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

The spreading escalations won't just take bulk. They will damage and/or destroy holdings/outposts. That is why I thought a Notice would be fitting. A feud to just raid bulk doesn't need a lead time or warning, but to take over holdings/outpost it does require 2 day warning. So I hoped that the monster infections should follow the same pattern.
Part of the answer here will be that spreading escalations won't do any permanent damage right away. Still working out all the details, but the rough idea is that hexes with holdings would run monster invasions like they do now, but in addition to losing that day's production if the invaders win, the hex would become infected. If you clear them out quickly enough, then no damage would occur to your buildings and life would return to normal. If you don't, then some kind of damage would be done over time that might eventually result in losing the hex. One possible idea I've been considering is having infected hexes be guaranteed to run a monster invasion each day, and if they win they knock the buildings down by 1 max upgrade, much like what happens when a holding is taken over through PvP. If the invaders knock the buildings below 0, then they're destroyed and the hex is lost. We could throw some delays in, like saying escalations won't try to spread until they're a full day old, or infected hexes don't run destructive invasions until they're at least a day old, but even without that you'd be able to see that your hex was subject to an incoming invasion that first day and that it was infected the second day, giving you time to mount a defense. Plus, you'd only have to worry about this on your three PvP days. Throw on that buildings better than +2 couldn't possibly fall in a single week (infected first PvP day, knocked to +1 second PvP day, knocked to +0 third day, 4 days to clear them before the next PvP day) and you wouldn't have to fret too much about not noticing an issue right away, though obviously you'd be better off the sooner you noticed. And again, none of this is final, and there's lots we can do to slow things down if necessary.
Changes to a feuded company’s PvP Window can significantly affect the feuding company’s ability to attack the feuded company’s territory. These PvP Windows are meant to give companies flexibility on deciding when they are best prepared to defend themselves, but are also meant to be a declaration that a company is willing to defend itself at those days and times. They are meant to steer PvP toward preferred times, not to prevent it from happening. Until we’re able to add appropriate limits on actions that can alter PvP Windows while feuded, do not make changes that could significantly alter the PvP Window in ways that are disadvantageous to a currently-feuding company (e.g. join/leave a settlement, lower the settlement level, change the PvP start time, …) without first posting notice on the forums one week in advance. If such changes are made without sufficient notice, Paizo may, at its sole discretion, restore the feuding company’s ability to attack the feuded company’s territory in any manner necessary, even if this leaves the feuded company or its former settlement at a greater disadvantage than it originally had. Any changes only affecting companies that aren't currently being feuded, or that only increase the chances for a feuding company to succeed at taking territory, or that are agreed to by all affected feuding companies, can be made without providing any warning.

This policy will go into effect after Daily Maintenance on Monday, March 30, 2020 Pacific. Let me know if you see any issues with the policy so I can make adjustments as needed.
I am hoping spreading gets rolled out in phases, to find out how much is just right.
As I wouldn't want the game to repeat the mistakes of many others.

I'd like the phases to be;
Phase 1: All raid escalations (T1-)
Phase 2: All T1 escalations(T1)
Phase 3: Lower T2
Phase 4: Higher T2
Phase 5: Low T3

We're planning to have a mix of spreading and non-spreading escalations, so it's likely that many of the escalations will just be left as-is. I don't know that we'll follow a strictly-phased pattern of adding spreading escalations, but we do basically plan on only adding a few at a time, and starting at the lower end in terms of difficulty. However, we're thinking we want to include a bit of a difficulty mix. Even in their spreading form, things like Raids just won't offer much challenge to higher-end characters, and we'll be missing out on a lot of good feedback until the challenge is at least noticeable for them.
Noticed there was no thread for this and just a little statement on the Roadmap for it and it is the next item on that list. So is there any details to discuss?

We've had some internal discussions and I've started writing up an initial draft. Once that's ready, I'll post it for discussion.

I hope it starts out slow and that we get a notice before holdings get overrun.

We do plan on rolling this out slowly. On the issue of getting notice, there'll be plenty of warning before this feature goes live. In terms of specific holdings being at risk, we can look at displaying some information on the map about holdings that are at risk (I think we may already show that an invasion is scheduled, and could probably show when an owned hex was infected, along with other related info), or is there something more you're looking for in terms of getting notice?

Also, are the dates on the Roadmap changeable? might be nice to have a link to release notes for the ones that are done, if that page gets updated.

We're reviewing the Roadmap now and I'll edit the page as soon as we've decided on new dates and such. I usually just remove everything that's been completed, since the Roadmap is intended as a forward-looking statement where players can quickly see what we're working on next. That said, it probably wouldn't hurt to have something at the bottom pointing to a new Release Notes page, which in turn could point at all the blog posts where the official Release Notes live. As long as I'm already editing the Roadmap anyway, that would be pretty easy to add. It would also be fairly easy to keep updated, and it would be nice to give the Release Notes a more permanent home.
With the remaining sequences falling so quickly in recent days, there's a chance we could add Emerald Aristocrats to the new build we're working on. That build is primarily to fix various Combat Alchemist bugs, but I'm also looking to add a little new content to pursue for everyone who finds themselves playing a little more often in these challenging times.

