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

Stilachio Thrax
Bob, how does blacklisting handle this scenario? Settlement A blacklists Settlement B. Member X of Settlement B drops his company/settlement. Is Member X still blacklisted (ie. does blacklisting of a settlement or company also blacklist the individuals in those settlements/companies so they can't drop to avoid the blacklisting or does he have to be manually blacklisted as an individual)?

You'd have to manually blacklist that individual. There would be a lot of complications to automatically editing your lists as companies switch settlements or players switch companies (maybe you're glad that person left the blacklisted company, and didn't want to blacklist them personally).

The best answer ultimately is for us to better deal with company hopping so that players won't regularly do so just to game their way around various restrictions. The main deterrent at this point is the support loss that others have mentioned (a great example of what I mean when I say that the support mechanic is currently woven into so many systems that we need at least some form of it now, and then we need to deal with its shortcomings over time). We also hope to eventually put in other things to deter company hopping (one possibility is lowering your company's max and/or available influence the moment you leave, instead of at the next downtime), but don't have any of that scheduled at this time.
Bringslite of Staalgard
Can a settlement with an average number of hexes support enough Holdings to bring in enough Bulk to pay for lvl 20 upkeep and stash away some extra?

@ Bob

May I ask what your model is? With this map, how many settlements does GW expect to be able to support lvl 20, all things being somewhat peaceful and without a huge few power blocs?

We're still debating the exact number of hexes we'd expect a level 20 settlement to have, but the short answer is that we don't want it to be possible to produce enough bulk resources to support every settlement at that level.

However, for the moment we're not targeting that, just a high enough number that level 20 represents a significant effort and requires holding onto an amount of territory that's reasonable to expect of a truly active current settlement.

At the listed holding upkeep costs, hexes at peak efficiency provide 29 bulk resources at +0 rising to 74 at +5. To run at seetlement level 20, here's how many hexes you'd need at each average upgrade level:

+0: 19
+1: 14
+2: 11
+3: 10
+4: 9
+5: 8

There are plenty of hexes to go around at peak efficiency (unless everyone runs at +0), but you really can't run all your hexes at peak efficiency, particularly if you want self-sufficiency in each hex. Assuming decently stocked hexes set up to produce two resources so that they can remain self-sufficient at all upgrade levels if just the third bulk resource is manually stocked as necessary, you'd need roughly the following number of hexes at each upgrade level:

+0: 29
+1: 21
+2: 17
+3: 16
+4: 14
+5: 13

The real answer for most settlements is probably somewhere between those two sets of numbers if they're careful about hex selections and building choices.
Is there a way to view what another settlement's policy is towards third parties?

We're not planning on adding anything like that right now.

If I understand right, there is intended to be four categories: member, ally, other, foe; with permissions and taxes being configurable for each group individually. Is that the ee12 exepectation except that taxes are ee15?

Those are the four categories we're currently looking at, with separate tax rates for each category coming in EE 15.
Am curios if all black listing will be manual. Or if during feuds.. a system will auto list players involved for the duration of the feud.. if so at what levels..

If not all manual entries and the act of feuding populated the list will it also blacklist folks during raids.

That's a good point. We'll do some thinking on what to do about players involved in feuds.
Hobson Fiffledown
*finds partially decomposed horse in a token that says it will be a bag of holding one day*

Any longer-term thoughts regarding the reinstatement of the Bluff feat as a possible countermeasure to blacklisting?
As an added bonus, I would finally stop asking you to bring back the Bluff feat. smile

That's the kind of thing we'd like to think about eventually, but there are a lot of other features that didn't make the roadmap that would likely get tackled before that.
As a side note, though it's called a blacklist, you could actually use it as a whitelist. Just say that unaffiliated players have no access to your facilities, then give blacklisted players access to whatever facilities you want.
My basic philosophy is that PvP should be required to control other players.

The winning philosophy is that you should be able to PvE your way to poop structures onto the map that will exist as build and forget control mechanisms because vigilance isn't fun.

Just to clarify, our general design philosophy is that extremely focused vigilance isn't fun. Being on guard duty, with nothing to do but watch the screen for attacks, is only really fun if the player is in reality doing something else, like watching TV or playing a different character in another window. We want to avoid requiring that kind of vigilance.

As a result, things like guards at your holdings and outposts aren't really meant to hold off an attack. They're just meant as a buffer to let players see that the attack is happening and get there in time to defend their territory.

The behaviors of your own structures is a little different. The settlement owns the structures directly, so they get to tell the structures what to do, and what not to do. That control may not be perfect, and we may eventually allow ways to circumvent that control, but some level of control is essential.
I am not seeing anything that Bob said to indicate that blacklisted characters could not access the bank - the rest of the player made buildings and training, yes, but not banks.

Was that the intention Bob, to restrict access to the banks?

You can restrict access to the bank, though we are planning to allow you to withdraw things that are already there. We didn't want someone to find themselves suddenly losing all their stuff.
Wandering around Golarion at present is a bit like a walking tour of rural England with inns every few miles. Reducing the propensity to always put up an inn is to my mind a good thing.

Hopefully the need to increase production efficiency will help with that.
Wow, you just made it expensive to claim more hexes with the lower end by a lot

That I did, though claiming new hexes is still a more influence-efficient way to increase your total productivity than upgrading is. It's also more efficient in that claiming new hexes at +0 never requires more than one bulk resource for upkeep, allowing you to focus purely on the most efficient production of that resource while remaining self-sufficient.

And you made Inns No longer usable in forest hexes, since the best an Inn can generate in a forest is less then 11 food.

Unless I'm missing something, I would think Inns would be relatively easy to operate there. Assuming the hex has 600 game, two Hunting Outposts should produce 14-15 bulk food, in addition to 14-15 trade goods. Since trade goods are the second resource required, you should be good all the way up to +4. Some wouldn't have the full 600 game and therefore wouldn't produce quite as much, but I think most would produce the needed amount. Oddly, it may be possible that some hexes wouldn't produce enough food to be self-sufficient at +0, but then because the need for the first resource rises more slowly as the second resource is added, would actually become self-sufficient at +1. Just one of the oddities for hexes that don't have as many resources at higher concentrations.