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
Bringslite of Staalgard
Theory on Gusher Mat Quantity: I think that the idea is to have "more" Gushers pop than would be "super rare", allowing more players to enjoy them, which means that the Lootz recovered from them needs be fairly "low" so resource materials do not become too easily obtained and wreck their value.

Yes, they're meant to be found pretty regularly, so they're not ridiculously valuable unless they involve a particularly valuable resource. If we wanted to make them too much more valuable, we'd probably need to make them rarer.

That said, we do want to make sure a harvesting operation is generally more productive than just running around gathering, and we'll tweak the numbers. However, that does somewhat need to take into account the tier of the resource being gathered. A T3 harvesting operation should probably bring in more T3 resources in total than a T3 gatherer could pull in of multiple resources by just running around gathering, but it doesn't necessarily need to bring in more total resources of all tiers during that time, given the lower value of lower-tiered resources. A T3 gatherer finding a T1 Harvesting Node may be better off ignoring it, or perhaps placing a kit and letting others protect it while the gatherer goes off gathering more stuff until the harvesting operation completes. On the other hand, a T1 gatherer finding a T1 Harvesting Node will almost definitely harvest resources more quickly than gathering them, given how slowly they gather things. The best option really depends on what gets found and what other options are available to the various characters involved in protecting the harvesting operation.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Some of the newest recipes are restricted to drops from escalations, obviously as you have written such, but are the more regular crafting recipes on the larger random drop lists? I ask because though I don't do many escalations anymore, I do kill MANY critters while gathering and haven't seen a single "new" recipe yet.

All the recipes drop as part of standard loot drops, though there probably are a couple events that offer extra chances at certain specific recipes (usually those for settlement structures). All the newer recipes, like those for Siege Equipment, should just drop normally.

Still, there are a lot of recipes, and the new ones are no more likely to drop than any others. That means the usual random number issues apply, so you're probably just in the same boat as those unfortunate souls who never seem to get Ghostwood Splint recipes.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Duffy Swiftshadow
Looks like I did miss something: the 100 resources removed is turned into 100 pulls of 1-5 of that resource. That makes the results much more time efficient, especially for a single resource and generates some without hurting the hex's rating. Much better than my initial impression.

I do agree with your other points. I'm also a little disappointed it doesn't seem like it will drive much PvP.
I wonder if the time of the harvesting were extended and correspondingly the potential "take", the rarity were dialed up some and finally, there were as server message…. something like "A Gusher has been Discovered in the Southern Cragthorns" might meet more enthusiasm or satisfy more concerns.

The Harvesting Sites do show up on the map for anyone running through the hex (or right nearby), but admittedly the original design assumed lots of players and therefore a higher likelihood someone would notice. I'll throw in a feature request for a wider announcement and see what we can do.
Bob
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Also, Dun Baile is a level 10 settlement but was not "dead" until the support mechanics forced me to move to Aragon. It is still alive for the purposes of not getting an official dead settlement but this game design snuffed out both Dun Baile and Mediash from the picture. We worked hard to capture those and in the case of Mediash we had staunce resistance to this.

So this is our reward for all that effort? To have all those gains and improvements we made to our own faction turned into a complete waste of time?

The design does pretty well make the biggest mechanical reward for settlement ownership be the potential support that settlement can offer to its members. In many ways, the most efficient way for the community to play the game would be for everyone to join one alliance with two settlements offering the full range of training at settlement level 20, which would obviously undo our goal of having some occasional PvP between settlements (though it would help with our goal of having players find each other in the world). Right now, the main mechanism operating against that is just the natural tendency for individuals/groups to want to control their own destinies, which does mean that your main reward for taking a settlement is the freedom to do with it what you can, and we are moving toward requiring more effort to do much with a settlement. Eventually, I'd like to look into some kind of longer-term mechanical reward that directly incentivizes owning settlements, something to provide at least some reward for PvP-oriented players to fight over smaller settlements even if they're mostly just changing hands repeatedly, but we'd have to be pretty careful adding something like that.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
That's true, but what is the whole point of the Town Crier?

To more quickly get new players into a settlement that's active enough to provide them with a good experience.