Adding an escalation to the rotation is a trivial thing, just changing a zero to a one in a single spreadsheet. Making it occur less often would involve a fair amount of code work and we're thinking that may be overkill, at least in terms of doing a bunch of work just in case Emerald Aristocrats appears too often. If all I do is change that zero to one, then Emerald Aristocrats would appear about as often as Over the Crown or Elite Duergar Slavers do, and there does usually seem to be a pretty good delay before those reappear. If we find that's too often for something as high level as Emerald Aristocrats, then we could make additional changes, and we'd know that we definitely shouldn't add Eternal Youth until those changes are made. If all is well, then we'd have avoided some unnecessary work.

Of course, this is a moot point if there's no chance of clearing the remaining sequences in time. We probably won't be getting to final testing until late next week, so if it starts to look like all three sequences will be cleared shortly after that (say by Daily Maintenance on April 6), then we'll delay the build just long enough to include Emerald Aristocrats. If not, then we'll go ahead with the update as quickly as we can, only including the escalation if it turns out that fixing all the bugs takes longer than we expect.
Another defeat for Nhur Athemon near Fort Ouroboros (6-6), leaving only 3 sequences to clear:

  • Succinct Prime 3-3-4: Currently on escalation 26 (The Revenge of Nhur Athemon) at 100000 strength.
  • Canis Castrum 4-4: Currently on escalation 26 (The Revenge of Nhur Athemon) at 100000 strength.
  • Sunholm 5-5-6: Currently on escalation 22 (Dark Elves) at 30625 strength.
I suppose I am more specifically wondering if those new buildings will be added before or after the next road-map item of Spreading Escalations?

Not real likely to appear before Spreading Escalations, but we're still working all that out.
Once all the sequences are cleared, we'll add the Emerald Aristocrats to the rotation in the next build (unless there's one already almost complete, in which case we'll do so in the build after that). I'll probably add the Eternal Youth escalation sometime around then as well, but I also want to take another look at the timing/balance on it before doing so.

For both of those escalations, we do plan on adding something to make them happen less often than any other escalations do. Currently, escalations simply have a number that says how often they can appear in the world at the same time. The lowest I can set a specific escalation variant to and still have it appear in the standard rotation is 1. At that setting, once that escalation launches somewhere, it can't launch anywhere else until it's cleared. Once cleared, it could theoretically launch as soon as the next monster hex requests a new escalation, but it's not particularly likely to. However, once around 10-20 hexes have requested escalations, it's reasonably likely to appear in one of them. So, the faster escalations are cleared and replaced around the world, the faster that escalation will reappear.

What we've been talking about doing is adding a delay on these two escalations that guarantees they won't reappear for 1-2 weeks after being cleared. That wouldn't block them both from appearing at once, but if the delay was 3-4 times as long as it takes for either one to get cleared, then they'd pretty quickly fall into a pattern where one would spawn and get cleared while the other one was on a delay, then the other, and back and forth. Every once in a while they'd both appear at the same time, but then they'd probably get cleared one after the other and the pattern would start again. We could probably also throw on something to say that only one can appear at a time, but that could be overkill, particularly since neither of these will be a spreading escalation in the near future. If we can get away with one piece of new code instead of two, that would be best.
Is the Combat Alchemist role achievement correct as noted in the WIKI?
It seemed odd to me that level 16 requires Base Attack 4 then no mention of Base Attack for level 17-19 and level 20 requires Base Attack 7.
If it is a typo with a 7 instead of a 5 then it would match Expert and Freholder requirements. But if it correct to be 7, then is it intentional to not require Base Attack 5 or 6 before level 20?

I meant to switch them from being like Experts and Freeholders (1-5) to being more like Rogues (1-7), but must have gotten distracted after I changed the top number to 7 and didn't get around to spreading the lower ones around properly. I'll get that fixed for the next update.
I am just confused why any focus should be given to rules and requirements.

In theory, some of the rules and requirements are tempting topics because they're relatively easy to change. Often all I have to do to implement such changes is edit the web page those rules are written on, as opposed to things that require a bunch of code and/or a new build. As such, if anything that can be relatively quickly edited really would improve the current experience, it doesn't hurt to have a quick discussion about that.

That said, it is best to focus any such discussions on issues that can have the most immediate impact. For example, there were a lot of comments that a bunch of inactive settlements wasn't the best look for the game, so we started requiring that settlements stay active or be abandoned. Overall, I'd say that's worked out well, and I'm open to other changes with similar impacts. Won't always agree with them, of course, but they're worth at least briefly discussing.