Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Chaleb Sazomal

Andius's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,952 posts. No reviews. 2 lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,952 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Debrio wrote:
I will take great pleasure in killing you all. How do you know what good is?

While I'm sure we could all have a lot of fun debating the ideas of moral relativism vs. universal morality it isn't even needed here. Ever heard of detect alignment?

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
I have to argue against the "too easy" argument. One man's "Not too easy" is another's "frustratingly difficult."

Right but the problem is it makes something undesirable that should border on impossible "too easy". Something I'd rather not seen done at all. I don't care if it's frustratingly difficult to do stuff like that.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Is the problem that everyone on one side is capable of hitting the same individual on the other? Or is it simply that /assist makes it too easy?

Too easy. A raid assist window makes it possible for someone to pick a target from among dozens of opponents and have enough people respond quickly enough that they are almost insta-dead. Faster than they may even get a chance to use a guard ability.

The part I hate most about this all is how it's really unique to MMO combat. In an actual conflict one arrow or spear thrust can kill so focusing all your firepower on a single soldier would be idiocy.

I think target assist should never even be implemented and formations should be most effective when using formation maneuvers which should focus more group vs. group style attacks and defenses.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Andius, would you have a problem with /assist if the character using it still had to have a clear line-of-sight to the target in order to do anything, and would hit obstacles in the way if they didn't? The main reason I don't have a problem with /assist is because in the real world humans (and dogs) are very adept at following others' gazes to see what they're looking at. There are myriad clues we give via body language, gestures, and eye contact that simply can't be modeled (yet) in any game.

I don't think it adds anything to combat. I absolutely hate games where group PVP becomes a matter of targeting the raid assist target and throwing off your biggest attack. I'd rather have a total mess but a well done formation system sounds even better.

There is nothing fun about spamming your biggest attacks and just hoping you don't get called as a high priority target.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't think a "lock current target" with auto facing or even a tab between targets option added to a ESO like combat system would detract from my experience. I actually think those attempting to rely on the tab between targets option would be disadvantedged against me after having used the alternative a bit.

Target assist and selecting healing targets through the party menu is another matter. Those prevent an advantage so stong that any competitive player will be expected to use them.

Goblin Squad Member

Having played ESO I now see tab targeting as such an inferior system it will be hard to go back to. I think anyone else who's tried it can back me up on this. It's not a twitchy system. Aiming is so easy you don't even really think about it. It's simply a more fluid more immersive system. You see your targets, you decide which one you want to attack, and you start attacking them. It's really that easy. Seriously, my gf plays on a laptop with no mouse and is a total badass.

Yeah there is no raid assist and you can't just click the raid assist to pick a target or watch and click healthbars to heal people. I don't see those as features. I see them as ways to make a crappy non-intuitive combat system more playable.

Goblin Squad Member

Eh. ESO can be tactical as opposed to spammy if you play it tactical as opposed to spammy. Same way as Guild Wars. When I'm playing I'm trying to make sure I snare the right opponents, taunt the right opponents, and place my heals right so my girlfriend can roast things without getting beat on, while she's spewing out tons of damage and pushing opponents away from me when I need a moment to heal up.

I'm sure it would be much less tactical if I just min-maxed my tanking abilities but I'm pretty happy given we are 2-manning group content 4 levels higher than us.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
To me Mass Effect style aiming with Original Guild Wars style abilities and ability selection would be the Holy Grail of combat systems.

Having now played ESO I feel vindicated in this statement. It feels like breathing. It's just that fluid and natural. 10/10

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:

That's a very compelling reason, and I appreciate you bringing my mind back 'round to it.

Although, I'm also having trouble envisioning incentives strong enough to make a Bandit permanently flag themselves to all (or even a subset of) Bandit Hunters (Merchant Guards).

Well we know once you reach a certain faction rank you can't ever remove that flag. If banditry raises your ranks fast enough and the perks of high banditry faction are good enough, a lot of people will do it.

