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 if you're tweaking them is it possible to make the win boss either drop a T3 fighter maneuver or a a settlement recipe? Could you also beef the boss up a bit? Is there any way to make him stun repeatedly like a prelate does?

Essentially what I've done for the moment is to up the Victory Markers from 3 each to 3-4 each, and to raise the odds that the fighter maneuver will be T3 from miniscule to about 20% (just slightly lower than the odds were for Nhur Athemon to drop a T3 Spell).

I'll also go ahead and add in a guaranteed recipe per person, with some chance that it will be T3 or a settlement recipe. I'll actually see if I can race through and add that to all the Win Bosses (they're all in one spreadsheet, so it shouldn't be too much work), though most won't get T3 (essentially, it will be based on the drop odds from the boss itself, though with 1 guaranteed per person).

Making the boss harder is a bit more of a challenge and will have to wait until post-11.1. I'll look at that as part of my pass to add more T3-dropping mobs.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
What if escalations that hit 0% dropped to a lower loot table without the mobs getting any easier? I'm thinking if the percentage is at zero, spawn Outcast Heroes and Outcast Legends that fight just like their more well-off namesakes. No extra design work, just a loot table, and name variation.

Frighteningly enough, I could probably actually do something along those lines purely in data, by creating a phase that was only active at around 0%, that had it's own spawn lists that only spawned special entities with lowered loot tables. Lot of data work, though.

Plus, generally speaking, I'm trying to force myself to always use the carrot instead of the stick, so I'd rather raise the Win Boss loot than lower the loot for everything else. The tricky part is just that there's so often some specific item people want to farm that it's hard to make something more universally valuable without going overboard.
You are a Troll
And while you are at it Bob, please add some more mobs that actually have a chance of dropping T3 recipes to some other escalations, hey? smile

Also planned for post-11.1.
Original intentions or not, escalation rules have changed every patch to reflect the state of the game.

Bob, is it too late to revisit the escalation rules for EE 11.1? Given the extreme rarity of T3 dropping mobs, and the intention of "we don't want to give certain regions a PvE loot advantage" and all of these negative forum posts toward boss kills and the apparent inability to police or know who is killing what I think a special case should be given here even if it's just for Usties.

My goal is certainly for the wandering Ustalavs to wander, but that does run up against my goal of requiring player interaction to successfully finish off an escalation. The plan was to make killing off an escalation so rewarding that farming becomes undesirable, or at least so rewarding to some players that killing off the boss would be extremely tempting. In the case of the Ustalavs, a party of 6 would still get 18 total victory markers and 6 Trophy Charm Expendables (mostly T2, but a small chance of T3). Victory markers don't seem to be as valuable as they once were, but perhaps they were tempting enough to get someone to kill off the escalation, or perhaps the guaranteed Expendables were a draw. Or they just wanted to steal away the escalation.

The real problem with the wandering Usties is that their Win Boss rewards are based on the toughness of their boss (who's only a general), but along the way they sometimes offer rewards based on Heroes and Legends. I'll see if I can make a quick change for 11.1 to differentiate the Win Boss rewards between the wandering version and the home version. Hopefully that will make the Win Boss a more tempting target.
Since this has some relevance to this discussion..

@GW - how long will escalations ( except, lich, crazy ogres, dark elves,, and elementals) start at like 10k strength? And then lose strength per hour?Why not increase to all T2 escalations values when they appear- make them all start at max ( since they still die on their own can cant spread..)?

I'm planning to take a closer look at this right after we close up 11.1.
Thanks for the details, we'll take a closer look when we have a chance.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Edit: And since the Final check is made after server up Monday, what happens if a leader slips in and puts bulk in the vault before Server down that morning? In theory the settlement would have a training level when it comes back up, so does the capture fail?

Yes, the blog is again pretty clear that we check the vulnerability criteria again on Monday morning and that the settlement still needs to be vulnerable for the takeover to succeed. That means the settlement leader could appoint an active leader or up the Settlement Level at the very last minute. It's kind of unfair to the attackers, but for now we really only mean for truly abandoned settlements to be taken over. You should be pretty convinced that the owners won't even try to do something like this before starting your takeover.
I ask because there are a number of alliances that have multiple settlements and in the interest of hostile takeovers against secondary settlements will this be a thing you will see over?

Forgot to answer this bit. We don't really police the difference between primary and secondary settlements. The vulnerability of each settlement is judged individually.
What is the definition used to determine inactive settlements at this time? is it upkeep > 9 ? will you email the controlling company leaders?/quote]

The criteria for being considered vulnerable (inactive) are still the same as stated in the original blog.

1. Settlements that don't have a leader with a valid account and an active month of game time are vulnerable. In other words, there needs to be someone who can log-in and do leader things for the settlement. This probably isn't the most useful criteria from a player perspective, since it's hard to tell in-game whether a settlement has such a leader (unless it literally has no leader character). For the most part, this one is only useful if you have good reason to believe that a settlement's leadership has left the game, at which point you can contact me at and ask about that settlement's status. Please do not spam me with requests for this status, only ask if you really can execute a takeover, have good reason to believe the leaders are inactive, and plan to attempt a takeover if they really are inactive.

1. Settlements that aren't at least Settlement Level 10 are vulnerable to takeover. This one you can easily tell in the Company Search window, so it's the most useful criteria.

The blog is pretty clear that you only have to meet one of these criteria to be vulnerable, since the wording for each of them is essentially "If you're not X, then you're vulnerable," not "if you're X, then you're safe."

As for contacting the settlement leaders, I'm again following the wording of the original blog as closely as I can.

If the only reason the settlement is vulnerable is that there isn't an active leader, then I do contact the official leader and ask them to fix the situation. If they fail to do so, then they'll remain vulnerable. I will make this request as soon as someone asks me whether the settlement is vulnerable for that reason.

If the settlement is vulnerable due to its Settlement Level, then I will not contact the leader to warn them they're vulnerable. In such cases, it is the settlement's responsibility to keep track of their settlement level and to notice that they're being surrounded by holdings.

If the takeover attempt succeeds (the surrounding holdings remain up over the entire weekend), then I will contact the settlement's leader to see if they have any technical objections to the takeover. At that point, their objects have to be along the lines that the attacker's took advantage of an exploit, or that some bug prevented them from raising the settlement level, not just that they don't want to lose their settlement.
Correct, hostile takeovers result in no free structure kits. In fact, if a settlement places a bunch of structure kits, then goes inactive and gets taken over by a hostile force, I plan to tear down the existing structures before turning the settlement over (in keeping with the long-term plans for lots of structure damage/destruction as part of settlement warfare).

Voluntary settlement transfers are, as far as we're concerned, just an internal affair, so they get to keep all the kits/structures allocated to that settlement. Any attempt to differentiate between internal power shifts and external transfers would just result in a bunch of silliness, like moving companies to the settlement in advance to make the power shift look internal, none of which we're interested in trying to police.