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
Azure_Zero
Alright Bob, I'll give a scenario as to why you'll need to do this on an account base over a character base.
Say someone has X accounts, so 3X in characters and has say (1.5+)X in companies,
but is only subbing for X or less in characters and has 1 character hopping around to keep those companies useful and manage them.
Being account based you just sank about X companies into uselessness, and can't be helped cause a character can't hop around without being locked into a company.
While if the inactivity checks based on account rather then character, All companies can be in a useful state and accessible, but now it would require that they do keep all accounts active to do so and could be counted as a bit of a compromise.

You can actually do all of that without any active characters, not that the mercenary side of me would recommend it. You just need to make sure at least one of the characters remaining in each company is a leader to keep letting you back in. My recommendation would be to have at least one perpetual leader in each company, and at least one perpetual non-leader, regardless of activity status. This will help keep you from accidentally taking the last member out of the company while the jumping character isn't there, and will always leave at least one leader in place to let the jumping character back in. Just make sure not to delete these characters, since that bypasses a lot of the safety measures.

I'd also recommend using leadership challenges to clear out all the leaders that aren't under your control. Otherwise, there's still a small risk that you might jump the last of your leaders out of the company. That might take a little longer if you don't have an active character for each company, but you can still tackle one company at a time with each of your active characters.
Bob
NightmareSr
Bob
That could be useful, though of course we'd really like to make those long lists less laggy in the first place. I've added a feature request to look into it when we have a chance.
The mouse scroll would be preferable, but arrows to more slowly step through the vault list would help when trying to find a certain mat within big laggy vaults.
But yes the lag of overloaded vaults is the actual pain point here. Maybe the Crafting section could be split between certain crafts to further refine the vault lists. Sort of like we have for the "Recipes, Raw, Refined, Salvage" options. I think having more sub-category options would be great and maybe even sub-sub-categories if possible or even a search function for our vaults.

Deeper sub-categories and other additional filtering will likely be part of the solution, along with some other more technical optimizations. We could also potentially default to a sub-category so you didn't have to put up with long load times just to get to the point where you can filter down to a not-quite-as-long load time.

NightmareSr
Bob
I don't believe there's a way to toggle that at the moment. I'd worry that players could get themselves in trouble by toggling the cursor off and then forgetting how to toggle it back on, but we may be able to mitigate that somehow. I've added a feature request to think about it.
Well, you can currently switch "A" and "D" to strafe with the keybinds, but having the keybinds switch around just while the mouse is turning the toon would take some code work. It's an interesting idea though. Probably not too difficult, but that's only a vaguely-educated guess. I've filed a feature request to look into it when we get a chance.
If the latch was a simple single key and made the mouse disappear it shouldn't be too bad plus you could make the ESC key cancel out the latching. The other game where I have used this uses shift for run toggle and the ctrl key for the mouse/turn toggle. Which is part of the reason I switched m keybinds to ctrl for slow walk toggle and shift for run toggle. On top of this my laptop tends to stop recognizing my ctrl buttons when it gets hot or over used, meaning I couldn't get my mouse, but the esc key opens a menu dropdown and makes the mouse appear disengaging the character turn function. But in PFO when my ctrl key quits working I have not work around for the ctrl-click of moving a certain number of items from vaults/inventories. It would be nice to be able to change that keybind for ctrl-click or have some other way of starting that "move a number of items" function. The other day I grabbed an old keyboard, unplugged my mouse, plugged in the keyboard all just to be able to hit the ctrl key and move the correct amount of bulk instead of clicking 200+ times without a single instance of a double-click. Heck while I'm thinking of it could we just make a double-click bring up that "quantity window", instead of just moving everything automatically? I think that would help me a lot at least. smile

I was thinking that esc would be one way to bring back the cursor, and we might think about some kind of on-screen messaging to that effect, perhaps after any brief period of inactivity.

I added a mention of the ctrl key to the feature request for alt, not sure if it has any of the same complications to deal with. Key combinations are often a little tricky.

