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

Increasing your Effect Power increases the magnitude/duration of the secondary effects of your attacks, like Bleeding or Slow. The amount the ammo adds to your Effect Power is equal to BaseEffectPower + (AmmoPlus * UpgradeEffectPower).
I vaguely remember way back when the idea was to prevent people making just the one T3+5 item and having it cover all the T3 gates in one hit.

A much better explanation of why we like an uncommon and a common at each tier. Putting the T3 ones at those particular ranks means you have to make at least one T3+4 before rank 19 and one T3+5 uncommon before rank 20, which has a nice ring to it.
I'm not finding any notes explaining that decision, but I think the where the logic was to make getting through the T1 crafting achievement prereqs about as easy as possible (use defaults for first 3 ranks, learned recipes for 4 ranks with a max of +3), and getting through the T2 ones harder (use defaults for only 2 ranks, learned recipes for 6 ranks to the max of +5), the idea was to make the T3 ones as hard as possible. The first way to do that was to start out immediately with a requirement of learning a looted recipe. The second way to do that was to still require a common recipe at some point, since that's the only way we have to make you craft a different recipe, likely requiring different ingredients. However, we wouldn't want to end your advancement on a default recipe, making rank 19 a good alternative so you'd get thrown that curveball at the highest remaining rank, and thus at the highest remaining upgrade number.

Anyway, that's my attempt at retconning an explanation. smile
One more sequence cleared, 32 left to go! Here are the 14 completed sequence hexes:

  • Carpe Noctem 5-6
  • Aragon 2-3-2-3
  • Keeper's Pass 1-2
  • Alderwag 2-3
  • Unassigned (University Commons 5-6)
  • Callambea 4-5
  • Oak Knoll 4-5
  • Unassigned (Carpe Noctem 4-4-4)
  • Caer Coedwig 2-3
  • Hammerfall 1-2
  • University Commons 1-1
  • Unassigned (Kindleburn 2-3)
  • Ozem's Vigil 1-2
  • Dun Baile 6-6
I know that this may be slightly off direct topic, but here goes. Perhaps the objections to universal PVP invulnerability could be eased a little bit if there were some more personal incentives considered for players to "Flag for PVP". I do not mean things that affect all a player's game play. Just concerning the state of "active for PVP". Though I must say that general benefits for being/staying flagged might help a lot as well.

Agreed, providing more incentives to flag for PvP, and just generally improving the PvP experience, could help PvP players feel like their getting something good out of all this. That's basically why we mentioned our vague ideas about making territorial combat more valuable and making holdings more vulnerable, and we're open to similar ideas for making other aspects of PvP more rewarding.

Not sure how each could be kept from being "game-able" or how difficult they would be to code in, but they are things that would only really matter to PVP and matter (almost all) during PVP.

-Reward Influence for winning in PVP. Holding take overs, Raiding and even for kills. Not as much as it costs to engage in PVP necessarily, but enough so it feels like you are getting something.

An interesting idea, and we would like to have more obvious, direct rewards for PvP participation/success. The biggest trick to providing rewards for any kind of PvP is not incentivizing fake/friendly combats just for the purpose of producing those rewards. We run into that issue with the Player Killer achievement, where we really ought to require a significant loss for the the player getting killed, like dings on equipment, or destroyed inventory, anything to discourage willing sacrifices just so kill credits can be racked up. As long as we can figure out appropriate ways to verify that something of value was destroyed as a result of the battle, this kind of thing could work.

For holding takeovers, there's an inherent influence loss for the losing side, so that could do the trick there. Outpost takeovers don't currently result in any influence loss until the final holding takeover. I don't think we currently block bulk resource output from overrun outposts, but something like that could be considered a loss. Raids are trickier, because there's currently nothing destroyed as a result, so we'd need to add something there, like building damage, or some bulk resource destruction. Wouldn't need to be much. And for player kills, I already mentioned the issues and possible damage requirements above. Any other forms of PvP we wanted to reward with influence could probably be dealt with similarly, as long as we could keep the work involved to a minimum for each variant.

