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
I believe that crafting without settlement support will lower the amount of skill bonuses you get while crafting, so there is a disadvantage, but you don't forget your recipes.

Similarly, crafting in a settlement with lower support (such as an NPC settlement) still lets you craft any recipe you know, but the facility ratings are lower, so the crafting jobs will take longer.
Bob
Smitty
Little different .. If the settlement you want to help is AFK… then you have to feud 6 companies to join the fray..

And considering one of the reasons 6 companies from 6 settlements are allowed to join a siege was to reduce company/settlement hopping .. One has to ask .. what are they going to do to reduce company settlement hopping on the defender side ..

If the settlement you want to help is completely out of the game, helping them is going to be tricky. If the settlement is around enough to at least make some advanced mutual defense plans (and hopefully they are since we're moving to requiring that the owner is an active character), I'd suggest considering an arrangement to put some holdings up around the settlement held by allies, so that the defense stage would inherently have to include the allies at some point. You could also put a placeholder company in the settlement led by an allied alt, then company-hop into that company as needed.

Victory favors the prepared.
Bob
Smitty
Thanks bob - for your response-

But In regards to defending
How will you handle people that want to help defend the settlement that are from other settlements?
From the other thread , it will be possible for 6 different companies from 6 different settlements to siege one location…

As someone who may want to defend a third party settlement, What will be done to open up who can help defend?
Will there be a way for my company to join the defending side at the outset of the siege, something like I am banking __ influence to support the siege defense of ____. Will that allow my company participate in over running camps and engines, and killing the NPC guards without taking 250 rep hit every swing?

Without something like this, how does one defend a settlement they are not a part of?

There's not a lot we can do to improve that issue in this update, probably not until we can improve the alliances system. For now, I'm sure some company hopping will go on. Probably the best thing to do would be to temporarily move your entire company over to the defending settlement, since settlement-mates are automatically included in the feuds during holding/outpost/engine/camp PvP (though not the rest of the time) and the attackers all need to be feuding the settlement's founding company to do damage. You'd want to move any needed war supplies out of your previous settlement's company vault before making the move.

Your other alternative as always is to start your own feud against the attackers, which again automatically brings in all your settlement-mates while attacking the siege engines/camps (though probably not when helping defend the holdings and outposts). During the defensive part, yes, you'd need to feud every possible attacking company, but at least once you get to the siege engine/camp part, you can selectively feud just the ones you're planning on attacking that day.

Not ideal, but hopefully we can improve on it in the future.
Bob
Hobson Fiffledown
Just to clarify the "siege from inside" fix you mentioned earlier, is the idea that you, Bob or other GW person, will manually check that each of the 18 siege assets (not to mention all backups and replacements) is made in and transported from the home settlement of any of the participating companies? Or was that a no-go?

Yup, I'm still planning to make a manual check that the siege equipment starts at an attacker's home settlement one of the requirements.

Hobson Fiffledown
All of this, if I remember correctly, was supposed to be a BFD to make and transport, and with the amount of resources needed, it is being presented as a huge crafting endeavor to siege someone. Is there any thought to making it known that a settlement is preparing for large scale war? Or, can 18+ siege items be made and then transported by sneaky, off-hours mule trips for surprise insta-sieges anywhere? I'm asking for a friend… Also, will the items be directly deployed from the crafting point, or can we make them and then sneak a whole bunch of them inside target settlements?

At the very least, I want to require a public declaration of war at the time I verify the siege engines are in the attacker's home settlement/s. I'd like to say that the declaration should be made before attacking any surrounding outposts/holdings as well, since that seems only sporting given our current population levels, but that has some issues in being able to tell for sure whether or not a hex attack was part of a siege plan, especially if done by hired mercenaries. Perhaps the best thing would be to just have a temporary policy that all feuds require an advance public declaration before attacking holdings and outposts, at least until we can take a closer look at the related in-game mechanics.
Bob
Smitty
Since this is an attack will we need to have people at these engines to do damage, or is this another job you are tasking to guards? – If Guards are the answer - Please explain why people need to be present to take holdings but do not have to be present to take a settlement…

Largely this is a logistical problem. The attacks and damage are all going to be done manually. While I can make sure one of us checks each of the hexes at least once a day at appropriate times to figure out what the damage was for each day (with teleporting it won't take long), there's no way we can be on hand every day during various PvP windows to verify character involvement. Perhaps we can get something more involved coded in later, but not for the initial update.

One thing we are doing to help a bit with this is the fact that the Siege Engines can't be auto-supplied from the siege camps, so we do expect companies to want to refresh the supplies occasionally. Plus, they do at least need to show up initially to take out any existing holdings and place the siege equipment. And of course, if the attackers don't show up, then it should be relatively trivial for the defenders to get past the guards and take out the siege equipment.

