WoT needs settlement exclusion policy feature


Pathfinder Online

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's no net advantage to taking and holding 6 or 10 or 30 towers if non-citizens can come into town and use my upgraded facilities without penalty or risk. We need the option to set a blacklist (or a whitelist with a default-deny) to make infrastructure competition at all meaningful.


Guurzak wrote:
There's no net advantage to taking and holding 6 or 10 or 30 towers if non-citizens can come into town and use my upgraded facilities without penalty or risk. We need the option to set a blacklist (or a whitelist with a default-deny) to make infrastructure competition at all meaningful.

What could possibly go wrong under GW's current system? ;-)

It will be *fun* when EVERY player in the game bases all their characters in the same winning settlement.

Think of the lag!

Yummy yummy lag.

We can finally see how many items it takes to crash a bank, too.

Seriously, though, I almost feel sorry for whoever wins this mess. The world will come barging into their home uninvited and once everyone bases there, neighboring resource nodes are going to be stripped like a wheat field attacked by locusts.


The only place I see this happening is Brighthaven since they are inclusionary and welcoming already anyway, so that stance will probably just lead to more citizens again.

Could probably sneak into town to start a crafting job though, and then run away. Makes me laugh imagining it hah

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Midnight,

So, what you are saying is Brighthaven should not stop you from taking 30 towers, and then come base out of your settlement for training? I am all for others doing the work! On Wednesday, we will bring everyone over and wait for you to take all the towers, lots of us have already hit our ceiling. LMAO

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
There's no net advantage to taking and holding 6 or 10 or 30 towers if non-citizens can come into town and use my upgraded facilities without penalty or risk.

1) Not 100% true. Average net holdings will generate some long term benefits for the settlement in the form of free DI providing structures.

2) This is EE. It's a work in progress. That's the deal we have to live with until GW implements local control over our training. It's on the list, and is likely to be implemented before the end of the WoT.

3) (if I remember correctly) When last we saw the system, only people pledged to your settlement's companies got to benefit from your tower holdings, and they could carry their "upgrades" to any settlement. No matter how many towers your settlement controls, someone not pledged to it does not gain the benefits. Did I mis-remember that from Alpha?

Goblin Squad Member

They did say that anyone in your alliance you shared training with, and you can apply and enter alliances with people in game....sooooo

Whose to say it won't already be implemented day one?

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:


2) This is EE. It's a work in progress. That's the deal we have to live with until GW implements local control over our training. It's on the list, and is likely to be implemented before the end of the WoT.

Truth. I am am a bit worried though that implementing a certain feature before another feature could really mess things up for a while and will drive off certain groups. I realize that we will have more formal crowdforging to help this along, and I feel that Ryan and co are usually on the ball as to most "cause and effect" trains with gamefeatures, but still.

Things are also difficult to predict when you first need the player-numbers to make a feature effective. But you need the features in order to lure more players to the game.....so a bit of a rock and a hard place.

But I guess we will just have to ride the storm and make changes along the way.


TEO Cheatle wrote:

@Midnight,

So, what you are saying is Brighthaven should not stop you from taking 30 towers, and then come base out of your settlement for training? I am all for others doing the work! On Wednesday, we will bring everyone over and wait for you to take all the towers, lots of us have already hit our ceiling. LMAO

What you describe above seems perfectly logical,

EXCEPT for

1) the unpredictability of what GW might do with little notice like instituting Guurzak's suggestion.

2) No settlement has ALL the trainers. The people I really feel sorry for is the winning CRAFTING settlement.

Obviously, everyone is going to want to grab towers, but without exclusion tools... if Brighthaven decided to sleep in and skip WoT, it just means you'd likely relocate your crafters to the winning Crafting settlement.

Rep loss still seems too harsh to allow a settlement to seriously chase off carpetbaggers.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
3) (if I remember correctly) When last we saw the system, only people pledged to your settlement's companies got to benefit from your tower holdings, and they could carry their "upgrades" to any settlement. No matter how many towers your settlement controls, someone not pledged to it does not gain the benefits. Did I mis-remember that from Alpha?

This.

