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
harneloot
If everyone else thinks that just making people (me) log in more often to kill some mobs, gather or craft enough to maintain my influence banked in my current holdings is going to save the game, then I'll jump on board and support with my sub, but I don't think its the real long term answer we need for a truly Living River Kingdoms.
We don't have quite such lofty goals for this particular proposal, this is just a quick fix we can fit into our schedule that we feel would better balance the ongoing benefits of expansion against its ongoing costs. And if we didn't think that lack of balance was causing immediate problems, and that those problems are likely to get worse soon, we'd hold off on doing anything.

Also, we think we can do this so that it's not really asking most territory holders to do much more influence earning activity than they already are. Ideally, the right set of numbers would mean that most groups would merely want to think more seriously about upgrading their existing holdings than about taking another holding, or even about cutting back on some holdings in favor of upgrading others.
Bob
NightmareSr
Is there maybe a way to increase the influence gain for certain activity levels or something?
Influence gain can certainly be tweaked, and some tweaks are easier than others. Right now, the numbers that are easiest to tweak are the amount earned each time a once-on-achievement trigger occurs (like earning a location achievement) is earned, as well as the base amount and the reduction-per-level amount earned each time an always-on-achievement trigger occurs (like crafting an item or killing a mob, with killings counting twice because they trigger off both the "with a particular weapon" and "a particular type of monster" kill achievements). Other adjustments could be made, like having crafting influence better reflect the time spent crafting that particular item, or granting influence for activities that aren't connected to achievements, but those definitely require some code work. It would also be possible to add some additional achievements to offer more opportunities to earn influence, but again the difficulty there depends on whether those achievements require new code or not.

NightmareSr
I have a handful of T3 crafters that have just been crafting for about 3 months and breaking gates and leveling up in my company 'Disgruntled Nightmares', but have only generated 150 influence.
Compare that to my Cauchemar T2 Combat Alchemist that was hunting Bondancers and broke her Alchemist Expert 9 achievement just last night. She generated a handful of influence all by herself in a handful of hours.
The activities that generate influence are just not balanced enough at all.
The current system is definitely biased toward crafting lots of items rather than crafting big gate items, and toward killing over crafting. We'd definitely like to improve on that balance when we get a chance.
Bob
Azure_Zero
NightmareSr
One huge problem to making holdings and outpost cost more when they are further away, is the 'Little guy' and the 'new guy'… The only hexes I could grab to get Cauchemar built are very far from home.
With so much of the map already claimed there isn't are very limited opportunities for someone to build new with lower than maxed out characters.

Yes that is the case, but it also causes another problem, think of the bulk resources.
Most terrain types only have 3-4 types of bulk that can be collected and we need 5 types in large amounts, this means if your in the middle of one terrain type that settlement can be royally screwed over in bulk and taxes, while those at the edges of multiple types would have a very easy time on the taxes and bulk resources.
These issues are part of the reason we like to give players a lot of flexibility in deciding which hexes to control, balanced with certain incentives. Currently, the main incentives for controlling nearby hexes have to do with more easily setting up a barrier of protected hexes and shorter distances to haul bulk resources. However, we also assumed there'd be some trading between settlements to deal with excesses and shortages, and that it would be pretty common for allied settlements to have a shared strategy on hex control.

And, of course, any time you feel the grass is greener in another settlement, you can try to take it from them.
Bob
Azure_Zero
If you what holdings to go pop and WITH OUT the activity tax, we just make a timer that counts how long it has been since the HOLDING's HOLDING vault was accessed (it'll be checking bulk numbers and looking for a difference in values),
if that hexes holding vault has not been accessed in over say 3 months it sets all holdings and outposts to +0/+0 and degrades them like in a capture in a feud and only tehy have a week to access the vault and crank back up the holding and outposts, if they fail to do so, the next holding that goes in that spot takes ALL the stuff that was in the holding's vaults before it.
It probably wouldn't be very difficult to add a "last time the Holding Secure vault was checked" value to holdings, and then the easiest thing to do would be to shut down the holding any day that value was more than X days in the past. The holding would then follow the standard process of getting destroyed if it was shut down for 7-8 days in a row.

While this would pretty effectively clear out completely unused holdings, I'm not sure it sets a high enough bar per additional holding to make the expansion decision much more interesting. I do like that it's a task that should already be happening for any truly useful holding, so it only "adds" a task for those cases where someone expands beyond what they're putting to use.
Bob
Paddy Fitzpatrick
You mean to tell me that instead of the hexes that were arranged to be self sustaining with some room for extra bulk some guy only has to use one random hex for DI with some infinite bulk wealth lying around that would make Batman blush?

