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
Just added the various Alchemist's Tools to the Weapons (Standard) tab. For now I haven't worried about adding variant keywords to the different versions of the Alchemist's Tools at each tier, so they'll be like several other weapons where the main difference until we get some of those keywords working is just that they use different recipes with slightly different ingredients. And yes, I'll get those recipes posted soon.
Bob
That's what I get for getting distracted away from typing my quick answer and not checking to see if someone replied in the meantime.
Bob
Edam
Is alchemist scheduled to eventually get it's own reactive feats ?

Yes, I'm going to add those shortly. Got a few ideas that shouldn't be too hard to implement.
Bob
Kenton Stone
No settlement that is [Dead/Inactive]{not paying upkeep} should participate in active alliances protecting hexes. All their hexes should be vulnerable to raiding and not protecting neighboring hexes.

That's an interesting thought. Feels like there are different degrees this could be taken to:

  • Hexes that aren't part of an active settlement aren't protected and don't provide protection, period.
  • Hexes that aren't part of an active settlement aren't protected by other companies and don't provide protection to them, but can do so within their own company.
  • Hexes that aren't part of an active settlement aren't protected by allied companies from other settlements and don't provide protection to them, but can do so within their own settlement.

I think the first option might be a little too harsh, but on the other hand it might be so hard to protect any hexes under the second or third option that we're better off just using the simpler first option.

Of course, said companies could just switch to an active settlement to get back into the protected group, but they'd have to make themselves vulnerable at some point if the inactive settlement needed DI, though currently they could probably time that to fall on their non-PvP days.

Worth thinking about and probably not too hard to implement something along these lines. I'll file a feature request to consider it when we're on the PvP update.
Bob
NightmareSr
Just to double check though, there will still be the "same channel issue" for Feature feats and Defensive feats that we have with Strength domain and Strong back, right?
So the new Invincible defensive will not stack with the new Mutagenist feat for bonus to physical resistance? Or just won't stack with other physical resistance like Protection Domain?

I haven't tried it out yet to verify that, but we haven't changed anything about the channels recently, so the same kind of issues should still happen here. I believe each resistance is tracked separately for stacking, so Mutagenists would miss out on at least some of the resistance bonus from most of the armor feats. In theory, that would make Seeker the most efficient matching feat (no resistance bonuses) and Concocter the least (only slightly higher on all resistances). Most of the others offer high enough amounts of specific resistances to make the unstacked resistance less of a big deal.
Bob
The two new Defensive Feats, Invincible and Genius, are also now up on the public spreadsheet.
Bob
The Feature Feats and Armor Feats for Alchemists are now up on the public spreadsheet.
Bob
Cauchemar
I know you are all excited about the new combat role, but I hope this seemingly endless debate isn't going to delay the new role or buildings. You should probably just relax, Bob hasn't even had a chance to announce the rest of the new feats, assuming the new role is getting feature,armor,reactive and etc like the other roles have.

Fortunately, debates on feature implementation don't generally slow things down. The exception would be when the debate leads to additional work, but that's usually a good thing that makes the shipped feature better. Huzzah to Crowdforging!

Yes, the Alchemist will get a full suite of feats like other roles. I accidentally skipped over the Utility and Reactive Feats, but have some ideas for both of those that should be pretty easy to add. They've already got 3 Feature Feats and 7 Armor Feats, which I'll try to get up on the public spreadsheet today. And of course there are Proficiency Feats for Formula Book and Alchemist's Tools.
Bob
NightmareSr
I just realized I was thinking of 100 influence per holding, but with a coordinated attack a company could spend 100 influence and attack numerous holdings. So nevermind this isn't as strange as I thought.

That too, though some companies don't have many unprotected holdings.
Bob
NightmareSr
Well for the current 15% loss the raid costs 125 influence. That is the balance I noticed to be odd. I suppose the possible 15% compared to a 50% loss would be extreme. Maybe the better balance would be to decrease the cost of a feud? It certainly makes sense that the decision was made to make clearing vaults less essential cause, "That's not fun for the holding owners who have to constantly clear the vaults,". But at the same degree the cost of influence is huge when compared to how hard influence is to gain, at least when compared to outpost generating every day with no effort from players after being placed. I don't know what the good middle ground is but when I read the cost to feud and the benefits the Holding Capture seemed balanced and thoughtful, but the Holding Raid seems arbitrary and not worthwhile. Honestly I prefer it the way it is since I don't want to attack holdings and don't want mine attacked either but it just didn't seem fair.

An important thing to remember is that you get 75% of that influence back at the end of the feud, so the real cost is more like 25-32 influence for each raid-driven feud. You do have to get 100-125 stocked up to start your first feud, but then you only need to recover the lost 25-32 to start each successive feud. Of course, you would theoretically get that back after a holding capture, except that usually you'll bank it in the captured holding and any outposts, so you don't get it back until you lose or destroy the building sometime later.

The other thing is that we can't easily make a differently priced feud for raids vs. captures. If the system seems pretty balanced for captures, then the lever we can most easily mess with for raids is on the rewards side. Fortunately, the vault percentage is trivial to change, and I'm open to raising it to at least 10% if that sounds like it would make at least an occasional raid more worthwhile.