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
You are a Troll
Not high enough soon enough I fear….but hey, IC and all.

Possibly not. Once a settlement has a couple holdings, it's probably not that tough to keep the bulk resources and coin stocked enough to keep a minimalist settlement running for quite a while without interference.

On the other hand, the new rules also mean that you don't have to declare war to take down a settlement. All you have to do is overrun their holdings. If the settlement doesn't replace them quickly enough, they'll eventually run out of DI and be unable to reactivate. That could easily make keeping an extra settlement running without putting it to good use more hassle than it's worth.
Bob
You are a Troll
Maybe add them to the Library? They are always studying/writing formulas and that is a medium building in need of some better reason to exist.

An interesting thought, and the library does feel like it could use some love, but it's actually a small structure rather than a medium.
Bob
Azure_Zero
What if a company has say 3 characters all leaders, two are inactive and the active leader jumps to help another company, we run into the same issue.

Depends on what you mean by inactive here. If the other two leaders are in Free Trial Mode but are still controlled by players who are regularly in-game, then they can just log in, let the character back into the company, and promote them back to leader. If the other two leaders are truly inactive and unwilling/unable to log into the game, even in Free Trial Mode, then you'd have to go through a leadership challenge to get them removed so that another character could take over, and that does require at least one active/subbed member. That said, if an inactive character requests a leadership challenge, I just ask them to activate the character first. No harm, no foul.

In general, I'd recommend extreme caution when jumping a leader out of a company temporarily. If you're not sure the remaining leaders are regularly in-game and will reinstate you afterward, it would be best to promote another one of your characters to leader first. It also wouldn't be a bad idea in cases like this to file a preemptive leadership challenge to clean things up. That way you'd be blocked from accidentally leaving the company leaderless.

Azure_Zero
I think it might be best to do this inactive check at the account level, rather then checking on the character.

Part of the reason the price per month dropped so much with the per character subscription switch was precisely because we're no longer passing any benefits of being active along to the other characters on the account. On the positive side, it's now cheaper to occasionally activate those secondary characters for rare issues like this than it was to pay to have the whole account active all the time.
Bob
Edam
Hopefully from a balance point of view we would also get enchanted poisons/charges/potions to add to melee weapons. Basically something similar to the way you can add poison in tabletop but with a mechanism (that consumes a melee charge) which refresh the effect every time you hit.

If a ranged weapon gets the option to have two enchantments (one on the weapon and one on the ammo) we need the same option to be available on melee weapons like daggers, greatswords, axes and so forth.

There actually was already some design work done on weapon coatings and hopefully we'll be able to return to that at some point. On the positive side, enchanted ammo will make ammo use even more expensive than it already is.

Bob
Azure_Zero
If one looks at the table top version a bit, I could see, Skirmisher being part of the needed training.

Alchemists don't technically need to use the alchemist's tools as a weapon, and those who don't would probably find skirmisher-trained attack feats very appropriate. That will be particularly true if we eventually figure out a good way to incorporate the more poison-oriented aspect of alchemists. If we manage that, an alchemist with a dagger and bow could be very dangerous. The alchemist's tools themselves feel a little too int-oriented for the skirmisher though, but not really appropriate for the war wizard either.

Now I could see Alchemist if it weren't tied to any of the main combat class buildings, that it'd likely either a building that experts use or where one can craft with alchemy.

We'd initially just thought "great, we can put them on the alchemist structure," but then realized that putting them on a small structure feels pretty imbalanced when everything else has multiple medium structures. They could be attached to the lab structure, which is at least a medium structure, but then that's already pretty balanced against the other medium structures. Could work though. It's also possible that we could put a small number of the combat alchemist feats at the crafting alchemist structures, just enough to link the two aspects of alchemy together.
Bob
Edam
It will be very annoying to take a building up to a higher level only to find out a week later it needs to be demolished to make way for something else.

This is an ongoing concern, since we'll probably keep adding structures over time. At the very least, we'll always try to provide plenty of warning before new structures arrive, or before existing structures change. In this case, we'll probably ship the alchemists without their structures initially, just so we can get them out the door. You'll be able to start training them in the NPC towns, where the trainers will probably just be added on to existing structures for now. I'm also considering adding a visiting combat alchemy trainer to the keeps in PC settlements temporarily, just so everyone can have a taste of training at home for a while (their trainer level would be set by the keep's upgrade level).