Smitty
In order to stop these things from doing damage, what must a defender do? Take over the outpost( camps) and then wait a day to take over a holding ( engine).. then wait another day or 2 in order to destroy them?

The full cycle for clearing/taking a hex uses the standard outposts (camps) first, then holdings (engines) system. You can temporarily stop the hex from doing damage just by overrunning a Siege Camp, but the hex will start doing damage again once all the equipment reactivates if the Siege Engine isn't ultimately taken down.

Smitty
Then do this for all 6 core hexes in order to end a siege?

To fully end the siege, yes, all six siege engines would need to be removed. On the other hand, there's a good chance that a siege without the bulk of its equipment active will be doing little or no damage each day, except to the attacker's supply of bulk goods. It all depends on just how powerful the attacker's siege engines are relative to the settlement's defenses. If the attackers arrive with just enough equipment to do reasonable damage to the settlement, then the loss of even a single hex could effectively end the siege until that hex can be retaken. If they arrive with significant excess power, then they can afford more losses.

Smitty
What does an attacker have to do then build them / move them and load up these things with enough resources?

Stockpile some bulk goods, craft the siege equipment, clear the surrounding hexes, place all the siege equipment, load the Siege Engines with bulk goods , defend the siege equipment during PvP windows, and keep the Siege Engines stocked with bulk goods if they're running out.

Smitty
When Will raiding become a thing, in regards to these engines as well as actual Holdings?

Raiding isn't something we can get into this build, but I'm considering giving defenders something each time they destroy some of the siege equipment. For example, I could potentially give the defending settlement a percentage of the ingredients from the destroyed siege equipment. At least that way there'd be some potential for a successful defender to actually profit from the attack, rather than having defenders always feel like the best they can do is minimize the amount of damage taken.
Bob
You need to surround the settlement with active siege equipment to start the damage part of the process. That means 6 active Siege Engines and 12 active Siege Camps. It's just that the damage calculations are on a per-hex basis and once the damage process starts, you will continue to do damage from any hexes that still have all 3 buildings active even if the other hexes aren't doing damage because they lost an outpost or failed to provide upkeep to a holding. There will probably also be a damage bonus based on the number of hexes doing damage, so that the defenders get a little extra relief for taking out even one single outpost.
Bob
Azure_Zero
Which one will be doing the Damage, the Engine, or the Camp?

Cause if it is the camp and can see the cheese that will happen like we currently have with holdings and outposts.

They'll basically work in concert. The hex will only do damage if it has an active holding and two active outposts, and the amount of damage will be based on the weakest of those three buildings. That means you really want to have all three buildings be from the same tier and upgrade, since any buildings stronger than the others aren't being fully utilized.

Still, there could be some situations where you might need to have mismatched buildings. For example, suppose you just barely managed to build one set of Master's Siege Engines and Camps at +0 and can't make any extras, but you can make some Professional's Siege Camps at +5. If the defending settlement manages to knock out one or both of the Master's Siege Camps, you can replace them with the Professional's Siege Camps at +5 and at least the hex will still do damage as though all the buildings were T1 +5.

Similarly, if you can't build a full set of Professional's +5, and you can't build a full set of Master's +0, then a mix will still do more damage than falling all the way back to Professional's +4 and might be worth ignoring the inefficiencies.
Bob
For Upkeep, the Siege Engines require some of every kind of bulk good each day. Here's the amounts for each type and upgrade

Professional's Siege Engine
+0: 2 per day
+1: 3 per day
+2: 4 per day
+3: 5 per day
+4: 6 per day
+5: 7 per day

Master's Siege Engine
+0: 10 per day
+1: 15 per day
+2: 20 per day
+3: 25 per day
+4: 30 per day
+5: 35 per day
Bob
Here are the recipes and influence costs for the Siege Engines and Camps:

Professional's Siege Engine Kit, Engineer 8
Oak Post: 5, Blended Iron Ingot: 13, Cotton Rope: 11, Holder's Patent: 4
100 Influence for +0, 50 Influence for each upgrade

Master's Siege Engine Kit, Engineer 15
Ghostwood Post: 5, Sky Iron Ingot: 13, Silk Rope: 11, Holder's Patent: 20
200 Influence for +0, 100 Influence for each upgrade

Professional's Siege Camp Kit, Engineer 9
Aromatic Firewood: 3, Silvered Steel Blanks: 25, Cotton Sheet: 3, Advanced Strips: 10
50 Influence for +0, 25 Influence for each upgrade

Master's Siege Camp Kit, Engineer 16
Infused Firewood: 3, Truesilver Blanks: 25, Silk Sheet: 3, Paramount Strips: 10
100 Influence for +0, 50 Influence for each upgrade
Bob
I don't think we're going to be able to get any technical changes in that will help significantly with the feuding issues brought up here, but it sounds like a general "Good Sportsmanship and Feuds" policy could be helpful. I'll put some thought into that, probably start another forum thread to discuss it.