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
As part of cleaning up the settlement ownership list, we're going to switch from attaching ownership to email addresses and instead attach it to individual characters. Those characters will need to be on active accounts and will need to have leader rank in the settlement's founding company. Settlements will also be able to list multiple owners, alternates for decision-making when owners can't be reached quickly enough, and/or successors. However, only characters from active accounts can be on any of those lists.

I'll be reaching out to the owners of each settlement individually to get that all set up. If I'm unable to contact the official owner of a settlement, I'll transfer ownership to the highest-ranked leader/member when there's an obvious choice, or work with the highest-ranked leadership/membership to pick a new owner when there isn't an obvious choice.

Bob
Bob
Stilachio Thrax
The system shouldn't go live until this is resolved. I can't attack an enemy in my settlement with getting attacked by my own guards, and with this system they can build the tools to try to destroy my settlement WITHIN my settlement and mule them in a minuscule period of time to set up a siege. smile

[Cue horror movie music] THE ATTACK IS COMING FROM INSIDE YOUR SETTLEMENT!!!!!

Actually, that could be somewhat appropriate, in the case of a coup.

But yes, this will be an important point of discussion this week, and I think there are some relatively simple solutions.

On this front, I'm leaning toward requiring that the attackers show me their Siege Engine/Camp Kits at their home location (or locations if coordinating with allies) when declaring a siege, along with the needed mule saddlebags. I could also require advance notice of when the mules will make their runs so I can spot-check some of them. Doesn't help with every aspect that affects force projection, but at least requires that the largest items were built at an appropriate location.

As a warning, attacks coming from a settlement's own company (such as a coup) could be built in the target settlement.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Bob
Jumppuppy
Question, how will this affect the universal standing? Will it be removed so the city managers can ban [deny] certain companies or individuals from utilizing their facilities/trainers [make them hostile to the guard force]? Also, you can only train and/or produce products in your home city or those you are friendly to?

This is very high on our list of things to work on, but will be pretty complicated. Settlement warfare certainly adds the potential to make this more aggravating, but we'll have to focus any solutions on just the specific aspects added by settlement warfare, like the building of Siege Engines and Camps.
Maybe if we had some idea why it is so complicated, explained in as layman a way as you can, we could understand Mo'Better. To us it looks like a move of some part of code from Holding trainers to Settlement trainers…
-or-
A setting for Settlement guards to aggress all red (non settlement) characters.

If we kept it super-simple, like just "only settlement members can train in a settlement," then it would be a lot easier. However, that skips over a lot of details that I think most settlements would expect out of this feature, like the ability to turn this restriction on or off for your settlement, or the ability to include alliances, that make this feature more complicated. It's not like it's a crazy-big feature, and it's definitely toward the top of the list of things we want to do, but it's just a bit too involved for the moment.
Bob
kandorius
So GW isn't going to/didn't listen and they are going to implement settlement warfare anyway?

There are clearly some players in favor of introducing settlement warfare, some against it, and some with concerns. We're listening to everyone and continuing the conversation. Yes, during the conversation we're also doing the implementation work. In part that's because we have to actually dig into the implementation to be able to talk about specific ways to deal with people's concerns, and in part it's so we can get the update out reasonably quickly with as much feedback as possible incorporated.
Bob
A lot of interesting alternatives have been proposed here, and I sadly don't have time to respond to all of them. Each possible use of our limited resources has its upsides and downsides, and getting settlement warfare in at this time is certainly no different. However, there are a lot of underlying imbalances in the game that really can't be solved without getting some form of settlement warfare in, and that's largely because so many of the game's systems were based on so I'd like to focus on getting it implemented in the best way we can at this point.

Interestingly, and not all that surprisingly, a lot of the concerns have been that players either won't do enough sieging (because it might not be rewarding enough, and therefore all the work will be for naught) or will do too much sieging (because some people just want to watch the world burn, and as a result all the PvE players will be driven away). I believe we've already done some work to take these concerns into account, and part of the point of asking you all to raise your concerns here is to discuss what additional changes could be made.

For the concerns that sieging wouldn't be rewarding enough, we're open to reconsidering the complete destruction of settlement as the result of a successful siege. We do think it's important that settlement warfare leads to at least some destroyed structures, but we could say something more along the lines that only a certain percentage of structures would be destroyed at the end of the siege, or perhaps that a certain percentage would be destroyed, but the remainder could be saved for a significant amount of coin each. Alternatively, we could give the victor a high percentage of the original ingredients for destroying those particular structures. Picking the right percentages and/or costs would add some rewards beyond just the claiming of a new settlement (or the destruction of a competing settlement), without making it too rewarding.

