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

Hobson Fiffledown
Is it the same influence cost (i.e. it's behind the same PvE grindwall)?
Does one feud cost cover both raiding and siege?
(i.e Could I feud and then choose to siege [after 48 hours] or raid at will?)

A feud is required, but it's all the same feuds. It's just that the feud has to be at least 48 hours old before you can start getting capture points, while you can start getting raiding points as soon as the feud as active. With the minimum one-hour delay after declaring a feud, that means you can start raiding as little as one hour after your declaration, and you can start capturing 48 hours after that, all with the same feud. After the 48 hour point, you can raid or capture at will, as long as the feud remains active.

Hobson Fiffledown
Is there any increased influence return from completing a successful raid (is there any with successful sieges anymore?)?

Nope, doesn't affect influence at all. Technically, there isn't really an increased influence return from a successful siege, it's just that you can apply the influence from the feud directly to the holding you just captured without any influence loss. However, when you tear it down or otherwise lose the holding, the standard 25% influence loss kicks in at that point. It's more like a successful siege lets you delay the influence loss until you lose the holding. Since raiding just involves stealing some resources, there's nowhere to bank the influence and delay the loss, so no influence advantage from a successful raid.

Hobson Fiffledown
After the 48 hour mark, can you both raze the outposts and raid the holding on day 1 of a hex-siege?

Theoretically yes, if you raid the holding first. If you overrun the outposts first, that ends the PvP window for the day, I believe.

Hobson Fiffledown
Initial thoughts - Based on the "if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball" principle, it seems like there is only one real decision to make. Are some bulk materials more valuable to you than the net value of razing an enemy hex? So far, I don't see any reason why the repercussions and reactions of a raid target would be any different than the current siege target reactions. Am I missing some nuance here?
Well, you can do the raid with less warning, and you can supplement your bulk resources that way without having to deal with controlling territory. Your target might also be a little less upset about some lost resources than about having to put down a new set of holdings and outposts. Then again, they might not. This also could provide some extra income for an unattached company that just wants to PvE/PvP, but doesn't want to join a settlement (limiting though that may be), assuming they can find a black market buyer for their illicit gains.

Hobson Fiffledown
If you raze someone's holding do the vault items still go into an invisible safety vault, or will that be dropped as a husk now too?

They still just remain in the invisible safety vault, at least for now. Long-term, the plan was to empty all vaults into a husk, but that seems like too severe a punishment until the population is high enough to expect everyone to keep a better eye on each and every holding.
Duffy Swiftshadow
So raiding can only happen 3 days a week during the pvp window hours on hexes not protected by 4 adjacent friendly holdings?

As said above, yes, that's the idea, though any combination of things that allows the PvP windows to open that day will also enable raiding. For example, if there's a neighboring siege engine that was feuding the hex owner when the servers start back up, then capturing and raiding would be allowed regardless of protected status. We're also likely to open up both raiding and capturing if an escalation decides to invade, which may fully ignore protected status, or at least ignore protected status in hexes neighboring the escalation.

Duffy Swiftshadow
Is raiding and feuding mechanically different options or is it somewhat inferred? If they are the same and it's inferred does that mean a capture attempt is automatically a raiding attempt?

They're the same mechanic, but they're happening at different locations on the same day, and the results are different. The original idea was that raiding was done at outposts, just like the initial captures, and somehow the attackers specified whether they were raiding or capturing. We decided to simplify that by just saying that (if at least one outpost wasn't overrun the previous day) if you're getting points for being near an outpost, you're trying to capture that outpost, resulting in an overrun outpost. If you're getting points for being near a holding, then you're trying to raid the holding, resulting in a husk with bulk resources. If the outposts were overrun the previous day, then getting points near the holding means you're trying to capture the holding, resulting in a destroyed or claimed holding.
Duffy Swiftshadow
I believe Bob had previously said that raiding can take place during your PvP window all 7 days of the week, do it is not just a trade-off between a raid and a capture. You can raid in more situations than you can capture.

I assumed that based on previous statements, but the wording of this post made me question that assumption/memory, hence I wouldn't mind some clarification in case the details have changed.

