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
I believe we have you lose influence when structures are lost or torn down partially as an influence sink, and partially to have some cost for those decisions or battle losses. We could perhaps treat those losses slightly differently when manually tearing them down than when losing them in battle, and I'll admit it does seem a little odd to lose something called influence just because you decide to put up a different kind of structure. I'll file that as a feature request to look into.

For the quarries, I don't think we actually ever had them eating ore as their preferred bulk good, or at least it was never intended (perhaps there was a bug that got fixed that I'm not remembering). The original blog post for Holdings and Outposts lists them as eating trade goods first, followed by food and finally wood as they upgrade. I'm guessing the confusion there was that, for quite logical reasons, players stocked them with ore, and the quarries then ate that ore, just 4 times as much of it as they would have if they'd been fed trade goods. Unfortunately, that just reinforced the initial impression that quarries wanted to eat ore. Clearly we need more feedback to let players know what the structure wants to eat, as well as what it actually ate and why.

And yes, if a holding is looking for one kind of bulk good that's not available (or there's just not enough of that kind of good), it will eat 4 times the amount of some other available good instead to make up the difference. For example, a +0 Quarry wants to eat 2 trade goods, but will accept 8 ore, or 1 trade good and 4 ore.
Bob
When I posted about this, we thought we wouldn't be able to get around to fixing it for quite a while. Then it turned out there was a fairly safe, easy server-side fix, and we just made that fix. Newly-created Destiny's Twins will no longer backdate, they'll just start earning XP from the moment their training is turned on.

An important point to keep in mind is that this means when you create a character intending to use them as a Destiny's Twin, you want to log them out right away and then log back in to turn on their training.
Bob
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Wait, so we can train a different character than our DT, and not lose the DT perk?? And that new character might get backdated XP to when the DT was created (day one for most)?
No. The bug is about applying a DT invite to an existing non-DT account rather than using it to create a new Twin-pair account.

Correct. This is only about cases where an account hasn't already set up the Destiny's Twin. If they do so now, the newly designated twin may get backdated XP.
Bob
It recently came to our attention that applying Destiny's Twin to an existing character is often backdating that character's experience to the date that character was created (or last had training turned off, for those cases where players are bouncing their XP between two characters). The intention, and the general implication from the original description of the feature, was that twins would start earning XP alongside their twinned character as soon as they were declared twins. As such, it is quite likely that we will at some point fix things so that newly declared Destiny's Twins don't get backdated, but until that time, we're not considering this an exploit.

However, we are also not guaranteeing that you'll actually get this backdating. It's possible that any number of things that happened to your character since it's creation, or following certain paths while setting up your Destiny's Twin, will block it from getting backdated. All we're promising is that you'll now have two characters earning XP from that point forward, everything else is gravy.

So if this happens to you, go ahead and spend that XP and bask in your glorious luck. If not, you'll still have two characters earning XP going forward, and that ain't bad.
Bob
I didn't mean to give the impression that skills like Architect, Stonemason and Carpenter aren't still planned for the future. It's true that those skills don't necessarily line up well with the initial implementation of settlement building that we're planning for EE11, or with the existing implementations of Holdings and Outposts, but the intention is to eventually make them line up in a workable way. We just simplified them for the time-being to get the basics of those systems into the game.

I'll look into the possibility of turning training for some of those skills back on, but I agree that it would be important to message that those skills aren't fully functional, despite having their XP costs calculated based on their planned functionality.
Bob
Closing before this becomes the Forever Topic.
Bob
Sorry about the short notice. Mike got trapped by all the traffic from the Chinese President's visit today, while I got dismissed from jury duty and became available.
Bob
Mike and I are going to switch places, so I've changed all the subjects and postings to reflect that I'll be doing the chat today and Mike will be doing it next week.
Bob
Mike and I are going to switch places, so I've changed all the subjects and postings to reflect that I'll be doing the chat today and Mike will be doing it next week.
Bob
It looks like some of the outposts are missing their Shut Down models at certain upgrades. Easy fix, fortunately, but it will probably have to wait until EE11.