For the moment, if it's possible you'll want any combat alchemist structures at your settlement, probably best to hold off on any structures or upgrades that you might consider tearing down for them until we're ready to state exactly which structures they'll use. At worst, that means avoiding work in 2 medium slots or 1 large slot, depending on which you'd be most likely to tear down. Should have this sorted out soon.
Bob
NightmareSr
I realized it is delayed, but do you have any decisions made as far as where the new combat alchemist trainer will be added and if there will be a new building? You have us on the edge of our seats Bob.

I took some time to look over the current structures and designs for potential future ones. In general, new roles were meant to result in at least 1 new medium structure for their non-attack/specialty feats and to get most of their attack feats at one of the existing medium structures. Some also resulted in new large structures (which usually also worked for 1 or 2 previous roles), though most were intended to be added on to an existing large structure.

For alchemists, their non-attack feats could arguably be added on to the workshop, since they're similar to experts. However, I'll admit that feels like putting a lot on one building, especially when considering that some other roles get their buildings divided up (e.g. clerics by deity). Feels like it'd be more balanced to give them their own structure.

Likewise, their attack feats could be added on to the skirmisher, since they're kind of ranged and should probably include a dex component, but their attacks feel so different from anything else the skirmisher teaches. Again, feels like a dedicated building would be good.

Finally, they'd fit in well at the guild house for a large structure, but that already has so much stuff going on (rogues, experts, freeholders). Even when the other large structures get some additional roles, the guild house would easily stand out for covering so many. I'm thinking maybe a new large structure that covers combat alchemist, expert, and standard alchemist (including alchemy crafting).

Thoughts?
Bob
Edam
Whilst it is good that all those settlements with no active players will be torn down, I personally always thought it would have been better if they became NPC for now rather than made available for the existing groups to grab and use as a bargaining tool to try and coerce new incoming guilds to join their particular clan.

Regardless, it is good that all those unattended settlements will start falling down.

We're hoping that the requirement to keep the settlements from shutting down for too long will keep players from claiming them unless they're prepared to keep them running. That's not a very high bar, but it's higher than it was before, and we'll keep making it higher as time goes on.
Bob
Azure_Zero
I think there is a small problem Bob.

Some of us have X companies (that we completely control with other characters and or no other players in)
and have less then X companies of characters subbed.
So companies become leaderless and no way to get them back into leader position without sending support tickets.

I believe there are some safeguards in place to keep companies from becoming technically leaderless, so there should always be at least one character listed as a leader. If those failed, or if I'm wrong and we just don't have many safeguards, then I'd consider that a bug and work with the members (active first, regularly-playing Free Trial Mode if necessary) to pick a new leader, whether that leader was active or not.

If the company is simply leaderless because the current leader characters aren't playing regularly, then yes, at least one of the members needs to be active to file a leadership challenge, and that member would therefore be in the line of succession to become leader as a result of the challenge (so leadership challenges themselves can't result in a leaderless company). This may require activating that character for one month so they can file the leadership challenge, but there's no requirement to stay active after that. Once that character is a leader, they can still log in using Free Trial Mode to survive any challenges. Plus, in the cases you're talking about, future challenges seem unlikely.
Bob
Got those ogres cleared out, but now we seem to have a duergar problem:

  • Hope's End 4-5: Currently on escalation 28 (Over the Crown) at 98400 strength.
  • Unassigned (Staalgard 1-6-6): Currently on escalation 27 (Gathering of Legends) at 71350 strength.
  • Succinct Prime 3-3-4: Currently on escalation 25 (Elite Dark Elves) at 41720 strength.
  • Unassigned (Fort Ouroboros 2-3): Currently on escalation 24 (Elite Duergar Slavers) at 16237 strength.
  • Unassigned (Fort Ouroboros 6-6): Currently on escalation 24 (Elite Duergar Slavers) at 30587 strength.
  • Sylva 2-3: Currently on escalation 24 (Elite Duergar Slavers) at 48290 strength.
  • Unassigned (Sylva 4-4): Currently on escalation 24 (Elite Duergar Slavers) at 52875 strength.
  • Unassigned (Fort Ouroboros 3-3-3-4): Currently on escalation 24 (Elite Duergar Slavers) at 55875 strength.
  • Greystone Keep 3-3: Currently on escalation 24 (Elite Duergar Slavers) at 56000 strength.
  • Canis Castrum 4-4: Currently on escalation 22 (Dark Elves) at 17625 strength.
  • Sunholm 5-5-6: Currently on escalation 20 (Ustalav Invaders) at 37900 strength.