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

You lose 25% of any banked influence that gets returned. So if you tear down a structure with a total of 200 banked influence, you'll get back 150 influence. If a holding with 100 influence banked in it is taken from you, you'll get back 75 influence. If a feud ends with 100 influence still banked in it, you'll get back 75 influence. If a feud ends with zero influence banked (because the influence got banked in a holding you took), then you'll get back zero influence, but the 100 originally banked in the feud is safe in the holding until you lose it or tear it down.

There's definitely an odd case here where you feud someone (banking 100 influence in the feud), take a holding worth 200 influence (moving the 100 influence from the feud into the holding plus banking 100 more from your available influence), then lose only get back 150 influence if you tear that holding down or later lose it in battle. That's exactly the kind of thing we'll look at when we get to the feature request I filed on this. Meanwhile, if your intention is to tear down the buildings, you should probably try to manage your influence in such a way that you don't have a lot of available influence while you're feuding. That way, you won't have any additional influence to bank in the structures you take and won't risk losing much more than 25% of the 100 from the feud itself (whether you lose it when the feud ends or when you tear down a 100-influence structure you've claimed).
There hasn't actually been an email to the settlement leaders detailing this process yet, just the original one pointing people to this forum to participate in the discussion. I will send something more official out early next week now that we're getting closer to EE11. Given the need for substantial testing on this release, everyone will still have plenty of time to send in responses.

I'm also trying to work through some contradictions in the contact info we have for a few settlement leaders. If you're a settlement owner, and you didn't get the email I sent out a few days ago to let you know there'd be an Outlaw Council meeting on 10/8, please contact me at so I can get that all worked out.
Now could you (time permitting) please take a look at the owner's auto loss for losing the Holding or wanting to transfer it to another company? Maybe also a surrender mechanic that does not cost one side or both a loss of 25?

I've filed a feature request to look into that. I think it's all possible, but definitely will take code.
Guys, how flexible is the rep penalty system? Is it flexible enough to tie penalties into actions other than attacking and killing?
If that is easy enough, how much work would it take to have some kind of a "stake a claim" mechanic like a document or maybe better, a flag.
Keep reading. smile
Now, you have the tech for us to see that our holdings are being attacked. Could you tie that tech into a world map showing that a "staked claim" is being violated?

That's all possible, and we've actually discussed similar possibilities in the past. I can't speak to exactly how long it would take to do something like this, but I'd put it somewhere in the "small feature request" category as long as it remained pretty simple. Something along these lines could be worth discussing post-EE11.
Turns out that any kits I hand out prior to EE11 wouldn't be as inactive as I thought. To prevent any accidental usage, we'll wait until EE11 goes live and the kits are all properly set up before distributing these. Really glad I tested them out a bit before getting any handed out.

Even without the head-start, I should be able to get the bulk of the kits distributed within a day or two of EE11 going live. I'll still distribute them in roughly the order that requests are sent in (I'll jump around a bit depending on which designated recipients are available at any given time), but do take your time and make sure the list you send in is really what you want.

PS: I've edited all of my previous posts in this thread saying that I'd be distributing things early to reflect this change.
What's it like to go from occasionally posting here about escalations and mobs (rates, treasure, future mechanics, etc… ) to being the primary "bullhorn" for the whole shebang? It's only really an increase of about 1000%…. smile

It's definitely been an interesting month. Fortunately, a lot of good work was done getting things prepared ahead of time, and Lee and Stephen aren't quite annoyed enough by my frequent questions to put me on their KOS lists, at least not yet. Still, and I can't say this enough, I appreciate the patience you've all shown as I work through the bits and pieces that inevitably fell through the cracks.
Side note: This may be a silly question, but are structure kits for large buildings simply more rare (in the loot tables) than small or medium? I am starting to wonder if some of the cathedral recipes are having the same problem that Fine Padding +3 had for a while.

The larger structures do indeed have less chance of dropping than the mediums, which in turn have less chance of dropping than the smalls. The support structures each have the highest chance of dropping from an individual perspective (so you have a better chance of getting the recipe for a specific support building than getting the recipe for a specific building of any other size), but there are less of them available. Grouped together, you're more likely to get a small or medium recipe than a support recipe.
We will be going with the original design, which is that you will be limited to placing 2 large structures (not counting the keep). That means you'll have to leave the third large slot empty until we have some decorative buildings to fill those slots in with. I've talked with Mark to make sure this limitation gets implemented.

Technically, the other sizes will also have limits as well, it's just that their limitations are equal to the number of slots available.

Sorry my previous post wasn't clearer, got a bit long-winded trying to explain how the misunderstanding came about. I edited my original post to read like this:

Here's how the numbered slots are assigned:

Slot 1: Keep
Slot 2: Bank
Slot 3: Tavern
Slots 4-6: Large Structures (maximum of 2 can be placed, leaving 1 empty)
Slots 7-12: Medium Structures
Slots 13-22: Small Structures
Slots 23-32: Support Structures
Slots 33-82 (or unnumbered): Smallholdings

You'll get the Keep, Bank and Tavern automatically.

Edited: Added in the limitation that only 2 out of the 3 large slots can be used. The other slot sizes are limited only by the number of available slots.
This was mentioned in a roundabout way in the EE 10.2 Release Notes under Feuds, where we pointed out that finishing a feud without taking a holding would now result in 25% influence lost, while you'd lose nothing if you took a holding. That change was actually done by simply changing the percentage of influence returned whenever banked influence is given back from 90% to 75%. So, if you end a feud and still have 100 influence banked in it, you now get 75 influence returned instead of 90. If you took a holding during that feud, then the 100 influence banked in the feud is now banked in that holding.

What was obviously not as clear is that we use that same number when returning influence that's banked in holdings and outposts. So, tearing down or losing a holding now results in only 75 influence returning out of the 100 influence that was banked in the holding. My apologies for not pointing that out more clearly.
Figured it out. The original design called for there to only be a specific number of available slots of each size (2 large, 6 medium, 10 small). The main point I remembered from that was that you were limited by the number of slots, not by a smaller number for each size. Apparently, at some point we upped the number of slots to allow for more variety, with the intention of blocking players from using all the slots of each size, and I wasn't aware of that change. I'll talk with the team to make sure everyone's aware of it.