I'll add a feature request to consider switching the double-click functionality. I actually use the double-click quite a bit, but might be about as happy if it brought up the quantity window defaulted to the entire stack. We could also consider making it a setting where players decide which version they want to use. However, I suspect if it's the kind of thing we'd want to make a setting, that probably also puts it at the level of polish that we'd push off doing until lots of other big things are done. If everyone was begging to simply switch double-click over to the quantity window, that might push it up a bit in priority, and would of course be easier to implement.


Bob
NightmareSr
I like the Library idea, but just curious if my previous thought of adding combat alchemist to the University was a bad idea or just getting ignored for some other reason.
not a big deal though, I have 3 kids so, use to getting ignored anyway.smile
Whoops, meant to reply to that as well and got distracted by all the other replies. With 3 kids, I'm sure you're used to distractions as well.

The University could be a good match, but it's currently scheduled to get sorcerers and bards as well, so that could be overkill for one structure. Those roles overlap so much with wizards that it'd probably be weird not to have them wherever the wizards are.
Bob
Maxen
But seriously, I like the idea of using the Library or some form of it. That could also become a secondary location to craft ALL codices and create Codex Collections.

I could potentially allow seneschal crafting at the library pretty easily. That would include the holder's patents on top of the codex collections, which doesn't feel quite as relevant, but isn't a balance issue because you can already refine all that stuff at the keep anyway.

Adding codices is trickier because we currently restrict crafting facilities based on the skill required for each recipe. We'd need a system for putting additional tags on recipes and restricting facilities to just the recipes with those tags. Probably not too difficult to do, but definitely requires some code. That would also let us pull out the holder's patents. I'll file a feature request to consider it when we get a chance.
Bob
NightmareSr
If the various Vault windows could be made scrollable, it would be a wonderful start. Beginning with the Crafting, then Consumables, then etc etc. I suspect many players would like this change to start.

We're pretty likely to start there. On the positive side, I'm pretty sure all the different vaults that can be tabbed between on a single window technically use the same scrollbar, so they can probably all be done at once. It's possible we use slightly different vault windows at holdings than at banks, or for other vault-equivalents, but hopefully they're all similar enough to be easily changed all at once.

NightmareSr
I would be happier if there was just a button on the top and bottom to move the scroll bar for my vaults since after the holiday event or a couple days of "deposit all" the whole window is horribly laggy to scroll

That could be useful, though of course we'd really like to make those long lists less laggy in the first place. I've added a feature request to look into it when we have a chance.

NightmareSr
On the topic of buttons and UI, is there a way to latch on the right-mouse button so that my mouse movements can turn my character without my middle finger getting sore?

I don't believe there's a way to toggle that at the moment. I'd worry that players could get themselves in trouble by toggling the cursor off and then forgetting how to toggle it back on, but we may be able to mitigate that somehow. I've added a feature request to think about it.

NightmareSr
I played a different game for a bit that has similar character control and complexity and they had a key that toggle a mouse on the screen and the mouse turning the toon, they also use "A" and "D" as strafe since the mouse turns the toon. Seemed a bit nicer and more dynamic. smile

Well, you can currently switch "A" and "D" to strafe with the keybinds, but having the keybinds switch around just while the mouse is turning the toon would take some code work. It's an interesting idea though. Probably not too difficult, but that's only a vaguely-educated guess. I've filed a feature request to look into it when we get a chance.
Bob
Edam
By far the most annoying UI glitch for me is the fact that when you try and transfer a stack of items to inventory from a vault it pops up a quantity window BUT does not make that the active window for keystrokes. You need to click in the quantity window before typing your amounts or otherwise you trigger whatever attack is attached to the number you are typing.

We might be able to do that, since we do something similar when hitting Enter to start a chat message. I've filed a feature request to look into it when we have a chance.

Edam
The other annoyance is there seems to be no way to remap the expendables to anything other than the ALT-NUMBER keys.

