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
Fiesta
I guess my question about this would be what about Inns? I find that most of the time, I log out at friendly Inns and I would really rather be able to continue to log out there and not at shrines. I don't think that adding a shrine to the Inn is a good solution but perhaps a bind point to allow us to log back in where we logged out.

It's possible that we could consider friendly holdings, including inns, as login points, possibly only if you log out very close to them. We'll figure out the details when we get closer to implementing this restriction.
Bob
Bringslite
#1. Do you guys have an idea on the number of simultaneous players that your current set up can handle before lag/service/etc… degradation will occur? Under current budget, will it be easy to strengthen/up that capacity if you need to?

We have tech in place that will put the walls up around a hex that's overcrowded and queue up logins that try to get into that hex. Increasing those numbers would probably require a lot of work, but we think the only hexes really likely to run into any problems would be the ones right around Thornkeep, because all the new players start there. Once they're dispersed, there shouldn't be much problem, so the first thing we'd probably look at if needed would be some way to start out new characters in a different location.

Bringslite
#2. This is partly related to PVP but also related to Free Trial accounts. Do you see these unlimited "extra characters" (the ability for them to act as "vaults" ) as being something that will make it difficult to create increased rewards for looting from Raids? Couldn't I just store excess things on an alt at a holding? Or do you plan to restrict log-in locations (or limit character inventory capacity) around the same time that you work out more/increased rewards for PVP?

That is indeed one of our concerns, and we'll probably need to deal with it at the same time we make vaults more vulnerable. Restricting login locations will help somewhat, though at some point we'd probably want holdings to be one of the places you're allowed to log in at, since we'd intended them as bases of operation.
Bob
Bringslite
Right now 1 Azoth seems to be worth about 43.6363… xp. When you assign values to Azoth for direct sacrifice to xp, do you intend to leave it at a similar value or do you intend to change that value? Do you have in mind any ideas on how much Azoth will be useable for xp within certain time limits?

We haven't dived into the exact limitations or pricing details for all this. Our general thought at the moment is that it should cost more Azoth to purchase a given amount of XP instantly than it would to purchase that much XP by training it over time. What exactly that works out to is still up for debate.
Bob
Looks like I answered a little too quickly. Here's the exact wording from the release notes:

Weapon kill achievements are based on the most recently used weapon if still wielded, or defaults to current main-hand weapon if no wielded weapon qualifies as most recently used.

That means you shouldn't have to get the killing blow with a dagger to switch credit from shield to dagger, you just need to make a successful attack with the dagger to switch things over.

However, it sounds like you've found a bug in an edge case, where you're only holding a shield. It's likely you wouldn't get any weapon kill credits at all in that case until you actually hit something with the shield, since there's nothing in your main hand to default to. I'll write up a bug for that, but during standard gameplay, it's an issue that should resolve itself pretty quickly. After all, you'll want to get a weapon in your main hand ASAP, and until you do, your only real option is to attack with the shield.
Bob
Hmm, any kill credited directly to you should count toward the specific weapon used in that attack. [Edit: And then I said a bunch of incorrect stuff, which is corrected 2 posts later. My bad. The last bit that follows is true though.]

Over time, things should balance out and the percentage of credit going to your shield should roughly match the percentage of time you attack with your shield instead of your dagger. It can look a little weird though if you focus in on the individual credits.
Bob
harneloot
Bob
Just as we're avoiding flagging characters without an explicit choice, we're avoiding unflagging them without an explicit choice. However, while we haven't fully decided how security settings and PvP flags interact, the simple version would be that you can still keep a PvP flagged character from attacking anybody in your hex without an active feud or the like, since letting security settings continue to do what they already do is certainly the easiest thing to implement.

So High Security trumps PvP flags but Low Security does not?

What I described is just the simplest answer, if we do no other work to mitigate the downsides of adding the Flag for PvP system. We're using this discussion to decide what mitigations are essential, and the security settings are definitely part of that discussion. Low Security in particular seems to lose out without any additional changes, so it's likely we'll need to make some tweaks related to it.