-Repair Tokens. Tokens that can repair damage dings on gear when applied. Make PVP less costly. Your objection to make gear INV during PVP is one thing that relates directly to why PVP is less than fun. Compare the cost of building a holding and outposts to building high lvl gear for multiple players. Especially time wise.

Hmm, if the killer got repair tokens (or scraps that can be crafted into repair tokens) worth X% of any equipment durability lost by the player killed, we'd essentially be cutting the overall equipment rate loss by that percentage. We'd also be giving the killer a guaranteed reward, at least if the victim has some vulnerable equipment. Would also discourage harassment attacks, since you could actually reward your intended victim/s if they defeat you. An interesting possibility.

-Make Threading Unique To PVP. Non flagged player gear is going to be INV except for PVE dings anyway, correct?

We're not likely to get to threading before getting to Flag for PvP, and that's going to be a pretty big feature. We'd probably have to handle threading slightly differently depending on whether or not you're flagged for PvP, just as we'll probably have to handle husks slightly differently. We may also want to handle things differently depending on whether you die to PvP or PvE, since we don't want to incentivize PvEing unflagged just because even PvE deaths feel better that way, and that could eventually extend to threading as well. However, we'd have to really dig into the design of threading to figure out how that could work, and that's best done when we're actually looking at implementing it.

-Create Titles Unique To PVPers. We can earn them for PVP and go around with them on display.

We've talked a bit about things like this, or possibly some kind of basic PvP ranking system that such titles could be linked to. There'd be some work similar to that for the influence idea to keep such features from being gamable, but there are probably some good options that could be implemented with a reasonable amount of work. I'd definitely be in favor of this kind of thing if it would be compelling to enough existing players to drive some additional PvP.
Bob - you have mentioned twice now how having to 1) Leave the Thornkeep area and 2) join a Settlement can opens people up to the possibility of unwanted PvP. Well, if the whole purpose of the game is Territorial Control, isn't joining a Settlement kinda mandatory???

I wouldn't say that the whole purpose of the game is territorial control, at least not in the sense that players can only enjoy the game if they enjoy the territorial control aspect. I would agree that territorial control is the ultimate expression in the game of players impacting the world and each other, and the shifts in that control are an important part of keeping the world fresh and interesting. However, we always expected a large percentage of our players to be more interested in other aspects of the game, some really only being interested in gathering, others in adventuring, and others in crafting. All of that has important links into the territorial control side of the game, and we still want to encourage those players to join settlements. We even still want to encourage those players to contribute to the success of those settlements by opening themselves to PvP, whether that means flagging for PvP or just risking more PvP to achieve greater rewards. I don't think settlement membership, or opening yourself to PvP on behalf of that settlement, necessarily needs to be mandatory, though we certainly need to adjust our encouragements and discouragements a bit if we switch away from either of those being mandatory to allow unflagged characters greater freedom.

PFO is not, nor was it EVER meant to be, a solo-able game - and neither is freakin Table Top Pathfinder!

Absolutely true, and we have no intention of requiring that characters be able to handle the world on their own. If anything, I'd like to make it even harder for high-level characters to solo low-level content, at least when tackling large numbers of lower-level enemies. And if nothing else, even if they don't party up or join a company, the game will always be extremely difficult for single players to do everything themselves without at least buying/trading/selling items obtained/refined/crafted/enchanted by other players, so some level of interaction with others will always be effectively mandatory.

If you want people to feel safer longer, then expand the ring around TK of Ultimate Safety Hexes. Include a monster hex that goes through the normal random escalation rotations (like the one near UC), Place guards all along the Crusader Road, like there are near TK. Then, if you CHOOSE to leave this larger High Sec area, you know the risks. Have it delineated by the Blue Force Field (one you can pass through) effect so there is no question about when you leave High Sec. There is still plenty of gathering, crafting, monster killing etc to be done in the larger TK protected area.