Folks may be able to talk to the Trainers at Brighthaven or Golgotha, but they won't be able to actually train a Feat unless the Settlement they belong to holds enough Towers to Support that Feat. That's the way it worked in Alpha, and we've been told there won't be any changes from Alpha for the beginning at least of War of Towers.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't think Rep is harsh enough, personally, but I agree with you chasing off those that are malicious hurts. This is just a byproduct of not having laws/factions/wars.

I do believe that they went very wrong with the landrush Proto-Settlements. I feel like everyone should have gotten AHs/Full Crafting, and just had the 6 options.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
1) Not 100% true. Average net holdings will generate some long term benefits for the settlement in the form of free DI providing structures.

This is a fair point, although "capture towers for theoretical post-cataclysm DI benefit" is somewhat less compelling than "capture towers for immediate training advantage."

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
2) This is EE. It's a work in progress. That's the deal we have to live with until GW implements local control over our training. It's on the list, and is likely to be implemented before the end of the WoT.

Of course. I'm not saying we have to have this now or else everything is ruined forever, I'm just saying that until we have this feature, the WoT is missing a very important motivation aspect.

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
3) (if I remember correctly) When last we saw the system, only people pledged to your settlement's companies got to benefit from your tower holdings, and they could carry their "upgrades" to any settlement. No matter how many towers your settlement controls, someone not pledged to it does not gain the benefits. Did I mis-remember that from Alpha?

I'm not sure I understand what "they could carry their "upgrades" to any settlement" means. If my Fighter/Wizard settlement has 30 towers and I visit someone else's Skirmisher, can I train at the higher level? If not, only Aragon and Terra Firma will have T2 longbowmen. (Unless playing silly buggers with company membership works.)

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
If my Fighter/Wizard settlement has 30 towers and I visit someone else's Skirmisher, can I train at the higher level?

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the Settlement Trainers have to be of the appropriate level (Skirmisher Trainer 4, I think) in order to have the Feats you'd want to train.

I believe it is possible for you to train higher level Feats at someone else's Settlement if your own Settlement holds more Towers than theirs does.

[Edit] I'm confident that you would be limited to lower level Feats at someone else's Settlement if your own Settlement held fewer Towers than theirs did.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
The only place I see this happening is Brighthaven since they are inclusionary and welcoming already anyway

I haven't seen a single active settlement that isn't inclusionary and welcoming.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

The limit works the following way

Settlement -> Number of towers defines max training x
Character -> Can train up to y if not aligned (I think 7 or 8) or can train up to x if aligned with the Settlement above

You do carry this with you. This was leading to the situation that during reboot of Emerald Lodge my characters were capped to level 5 on all skills.

I got the message - this settlement doesn't train up to that level - which is misleading. I could train higher by leaving the company. But by joining it I dropped back.

This was also the reason they changed to formula from 5 + tower/2 as far as I know as it penelized you to be a member of a settlement with no towers. You were limited to 5.

This will change after the cataclysm.

edit: to reiterate - at the time I could not train to level 6 - ANYWHERE while being a member of a settlement without towers. You carry the cap with you.


Guurzak wrote:
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
The only place I see this happening is Brighthaven since they are inclusionary and welcoming already anyway
I haven't seen a single active settlement that isn't inclusionary and welcoming.

Seriously, there's no reason NOT to be inclusive and welcoming in a settlement.

Now when it comes to node-stripping the neighboring countryside, that's when people start getting bent.

The winning CRAFTING settlement is likely to find this a vexing issue if visitors aren't polite.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what "they could carry their "upgrades" to any settlement" means. If my Fighter/Wizard settlement has 30 towers and I visit someone else's Skirmisher, can I train at the higher level? If not, only Aragon and Terra Firma will have T2 longbowmen. (Unless playing silly buggers with company membership works.)

That is correct. If Golgotha holds the towers, any player pledged to Golgotha can train to that level in any settlement. Other players that do not hold towers are limited to the same training provided at an npc settlement, even in Golgotha (maybe unless allied?)

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Midnight of Golgotha wrote:


Now when it comes to node-stripping the neighboring countryside, that's when people start getting bent.