In terms of trumping the PvP flags, it's not that current version of High Security would trump flagging for PvP. As currently proposed, flagging for PvP doesn't mean "I'm open for even PvP all the time, whether feuded or not, regardless of the security setting." Instead, it means "I'm open to PvP as defined by the existing PvP rules."

In other words, we wouldn't be adding a new Flagged for PvP state to the game that opens you to more PvP than before. Instead, we'd be adding a new Unflagged for PvP state that closes you off from PvP, and that would be the default state until a character undoes it by flagging for PvP. I suppose calling the system Flag for PvP makes it a bit confusing, since it sounds like we're adding the flagged state, implying that's a new state with new rules. It would probably be more accurate to call the new system Block PvP Until Flagged, or something like that, focusing on blocking PvP as the new state.

It's also possible that we could include an additional state, something like Flagged for Open PvP, that did mean "I'll fight anyone anywhere," or maybe "I'll fight any non-ally anywhere." Such a setting would be intended to override any security setting restrictions, but wouldn't mean much until running into other players who were similarly flagged.
Bob
BlackMoria
So, will these changes (whatever is decided) happen within a year?

Unless crowdforging turns up a lot more additional work that needs to be done on these features, they should all be done in much less than a year.

BlackMoria
If so, if I want to add more characters or reduce the number of characters on a subscription to the non-subscription model within the next year, what happens? Or am I better to go on a monthly plan, in which case, what is the approximate time frame that such changes to the character subscription model most likely happen?

We plan to implement all this so that it works just fine with your existing subscription and any existing months of game credit on your account. You won't need to change anything timing-wise to take full advantage of the new features.

BlackMoria
I have several DT accounts and several single character accounts. Will we be able to consolidate accounts? In particular, I would love it if I can consolidate my single character accounts together.

That's something we'd very much like to add in the future, and we're designing and implementing these features with that in mind. However, it's not on the roadmap quite yet.
Bob
Bringslite
May I suggest that Paizo exert more of a presence during "promotional events" or even in general during the intro period of these new features? A little more Gen Chat visibility, mini blogs (copy/paste is your friend) that explain what you are doing for the game and what you are planning next and upcoming. Communicate where to find these mini blogs. If you have time, organize a few events/contests with prizes, stuff like that.

Maybe even prizes like Paizo products?

We do try to be a little more present at appropriate times, but it's hard to balance between doing so and working on features. We're unlikely to do anything too aggressive on the promotional side right away, but we do know there's a steady flow of interested players who currently turn away because there's no free trial, and will now at least give the game a quick try. We'll try to ramp up our presence a bit to help welcome them, and to get feedback from them on their initial impressions.
Bob
Fiesta
Thats ok I suppose as long as the converse is true and if someone enters my High security hex it sets them to non-PVP until the next downtime. Any other result would show a clear PVP bias.

Just as we're avoiding flagging characters without an explicit choice, we're avoiding unflagging them without an explicit choice. However, while we haven't fully decided how security settings and PvP flags interact, the simple version would be that you can still keep a PvP flagged character from attacking anybody in your hex without an active feud or the like, since letting security settings continue to do what they already do is certainly the easiest thing to implement.
Bob
Gross
Speaking as a non PVP gatherer owned, I think a 1 minute risk window would be better, its easy enough for me to stay alert enough that a 15 second PVP flag would not often expose me to risk, whereas a minute is so long that someone may have been in an adjacent hex and still wander in and see you flagged..

In general, we want to avoid incentivizing players to switch back and forth between flagged and unflagged. We don't want you to flag just to gather from that one node because you believe you're safe, but because you're truly willing to take the risk.

Admittedly, any incentive to flag for PvP is likely to result in some players doing so when they feel safe, like near their home settlements, only to discover they weren't as safe as they thought. That's why we'd also like to keep the incentives for flagging as irrelevant to PvP-averse players as possible, so they won't be tempted to bother, no matter how low the risk is.