Though you're right in seeing the potential for people to intentionally lower their rank to avoid that. How often that happens will be a factor of the ease of lowering your rank, and the level of perks lost by doing so.

I'd really like to see most bandit/bandit hunter skills under these factions require meaningful training time and require you to be flagged "for the cause" to use. That way you are either flagged or giving up a set of skills you've invested meaningful time into. Or if you haven't invested meaningful time you're a really crappy bandit/bandit hunter.

Beyond that all members of a caravan or anyone issuing a SAD should be required to flag themselves.

Personally for me, being open to PvP by opposing faction members is actually a perk in itself if I feel like the conflict with that opposing faction is meaningful.

Goblin Squad Member

The thing that can keep bandit population down is that it can never be a highly profitable profession no matter how hard this game tries to make it one. Preying off the players not sneaky/strong enough to make it past you does not generate money nearly as fast as trading in highly profitable forms of cargo because the merchants not sneaky/strong enough will learn from their mistakes, seek a new profession, or leave the game. Nobody will play the role of easy prey long term.

Here's the kicker though. What's stopping people of any profession of robbing people when the opportunity arises? Like you are out adventuring / exploring / gathering and you see someone who looks weak so you SAD them and take their stuff. Full time banditry will never be viable for players looking to compete on a serious level but part time banditry is something everyone can benefit from. So why wouldn't they all do it?

Factions do answer that. Because if you join a bandit faction you are a constant target for members of opposing factions. Plus you give up the bonuses you could get from following the opposing faction.

That part I like. I just think grouping all bandits and all merchants together is overly simplistic, and leads to a less authentic/interesting world.

Why would a slave liberating freedom fighter be an automatic enemy to a good aligned merchant but a slaver's strong arm is an automatic ally?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Andius wrote:

I wouldn't count on players adding much depth to a red vs. blue bandit vs. merchant system.

In 90% of cases all merchant faction members will attack any bandits, and bandits will rob any merchant. These RvB systems tend to encourage that kind of mentality whether they mean to or not.

Beyond that it sounds as though they are being set up as opposing factions. I don't think players should be forced to make an either or choice when it comes to this.

But in your suggestion the bandits would have the option to choose to have any target or one if the sub factions that limits their targets. Since even you recognize that 90% of bandits would choose to have any target, why have the other sub factions?

I acknowledged that in a Red vs. Blue system where you are forced to pick between one merchant faction and one bandit faction 90% of bandits will attack all of the merchants they come across. The opposite is also true.

That is not to say that 90% of players would continue to behave the same way outside a RvB system. To give a glimpse into my own thinking:

In a RvB system where my choice is protect merchants or rob them, the clear choice to me is to join the merchant faction. Beyond that, once I have done that, I have great reason to assume anyone flying a bandit flag is a threat to regular, decent, non-slave trading merchants. As a product of that I'm going to switch from an innocent until proven guilty mentality to a guilty until proven innocent mentality for anyone flying a bandit flag. So I'll kill them unless I have a good reason NOT to. That's the RvB mentality that the system really kind of pushes me into adopting.

In the system I described, that mentality would only really apply to people flying the general bandit flag for me.

Quote:
In what way would your proposal limit merchants? If a guard was in sub faction, woukd he only be able to freely defend those members if his sub faction? I have zero expectation that you have that in mind.

To answer your question. Yes. I'm not sure why you wouldn't expect that answer. If a guard wants to guard shipments from all 3 factions he should join all 3 factions.

Beyond that I would say that any caravan running goods restricted to a sub-faction of merchants should be forced to adopt the flag of that sub-faction. The smuggler faction should come with a skill that allows them to turn those flags into hidden flags (They show as general merchant faction flags unless you uncover their hidden status with the appropriate checks.)

I mean really. Why would anyone assume general merchant's guards would defend slave and contraband shipments?