So far I have only seen a negative effect on the first weekend in an NPC node rich in moonstones (low overall resources) and with midden heaps at the Emerals Spire (only a single resource at tier 1 - majority resource is tier 2 and maybe tier 3).

Numbers based on 300 resources gathered per hour. I know sspitfire speedgatherer managed > 500 in his 15 minute experiment. But I still regard the 300 more appropriate as a normal gathering speed.

Assuming a value of 10K resources and 30% of resources harvested per day you get:

Each hex easily sustains 10 hours of gathering per day. Just counting the core 6 hexes you have 60 hours of gathering. So you need 20 members gathering in access

Problems only occur if:
a) you do strip mining as warefare - but you need to be truly well organized to pull this off
b) the game growth a lot more population
c) you don't stop in time
d) you selectivly gather - this can be non voluntarily as it might still happen at the spire - people looking for wool or hemp and only getting iron as they are not tier 2.

Knowing all this I monitor resources around EL - but I'm pretty relaxed. This might change if monitoring yields warning signs or if industrial mining is being done.

Goblin Squad Member

This I believe will ultimately lead to there just being one settlement of each combination, any others would just be redundant.

Sounds like a good idea if there were tens of thousands playing, but you won't have that for months, years or perhaps ever.


Here's what suggests no exclusion, and thus the ability to train at better settlements.

Yesterday's blog pointed with authority to the Alpha WoT blog which I am quoting:

(In Alpha 10.x there's no real definition of "characters in a Settlement". That is a top priority feature the team is still working on. In Alpha 10.x, all characters (with the necessary Reputation) will be able to access Trainers in any Settlement but that's a temporary condition.)

So my question is... has anything changed this "temporary condition"?


and as far as crafting facilities:

(The same caveat applies. In Alpha 10.x there's no exclusion of characters from Settlement structures, but there will be eventually.)

Is it Eventually, yet?

Goblin Squad Member

There is, however definition of "Companies in a Settlement," so I think that's how it is handled for now


But no one has been excluded from using settlement structures, to date.

For the last 2 weeks, crafters have been going to wherever the best facilities are.

I see nothing in the G.W. blogs that definitively says that will change tomorrow.

Obviously, it would be dangerous to just assume it won't change, though.


Guurzak wrote:
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
The only place I see this happening is Brighthaven since they are inclusionary and welcoming already anyway
I haven't seen a single active settlement that isn't inclusionary and welcoming.

In my opinion your stance on non-affiliated players operating in your settlement makes whatever settlement you are part of exclusionary and non-welcoming.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnight of Golgotha wrote:
Guurzak wrote:
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
The only place I see this happening is Brighthaven since they are inclusionary and welcoming already anyway
I haven't seen a single active settlement that isn't inclusionary and welcoming.

Seriously, there's no reason NOT to be inclusive and welcoming in a settlement.

Now when it comes to node-stripping the neighboring countryside, that's when people start getting bent.

The winning CRAFTING settlement is likely to find this a vexing issue if visitors aren't polite.

Well, then your stance is self-contradictory. There may be shades of grey, but the need to identify oneself before approaching Golgotha lest one get plugged with arrows is pretty unwelcoming compared to places you don't have to do that.

That stance makes sense from a role play standpoint, no matter to me really, just calling it how I see it.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

This I believe will ultimately lead to there just being one settlement of each combination, any others would just be redundant.

Sounds like a good idea if there were tens of thousands playing, but you won't have that for months, years or perhaps ever.

I think that is unlikely, as scarcity of resources should force the player population to spread out. The higher the active population of a settlement, the more resources will be required to support all of those players. Since there is a limit to how much of any given resource can be harvested in a single hex in a given period of time, a highly concentrated settlement's gatherers would have to go further and further to gather the necessary resources for upkeep and advancement of the settlement. At some point in a settlements growth cycle it will become more efficient to bud off into two settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Elminster000 wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

This I believe will ultimately lead to there just being one settlement of each combination, any others would just be redundant.

Sounds like a good idea if there were tens of thousands playing, but you won't have that for months, years or perhaps ever.

