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
harneloot
Any switching of your PvP flag should last until the next down-time at least.

We talked about having downtime reset the flags, and it could be done. One weird thing about it is that the game would probably play very differently as the day passed, since the closer you are to downtime, the less time your flag will last. We could also just do a really long timer (even 12-24 hours or more), which might even be easier to implement. The main thing to think about there is whether or not the long timer just pushes flagged players to switch to another character and wait out the timer. That wouldn't wind up increasing the number of available targets anyway, though perhaps it's a fair balancing choice to have to take that gatherer out of commission for a day. However, it's a pretty big advantage for the players who keep a stable of characters over the players just trying to run one character.

harneloot
No, they shouldn't be able to *wander through* either - you enter the hex, you get flagged for PvP. There should be no other rule for monster hexes than that. This should apply to any hex I set at low security and EVERY monster hex on the map (except for the monster hex near TK, and maybe the one near UC).

We could essentially put up the walls around those hexes for any player not flagged for PvP, and not let characters unflag while in those hexes. It would be a problem if too much of the world was blocked off, but if the cost of blocking them off is set such that only a reasonable portion is blocked off at any one time, it could work out well.

Blocking off all the monster hexes all the time for non-PvP players gets us right back to saying you can't really play the game unless you flag for PvP. Wilderness hexes can already be claimed with holdings, so there's a pretty obvious option there to say that holding owners can decide whether or not to block out non-PvP non-allies, with some cost attached to doing so. If needed, we could consider providing a mechanic by which the same can be done to monster hexes and the like, but probably on a more precarious basis. For example, we could make a craftable flag that can be placed in those hexes, and while it's up non-PvP non-allies can't enter the hex. However, unfriendly PvP characters could tear the flag down at any time (probably through a capture game with a reasonable delay), so that control could be quickly lost when you or your allies aren't around to actively defend it, though you could always place another flag later. I'm sure there are variants on that, or completely different possibilities, that would achieve the same end of making monster hexes available most of the time, but not when they're actively claimed to an appropriate degree.
Bob
Maxen
But if they choose to harvest or kill, flag them as PvP eligible for 15 seconds. A minute. Whatever. Give the opposing faction or non-allied settlement members a chance to play the game the way they want to. To me, that’s called compromise.

That would be the compromise, and PvP-averse players should still understand it's a dynamic world where other players can do things that restrict their choices to some degree. The tiny nuance here is that the PvP-averse players in question aren't comfortable with the possibility of suddenly becoming eligible for PvP without realizing it's happening and being easily able to prevent it. Players easily start to tune out less-intrusive messages, so things like showing a warning at the beginning of gathering ("Gathering here will flag you for PvP, move away to remain unflagged."smile aren't enough. We'd either want to put up a standard error message when an unflagged person tries to gather ("You must flag for PvP to gather here."smile or a confirmation dialog making clear that this action will flag them for PvP.
Bob
harneloot
I only attack my enemies or those that (back when there was actually this thing called Scarcity in the game; Enchanting Mats notwithstanding) I feel are *stealing* from my claimed territory.

Enemies: Yes, those you consider your enemies could unflag, and thus you couldn't attack them if you ran into them. The trick here is restricting those who would never flag for PvP enough that you think of them more as civilians on an opposing force than as true enemies, and providing enough incentives to those who are open to PvP to get them to stay flagged for PvP the bulk of the time. Also, you can still "hurt" the civilians who oppose you without directly fighting them, since hurting their side lowers their support, just indirectly.

Poachers: Would it be enough to have a mechanic for "claiming" territory (holdings already work for wilderness hexes, perhaps add something for monster hexes and such) such that only those flagged for PvP can gather in the area, and only they can challenge/remove your claim? Yes, those not flagged for PvP could wander through, but they couldn't "steal" from you.
Bob
It's the amount of Azoth you can pay to increase your odds of getting additional plusses on a refining project, increasing the odds of getting one additional plus by 10 percentage points and of getting 2 additional plusses by 1 percentage point.
Bob
Caldeathe Baequiannia
If you drew a hard line in the sand on a given day, and going forward logged feats and skills as applied (or alternatively, do a feat/skill-state-capture at each logout), you could make respecing a single path, with the choice being to rollback the character to a particular point (basically scrolling backwards through training to a point, then obliterating anything past that point), or date (restore to last Sunday, obliterating all training versions since last sunday). (not applicable to equipment/position etc. just skills and feats) Then they could try some training, and play with it for a week, then decide to jump back to one of the previous few logins (destructively, so they can't just keep rolling back to a different preferred version each time they feel like it (i.e. rolling back 4 days deletes later captures at the next log out)).

True, repeated "Undo" commands are fairly well understood, and the chain of dependencies would be preserved along the way. Would still be a fair amount of work, and wouldn't work for anything learned before the feature got implemented, but worth keeping in mind if we don't think any other partial respec options are feasible.
Bob
plopmania
So, the way I understood the "by exp with Azoth", there is no real limit to how much exp can be bought? Is it less efficient that just subscribing but one can be subscribed and buy exp. Can I just slap $10k on the table and sky-rocket my character's exp?