Also it gives purpose to chaotic evil traders, as they would be the main ones who could join the slave and smuggler factions at the same time, allowing them to flag slave shipments as general merchant shipments with their smuggle ability. They would also be the only players who could run any type of cargo regardless of legality or morality.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't count on players adding much depth to a red vs. blue bandit vs. merchant system.

In 90% of cases all merchant faction members will attack any bandits, and bandits will rob any merchant. These RvB systems tend to encourage that kind of mentality whether they mean to or not.

Beyond that it sounds as though they are being set up as opposing factions. I don't think players should be forced to make an either or choice when it comes to this.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

The idea about creating a merchant and bandit faction set was a winner around here. It should be easy enough to implement that we won't be using any major programming time that could be used to get other features online, which means that we can get it earlier than we'd get the whole S&D system. So it seems likely that what will happen is:

  • We get a bandit and merchant faction working around the same time as the other factions become available. (My gut is that we set up the merchant faction in such as way as it makes sense for both merchants and guards to join, rather than inventing a third faction to guard the merchants.)
  • We may not have all the high-rank perks yet, so we wait until we have enough attractive high-rank merchant perks before ruling on how well it's working out. (That is, we expect merchant adoption to be gradual as more "carrots" come online, so expectations shouldn't be for many merchants to be members as soon as it's available.)
  • We use feedback from how the faction system is working to revise our goals for what the S&D system needs to accomplish, and figure out where that fits into the schedule.

Are these necessarily going to just be 2 factions? If so that really takes a lot of depth out of the system IMO.

I'd like to see a few of each faction type.

For instance there would be a merchant faction that deals in strictly legal goods. A merchant faction that has skills related to smuggling. A merchant faction with skills related to the transportation of slaves.

Then there might be a bandit faction that preys on any merchants. One that will only prey on slave traders. A lawful one that only goes after smugglers.

So for for me I might join the regular merchant faction or maybe even the smuggler faction. Maybe both. But also belong to the bandit faction the exclusively targets slave traders.

A lot less cookie cutter, a lot more depth.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Plague escalation cycles would be AWESOME. Those would be fun to see spread over the top of other escalation cycles too though. You could have people running around curing victims, providing needed supplies, or on the evil side just killing the infected and burning the bodies.

One thing though, as awesome as it would be to let's the paladins/clerics/druids magic away all the disease some plagues should require physical medicine. Just imagine the fun when people start trying to rob incoming medical supplies.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm assuming even if there are not ways to mechanically disallow outsiders from bringing their feuds within our borders that we will have other methods available to us ranging from limitations on their rights within our borders to a full blown declaration of war depending on the severity and consistency of the disruptions they cause to peace within or borders.

I'm sure Brighthaven's leadership will pursue the full extent if the diplomatic tools available to them in resolving these situations before bringing out embargoes or threat of force, but in the end I am sure we can find a way to enforce the policy that outside conflicts are to be left at or borders. We are a sovereign entity and I see no reason to tolerate such disruptions to peace and commerce within our own territory.

Goblin Squad Member

The policy which I have always believed we should take is that all outside feuds brought into Brighthaven should be treated as crimes. Whether this is against a member company of Brighthaven or an unaffiliated neutral the only players we should accept being killed within our borders outside self defense / defense of others are the official enemies of Brighthaven itself.

Goblin Squad Member

I think the law of give and take only applies to games to keep things balanced. Not all people have "dump stats" even if they are incredibly gifted in one or more attributes. I'm sure you've all met at least one person who is physically fit, intelligent, wise, and charismatic. Given with real life your options are play the game or die, that's not a problem, where in PFO if someone got 14-20 on all their stats and someone else got 6-12 people would start rage quitting due to imbalance.

But with cosmetic abilities there is no need for balance and that law need not apply.

There is not give and take between Natalie Portman and Rosie O'Donnell's appearances. One of them is quite simply more visually appealing to 99.9% of people who aren't pretty much blind.

