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
For those of you prepping for settlement warfare, I've added the standard stats for siege equipment to the public spreadsheets under the Holdings and Outpost Upgrades tabs. That includes information about the numbers and types of guards. Information on how much damage they do as part of a siege will be coming in a larger post about sieges.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
We will basically(for structure capture Feuds) have a 4 day PVP window Window and 3 days safe from structure capture attempts. If my "days off" were set for Mon, Tues, Wed then Jack could declare his Feud for server up Tues and try to capture Thursday-Sunday. Do I have that right?

Right now a Feud is 100 Inf for 2 days. No capture, get back only 75 Inf, right? Will capture attempts now potentially cost 50 Influence, i.e. A Feud for 48 hours- bank 100 Influence then extend it for 48 hours- bank 25 more Inf to have time to capture the holding but fail?

It's 3 days on, 4 days off. What you'd probably want to do if a company's 3 days starts on Friday would be to declare a 5-day feud starting Wednesday for 175 influence, giving you the entire 3-day window to capture buildings. You'd get back 75% of that (about 131) at the end of the feud if you didn't capture anything, for a cost of about 44 influence.
Bob
Starting with EE 12, settlements will be able to set a day that marks the beginning of a 3-day window during which their PvP Windows are active. For example, the default day is Friday, meaning PvP Windows would be active for a default settlement's hexes on Friday, Saturday and Sunday (server days, so starting at Friday's downtime and ending at Monday's downtime, which marks the end of Sunday's server day), but not on any other day. These settings can be changed from the Holding tab of the Company Window, and details on the current settings can be seen in the setting's tooltips.

Each settlement keeps track of this setting for last week, this week, and next week, with the changes scheduled for next week taking place during Monday's downtime. On any given day, the settlement's PvP windows will be active if that day falls within the 3-day window for either this week's setting or last week's setting. This guarantees that every 3-day window lasts at least 3 days even if changes are made in the middle of the window.
Bob
In the Roadmap, we mentioned adding a 48-hour minimum delay to feuds. The idea was to provide more warning before any attempts to capture territory. However, as we looked at it more closely, it seemed like there were definitely some occasions where you'd want to be able to declare a feud on shorter notice, particularly once we start adding in raids.

Instead, what we've done for EE 12 is to leave the delay on feuds as it is, but to prevent companies from participating in the capture game for Outposts or Holdings until the feud is at least 48 hours old. Other than that, feuding companies can fight in hexes at any security level without reputation hits as soon as the feud starts, just as before. When we add raids, those companies will also be able to participate in the raiding game as soon as the feud starts.
Bob
For EE 12, special shrines have been added to all the player settlements. These shrines only work for settlement-mates and alliance members. For those characters eligible to use them, they get added to the list of potential shrines for a character to reappear at after death, and will be used if they're the nearest shrine. If a shrine open to everyone is closer, that shrine will be used instead.

To better protect players with low reputations from repeated, nigh-unavoidable deaths at the hands of guards, the shrines in NPC settlements (except for Rotter's Hole), the starter area and the 2 Tutorial Monster hexes near Thornkeep have been restricted for use by those with enough reputation to avoid being attacked by nearby guards. Doing this created a small gap in shrine coverage for those players with low reputation, so a standard shrine was added to hex 3,3 (an NPC road hex near Carpe Noctem and Kindleburn).
Bob
Starting with EE 12, hexes with Holdings (not Siege Engines) placed in them won't run PvP windows when they have at least 4 neighboring hexes that are also under their control or are controlled by their allies (companies from the same settlement or from allied settlements). Those neighbors can be either Wild hexes with holdings in them or settlement hexes. The big exception to this rule is that any hex neighboring an unallied settlement will still run its PvP windows as scheduled, so that any settlement can have some chance of claiming its core six for itself or its allies.

The goal of this change is to require attackers to work their way through the layered defenses of a settlement, including the layered defenses of allied settlements. Hexes deep inside an alliance should be relatively safe, while those on the borders are subject to more attacks. Every settlement should be able to provide protected status to at least one of its core 6 hexes, making it that much harder for someone to come in and immediately surround them with siege equipment.

In the future, we'll likely add additional ways to mitigate this protection. For example, when we make it possible for mobs from neighboring escalations to occasionally send invaders to raid nearby Holdings, that will probably involve adding some chance that even a protected hex will still run its scheduled PvP window when there's an escalation in a neighboring hex.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Would either of those be easier than turning some shield hexes into badlands hexes? With player hexes right up on monster hexes, I realize that this would only be a partial solution but isn't the player hex "High Sec Escape" available to all groups? Couldn't it be left to players to remove that frustration? It would still bite the hex "owners" just as much as the other guy. They can't attack him when he flees into their High Sec hex either. smile

I'm looking into creating a new kind of Medium NPC hex type (just as I created that new Tutorial Monster hex type) which would be like NPC hexes in every regard except having a Medium Security setting. I could either put those on just NPC hexes directly next to Monster hexes, or on NPC hexes more than a certain distance from Thornkeep. Need to think through the consequences of that kind of change.

Flagging players and setting different security levels each tackle slightly different aspects of the problems raised here, and hopefully there's a pretty simple version of each option, so I'm not really thinking of them as either/or solutions. Just trying to decide how necessary it is to fix each issue raised, what the simplest solution is for each issue that needs fixing, and how to fit each solution into this or a future milestone.
Bob
In terms of somehow flagging players in Low Security hexes so that they can be chased into higher-security hexes, we're looking into that possibility. One possibility is to flag both the attacker and the target for any attack in a Low Security hex as Aggressors to each other, with a long cooldown. We'd have to make some additional tweaks to make everything work properly, but basically anyone who fought each other in a Low Security hex would be able to continue the fight for an extended time even while running through higher security hexes.

There are certainly other possibilities as well, but some would require new types of flags, which could be a little more complicated. The easiest option could very well be just tagging anyone operating in a Low Security hex as an Attacker for an extended time, thus opening them up to attacks from anyone for a while even after leaving the hex. That could be a bit harsh though.
Bob
Decius
Might I suggest making the Goblin escalation hexes around Thornkeep yellow instead of red? Those will be among the first places that new players will find real content, and don't have any of the things that make other monster hexes valuable.

Those are in fact High Security. I changed their type to Tutorial Monster, so they could have their own security setting.
Bob
Midnight
Is there still an intention to have "law" where holdings will (eventually) let you decide who can gather or hunt in a hex?

(I, of course, hated the idea because it was going to be game mechanics enforced rather than player enforced).

It's not on the Roadmap, but yes, this is still something we'd like to look at eventually. However, the current intention for that and other similar ideas is to focus on providing tools that make it easier for players to enforce those laws, rather than on mechanically enforcing them. For example, if you set a law saying that only settlement-mates can gather in your hex, then anyone else might get flagged temporarily as a poacher, making it easier to identify them and likely removing any rep-hit for attacking them. We probably wouldn't give them a rep-hit for poaching, making it more of a game enforcement mechanic.

On the other hand, breaking laws could still fit into the larger Alignment system we'd also like to look into. Even though that possibility is in some ways a game enforcement mechanic, the consequences for moving away from your declared alignment are less punishing and a bit more subtle than what happens when you wind up with a low reputation. Plus, you could always feud the territory owner, temporarily removing any requirement that you obey the feuded companies laws.