Bringslite of Staalgard
Also what is the whole overall Paizo strategy about settlements? I am starting to believe that the overall strategy is to "shrink" the number of settlements in control of the current number of players. To actually get us to bunch up and consolidate more into large groups with less actual settlements. That isn't necessarily a "Bad Strategy". It would open up more settlements for new players to have a chance at, but is it realistic to expect "Us" to easily do that?

We're not actively trying to get anyone to abandon their settlements, but we are trying to make it advantageous to bunch up a bit more so that players will interact more directly more often. There should ultimately be a sort of population sweet-spot that's a little higher than what you'd get if everyone spread out evenly between all the settlements. That way some parts of the map will be highly populated (and thus good places for more risk-averse players to seek out), while less-populated parts of the map would offer opportunities for more ambitious players willing to do the extra work to strike out on their own.
Bob
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Why can't the limit be settlement level 10?

How do you expect smaller settlements to grow and expand to get to the point where they can be level 14 if every advantage is given only to an aristocracy that already has it? How is this beneficial to the game in any way?

We wanted settlements to at least demonstrate a reasonable level of activity so that new players weren't being recruited into effectively inactive settlements. Being at level 14 isn't a perfect demonstration of that, but we felt it was high enough that an inactive settlement wouldn't run at level 14 for long, but cheap enough that settlements truly ready for new recruits could pretty easily afford it most of the time. We may eventually be able to give possible recruits some more objective info when talking to the Town Crier, so they can get a better picture of how active the settlement really is, but that will definitely require more design and coding to get right.

We'd also eventually like to be able to just charge some money to have the Town Crier, but until we put settlement money costs in with taxation and upgraded settlements, that won't be easy to do. Once we do that, then we'd look at just saying that as long as you're paying the cost, you can have a crier.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
If the goal of this is to reduce Bulk resource stockpiles even faster than currently, and to mold the system into a much more tough game at the settlement management level, I think it will work swiftly and decisively.

This isn't intended so much to reduce the stockpiles as to make the taking of additional territory a more meaningful choice. If your settlement can provide enough players to regularly defend against invaders in multiple hexes (either your own or mercenaries), then spreading out is a great choice. If not, then you're probably better off controlling less hexes but with upgraded Holdings and Outposts. It's less efficient in some ways, but the upgraded guards may even be able to fend off some of the invasions on their own.

It's also not meant to be too rough of a stick. At worst, you'd lose 3 days of production per week in just your unprotected hexes. In cases where expanding to a neighboring hex would provide protection to one or more already-controlled hexes, then doing so would still be pretty advantageous. Even if you can't regularly defend the new hex from invaders, as long as it can remain active it's still protecting your other hexes and letting them enjoy full production every day.
Bob
Stilachio Thrax
Bob, I like the concept of this, but the implementation is all stick and no carrot. This should feel fun, and instead it seems like another chore.

A fair point, but part of the idea here is that your reward for doing things like setting up properly protected hexes, and for clearing out nearby escalations, is a dramatically reduced chance of getting invaded by tough monsters. We don't want these to be rewarding enough that people feel like they really need to leave themselves open to these attacks in order to reap the rewards.

That said, we've tried to set them up in such a way that you can't really prevent them from happening at least occasionally, so we could probably get away with some kind of small reward for fending off an invasion without unbalancing things. We'll give it some thought.
Bob
Harbalin
Is a hex considered "infected" only when an escalation is present (for example, is a monster home hex always "infected" or only when an escalation is present)?

Correct, only active escalations count as an infection. Just being a home hex isn't enough

Harbalin
Does an "eligible hex" exclude "Protected Hexes"? There was previous mention of "Protected Hexes" having "some chance" of being subject to an NPC raid.

For now, we're only counting hexes as eligible if they're running their PvP windows, so protected hexes are excluded. I still like the idea of giving invaders a chance of hitting protected hexes, much as placing a Siege Engine in a neighboring hex can do, but want to see how this version plays out before adding more invasion opportunities.

Harbalin
Is there a radius of effect greater than "1" for an NPC raid?

The radius is currently just 1, with the 30% chance of being invaded by the default creatures meant to give at least some chance of invasions in hexes further away from monster hexes until we can take another look at letting escalations spread.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
How many Town Criers can be active simultaneously?

There are more Town Crier spawnpoints than there are settlements, so there could be an active Town Crier for every settlement. It would be a bit crowded in that area, but not overrun.