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

I looked into the gathering code and unlike the loot tables, we just throw all the possible resources to gather into one big pile and then pull things out randomly. On the one hand, that means there isn't really a consistent likelihood for pulling T3 resources. On the other hand, that means that you can strategize a bit when gathering.

Suppose a hex starts out with 75% T1, 20% T2 and 5% T3 (not saying any hexes are like that, just easy numbers to work with). If you send a T3 gatherer in at that point, she'll gather 75% T1, 20% T2 and 5% T3 during her time there. However, if you send your T1 gatherers in first, they'll gather 100% T1, since that's all they can gather. In the most extreme case, you could have them strip the hex, leaving it at 80% T2 and 20% T3. Now send in your T2 gatherers, who will gather 100% T2 during their time there, much more efficient than the 79% T1 and 21% T2 they'd have been gathering if they'd gone in initially. Once the T2 resources are stripped, send in your T3 gatherers, who won't waste any time gathering T1 or T2 resources.

Of course, that's a pretty extreme version. But what it illustrates is that if some T1-T2 gatherers have been busy in a hex for a while, then your odds of pulling T3 resources will have gone up a bit. On the other hand, if a T3 gatherer has been busy for a while, it's likely that the odds of pulling anything in particular are probably still roughly the same, unless the gatherer had an interesting string of good or bad luck causing them to pull one tier more or less than expected.

Update: Edited my numbers a tiny bit to correct a mistake. The initial T3 gatherer should have been gathering at 75/20/5 to match the hex's ratios, not at 60/30/10. I had originally written my example at 60/30/10, then changed to make the math easier, but forgot to fix the first gathering numbers.
From the Terms of Service:

Dont cheat.

If you find some condition, combination of actions, location, or feature that is broken or provides you an advantage you should not have due to a bug, don't do that thing. Report it.

Don't get hung up on the word "bug," since you should really just take that to mean "something about the game that doesn't feel right." If you find any aspect of the game that feels imbalanced, don't take advantage of that imbalance, report it. If we reply that it's okay to take advantage of it, then it's not cheating to take advantage of it. Most of the time, that's what we wind up saying. Maybe we don't think it's imbalanced enough to worry about it until we have a chance to fix it. Maybe we think it's fine as long as everyone knows about it. Maybe it's something that we'd rather not have working that way but that we're stuck with because of some technology we're using.

If we later change our minds and state that it's not okay to take advantage of it, then it's cheating to take advantage of it. Likewise, if you don't report it, and we think it's pretty clearly an unfair advantage, then we'll consider that cheating and deal with it accordingly. Admittedly, oftentimes it's not obvious that something provides an unfair advantage until the issue is looked at closely, and we take that into account.

Also, to be clear, we've had very little behavior that we've considered cheating, and most cases called for little more than a warning.
So, lets start another. Is it possible and design intent to be able to adjust your PVP window if a feud starts before Monday server down and is set to last a few days?

We had several discussions about how to handle all kinds of potential company changes that could be made mid-feud, from shifting PvP windows to switching settlements to membership changes. We did generally feel that some combination of restrictions, consequences and incentives would be needed to keep things fun and fair, but didn't get the chance to finalize our plans or implement much of what we discussed.

On the one hand, we want attackers to be have a good idea in advance of who, where and when they'll need to fight when deciding whether or not to start a feud. That tempted us to really minimize the changes allowed during a feud, or at least to maximize the consequences for any such changes.

On the other hand, we worried that feuding a company could essentially become a weapon, a way to block the company and its members from changing settings that might be important to them for reasons that have nothing to do with a current feud. In particular, we worried that a company could find itself perma-feuded by a revolving set of companies, preventing them from ever making needed changes.

My thoughts at the moment are that we'll likely need to put some kind of delay into the system for changing things like PvP window durations or start times, with the UI showing when those changes will kick in, so that attackers at least know what the windows are for the next several days. Switching settlements is a tougher question, since having a settlement suddenly switch sides in the middle of a war sounds, well, awesome. However, there probably need to be consequences to such a switch, and perhaps we'd block the PvP windows from changing for the switching company for a while. Switching company membership has similar issues, since we really don't want to restrict players from moving around at will, but we don't want such movement to completely invalidate the feud system. That will probably be the trickiest part to get right.

Ultimately, we want things like settlement level, settlement membership, PvP window start times, and the like to be long-term decisions that don't get changed just in response to a feud. Getting all the mechanics in place will take some time, and meanwhile I'm open to setting up some policies, though I also have no doubts that any such policies will need adjustments over time.

As a start, I'd propose that if you're a company leader thinking of changing your PvP start time or switching settlements, check to see if you're being feuded. If so, announce on the forums that you'll be changing your start time in 3 days, then wait to make the change until that time.