Making players safer for a longer period of time would help with those who need to be eased into PvP more slowly, but wouldn't help with those who won't play at all without assurances that they can avoid PvP forever. Hopefully even those players can be eased into increasing acceptance of PvP, but the knowledge that they'll eventually be blocked from too many aspects of the game will keep them from even starting to play.

That said, with an expanded enough area, it's true that non-PvP characters could have access to much of the game's content, including some high-level mats and pretty much any escalation, at least eventually. Throw in some alternate versions of expensive training/support and those characters would also be able to advance their characters pretty completely. It would still be a hard sell to tell those characters they're restricted to such a small percentage of the map, though perhaps there could be ways for beneficent nations to open their territory to non-PvP characters, which might sufficiently alleviate that concern while still requiring those nations to defend that territory through PvP if feuded. We'd still be more comfortable saying that players need to explicitly accept the risk of PvP, but maybe enough warnings could be provided to argue that only the most negligent player could possibly find themselves in an unsafe area without noticing.

Joining a Settlement or Faction SHOULD open you up to PvP - otherwise, as Black Moria says - what kind of game is this?

If we make joining a settlement or faction truly optional, then that could be fine. If not, then we believe there are still ways to let individual members completely avoid PvP while also saying those settlements/factions can't really succeed without a significant number of PvP members.

PvP only happens in this game for three reasons as I ever see:

1) Stay out of MY hex! (territory control - easily avoided)

2) I want your hex (Holding Warfare/territorial control - easily avoided just don't show up to defend)

3) Fighting over escalations and who gets to kill the boss. (easily avoided - run away or stay out of monster hexes with T3 escalations running, which most new players will anyway)

That sounds fairly accurate for the game currently, though a small influx of PvP enthusiasts could easily make it difficult to avoid PvP even deep inside your alliance's territory. The players we're trying to protect with Flag for PvP want a mechanical guarantee that will last as the player population grows, not just a reassurance that our current player base has limited PvP that's easily avoided.

Overall, we'd like to preserve those 3 cases of PvP. The most important thing we want is to move from "easily avoided" to "can't accidentally stumble into." After that, we'd also like to balance the world such that players who won't PvP at all aren't blocked from too much of the world and the game's content in the effort to protect them from PvP. The current territorial control system gives us some good hooks for balancing that in terms of wilderness hexes, we just want something appropriate that would do the same for monster hexes and the like.
Stilachio Thrax
Perhaps there needs to be a change to how Thornkeep (Riverwatch and Fort Inevitable as well) work. Keep player settlements for people who are open to PVP as it is now. If you want to be unflagged, you join Thornkeep as your settlement. Training and support at Thornkeep would have to be boosted to 20, but everything for a Thornkeep citizen would be heavily taxed (highest levels possible) and crafting/queue times would be based on the worst possible facilities. A Thornkeep citizen cannot use any player settlement trainers or crafting facilities to avoid those penalties. A Thornkeep citizen/company cannot place any holdings or outposts, nor gain influence. By opting out by being a citizen of Thornkeep, you cut yourself off from the territorial control game, and can't get any benefits from it as a result.

There's definitely some potential for providing ways to advance and receive support as a member of an NPC settlement, or possibly even without being connected to a settlement at all, while still letting player settlements provide distinct advantages to their members. Would probably require some adjustment of how support works at player settlements as well, since lower-level settlements would be pretty undesirable if they effectively limited your support compared to just remaining a member of Thornkeep. We could then also block companies attached to NPC settlements from being feuded, making it safe to join them without adding the risk of PvP. It's a bit of a bummer to push non-PvP players away from working with their PvP-loving friends, but could alleviate some balance concerns. It's also not like citizens of different settlements can't play together or base their activities in one of their settlements, or even in a settlement none of them are members of. They just couldn't work directly together as members of the same company.
I do hope that you realize after adding "flag for PVP" it will be doubly difficult to achieve this sort of atmosphere. It will likely develop that you will need to adjust PVP so that it is MUCH less expensive, MUCH more rewarding and Much more accessible.