It looks like keybinds for the alt key get a little complicated due to interactions with alt-tab, at least with the way our keybinds are currently implemented. I've filed a feature request to look into it, but it might not be worthwhile unless something else pushes us to make bigger changes to the whole keybind system.
Bob
Schedim
I too vote for library, I understand the concern with the size conundrum, but sometimes breaking the mold is good to break up a restrictive patterna and inject some life (and chaos) into the world. I don’t think it should all be dumped into the library (and the library holding, don’t forget that one) but they could at least be a part of the solution.
And frankly, who don’t imagines Alchemists pouring over old books in search of uncanny knowledge?

I could see putting some of the combat alchemist feats on the library structure, or on the alchemist structure for that matter, but I'd still want it to fall well short of what is commonly found on the combat-related medium structures.
Bob
Edam
Then make a medium variation of the library that adds alchemist and call it "Research Centre" or something.

That's definitely a possibility. On the one hand, if I'm creating a medium structure anyway, then it could easily just focus on the alchemist role like the other medium role structures do. On the other hand, as we add more structures, we keep reducing the percentage of feats and capabilities that can be covered at a single settlement. Adding some more overlap here and there would push that back in the other direction.

The bigger question is whether the percentage of feats and other capabilities that can be covered in a single settlement is currently higher or lower than we'd like it to be. Right now any two settlements are capable of covering all the small and medium structures, and the only large structure that isn't basically a combination of trainers from smaller structures is the auction house. That would still be true even with 2 more medium structures added to the mix, meaning that for the near-term each settlement will easily be able to cover well over 50% of feats and capabilities. My general thinking was that we should be targeting somewhere closer to 40% coverage per settlement, so 3 settlements would be required to cover everything with only minimal overlap (not counting clerics, who we admittedly plan to make things a little more difficult for). I think all of the vaguely sketched out future structures get us close to that, or at least under 50%, without risking a requirement of 4 settlements for complete coverage.
Bob
Azure_Zero
I think this part should be an exemption from the rule, and be account based, not character based.
As a inactive character does not have any of the main benefits of being active, and doing account based stops some possible headaches.

The only real headache involved is that the character has to be activated for a month to file the leadership challenge, and this fortunately isn't a very common occurrence. I think I've only been asked to help out with similar situations a few times over the last few years. I'm also generally willing to be fairly helpful in terms of just helping players get in touch with other players in these cases, particularly when it feels like the game didn't do enough to discourage characters from getting into these situations.

Speaking of which, I was testing this all out a bit just to see what we do to prevent this kind of situation. The last leader is in fact blocked from leaving the company, though not if they're the last member of the company. Of course, they're not blocked from leaving at all if there are technically other leaders, but they're not actively playing, which can effectively leave the company leaderless. I think adding some confirmation dialogs and/or adding some hoops to the process (like requiring leaders to demote themselves first before leaving the company) would help a lot here. I've filed a bug report to look into possible improvements.
Bob
Unknown Player
Interesting. So any settlement can be conquered just by destroying most/all of their holdings, or only *abandoned* settlements?

In essence, yes. Any settlement can be forced to shut down by destroying enough of their holdings to knock their DI down below the minimum requirement. If they stay shut down too long, the settlement will be considered abandoned. At that point, any cooperating group of companies can take the settlement over by surrounding it with a full complement of holdings and outposts.

Relatively inactive settlements are the most susceptible to this, as they're unlikely to replace their holdings each time they're overrun. It would be much more difficult to do this against a relatively active settlement, since it's not that hard to keep putting up holdings in random parts of the map. Even if those holdings got knocked down during the next PvP window, they would have generated sufficient DI to keep a minimalist settlement going. However, continually replacing holdings would get to be pretty expensive, and defending them would get difficult when running at a low settlement level, so those players would probably be better off abandoning the settlement, negotiating a surrender, or finding new allies to strengthen their position.