Changing settlement levels is a little trickier, since it can be a pain for a settlement leader to check to see if any member companies are being feuded. Here it might be better to just say that settlements shouldn't be changing their settlement levels for purely feud-related reasons, whether incoming or outgoing.
West Sellen Sentries has taken over New Daggermark and made it their own, renaming it Everwatch. Congratulations!
I know I personally misunderstood what you meant by player agreement. If my understanding is now correct, you propose that we establish a player agreement to the effect of: "The in-hex window is considered correct, rather than the one shown in company window, until the fix can go through." Is that correct?

Correct. It's only wrong for one day, and it seems easier to just be prepared defend for the extra time for one day on the (ideally) rare occasions that a settlement lowers its settlement level, than to try to manually enforce the intended timer and to correct any resulting losses.

Also, to clarify, I'm talking about future instances, not what happened yesterday. Yesterday was unexpected, since we didn't know about the bug at that time, so I think it's fairest for everyone to honor the intended duration as best they can, and to accept that everyone was acting in good faith.
PFO Weary
So it's a bug, but fixing it is hard, and expecting players to realize it's a bug is hard, so let's just pretend it's not a bug until we fix it?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Is it hard to fix? It's probably not trivial, but we have some thoughts on fairly straight-forward fixes. However, I can't guarantee we'll have a fix ready to roll out before this issue comes up again, so the best we can do for now is make a statement about how to deal with the issue if it arises again before a fix is deployed.

Is it hard for players to realize it's a bug? Not if you're aware of it and understand the details, but there's nothing in-game making it clear there's a bug. For example, if you look at the company window, the start time reported may differ from the hex's start time for today, but that's not a bug since changes to the start time are supposed to roll out the the hexes until the next downtime. Only the differing duration is a bug. Confusing enough that it could lead to confusion and arguments.

And yes, the proposal is essentially to ignore the bug until it gets fixed, and just play the way the mechanics are running for now, even though they're not working as intended. We only make policies asking people to play contrary to the way the game is running when the advantages of having the policy outweigh the disadvantages of trying to enforce the policy. I'm not convinced that's the case here.
No personal eggs in that pan at the moment, but the second option seems a bit open to corner cases of last minute(what should be last few minutes) "We are sooo close! Just keep at it!" results. Not to mention heat of battle arguments. I do believe that most everyone would try and abide accurately and fairly to expected norms.
Edit: I would also like to point out that because a PVP window ends does not mean that a feud is over. It is still legit to fight. Only structure capture is supposed to be ended at window close.

If the possible corner cases of "Sooo close!" and/or arguments about "hey it's 30 seconds past time!" are not troublesome, then I withdraw my concerns.

If we go the "policy" route, this is a definite concern. Duration would be getting enforced by "player agreement" or "let's look at the tape," and would be subject to arguments and disagreements. If we go the "until the bug is fixed, be prepare to defend your holdings for the old duration on the first day of the settlement level change," then the servers do all the enforcing for us and there's no debate about whether or not the battle ended on time.
Is this problem specific to changing settlement levels, or does it happen when changing feud windows as well?

To my knowledge, this is specific to changing settlement levels.
When a settlement changes its settlement level, which changes both the training levels available and the PvP window duration, all of that is supposed to go into effect when the servers come back up after downtime Monday morning. That means that the PvP window durations for every hex controlled by a settlement should be identical and should match the duration shown in the company window. That's certainly how things were intended to work, and what most players expect to happen.

Unfortunately, some of the map servers are coming up more quickly than anticipated, and are effectively setting their PvP window duration before the settlement has had a chance to switch to the new duration, so those maps wind up using the previous week's duration. After downtime on Tuesday, all the map servers will get the correct values and everything will be consistent from that point on (at least until the settlement level is changed again).

The end result is that you can't depend on how many of your hexes will switch to your new PvP window duration on Monday when settlement levels are changed (could be all, some or none), but you can depend on all of them switching by Tuesday.

Up until now, everyone's been expecting all those hexes to change on Monday morning, and I've filed a bug report to get that fixed. In previous instances of this happening, many attacking companies have been graciously honoring the company's expected duration, rather than the one reported by the hex, and that feels like a pretty appropriate response for an unexpected occurrence that clearly doesn't match the design intention.

I could turn that into a policy that players are expected to follow in future cases, but it could be tricky to enforce or to rebalance things when it's not followed. The simpler option would be to say that until this is fixed, this is just the expected behavior. That has the advantage of not being so much a "policy" as just a recognition of how things work, so there's no need for enforcement beyond what the mechanics already do, even though they're not what's ultimately intended.

I'd prefer the second option, but I'd be interested to hear arguments from anyone who feels strongly that the first option is preferable.
Will the PFO Wiki - Official Data be updated during the next build as well? And any estimate on when this build will be deployed?

Yes, I'll make sure the official data gets updated, since this and at least one other relevant change will be going in. In fact, I think I accidentally updated it with at least one of the upcoming changes already when I was fixing another missing update from a previous build, but I'll make sure anything from the new build gets updated.

As for timing, I'm hoping to put something into testing within a week or two. That will mean that it will be a relatively small set of changes, but we've already made a few fixes that would be good to get out soon.