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
Decius
Assuming that stuff in the bank is "safe" from raids, but ongoing production less so…

We're thinking about having some of the banked stuff raidable, but the dependable source for raids would be that day's production.

Decius
Is the warden outpost waiting on tech or just art? Can we get them in with duplicate art?

I'm looking into it. Based on a quick preliminary check, it looks like the warden outpost is all set to go, using the trading post art, and just needs to be added to the recipe drop list. However, I want to do some testing on it before promising anything.
Bob
Decius
Lower than +3 the bulk changes are more total; at +3, the highest reasonable level,the bulk consumption is 29 and gross production is 88 for a high resource rating of 800. Net is 59/day for 500 influence, 50 for 400 influence, 40/300, or 29/200. Net production falls at +4.

According to my calculations, net production goes up to 67 at +4 and 74 at +5 if the resource rating is 800. I definitely don't want net production as you upgrade going down when operating at peak efficiency. Ideally, the upgrade numbers work out even when operating at somewhat less than peak efficiency, which is often necessary if you want to provide the second resource without manually stocking it, though it may require at least manually stocking the third resource to cover +4 and +5 upgrades. In most hexes, I'm expecting that you can upgrade to at least +3 while both remaining self-sufficient and increasing your net production with each upgrade. The exceptions would be hexes that simply don't have enough of any two resources to ever really produce much regardless of outpost choice.
Bob
plopmania
^ Since I have clearly fallen out of the loop, alliance members are already "whitelisted" as is? Then I am simply being a dingus.

Alliance members aren't automatically whitelisted, but they will be one of the categories you can set facility permissions for. That means you can easily give them the same permissions that you give to your own settlement members, or you can restrict those permissions a bit. When taxation comes in, that will also mean you could decide to tax alliance members the same amount as settlement members, or maybe just a little bit more.

Technically, the act of blacklisting a person doesn't do anything other than putting that person on a list. It's the combination of putting the person on the blacklist, and setting the permissions to block blacklisted players from using your facilities, that blocks them from doing things. Similarly, allying with another settlement doesn't automatically give that settlement's members access to your facilities, but allying with them and setting the permissions appropriately will do so.
Bob
plopmania
Why blacklist instead of whitelist? I feel like whitelist would scale better.

In part, it's because we already have some easy categories for people you like, namely alliance-mates and settlement-mates. Certainly those don't provide the granularity of being able to whitelist other entities without officially allying with them, but they do at least provide something on that side of the equation. What we were clearly missing was something on the dislike side, so we headed toward blacklists first. That said, the tech would be pretty similar for whitelists, so we can consider adding them at some point.

Also, for EE 15, we plan to add the ability to tax people who use your settlement's facilities, so we think the general tendency will be to want to let others make use of your settlement for the tax revenue. You'll just want to block the folks who are causing you lots of problems.
Bob
For EE 12, we're adding the ability for settlement leaders to maintain a blacklist of players (technically, characters), companies and settlements. That blacklist can then be used for setting permissions on who can or cannot use the various facilities in that settlement, which I'll describe in more detail in another thread. Here, I'll focus on the mechanics of the blacklist itself.

To check to see if you are on any blacklists, you'll use the command /BlacklistCheck. It will tell you which settlements, if any, have you on their blacklist.

To create and edit a blacklist, settlement leaders can use the interface available on the Allies sub-tab from the Alliances tab on their Company Window. Clicking Show Blacklist will bring up the player, company and settlement blacklists. Entries can be added to each list by clicking on Add, then typing in a name and selecting which list to add the entry to. Entries can be deleted by clicking on the X next to each entry.

Alternatively, blacklists can be created, edited and viewed using the following chat commands:

/BlacklistAddPlayer <character name>
/BlacklistAddCompany <company name>
/BlacklistAddSettlement <settlement name>
/BlacklistRemovePlayer <character name>
/BlacklistemoveCompany <company name>
/BlacklistemoveSettlement <settlement name>
/BlacklistView

Questions/comments/concerns?


