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

What about player sponsored quests or events? How about more limited time events, like variations on the Home sweet Home event or holiday events? How about seasonal events?
Would anyone be interested in a standing party up time to do PVE or gathering activities, or even some PvP contests?
We're hoping to run more events like the current one, though ideally ones that require a bit less time to set up and run.

Player sponsored/organized ideas are interesting, and I'm willing to offer some support where I can to help set them up, but the closest we've really got to in-game support for that kind of thing is the ability to place bids. We hadn't really contemplated players running events, so much as player groups having needs and offering rewards to other players for meeting those needs (like eventually offering bounties for help clearing out a pesky escalation).
How do AH fees work for things selling for 1 copper ?
Fees are applied to each transaction total, and are rounded down. So if you just sell 1 item for 1 copper in a single transaction, you'll pay no fees. If you sell 100 items for 1 copper each in a single transaction, you'll pay the same fees you would have for selling a single item for 100 copper.

In theory, you can game the system by listing each item separately, but the fees are generally low enough that it's not remotely worth the hassle.
I simply am not seeing how two high level settlements can be "consolidated" or even moved closer together without a substantial loss or some very fancy dev tricks that will be labelled by the normal denzen/trolls on the forum here as some sort of dev special favor.
Any set of opportunities/incentives for leaving/moving/consolidating would have to be offered equally to all territory holders, but different groups would find different options better or worse. Yes, not all settlements would find merging desirable, but for them moving might be an interesting option. I think I could even activate some of the unclaimable player settlements to provide more moving options. Some might even be interested in simply closing up shop if the right rewards were offered to recognize all their past efforts. Anyone who chose not to take advantage of the opportunities could just keep their settlements and territory.

The one aspect of any such plan that couldn't really be made completely fair would be that those settlements already closer in would have less opportunities to move, if any. Only moving inward, or being part of a larger move that's moving inward overall, would be allowed. That does make any thoughts along these lines tricky to balance.

I am just not seeing how shrinking the map while leaving the "Old Order" standing but some of its members damaged would really solve anything.
My primary temptation in even considering shrinking the map is that it would be nice to concentrate players so they ran into each other more regularly. I don't think that's a compelling enough benefit to justify taking away territory involuntarily, but I could imagine offering incentives (or even just opportunities) to consolidate settlements or move them closer in, then closing off the territory left behind.

Of course, if the blocked off territory is then made too valuable in terms of gathering and looting, then players will still wind up spending much of their time there, spreading everyone right back out again. Still, at least the settlement spaces closer in would be more active overall and new players would run into those settlements first.
If we did 6 hexes in you can count on even Carpe being nuked.
But ALL groups have a number of other settlements that they could relocated to.
The Commonwealth do have some settlements closer to the center of the map, as does Keeper's Pass.
I did a PFOGIS check and we could safely do 2 hexes in without any issues on any side except the northern side, which would nuke 3 settlements, the other two just make it and would need to be allowed to keep their core 6.
Though it would certainly be easier to picture the world with an even border around it, there's no requirement that any reduction be made perfectly evenly in every direction, or even that it be perfectly straight across each edge.
Is this forum structure completely built from scratch? What about re-integrating it back into the Paizo forums? Or are we the annoying unwanted step cousin of the RPG Paizo family? smile
We're using a third-party forum system, and that system does support avatars, but it's all hooked into our larger website/account system. We're not just sending you to the forum system and letting it take care of you. Instead, we're providing hooks so you can interact with and view the forums from our website. We just haven't done the hooks yet to interact with the avatar part, and we also haven't provided a library of avatars to choose from. Those are all feasible, but the hooks are definitely in Cole's domain.

We've sometimes discussed going back to the Paizo forums, but we'd lose the connection between the forum posts and the Pathfinder Online accounts. We don't make too much use of that right now, though it does help guarantee that everyone posting here has at least at some point had a playable account. That also helps us keep spam down without requiring much moderation.

In the long-term, we had bigger plans for integrating things more tightly, and that might be harder to do there. We'd also need to decide which parts of our forum structure to replicate there, and then work with their team to get that done. And we'd need to figure out what to do about archiving these forums, perhaps just leaving them viewable, and then make those changes.

TL/DR: There are some costs and benefits, both long- and short-term, but switching to the Paizo forums could be done and we do discuss it occasionally.
Will monsters also see an overall decrease in energy resistances? A lot, if not all, of the light- and cloth-wearing monsters seem to have similar blanket energy resistances across the board.
I did a quick scan of the mob energy resistances and they're balanced quite differently from the player armors. They generally don't have across-the-board energy resistance, so there's usually one or more energy types that can get through relatively well. Some of the ones in cloth or light armor do have one or two energy resistances that start out about as high as the player armors do, but that one resistance is generally a pretty big exception and matches the theme of that mob. There are some that do have more balanced numbers across all the energy resistances, or sometimes just across all the T1 energies (fire, cold, electric), but their numbers are generally lower than the base resistances players get. I suspect they were set up originally to match the long-term plans for resistances, with their numbers intended to account for the kind of enchantments they'd likely be wearing at each comparable level.
So how about instead you pop all settlements and Holdings within say 6 hexes of the border and then block all holdings and outposts within that 6 hexes to the border, that 6 hex border is Low sec only, only T3 mobs and they get stronger and more powerful you are to the map border, with all monster hexes in that area only giving T2 and T3 stuff, and the regular hexes only have T2 mats and a lot of it.
And everyone who lost something gets compensated for it.
Something like this would certainly be more feasible than adding to the map, but it would be difficult to come up with a compensation scheme that was both fair to those pushed out of their current territory and at the same time fair to those who didn't get compensated for territory further in. Sometimes I've wondered about coming up with more of a voluntary scheme, with compensation anyone can choose but which only results in closing things off from being retaken for territory along the edges. Not sure there'd be enough takers to get the results we'd be looking for, but it could be worth exploring.
Expand the map by about 3 hexes all around.

make it an area blocked to holdings and outposts with no settlements.

Make it low security for open PvP.

Make the random mobs harder (ninjas etc) .

Make the gathered hexes much better than the existing map (perhaps even dropping the amount of stuff in existing hexes to compensate) .
We've always planned on increasing the map area as population rises, but doing so is one of our most expensive undertakings. Beyond the artist work involved, which is daunting and definitely requires an actual artist, additional hexes also require additional physical servers, or in the future at least increase our cloud footprint/cost.

The other things you listed are relatively simple spreadsheet work. Our longer-term plan was for much of that to happen dynamically. For example, gathering would be better in the outskirts because hexes wouldn't be drained by gatherers working near their settlements/holdings. Likewise, the mobs would be harder, because escalations would be spreading and sticking around, unchallenged by nearby settlements. It would certainly be possible to simulate that temporarily by just setting such hexes to temporarily be more challenging.
Something that doesn't require coding would be getting these forums some actual avatars.
Well, not game code, and clearly the back-end forum code we're using has some basic avatar support, but at the very least there'd be some technical website work needed to provide an interface for selecting your avatar. Cole handles that side of things as well, so it takes the same place in our schedule as code work. Does have the advantage of being easier to build, test and deploy, so it might be easier to fit into the schedule than some other options.