I think that is unlikely, as scarcity of resources should force the player population to spread out. The higher the active population of a settlement, the more resources will be required to support all of those players. Since there is a limit to how much of any given resource can be harvested in a single hex in a given period of time, a highly concentrated settlement's gatherers would have to go further and further to gather the necessary resources for upkeep and advancement of the settlement. At some point in a settlements growth cycle it will become more efficient to bud off into two settlements.

Well, you are forgetting an important feature of PFO: Trading and transporting Trade goods with Caravans. The intention is that settlements that lack certain resources try to haul in goods from far away, where there is more of them. This happens with Caravans.

Settlements who can not provide their crafters with resources or refined goods that they cant make themselves, i.e. settlements that do not trade, will probably bleed members.

Some may still be somewhat self sufficient, but the most succesfull Settlements will undoubtedly have all sorts of trade deals and alliances going on.

Well, that is how I envision the mature game anyway. We are a long way from that still.


Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
Midnight of Golgotha wrote:
Guurzak wrote:
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
The only place I see this happening is Brighthaven since they are inclusionary and welcoming already anyway
I haven't seen a single active settlement that isn't inclusionary and welcoming.

Seriously, there's no reason NOT to be inclusive and welcoming in a settlement.

Now when it comes to node-stripping the neighboring countryside, that's when people start getting bent.

The winning CRAFTING settlement is likely to find this a vexing issue if visitors aren't polite.

Well, then your stance is self-contradictory. There may be shades of grey, but the need to identify oneself before approaching Golgotha lest one get plugged with arrows is pretty unwelcoming compared to places you don't have to do that.

That stance makes sense from a role play standpoint, no matter to me really, just calling it how I see it.

We generally ask people where they are from and why they are here. We've had a steady stream of visitors who haven't gotten shot. In fact, more often than not, they are here to join up.

Dozens of characters (who weren't part of the land rush) have found Golgotha welcoming enough to decide to call it home.

But you are, of course, free to view resource vigilance as unwelcoming.

Personally, I've never been one to wear a welcome mat on my back.

Words you will never hear from me:
"Honey, we need more cash lying openly out on the lawn; we might have guests and we wouldn't want them to feel unwelcome."

Goblin Squad Member

It sounds like what I'm hearing is that if I go to train in another settlement, my training opportunity is limited by whichever is lower of that settlement's training cap and my own settlement's training cap.

If that's the case then the concern which led to my initial post is mostly addressed, although I'd still like blacklist or whitelist options sooner rather than later.


I'm comparing you to Emerald Lodge, your neighbor. They are openly welcoming. Golgotha allows admittance and presence till deemed unwanted. There is a distinction unless you feel like equivocating on the definition of "welcoming".

But personally, I don't really care. I just like pointing out and discussing the various differences in the in-game groups.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
I'm comparing you to Emerald Lodge, your neighbor.

NOTHING can compare to the Emerald Lodge.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
It sounds like what I'm hearing is that if I go to train in another settlement, my training opportunity is limited by whichever is lower of that settlement's training cap and my own settlement's training cap.

It is certainly limited by your own Settlement's training cap.

It might be somewhat limited by the Settlement's training cap. Specifically, I think that if the Settlement hosting the trainers only has War Wizard 2, you won't be able to train any Feats that don't show up on that trainer. However, if that Settlement has War Wizard 4, I expect you'd be able to train more Feats than that Settlement's members if your own Settlement held more Towers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Doc

Emerald Lodge? That's setting the bar pretty high.

They're just so darn lovable I want to pinch their cheeks when I really should be chasing them from neutral hexes to speed my resource gathering for Benevolent Dictator.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

As I recall, there was some discussion of a three phase progression:

Phase 1 - Your character's training level limits are dictated by the number of Towers your settlement holds. You can train to that level in any settlement, as long as your Reputation is greater than -2500.

Phase 2 - Your character can only train in your settlement. (If you're a member of a crafting settlement, grab any weapon training you want before this phase begins.)

Phase 3 - Your character can train in your settlement, and in any settlement formally allied with your settlement.

