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

Quite frankly, you'll never achieve a balance where resources are rare and isolated enough to promote competition for them and regional trade, while not allowing cartels. People compete for control. If they can't get control, they won't bother competing.

I'm okay with the possibility of cartels, as long as their control over a resource requires a reasonable amount of effort to obtain, and isn't so absolute that they can effectively block other players from playing their chosen roles. Make things expensive for them, sure, or even make them choose to play those roles in slightly different ways to better match their available resources if they're not willing to pay cartel (or black market) prices, but not enough to basically lock down access to one or more roles/playstyles.
Bringslite of Staalgard
Interesting. Is a codex still just going to count as "one" in what is needed for a particular codex collection? So the neat thing here is that you can make a codex with less material, just using higher level ingredients?

Exactly so.
FYI, Aeon Stones will also have some prerequisites for equipping them. Anyone can equip a Basic stone, but the more powerful versions all have ability score prerequisites as follows (at least one ability score must meet the requirement):

  • Lesser: 12
  • Major: 16
  • Rare: 22
  • Superior: 30

While making those capable of handling complicated prerequisites, we also made some adjustments to items like potions and tokens. For each of those, we set them to still be usable by anyone with the originally listed ability score, but also to be usable by anyone with any other ability score just a little higher, as follows:

  • T2 Grenades: Dexterity 11 or Any Other Ability Score 12
  • T3 Grenades: Dexterity 19 or Any Other Ability Score 22
  • T2 Potions: Constitution 11 or Any Other Ability Score 12
  • T3 Potions: Constitution 19 or Any Other Ability Score 22
  • T2 Misc Alchemy: Wisdom 11 or Any Other Ability Score 12
  • T3 Misc Alchemy: Wisdom 19 or Any Other Ability Score 22
  • T2 Misc Tokens: Constitution 11 or Any Other Ability Score 12
  • T3 Misc Tokens: Constitution 19 or Any Other Ability Score 22
For EE 12, the Codex Recipes will be broken up into tiered versions, each using only recipes or expendables from a specific tier (no mixing-and-matching). The T1 versions require 10 T1 recipes/expendables just like before, the T2 versions require 3 T2's, and the T3 versions only require 1 T3.

This will help provide a slightly higher floor for the value of recipes and expendables at each tier, but not enough of one to really make it worthwhile to use any but the most common T2's and T3's for making codices. It will also protect everyone from accidentally using a higher-tiered recipe than was intended, since each tiered recipe will only list potential ingredients from the appropriate tier.
The Eternal Balance
(aside from some well-known raw material distribution issues, which I'll be fiddling with a bit for EE 13).

Curious - will this be done with the aim to try and promote more trade, or to try to make each settlement self sufficient with regards to all raw materials?

It will be partially to fix a few places that don't really have anything desirable, partially to fix some obvious discrepancies between hex types and available resources, partially to spread around a few things that are currently a little too isolated, and partially to provide more of some things that are simply too rare at the moment. We still want to promote trade over self-sufficiency, but we don't want to overly promote hoarding by making it too easy to establish a cartel.
A certain amount of the inequality between settlement locations is deliberate. We intended for some locations to be more desirable than others, with those locations likely to be the ones fought over more often. That said, we don't want that inequality to be so extreme that some locations are effectively useless, or some locations are so useful that once won they'll never be lost. If we find any locations falling outside the acceptable range, we'll correct that over time, but it's important to remember that locations have to be judged for quality using every possible metric. Just knowing that a settlement is harder to defend isn't enough to mean that it needs adjustment. It would also have to offer less resources for gathering, less bulk resource availability, and generally less of almost anything that could be desirable.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
I would think just moving or removing some of those shield hexes would do the trick for now. Maybe that is planned for the future, I dunno.

There's nothing on the roadmap yet, but one of the longer-term plans was always to make these roads more useful. That, and other possible features, could very well make being near these roads worthwhile and compensate for any disadvantages to being near them.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
The thing is, for any disadvantages some settlements have because of this do they get other advantages to compensate?

It's hard to judge, because the compensating advantages might come from totally different features. Perhaps those settlements already have certain advantages, and the fact that they don't get as much benefit from this feature as some other settlements do actually makes things more balanced. Or perhaps another scheduled feature will benefit them more than others. What we're shooting for is to make sure that everyone gets at least some positive advantage out of this change (everyone can do some layering) and nobody gets too much positive advantage (like a permanently-defensible position). Our focus is on making any fixes needed to avoid those extremes.

Ultimately, we want every settlement location to be valuable to somebody, for no locations to be so inherently valuable that nothing else is worth bothering with, and for different locations to be valued differently by varying groups of players. If there are locations that truly offer no worthwhile advantages to anyone, then we'll need to revisit those, but I'm not aware of any locations that are that problematic at the moment (aside from some well-known raw material distribution issues, which I'll be fiddling with a bit for EE 13).
Is that amount of extra vulnerability warranted for being able to avoid specific dates that I can predict seven months in advance, or should e.g. changed in schedule published a month in or so in advance not involve the change penalty vulnerability?

It's not really meant to be a penalty, just a way of ensuring that any 3-day window that starts as scheduled lasts its full 3 days. We're also hoping it will rarely be worth the hassle of moving those days around, so any penalties would be rare. We could eventually make a more complicated way of doing things that gives settlements greater control, but this current system leveraged our already-existing method of changing Settlement Levels on Mondays and could therefore be implemented much more easily.
Bringslite of Staalgard
Was it Mortal or Shadowbane whose mechanic was group declares Intent and the defender chooses the time to start the fight? Ever think of something along those lines or was that proven(in that case) to be absolutely too frustrating?

I can see a mechanic like that working well for combat settings that are more about balance (e.g. choice of weapons), or exact time of the fight inside a relatively small window. Start time within a 24-hour window becomes more a question of the viability of attacking at all, so we prefer that the attacker know that in advance. Otherwise there'd become a whole game of knowing what times your potential opponent can't play, and then a corresponding game of tricking people into thinking you can't play when you actually can. That can certainly be interesting in its own way, but our overall goal is to cluster people together at the times they can fight, so we bias toward things that make it easier to figure out those times, rather than tougher to negotiate them.