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
Smitty
May be a different topic- but I was under the impression Sieges were going to use the same PvP windows and Feud mechanics that exist elsewhere.
If that is still true…

Can you address this?

What i think we know about Sieges.

A Siege can be done by multiple settlements and they use the PvP window and feud system.

These windows are suppose to overlap the defending settlement ( or as close to it as they can get)..
So If a siege takes place..

All the settlements involved align their PvP windows ( and now days? ) to the settlement they attack.

The defender can try and remove camps and engines for 3 days?
After 3 days the Defender takes damage from the siege engines for 2 days( as long as the engines are supplied),
without fighting back because there is a 2 day pvp free window?

Whoops, got so focused on the features we still had to work on for the roadmap that I forgot to include one that Cole already finished up. With EE 12, siege engines that are in hexes neighboring a settlement (which they have to be in order to attack the settlement) automatically get their PvP Windows set to match the neighboring (defending) settlement. That means there's no need for attackers to alter their PvP windows to match the defenders anymore, though they may prefer to do so in order to avoid having to defend their holdings/outposts on one set of hours/days and their siege equipment on a different set of hours/days.

I'm editing the siege rules to take into account changes going into EE 12 and should have those up soon. In particular, for the 3-day windows, my current thinking is that you would essentially do damage each day of the 3-day window that you remain completely active for the whole day. Likely I'd check the morning of the first day to verify that everything is ready to go, then check each successive morning to verify that the sieqe equipment all remained active (nothing was overrun). I'll also adjust the damage calculations to take into account that damage would only be done 3 days a week instead of 7.

Another alternative would be to say that any Siege Engines that survive the 3-day window will do damage, regardless of whether they get overrun, but that favors the attackers a bit more. I'd really like for even a small victory, like overruning a single siege camp, to reduce the damage a bit, and for that I have to track the damage daily.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Perhaps with "raiding" being added to still having to move Bulk from the field to the "City" there are enough content potential conflict opportunities available. Throw in trading and the chance to interdict, I see specializing Holdings being more efficient and trading more necessary, the numbers could be adjusted so that Holdings can be made self sufficient at all levels?

A compromise to lessen PITA chores?

I might be able to adjust the numbers so that most hexes have at least one holding/outpost combo that's self-sufficient at all upgrade levels. Not sure how complicated that would be, and I'd probably want there to often be a more productive option available to those willing to put in the work stocking the proper bulk resources. I don't think there's a problem with there generally being a less-productive-but-minimal-oversight option.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Do you mean that the current mechanics make it very difficult to shunt players to a one or two hex distant Res Shrine that is "neutral", "Not Your Target's hex", or "Not Your Target's Ally's Hex"?
It seems little more complex than not being able to Res in an enemy's settlement. If the foundation code is that limited and specific, I feel for you, Sir! Whatta pain in the A$$ doing anything must be!

Basically, we can currently only send respawning players to relatively nearby shrines. If we have multiple shrines to choose from, then we can select the most appropriate/neutral one. The shrines that are currently on the map (monster hexes, passes, and a couple other semi-random ones) just barely guarantee that there's a neutral hex nearby no matter where you die. Unless we boost the tech to let it choose from even further away shrines, enemies will still always respawn relatively nearby. We'd like to change that eventually, so that unprepared enemies have to respawn even further away, but it's a significant undertaking.

If we had a lot more shrines, then even with the current tech we could be a lot more selective about where to respawn players. Settlement shrines is a first step in that direction. Eventually, we'd like to let players place shrines, so they could do something to ensure that their allies respawn closer to the action when defending their territory, or so that their allies at least respond in the nearest hex under their control when attacking a neighbor (preferably right on the border). Again, that will be a pretty big thing to implement, but at least it's compatible with our current respawning system.
Bob
Paddy Fitzpatrick
I can see a newly conquered settlement also having a problem with just defending it's new territory. If support is just gonna be tied to initial settlement level, does that make any characters coming to assist inherently weaker than the attackers when they were trained at much higher ranks in their home settlements? How is anyone gonna establish themselves under such circumstances unless they get really lucky and no one attacks them for however long it takes to build up?

Characters who come to assist would only be weaker if they actually join the settlement. Characters who remain attached to their original settlements but show up to help would continue to have support.

