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
Moved the conversation about restricting outpost production here and about bringing back support here.
Bob
For EE 12, we're bringing back support, but in a way that let's you keep some of your training even if your support level drops too low to fully support your trained ranks in all of your feats. Here's how it works:

For every feat you've learned, we first check your Trained Rank and your Supported Rank (the highest rank of that feat that's supported by your Support Level). If your Trained Rank is less than or equal to your Supported Rank, then your Current Rank is equal to your Trained Rank, since you're fully supported. If your Trained Rank is greater than your Supported Rank, then your Current Rank is equal to the average of your Trained Rank and your Supported Rank (add together and divide by 2), rounded up.

Here's a couple examples:

Trained Rank: 5
Supported Rank: 8
Current Rank: 5

Trained Rank: 8
Supported Rank: 5
Current Rank: 7
Bob
From another thread:

Smitty
Its probably likely that 3 hexes running at +0 are going outproduce a +4 hex(for the same influence cost)

Having multiple lower-upgrade hexes outproduce individual higher-upgrade hexes provides an incentive to spread out, but at the risk of having to defend lots of hexes with minimal amounts of guards. When looking at things purely in terms of bulk resource output, we want upgrading to be a good choice, but conquering new territory to be a better one.

Smitty
Hoping to get Bob's thoughts on if these numbers are going to be tweaked at all,

Lots of you guys have done holding and outpost stuff more than I have - So Perhaps the +4 outpost production
makes up for the difference- But I am not seeing it, help me do so if I am missing something.
The +4 Holding Option seems like a good thing to have in case of feuds, war time, etc. but to run holdings at that expense full time doesn't look that appealing to me..

I've started taking a look at the numbers and suspect I'll have to make some tweaks. In particular, I want to ensure that every additional upgrade leads to a greater increase in output than in upkeep, assuming reasonably efficient outpost choices. For very inefficient choices, higher upgrades may be counterproductive.
Bob
For EE 12, we've made a change to the way that Outposts decide how much bulk goods they'll produce each day. The basic output numbers are still the same as before, and are still based on the upgrade level of the Outpost, but if the Outpost is at a higher upgrade level than the hex's Holding, then the Outpost will produce bulk goods as though it is at the same upgrade level as the Holding. Outposts would still get the improved guards that come with a higher upgrade level, just not the increased bulk goods output.
Bob
Contracts (and other similar things) were on the list we discussed, very much for the kinds of reasons listed above. Unfortunately they're a little too complex to implement quickly, so they didn't make the cut. They'll no doubt rise again for reconsideration, but we'll have to focus first on the things that did make the cut to ensure that they all get completed on time. We've also left a little bit of time toward the end to consider possible additions, but we want to wait until closer to that time before thinking about what exactly to add so we can see just how much extra stuff we can tackle, and also to see if anything else of higher priority has come up along the way.
Bob
Duffy Swiftshadow
I'm pretty pumped about 99% of it, unfortunately it doesn't seem like there is anything in there that would solve the existing problems we have with PvP mechanics, and bringing back support is only going to make that worse.

True, there's not much planned on specific PvP mechanics, though we do hope that some of the changes directed at letting players better control their PvP risk, and at reducing the amount of time companies/settlements need to protect their territory, will reduce the impact of any problematic mechanics on those who are least interested in PvP.

I'll post more details on the support system as a crowforging thread this week, but the basic idea is to still let players have 50% (or more) of the advantages from any learned ranks that they later lost support for. Losing support will still make you less powerful, but won't instantly make you identical to someone who never learned those ranks in the first place.
Bob
Father Bronin
What are the chances for a t3 escalation? I remember there was talk of one a while back. Demons if I remember correctly. How close was it to being finished? I think some here need a challenge.

The new escalation listed for EE 14 (September) is very likely to be in the T3 range. We don't have any work done on one yet, beyond some rough ideas, so nothing to really announce on that yet. We'll talk about it more as we get closer to working on EE 14.
Bob
Edam
The list seems good to me. Just add one low hanging fruit - changing the colour of afflicted to sickly green smile On my monitor afflicted and burning are almost identical shades of yellow.

I'll file a bug report for that, but can't guarantee when it would hit the top of the priority list, even if it does turn out to be an easy fix.

On the other hand, maybe you just need a new monitor. Or new eyes, if you're partially color-blind like me. Green and yellow are not my friends.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
A question(with a lil bit of a parameter set :p) for GW:
When you look at the last year or so of participating player base(hangers-on) and how they play and what they say they want, do you see PVP enthusiasts or PVE/Crafting/Gathering/Merchant type PVP enthusiasts?

It's hard to really gauge percentages, but certainly it's clear that a fair amount of our current players (as well as our potential players) have a limited appetite for PvP combat. That's why a lot of the tasks on our roadmap which at first appear to be primarily about PvP or settlement-level issues are really about making it easier for players to manage their own PvP risk. For example, letting settlements choose a 3-day window for PvP means knowing that there's no need to defend your holdings/outposts for 4 days each week. Letting companies set the level of PvP allowed in their hexes lets players control the amount of PvP allowed throughout their territory, while protecting hexes that are neighbored by allies on at least 4 sides makes reducing that territory a much slower process.

That's also why we're moving toward a more opt-in feel to PvP. Our goal is to let players know when the actions they're taking open them up to PvP, and to what degree, then let them decide whether or not to take that risk.
Bob
Decius
I'd increase the priority of the Player Manual, and Fort Inevitable should be on the roadmap somewhere.

Part of the trick with the Player Manual is that the earlier we do it, the more we need to edit it as we make changes. Trying to hit an acceptable balance there.

Fort Inevitable was on the list for discussion, but it likely requires a pretty significant art pass on the terrain, something we don't currently have the resources for. Besides, maybe Pharasma had good reasons for putting the walls up around those hexes.

Decius
I understand that the dungeon and ruin content is probably too costly to implement quickly.

Most definitely.

Decius
Oh, and proper logs on company and settlement vaults would be nice.

That was also on the list for discussion, but requires more work than is obvious to make it useful. As a result, it didn't quite make the cut for now, but will certainly return for consideration in the future.