I assume that the more complicated trespassing and training permission systems would be implemented sometime after Phase 3.

Goblin Squad Member

Midnight of Golgotha wrote:
We generally ask people where they are from and why they are here. We've had a steady stream of visitors who haven't gotten shot.

That might be the plan, but when I was shot last week not a word was exchanged. That might have been because I was in the "help" channel instead of chat, but I saw no evidence that anyone spoke, and when I switched to hex and asked if there was a problem I never got an answer.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Midnight of Golgotha wrote:

@Doc

Emerald Lodge? That's setting the bar pretty high.

They're just so darn lovable I want to pinch their cheeks when I really should be chasing them from neutral hexes to speed my resource gathering for Benevolent Dictator.

You really had me laughing out loud ... Good I had no drink near my keyboard.

Goblin Squad Member

Thod wrote:
Midnight of Golgotha wrote:


Now when it comes to node-stripping the neighboring countryside, that's when people start getting bent.

Assuming a value of 10K resources and 30% of resources harvested per day you get:

IIRC (and I'm pretty sure about that) 10k is not the norm, most stuff is conciderable less than that and it not that often it is the one with max freq that is the most attractive. At Gathering 6 the t1s of those secondaries are going to drop quite fast...

The training issues discussed puts the spotlight on something I have had tagential discusdion about during alpha. What will be tbe economics of Towns? Will things(like crafting, training) cost? As for now everything is a freeride and as infrastructure don't cost there isnt any cost to have freeloaders hang around. So there is no reason what so ever to not be inclusive and welcoming to everyone, there just isnt any cost at all associated with people (as Thod pointed out above you have to do quite intense gathering to get effects on the quality, and everything recovers quite quickly anyway).


Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Midnight of Golgotha wrote:
We generally ask people where they are from and why they are here. We've had a steady stream of visitors who haven't gotten shot.
That might be the plan, but when I was shot last week not a word was exchanged. That might have been because I was in the "help" channel instead of chat, but I saw no evidence that anyone spoke, and when I switched to hex and asked if there was a problem I never got an answer.

Were you gathering?

Heck, it could have been a poacher running off other poachers.

But yeah, it could have been one of our folks (or even me on Friday Night's raid defense).

I used the word "generally" on purpose.

Your mileage may differ. :-)

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:
Elminster000 wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

This I believe will ultimately lead to there just being one settlement of each combination, any others would just be redundant.

Sounds like a good idea if there were tens of thousands playing, but you won't have that for months, years or perhaps ever.

I think that is unlikely, as scarcity of resources should force the player population to spread out. The higher the active population of a settlement, the more resources will be required to support all of those players. Since there is a limit to how much of any given resource can be harvested in a single hex in a given period of time, a highly concentrated settlement's gatherers would have to go further and further to gather the necessary resources for upkeep and advancement of the settlement. At some point in a settlements growth cycle it will become more efficient to bud off into two settlements.

Well, you are forgetting an important feature of PFO: Trading and transporting Trade goods with Caravans. The intention is that settlements that lack certain resources try to haul in goods from far away, where there is more of them. This happens with Caravans.

Settlements who can not provide their crafters with resources or refined goods that they cant make themselves, i.e. settlements that do not trade, will probably bleed members.

Some may still be somewhat self sufficient, but the most succesfull Settlements will undoubtedly have all sorts of trade deals and alliances going on.

Well, that is how I envision the mature game anyway. We are a long way from that still.

This is true, but trade is more of a solution to the lack of diversity of resources a settlement may have than a solution to a lack of volume. I could see one very large settlement being "fed" by smaller subservient settlements to achieve this, but I don't think that is the natural end product of the systems currently in place. I think caravans and whatever inter-settlement trade mechanisms we see put into place will be more like a handshake than a parasitic tentacle.

Goblin Squad Member

Craftwise you get a bonus crafting in a craft settlement but there are resource limitations basing yourself in one settlement.

