to take some research time.