Hmm, the main thing I remember saying was that we didn't want the 48 hour restriction to apply to raids, but it's certainly possible I was at one point thinking that we'd allow raids far more often than we allowed captures. Another point I once mentioned was that when we get to doing things like escalation invasions (basically raids by monsters), that we probably wouldn't want to let hexes be completely protected from that, so I was already thinking of various rules that would open protected hexes up to attacks. I'm pretty sure I'd always been thinking of that as completely removing the hex's protection, not just bypassing the protection, and still only allowing those invasions and such on the 3 days selected by the settlement. Still, maybe I did post something implying otherwise, or at least speculating along those lines, but I can't seem to find such a post and I don't remember anything similar enough to come up with a decent search for one.

Being raided isn't nearly as huge a deal as being captured, so it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to make it available more often than capturing is. That said, it's still not a good thing to have done to you, so allowing it on the days you've said you're not available to defend seems problematic. It also seemed simplest just to have 2 PvP-allowed states (Outpost Capture-able and Holding Raid-able, or Outposts Overrun and Holding Capture-able), with both of those states being blocked or allowed by the same things (protected status, 3-day windows, neighboring siege equipment).
Bringslite of Staalgard
On colors: What would it take to get more, more vivid, and more effective(on gear) colors working?

Whoops, missed this one back when it was posted. For adding more color options, my guess is that the bulk of the work would be changing the UI to handle more color options, though it's possible more work would be involved in allowing the data structures to handle more than 8 colors in each channel. Also, in even considering adding more colors, you'd probably want someone with a bit more of an artistic eye selecting them, rather than someone like me with my stereotypical red-green color blindness.

For more vivid colors, again a more artsy type would be helpful. We do, fortunately, have several of those at Paizo if I desperately needed some help.

For more effective coloring, I suspect that's a matter of actually having dedicated artists who can really take a closer look at individual models/textures and see what can be done to make sure the coloring choices really show through in each individual case.
For EE 13, we're adding the ability to raid holdings in order to steal bulk resources. In any hex that has outposts eligible for capture that day (i.e. running the capture game), that hex's holding will be eligible for raiding that day (i.e. running the raiding game). Raiding a holding works exactly like capturing a holding, except that successfully hitting the number of required points will result in a husk appearing in front of one of the holding's doors that contains all of that day's bulk resource production plus 5% of any bulk resources in the Holding Upkeep vault (and will not result in capturing the holding.

In summary:
  • Holdings can be raided any time their outposts are vulnerable to being overrun.
  • Unlike capturing, feuds don't need to be at least 48 hours old before raiding a holding. Raids only require the standard 1 hour warning time before the feud is active.
  • Raids follow normal capture rules of defeating the guards and building up capture points.
  • Once the guards are defeated and the holding capture points obtained, a husk will drop near the holding that contains that holding's daily production of bulk resources plus 5% of the bulk resources inside the Holding Upkeep vault.
  • The husk works like a standard "non-owner" husk with a 2-hour lifetime.
@Bob. While semi on the blacj topic… can you explain why ink comes in 2 for a refine… and all other apothecary tefines apoeae to produce 3.?

That's just where they wound up to produce the estimated value that was being targeted. Varnish recipes produce 6 instead of 3 for similar reasons.

Interestingly, if those recipes had originally been set to produce 3 instead of two, that would have just reduced the amount of black our original formulas said to put out into the world, so it wouldn't have changed the scarcity situation.

All that said, I am looking at the possibility of increasing the output from ink recipes. Even with some of the changes I'm planning to make to the distribution formulas, upping production numbers would only have a small effect on the overall scarcity issue, but it appears that spellbooks are one of the more expensive crafted goods relative to their target value according to our estimated value calculations. Those value calculations are admittedly largely theoretical, but it's still best to keep them internally consistent unless there's a compelling reason to override them. Lowering the estimated value of inks might bring them more in line with other crafted goods, or might just push them to the other extreme, so it's back to the math mines for me.
Bringslite of Staalgard
OK how about "Mule Doors" will they be on ranch holdings or something else? I assume that all permissioned players will be able to use them?

My plan was to add mules to all the holdings at some level of upgrade, and the most straight-forward way to do that was to add them at +2. In many cases, that means that going to +1 adds refinining capabilities, then +2 will get you mules, which feels like a good way to handle upgrades.

Adding them to so many different holding models made it tricky to try to attach the mules to a separate door in every case, so instead I created a mule sign on a short post, and you'll right-click on the sign to bring up the mule interface.

Currently, I don't believe that mules are restricted by Settlement Access settings, so I think everyone would be able to purchase them either at settlements or holdings. I'll write up a feature request to see about either adding them to one of the existing permissions or creating a separate permission for them.
Bob, one other thing…

When you're rebalancing the resources, can you also fix the differences between the Bulk Resources sheet and the Hexes sheet with respect to terrain type?