Assuming you can make most of what you produce with goods from two areas a canny player will have two crafting settlement as a base - carrying mats X&Y to settlement 2 and crafting there then making the return trip with material Z (plus any finished goods) to settlement 1 and crafting back there. Rinse and repeat.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

I was at Hammerfall when Sammie pestered some players there. I was watching and had a short chat and we exchanged greetings.

This was with Thod.

Later on I was in with a 1000xp alt and he showed up next to me. Was on my way back to EL - so just ran and watched. Didn't announce myself. Sammie followed. Not sure he triggered aggro - but in this case I would only have to blame myself.

If he did, then he might have got a bad surprise. He was really good following me - but I was too busy watching him - so I ran the char with peasants clothes and Sammie following into a group of ogres.

So if he lost rep because the ogres killed me - tough on him :)

Actually teleported me half a hex - so win/win for me.

Yep - wouldn't do this with husks - that was a delivery of longsbows.

Goblin Squad Member

I hope the eventual implementation of laws will also clean up some of this. As of right now, guards are aligned to the peaceful and against the aggressor, regardless of the identities of each. If I attack an enemy trespassing in my own town and taking our resources, the guards will kill me.

Ditto with my tavern. The guards there are supposed to be mine. I'm not an aggressive player so I have no immediate concern there, but it still seems like it'd make the most sense for them to aid (or at least ignore) my actions instead of following more abstract and impartial rules by which they kill their boss to protect an adversarial interloper.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No they won't. Guards do not attack aggressors. They attack people with less than -2500 rep

Goblin Squad Member

Fair point, but my basic idea remains the same. If I have -5000 rep, why would my own, hired goons be attacking me for showing up on my own property?

Goblin Squad Member

<Kabal> Dan Repperger wrote:
Fair point, but my basic idea remains the same. If I have -5000 rep, why would my own, hired goons be attacking me for showing up on my own property?

They are rebelling because you have such a nasty reputation?

Goblin Squad Member

The more I think about it, I guess a detailed systems of laws really isn't necessary. The whitelist/blacklist described above would work, though it'd be nice if it can include individuals, companies, and alignments. I also hope they'll extend it to all POIs that have guards, not just settlements.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Schedim wrote:


IIRC (and I'm pretty sure about that) 10k is not the norm, most stuff is conciderable less than that and it not that often it is the one with max freq that is the most attractive. At Gathering 6 the t1s of those secondaries are going to drop quite fast...

10K is ALL resources in a hex. I have seen up to 17 different ones and some have ratings of 1% or approx. 100.

I'm saying you can gather 30% (3000) but not 3000 of a single resource.

Goblin Squad Member

Midnight of Golgotha wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Midnight of Golgotha wrote:
We generally ask people where they are from and why they are here. We've had a steady stream of visitors who haven't gotten shot.
That might be the plan, but when I was shot last week not a word was exchanged. That might have been because I was in the "help" channel instead of chat, but I saw no evidence that anyone spoke, and when I switched to hex and asked if there was a problem I never got an answer.
Were you gathering?

I was not. I was traveling a shortest line from my "birthplace" in Kindleburn to Ozem's Vigil by jumping off the cliffs near Auroral (with a short detour to check out the rumoured Inn in the pass). Not Friday night, either.


Inconceivable. ;-)

Seriously though, I have no explanation. It wasn't me.

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"why do guards attack the people from the lands they guard?"

1: They work for Thornkeep, not you. Thornkeep wants Crusaders to move through the area with minimum problems. They think a flow of Crusaders is the root of their economic engine. The Thornguard don't like low rep people, because they might cause problems for Crusaders, regardless of where they sleep at night. :)

2: There is a real risk of sudden and painful disruption if a faction splits off from the rest of the group and turns on their former comrades before they can be removed from the institutional infrastructure. The risk includes mass rage-quits from the game and a sudden loss of business for Goblinworks. Since we don't have the tech yet to let you choose your own level of risk, we want to ensure that until you do, the Thornguard don't descriminate between targets based on Company or Settlement affiliation.

Of course we want to build a realy robust and complex security model with all sorts of dials and sliders for you all to fiddle with seeking the "perfect" mixture of risk and security. It is just a matter if time, not intent.

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / WoT needs settlement exclusion policy feature All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online