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

How about instead, healing 7% of the damage you managed to do instead of based off one's own hit points?

The long-term plan is exactly that, but there's a little code work that needs to be done to make it possible. For now I'm trying to do as much as I can with just spreadsheet changes.
Hobson Fiffledown
What about firing T1+3 arrows from a T1+3 bow v. firing T1+0 arrows from a T2+2 bow? Do cheaper (resources and xp), fully-matched lower tier options become more powerful than unmatched higher tier weapons?

I'm still finalizing the actual numbers, but it is quite likely that high-end ammo will sometimes provide better results than a slightly higher-end attack with much worse ammo. That's not really the result of being "unmatching" so much as not taking full advantage of the available ammo bonuses.
Hmmm. So your last paragraph, Bob, still is unclear to me. So, I can use a T2 bow and fire T1 arrows from a T1 quiver and I get the full bonus of the attack? And any additional bonus from the ammunition itself if it provides a bonus is over and above the damage of the weapon?

Correct. All crafted ammo provides at least some bonus damage, which goes on top of the standard weapon damage. The damages and effects for all ammunition-using attacks have been rebalanced a bit to make room for those ammo bonuses.
Having the colors by Tier (1-White; 2-Green & Blue, 3- Purple & Yellow… ) would be REALY helpful in organizing the vaults, in crafting, in trades, for the Auction House and a lot more. I know its on the roadmap for March 2018, but if it can be "bumped" up in the priority list that would be really, really nice. smile

As one of our quicker tasks (aside from discussions on exactly what the change should be), that's one of the tasks more likely to get done whenever we find ourselves ahead. Hopefully we'll be back in that state soon.
I am still trying to get my head around all this.

So, lets say I have a T2+3 bow or wand. I need a quiver or container for the 'ammunition', which can have it own plus.
And I can have arrows or charges with a plus. What is intended when this is all put together on a character? What does the plus on the container or quiver do? And if it is a different tier than the weapon? Same questions in regards to the ammunition.

So, I think it is clear that a T2+3 wand with a T2+3 container shooting T2+3 ammo/charges gains me the best benefit. But what happens when those numbers above vary so the weapon-container-ammo triad is uneven?

The tier of your weapon is the maximum tier for your ammo container, and the tier of your ammo container is the maximum tier of ammo that can be stored in it. Plus upgrades on your ammo container add to the number of slots and the total amounts of ammo that can be loaded/stored.

When calculating damage, we don't do anything special if things are uneven. The base values of your attack come from the matched keywords between your attack and your weapon, and the ammo bonus comes directly from the ammo used. If you can load it, you can get the full bonus.

Those ammo requirements will be slightly lowered by the ammo that mobs will drop, and possibly by makeshift ammo if we get that working. Also, if you're running around in a party, since you're getting credit for everyone's kills, you could be getting credit for up to 6 kills for every kill you handle yourself, though obviously things slow down if your party is tackling tougher escalations. Still, it will absolutely take a lot of ammo to get 8000 kills. On the other hand, that number of kills is expected to take place over many months, so the time spent gathering those materials will be spread out as well, hopefully enough to be sustainable. If not, adjustments can be made.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Thanks, I guess what I'm slowly hinting at is that economic power will always make or break a war, but it will rarely matter in a particular battle. And for any incidental conflict, it will never matter at all. I also personally feel that trying to balance around the economy is a flawed premise when the coin in the economy and the economy itself isn't directly controlled. Which basically boils down to ammo costs rarely mattering in a particular fight that actually matters. By the time the cost of ammo matters you've probably already reached "losing" conditions (economically if not territory wise) and it's just a matter of time. To me the balance matters way more in the moment of conflict than in the theoretical logistics war surrounding the conflict.

I don't think ammo in general will be in short supply, but I do think the best ammo will be in short enough supply that judicious use will matter, and that the more economically powerful of those groups will be able to supply significantly higher quantities of such ammunition for important battles. In particular, +4/5 ammo still won't be common, but will provide a noticeable difference, and the party rich enough (and logistically organized enough) to be completely stocked with that throughout a battle will have a distinct advantage. They will, however, have to sacrifice other priorities to do so.

Duffy Swiftshadow
What I keep coming back to in my head is the pre-ranged nerf days: if ammo isn't actually a real inhibitor beyond adding another thing to gear costs, then what we're really saying is that the movement and reload mechanics are the only thing that was needed to balance the old advantages of range. So if we're looking at ranged attacks with average or better ammo being comparable or better than back in the pre-nerf days why won't it be just as unbalanced since the "cost" is an abstract component that really doesn't impact moments in the field? I'm having a hard time solving that part unless we assume ammo will be scarce or a precious resource regularly while out in the field.

Ranged attacks still get cut back a bit in exchange for being ranged, and they'll also be more affected by line of sight than melee attacks are. We could certainly balance combat using just those and other related factors, as many games do, but we wanted ammo to play an important part in driving the economy. Best way to do that, and keep it interesting, is to make it so that better, more expensive ammo makes a significant difference in battles, and to make it pretty cost-prohibitive to use the best possible ammo very often. It does accentuate the economic aspect of combat, but better supplies won't guarantee victory.
On a more constructive note. If you do still have a problem with indefinite spamming of DC you could always consider a slight increase in stamina drain, thus allowing people to throw off a few in a row to get out of a tight spot but not keep it up indefinitely.

That's definitely one of my backup plans, but I really don't mind some spamming of DC, as long as you can't recover too much health before reapplying Drained, and as long as that reapplication isn't 100% dependable. A brief bit of opportunistic spamming can feel very rewarding, where regularly scheduled spamming can get old fast.
You are a Troll
WOW - you wimped out on nerfing Devourers Caress before you even gave it a try huh? Very sad. Your changes aren't going to make any difference at all, especially with 1 rank in Negative Mastery. I don't think I have ever seen you flip-flop so quickly on an issue Bob - must have gotten quite a few e-mails about it, or at least a few from certain special people.

Like I said, my desire wasn't to nerf that combo, or make it unworkable, just to make it more interesting/risky to apply. Once the actual in-game result of the cooldown became apparent, it clearly wasn't the effect I was looking for. The Drain 50% option added the unpredictibility I wanted, and removing the cooldown gave me room to further cut down the percentage of health recovered by Devourer's Caress.

Also, don't underestimate the capriciousness of the random number generator. In testing it out, I had multiple occasions where Chill Touch didn't apply Drained until the 4th try, and one that waited until the 5th. The odds aren't exactly high for going that long (or longer), but it'll probably happen at the worst possible time.
After looking into it further, I'm trying something different out on the Chill Touch/Devourer's Caress combo. Instead of a cooldown on Devourer's Caress, I'm going to try having Chill Touch only have a 50% chance of applying Drained. That makes it a lot less predictable, so it's more likely that you'll have to adjust your strategy depending on how things go. In exchange, Chill Touch gets to apply a bit more Drained when it does work, and will always do a bit more damage.

However, taking the cooldown off on Devourer's Caress means it gets a bit less Cure and deals a bit less Exhausted. That reduction alone would just limit the usefulness of the combo to slightly less tough mobs, but with the added randomness on applying Drained, the combo should be unpredictable enough to be interesting, while still remaining reasonably effective when it works. I'm also less worried about being able to spam a secondary attack when the condition it depends on isn't so dependable.