-19, 8 : Bulk Resources says "Highlands", but Hexes says "Croplands"
-18, 0 : Highlands vs Croplands
-18, 8 : Croplands vs Highlands
-13, 0 : Croplands vs highlands
-3, 3 : Highlands vs Mountains
2, -5 : Woodlands vs Mountains
2, 6 : Woodlands vs Croplands
4, 17 : Croplands vs Woodlands

4, 17 is just east of Phaeros so it's been pretty obvious there was something wrong there for a while now. The in-game map clearly shows it as a Woodlands hex. When you're running around in the hex, it's clearly a Woodlands hex. But shows it as a Croplands hex. And if you harvest there, you get Wool, Cotton, and Coal from Scavenger Nodes, and you get Ordered and Resonant Essence from Dowser Nodes - all of which is usually limited to Croplands hexes.

Unless of course it's "a feature, not a bug" that a single hex can have one terrain type in one context and another terrain type in another context…

PS - this is just a list of hexes where the data in the spreadsheets is inconsistent. I have not tried to determine if either source of data in the spreadsheets is consistent with reality.

Yes, this is one of the things I was going to look into. I already have a bug pointing out at least one of those problem hexes, and I'll add the rest to that bug to make sure I look at all of them.
On the topic of Black in particular, there were some problems with the estimated demand calculations that resulted in it (and similar T1-2 resources) definitely being under-represented on the map. Some hacks were made a long time ago to fix the T1-2 resources that had the same problem, but they were made before T3 was really an issue, so we weren't really worried about them at the time and held off on doing that work. Now that it and other resource balance issues have risen near the top of the priority list, I'm finally able to dedicate enough time to sort the problem out properly. I still plan for it to wind up being relatively scare, but the degree to which it's scarce is far beyond what was originally intended.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Once a hex has been stripped bare, how much time per day does it take to keep it stripped bare? Is the system intentionally set up to allow a small number of players willing to log on at odd hours to virtually eliminate the global supply of a particular T3 resource?

So I believe it's still governed by this formula

Every 15 minutes there is a chance equal to (current value/original value) that the resource will increase an amount equal to 1% of it's full value.

Most T3 have about 40ish per quality, lets round up to 50 for simplicity. So the total theoretical black is about 200 in a hex. Even if it's gathered down to 100 there's a 50% chance to generate 2 more black every 15 minutes; if that is left alone for 15 mins the next chance is 51% and so on and so forth. Without getting into a more complex probability series problem there's about 92 regeneration chances a day to generate 1% that in turn increases the chance. At a 50% chance the odds of recovering most or all from the halfway point in a single 24 hour period is pretty good.

But the lower you get below 50% the worse things start to get. If we're down to say 10 left in the hex out of 200 the chance to regenerate is only 5%, which means the odds to NOT regenerate is 95%. And since any growth is still only adding 1% to that chance, it is very reasonable that it would take more than those 92 chances in a day to recover as you would be hitting only a handful a day. So roughly you should see it jump to a bit less than 9% on day 1, then about 19% on day 2, then 30% on day 3, and from there it can be as short as a day or two. But even then we're still looking at about 3-5 days minimum if it's left alone, but bad luck can make it a lot longer. So if a hex is stripped and say 3-5 people just sample it each day to see what it's at, it will probably remained stripped just from that alone.

Now I seem to recall that there is a flat base chance it can't go below, I think it 10% or 15% but I can't find a quote for that right now so I'm assuming I'm making stuff up in my head until proven otherwise. Even if that is true, the low end probabilities are still pretty rough, it may shave a day off at best.

It might be smarter to remove the random chance (or make that a small bonus to growth) and instead make regrowth far more predictable. That could generate better interactions because then patterns can be predicted, it removes some of the uncertainty and clearly indicates approximate recovery timelines. Which means if it doesn't recover you know for a fact it's being stripped and can narrow the time range with some work. Might need to elongate the scale in this sort of example, but it might work. Also might require less tweaking when/if GW need to scale the base amounts up.

Resource regeneration does still follow that basic equation, and the minimum chance for regeneration is very low. As a result, keeping a hex strip-mined can be pretty easy, and regenerating once strip-mined can take quite a while. Even just regularly checking on the state of the hex by sampling can slow the regeneration process down significantly. I don't know whether or not we'll be able to re-examine that system as part of this rebalance, but it's something I'd very much like to review at some point.