Bob
Edam
When is this to be implemented ?

All of this will come with EE 12 in May.
Bob
I've made some changes to the holding upkeep numbers to fix some of the issues raised in this thread.

First, I lowered the overall amount of resources used for higher upgrades significantly. That made it easier to ensure that upgrading from +4 to +5 would usually lead to an overall increase in production. In some cases, where hexes don't have anything in abundance, things may top out at a lower upgrade.

Second, I raised the overall amount of resources used for lower upgrades a fair amount. That flattens out the influence cost curve between upgrading an existing hex and taking over a new hex. It's still generally better to take a new hex than to upgrade an existing hex, but not by nearly as great a margin as before.

Third, I varied up the amounts per resource to require lots of the first resource, a moderate amount of the second resource, and just a bit of the third resource. That makes it easier to be self-sufficient as long as you can produce lots of whatever's abundant in the hex and some of whatever's next most abundant. If you can manage to produce at least a bit of the third resource (or mule/carry a little bit in), then you can get a noticeable boost in efficiency, but it's not such a huge difference that it basically becomes a requirement.

I left all the resource types alone and just altered the numbers for each resource. As an example, here are the new upkeep numbers for Inn Holdings:

+0: Bulk Food 11
+1: Bulk Food 14, Trade Goods 2
+2: Bulk Food 18, Trade Goods 4
+3: Bulk Food 22, Trade Goods 6, Bulk Wood 1
+4: Bulk Food 26, Trade Goods 9, Bulk Wood 2
+5: Bulk Food 30, Trade Goods 12, Bulk Wood 4

For comparison, these were the old numbers:

+0: Bulk Food 2
+1: Bulk Food 4, Trade Goods 3
+2: Bulk Food 8, Trade Goods 8
+3: Bulk Food 10, Trade Goods 10, Bulk Wood 10
+4: Bulk Food 17, Trade Goods 17, Bulk Wood 16
+5: Bulk Food 26, Trade Goods 26, Bulk Wood 25

The numbers are the same for every holding type, only the resource types change, same as before.

Comments/concerns?


Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Hmmm… that makes me wonder: "•Introduce Azoth, which can be used to improve crafting/refining output or converted into game time."

In what way will I be able to use Azoth if I have to be subscribed anyhoo?

For the initial implementation, our current idea is that you simply convert the Azoth into an account credit for a month of game time. You wouldn't be able to activate your account with Azoth, but you could effectively extend your active time using Azoth and avoid paying further subscription fees.
Bob
Maxen
This is one thing I've never understood. You give me two weapon slots, but I can only slot one weapon feat at a time as if I've 'forgotten' how to attack effectively with the other weapon. I have always enjoyed playing my 'rangers' even post-nerf. I attack from range until the monster closes and then I switch to melee, as this seems logical. I feel like I should be able to slot two weapon feats, paying the appropriate XP to level them individually, and benefit from the different attack bonuses when I switch weapons.

Part of the point of the feature feats is to have you pick a primary role for each combat, since the ability to do multiple roles equally is itself a big advantage. You're either saying "I"m an archer, but I've got a knife just in case" or "I'm a swordfighter, but I'm not above putting an arrow into a monster first." That helps us balance properly between the different roles, and also creates more interesting interactions between party members when each plays to their strengths instead of everyone being able to do a bit of everything.

Bob
Mistwalker
Bob, you have talked about how ranged characters should probably have a melee weapon as back up. This has a certain amount of sense for fighter, rogues and clerics. However, it doesn't make a lot of sense for a mage.

Most mages that I know of have a staff and a wand. Learning weapon feats will require yet more XP and raising another attribute to be able to use them.

Can I ask what your thoughts are on this?

That's a big part of why mages have such a mix of attack feats. Rather than needing a backup melee/non-ammo weapon, the important point for them is to have backup melee/non-ammo feats for their staff and/or wand.