For the concerns that there would be too many sieges driving players away, we definitely want to make settlement warfare expensive enough and difficult enough that players think very seriously before attacking someone. To start a siege, you need to create 6 Siege Engines and 12 Siege Camps, each of which requires similar ingredients to a typical Holding or Outpost, but with T2 or T3 refined resources (and having correspondingly longer build times). They also have to tear down any holdings and outposts already surrounding the settlement, and the siege becomes even more difficult if the settlement has a high settlement level and a reasonable amount of bulk goods saved up. A siege should be hard enough work to pull off that it's possible for most existing settlements to convince possible attackers that they're not worth the trouble. And if a settlement can't put up enough defenses on its own, it's time to start thinking diplomatically to either get/pay some allies to help out (perhaps grant permission for neighboring holdings in return for defending the land) or convince attackers to look elsewhere for targets (protection can be such a dirty word, but effective). A little diplomatic creativity could go a long way toward keeping you safe.
Bob
Fiery
If the upfront work is fairly small (I thought it might be, but couldn't be sure), what level of interest/participation would justify the logistics side of things for you to run it, say, once a week?

The trouble here is that a logistics-heavy solution for dueling essentially makes the amount of work increase at roughly the same rate that the amount of interest increases. As a result, if there's enough interest, we'd almost definitely be better off considering more upfront work to put something in that didn't require GM intervention.

Admittedly, our solution for settlement warfare has some similar potential problems, but the amount of gameplay involved before a GM even needs to get involved is significant (it won't be trivial making 6 Siege Engines and 12 Siege Camps) and it's more likely that greater interest results in bigger sieges (which involve more players but doesn't necessarily require more GM work) than in more sieges.



Bob
Fiery
Bob, how difficult would it be to have a proto-dueling system, where you run (daily?) events, involving passing out sets of equipment either with no durability or that don't take durability hits (not sure how easily something like this could be coded), allowing people to have proper t2/t3 duels, and you return the gear at the end or be banned?

It's probably possible to come up with a fairly simple initial dueling system along those lines that wouldn't be a ton of work, but I think there'd still be either a decent amount of work upfront to get something that just runs in-game, or a fairly small amount of work upfront with a lot of logistics work running it manually. Definitely not a trivial addition.
Bob
Jumppuppy
Question, how will this affect the universal standing? Will it be removed so the city managers can ban [deny] certain companies or individuals from utilizing their facilities/trainers [make them hostile to the guard force]? Also, you can only train and/or produce products in your home city or those you are friendly to?

This is very high on our list of things to work on, but will be pretty complicated. Settlement warfare certainly adds the potential to make this more aggravating, but we'll have to focus any solutions on just the specific aspects added by settlement warfare, like the building of Siege Engines and Camps.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
-First though, we need controls over who can and can't use facilities(banking training, resting, etc…smile in our settlements. Fighting off aggressors and wining, losing, getting owned is all part of PVP and can be stomached. I am not sure whether GW appreciates how infuriating and demoralizing and all around annoying(NOT IN A CUTE WAY) it is to watch enemies banking and training and recouping power right there in the city you have built. If GW does realize this, I have to believe it would have been "fixed" long ago.

We definitely know how aggravating this is, but sadly it's going to be very complicated to fix this. That said, I think if we focus specifically on the building of Siege Engines and Camps, we can come up with something.

Bringslite of Staalgard
-Second, you need a way to control when/if we can deposit bulk resources in our Settlement Upkeep Vaults(for siege purposes. As expensive as full sieges look like they will be, it will not be dangerous to move bulk into the besieged vault. Meaning that it isn't as if most attackers could throw up multiple sieges, making lowering any other stockpile not really dangerous.

I'm not 100% convinced that defenders shouldn't be able to bring in additional bulk resources to try to break the siege, but obviously it would be more interesting if they can only do so under specific circumstances, like breaking the enemy lines. At the end of the day, I'm going to be going all god-like-GM on the settlement vaults, so if we conclude something needs to be done about this, I'm sure we can do so with a GM-enforced solution.

Bringslite of Staalgard
Will evicted players(from their settlement) have ways, other than joining a new settlement or taking a new one away, to get new "digs"?

Unfortunately, we can't get all the other settlement locations fixed up in time, so we'll be restricted to the current locations for now. I'm kind of hopeful this actually will result in a few settlements winding up unclaimed, since stretching out too much opens alliances up to more attacks. Assuming that works out, evicted companies could then claim those empty settlements by surrounding them with holdings and outposts.

Bringslite of Staalgard
Will these evicted characters be able to compete to do any of this when they have NO settlement and they fall to lvl 8?

That is going to be the toughest part, but my hope is that for every flavor of refugee, there's always at least one settlement on the map willing to take them in. And as I stated elsewhere, this also reinforces the need to have allies you can fall back on.
Bob
Hobson Fiffledown
Damn. That TL;DR was for pretty much everyone except Bob… Good times. smile

Don't worry, I read the whole thing quite carefully. The TL;DR just seemed the most efficient part to quote in my followup.