We haven't completely settled on the exact limits for buying XP. We'll develop some more specific ideas on that when we're closer to actually working on this, then throw them out for more crowdforging.

plopmania
That does read like a "pay-to-win" proposition. Even if we throw in all the spiel about lateral progression, mild power-curve, and gate and gear requirements. After all, exp is power in this game. And people who are touchy about p2w, aren't all that lenient (nor rational) when it comes to things like these.

We've already cracked the door open with things like having Azoth improve the outcome of crafting and refining projects, or player housing giving out combat bonuses, but managed to find the right balance to keep them from feeling too pay-to-win. We should be able to do the same here as well.

plopmania
Also, I feel like this is missing the issue that most new player's have brought up on the forums. If I recall correctly, they are more concerned about the feeling of "not being able to progress by playing" rather than being behind the curve.

So, regardless of what happens to the exp buying, could We add something that would better fill that need in addition to the current gate system?

Yes, we'd like to look into some possibilities around that, and have had some preliminary discussions about different ideas, some of which had some similarities to the ideas you proposed. We just felt that was a larger project and weren't as certain that it should be included in the first batch of features to tackle. Then again, we're still talking about what should go in the next batch of features, and this is one of the areas we're actively considering for it.
Bob
Bringslite
If there is going to be "flagging for PVP" is the issue of shrine travel for some distance (rather than Run Simulator) really still a relevant thing?

It's certainly less of an issue, particularly with mobs relatively easily avoided. Even with mobs doing some patrolling, a lightly encumbered player will probably always be able to avoid being killed by mobs, though they might have to slow down and be a bit more careful. Nonetheless, a character not flagged for PvP, and not slowed by carrying too much stuff, could very dependably reach any destination given enough time, perhaps twice the amount of time needed to run straight there. As long as shrine travel took significantly more time than that, using it would be a meaningful choice.

One possible exception would be if characters not flagged for PvP could be blocked from entering certain hexes. In that case, it's possible that shrine travel could let a character bypass those restrictions, so we'd have to put some thought into that.
Bob
harneloot
Wasn't there supposed to be an important mechanic called Soul Binding that allowed you to pick where you would appear after Pharasma raised you? Let subbed toons Soulbind to certain places like Faction Centerns, Company Holdings, Monster Hex shrines or something and let Free to Play toons have to reappear where the game thinks is best and log into only the closest NPC settlement? I thought Soul Binding was supposed of be one of the perks of those expensive player bought taverns too…

Yup, the ultimate plan is to have a whole system to give players more control over where they respawn, whether on logging in or on dying, and at the same time to limit those locations to friendly spots the player has visited. With that, we could probably add more restrictions on those choices for trial players, if needed.

Overall, there were still a lot of details to to work through. It also looks like our original plans were pretty open to using alts as scouts out in the wilderness, just not in enemy territory. Maybe making free trials so much easier to use turns that into more of a problem than before, but ultimately any large number of active players would have meant a large number of alts available for use as scouts, just usually not all controlled by the same player.
Bob
Edam
If I recall correctly (it was a long time ago) this spawn at shrine idea came up around the EE time and the issues with it, back then, were:

1. It can be used for fast travel. (for example log off on the plains below Golgotha with a load of goodies and log back in and appear safely up the mountain in town near the Golgotha bank).
2. PvP issues, such as people who escaped being chased can log off and back in again respawning hexes away from the pursuers at a PvP free shrine. Shrines would also create ideal camp spots for bandits and scouts wanting to see who logs in.

We have a relatively simple tweak in mind that would help with some of these issues: If the character logged out (or was otherwise disconnected) more than X minutes ago, then spawn them back in at the nearest accessible/friendly shrine. It wouldn't completely solve them, but would at least generally mean that the character could have just run to the nearest shrine in less time.

The spawn camping issue is more probematic, though we do have policies against that. Still, it's certainly possible this change would make spawn camping much more tempting, and that we'd need to take additional measures to prevent it around the same time.
Bob
Smitty
Logging in at shrines wont fix what the question was ..
for scouts - usually you are wanting to check monster hexes across the map, logging into a shrine is perfect for that… unpaid alts should log into closest settlement .. if you want to avoid that..

Very true, it's just a small step toward longer-term plans, and one we could do relatively easily. It doesn't solve all the issues with alts, but it would at least keep alts from logging in as scouts right in the middle of an enemy territory. As you say though, it would do nothing to prevent using alts as scouts for monster hexes, since there's always a shrine in/near those.

We do have longer-term plans that would help with that issue, but there are a lot of technical and balance challenges with those plans, so they'd take a while to implement. We'd be open to alternative disincentives that could be implemented relatively easily, but haven't come up with any yet, and think it's best to get free trials working soon even with this shortcoming.