If that is the case then yeah make it like a minimum of six hexes for DI from holdings to count. Though not necessarily the core six cause there may be better nearby hexes for different resources.
A simple six holding minimum for DI generation could be done fairly easily, I think. Throwing in additional requirements about distance and the like would make things a lot harder, and there are probably other ways to more easily incentive settlements to prefer their core 6 while leaving them the flexibility to put them elsewhere. Maybe not ways we can get to right away, but eventually.

That said, if the holding minimum gets very high, settlement warfare could be reduced to just taking away a settlement's holdings. If only a single holding is required to earn some DI, then a settlement under siege has at least a decent chance of claiming a holding somewhere around the world just often enough to stay active and avoid abandoning the settlement. Whatever the minimum bar is for maintaining a settlement, that's also effectively setting the bar for destroying a settlement.
Bob
Azure_Zero
Bob, This game is Based on Territorial PVP, PVP should be the biggest control of holdings, but the game's current population is way TOO small for that element to work right.
I know every hex is taken, so what do I do, I target a known dead company and take their hexes and they are easy to find if one thinks and scouts for information and tracks their targets before going at the dead company.
PvP is indeed intended to be the ultimate arbiter for territorial control, but it was always meant to be tempered in various ways. The influence system helps ensure that you can't PvP for territory without at least some members participating in non-PvP. The DI system helps ensure that you can't claim or hold settlements without managing at least some other territory. The original Max Influence system (as intended, with only Active characters counting) ensured that you couldn't participate in territorial PvP without a certain number of members. It's a lot of different systems interacting to limit each other, with PvP the deciding factor in individual battles, but with groups unable to expand indefinitely purely through PvP.

Ultimately, our goal was to always have some areas of the map that were uninhabited, though not necessarily a high percentage at any given time. If the population grew too large and things got crowded, we were going to expand the map, with a reasonably high bar for claiming new territory and settlements. If individual settlements or companies could no longer support themselves due to lack of members/activity, their territory would be taken away for others to claim. Groups looking to expand would have a choice of attacking some existing territory if PvP was their strength, or clearing territory if PvE was their strength, but wouldn't be able to do either until they had reached a certain size and strength.

All of this is to say that your tactic of seeking out the most promising territory to attack is exactly right given the current circumstances, and even right if it's your preferred tactic, it just wasn't meant to be the only tactic available for expansion.
Bob
harneloot
You really think HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of people are going to want to play PFO when there is an entrenched upper class? Its simply not going to happen.
This, or at least the perception of it, is clearly a huge issue for incoming players. However, it's only temporarily solved by a wipe. Without rule changes, two years later things will look roughly the same, and incoming players at that time will have the same worries. Our goal is to keep adjusting the mechanics until things are properly balanced, focusing on the adjustments that feel most important for our population at the time.
Bob
BlackMoria
The current rules make the settlement leader near invincible. They can't be deposed - either Bob must remove them or they must step down.
Very true, though to be clear, I will remove settlement owners if they don't meet the requirements. Those requirements are pretty minimal, for now, but we have been steadily adding to them. It would be possible to institute some rules that allow for coups, or impeachments, or other appropriate options, but in general I'd have to start from the assumption that existing settlements had chosen Tyranny as their choice of government, but let the current owners switch to another form by unanimous consent. I'd also have to provide a lot of warning before instituting any such rule changes, so the current owners would have some time to prepare, particularly if Tyranny included a coup option.
Bob
BlackMoria
All hail Emperor Bob?
I do like the sound of that smile
Bob
Flari-Merchant
That depends on your point of view. Remember that just about all of the Settlements in the game now(maybe all?) were pre awarded. That set a stage for the "haves" and the "have no chancers". Or maybe it is inaccurate to state that as there has never been a sufficient incoming group sticking around long enough to try and build a settlement from nothing.

A year in to a reset might look different if everyone had to earn(through some type of gameplay) a spot to put their Settlement.

There's actually been a fair amount of settlement turnover since launch. Many are indeed still from the Land Rush, and some may just still carry the original name. There are even two claimable settlements right now, though it probably wouldn't be easy to claim the hexes around them.

If we start to feel the population is ready for it, we can also start opening up some of the placeholder settlements. However, if we don't put some kind of tendency in for territory to be lost through game mechanics, as opposed to just through PvP, the tendency will always be for the world to fill up as quickly as it can, and then stay full.