Yes, we know PvP needs some adjustment already, and even more so with the addition of flagging for PvP. That said, as much as possible we want the limitations on staying unflagged to convince the vast majority of players who can accept at least some risk of PvP (which includes basically everyone playing right now) to flag for PvP the bulk of the time. If we get that right, then I wouldn't say flag for PvP doubles the difficulty of reaching that goal. Hopefully it just makes it 10-20% more difficult.
The mission, as far as I can tell, is to develop and implement a state in which players can play and experience the whole game (except Territorial combat PVP) without ever having to be involved in any combat PVP vs. other players unless by 100% informed choice. Period.

I was going to quibble with "experience the whole game," since that can sound like unflagged characters should be able to go anywhere and do anything (except for territorial control and anything directly involving PvP), but it's accurate when you consider that part of the MMO sandbox experience is being impacted by the actions of other players. Just as there's no guarantee that a specific raw material hasn't been completely depleted by other players, there doesn't need to be a guarantee that various actions (up to entering a particular hex) haven't been blocked by other players. What's important is that the unflagged character still has opportunities to perform relevantly similar actions on a regular basis. If you log in one day and discover you can't reasonably gather any T3 materials because all remotely nearby monster hexes have been "claimed" by PvP players, that's fine as long as you have other gathering options that day and reasonably believe on other days you'll be able to reach unclaimed monster hexes, even if that means moving your base of operations to the other side of the map. That's part of dealing with a dynamic, player-driven world, and thus part of experiencing the whole game.
So…what is this game about PvP-wise?

In large part, what we've been aiming for is a world where players interested in differing amounts/types of PvP would find what they were looking for in different parts of the map. Highly developed areas would be heavily policed, largely by players themselves, so their interiors would be relatively safe places to gather, adventure and craft. The borders between developed nations would be where large-scale battles would take place as each nation jockeyed for advantage. Untamed areas would be rich with resources, but those brave enough to venture there would also attract the attention of bandits taking advantage of the lack of security forces. Excessive banditry would be discouraged by the reputation system, nudging bandits to focus on only the most promising targets rather than just attacking everyone they come across.

We still intend for PvP to be important in all the ways mentioned above, and in many ways a decisive factor in how successful each player is in the game. Other game activities, like gathering, refining, crafting, trading and adventuring, are also essential to success, but ultimately they all pay off by determining who wins or loses the PvP side of the game, particularly when it comes to holding on to a settlement and maintaining high support levels, keeping PvP (and the avoidance of it through political and other means) central to success.

A big difference between PvP and all the other game activities is that players can't definitively choose to avoid PvP by letting other players do it for them. You can't do much without advanced items in this game, and those don't exist without gathering, refining and crafting, but you can have a full and meaningful experience in this game without ever gathering, refining or crafting yourself, and it's completely up to you whether or not you do any of those things. Those advanced items also can't exist without recipes, but you never have to fight a mob yourself, at least as long as you're paying attention to your mini-map. You get to decide whether or not to do any of those activities, mostly just by never doing the ones you don't want to do.

However, as you pointed out, the choice whether or not to PvP is ultimately in the hands of the attacker, not the defender. You can do a lot to minimize your PvP risk, and there's a good chance that will mean you never get attacked, but getting far requires leaving Thornkeep and joining a settlement. Either of those currently opens up the possibility of being attacked and takes the choice out of your hands. Our goal is to give you the same choice to PvP or not to PvP as you have to gather or not to gather, while still granting greater rewards for greater risks, and while still keeping PvP (done by others if you choose not to flag for PvP) a central part of each player's ultimate success. With the right limits and incentives, we should be able to reach that goal.