Long-term, we'd been thinking there'd be a sort of gradual decay of support, and we may find a good way to do that in the future, but it gets complicated by various issues with company-hopping. For now, this compromise version at least lets you keep some of the advantages of your training, rather than losing all of it down to your new settlement level.

For new settlements establishing themselves, that's something I've been wrestling with for some time, even beyond support issues. The fact is that if you try to establish a settlement and a big alliance has it in for you, it's going to be hard to defend yourselves until you've built up more layered defenses. On the other hand, those bigger enemies sure do have a lot of juicy targets to go after, so you could always make their lives much more difficult until they decide it's just easier to let you establish a new settlement, maybe just a little farther away from them.
Bob
It's possible that we'll add other ways to get support in the future, or make changes to the way settlement level provides support, but in general the concept that new settlements can't provide the same level of support as an older, established settlement can has always been part of the plan. This new version of support is actually a lot more forgiving for new settlements than the original version we implemented.
Bob
Midnight
It is going to be odd to have a sworn enemy dedicated to wiping my settlement off the map, and to run into them and realize it's Tuesday so we have to ignore each other. But I'll have to wait and see what the PvP opt in is.

Players who don't opt in ought not be allowed to post about PvP or politics. only 1/2 smile

You can still kill each other on Tuesday, you just can't take each other's territory. Of course, if you can't do that, you may not want to bother feuding on Tuesday, but you certainly can. Also, if your PvP days don't overlap with your enemy's PvP days, you may still be able to trade territory every day but Tuesday (or whatever the 7th day is in your case), so that's still a lot of possible fighting if you choose to do so.
Bob
Gross
As one who doesn't normally pay any attention to PVP related forum comments due to wandering the world with only good intent towards others, what is 'Threading'?

Basically, you'd be able to designate some of your equipped gear as "threaded," and anything that isn't threaded would fall off as loot when you die. Better gear would generally require more threads, so there'd be limits to how much cool stuff you can wear at once without risking significant losses. It would also make it more likely that someone who killed you would get something significant in the resulting loot.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Bob
Yes, the idea is that you have to work your way in, at least to some extent. It's a fairly simple way for us to let alliances put up layered defenses and focus on what amount to their "border" hexes, though they do have to work around the large number of hexes that can't be claimed. Combat was always meant to be much more common along an alliance's borders rather than deep within its territory.
Some of that could be easily made to work by manipulating where, how many, and who can use Res Shrines could it not?

Much more difficult to project force and win deep inside an alliance's territory if the closest shrine(for you) is on the border of the area. Not even considering delicious opportunities to be betrayed by one of your "Allies" who open their shrines for aggressors…

That would indeed make a big difference, and that's part of why we want to introduce settlement shrines in EE 12. They'll at least provide a closer shrine in some cases for the settlement's allies.

Unfortunately, our current respawning tech requires that there's always a usable shrine relatively nearby no matter where you die. Even having them in monster hexes wasn't quite enough, which is why they were added to the monster hexes, and then ultimately I even needed to add a couple to some random hexes to fill in some gaps. Getting the respawn tech to look even further away will be a reasonably big task, so we had to hold off on any big changes to that for now.
Bob
The Eternal Balance
Institute the *workers* that were supposed to be assigned to *work* the outpost/holdings and lend their expertise to the output? There are lots of moving/interconnected parts and they can't do everything at once - have to start somewhere, ya know?

We discussed this, but it was also too much work to fit into the roadmap.
Bob
Duffy Swiftshadow
I haven't crunched the current numbers yet, but I feel like Smitty is on the right track as it stands today. Some tweaking is definitely needed.

Conceptually having the outpost and holding + linked such that the holding + is what really matters seems a bit weird to me. Maybe if the influence costs were radically changed to reflect only the holding matters, and the outpost are just a modifier based on what you want to output and can produce structure wise it wouldn't be that bad, but at the moment it feels off.

The best way to think about it is that the holding provides support for the outpost.

At its core, the basic issue is that the increased upkeep costs of upgraded holdings were always intended to be a significant balancing factor for the increased output of upgraded outposts. This is the simplest way for us to make this a factor for now.