I think it's very reasonable to say to people, if you want your character to have exceptional traits like being unusually tall, certain eyecolors, certain desirable names, (such as surnames associated with iconic characters) , certain racial subtypes etc. available to them in character customization you need to pay for it in skymetal bits.

So yeah, I'm going to up my character's height slider to 6'7", make his human half Ulfen, and I'm not going to take a warty nose or make him 500 lbs. to do so. A lot of people might think my character looks cooler than one who used no skymetal but you have no disadvantage stat-wise, and you can go make your 7 foot tall Greek God if you pony up the skymetal for it.

Goblin Squad Member

I enjoy my halflings, gnomes, goblins, etc. but my mains are usually roughly based around me.

Goblin Squad Member

Eh. Am I the only one who generally pays about as much attention to NPCs as shrubberies? I mean most games do vary up the NPC height a bit but I mainly just come to think of them as a race of halflings living among giants.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've mentioned this before but in real life I'm 6'7" (2 meters) tall. That's a strong part of my identity and I really enjoy bringing it to avatars that are meant to be somewhat reflective of myself.

The problem with height sliders though, is apparently everyone wants to be tall, and max height becomes average height. In real life when I see someone else near my size I'm like "Woah! That guy is almost as big as me!!!" Because that doesn't happen often. In game I become desensitized to it and start to think of my character as average height.

I really would like to see an attempt made to keep exceptional features exceptional. What I mean by this... there should be features available for character customization that you have to pay for, and the higher the % of characters with those features the more expensive they should get.

I'd really love to see a population not solely made up of characters who are 7 feet tall featuring the bodies of Greek gods, but I don't see why there shouldn't be at least a few characters like that.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As Lifedragn has stated there isn't really a peon role. Basically we will aim to give access to information as you need access for information, and make sure there are appropriate screening processes in place to weed out those who would misuse information from those who are receiving it.

A great example would be our military. They are going to need to know a certain amount of sensitive information just to do their job. Being in military channels / seeing military channels on our mumble and hearing orders be given during a battle is something we'd prefer our enemies not be able to do once the game goes live.

So screening will probably be part of the process of entering into our regular military. If you aren't involved with the military, we may never give you that information, primarily because you don't need it. Even if you are in the militia, you'll probably be lead by a military commander who has a good idea of the whole situation, and relays the orders specific to your militia unit to you. Not only is that more secure, it allows you to focus better on what you need to be doing.

I imagine there might be similar processes in place for things such as trade caravans. You won't generally get info on them unless you are in them, and getting into the more secure ones may require a certain level of screening.

These screening processes themselves will aim to strike a balance between overly easy access to information, and unreasonable barrier to entry. I imagine the hoops we ask you to join will be quick easy things for a real member, that might be kind of a pain in the butt for a spy. Such as a voice interview, or a certain period of active playtime within TEO.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
The wide open recruiting done on these forums certainly allows for negative influence to make its way into a group. Information that may affect the security of the organization tends to remain with leadership and proven members and is not always available to the membership as a whole. Right now we do not really have anything that could affect such security, but we can expect to see these policies play out as we march to OE and the game mechanics that would require them fall into place.

Right. I think the important balance we want to strike is between having an inclusive community that doesn't make you jump through a ton of hoops if you want to join and a community that can keep it's sensitive information of of the wrong hands.

Right now in these pre-game phases the best way to do that is keep sensitive information restricted to our highest ranking members except on a need to know basis. As those need to know situations increase as they surely will post launch, you will see additional security measures be implemented.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Characters pursue martial abilities to be better at killing, and divine spell casting to be better at healing. Mix to taste.

This is during EE right? I mean I imagine you'll eventually open up domains such as fire that use divine magic to kill things.

Goblin Squad Member

I know if mechanically viable I'll follow one of The Empyreal Lords, or just worship their pantheon.

Goblin Squad Member

The Explorer's League is one of the largest sub-guilds within TEO and there are more than one among us whom live a druidic lifestyle.

Ultimately what paths we take lie with the will of our membership and the council, but I find it unlikely TEO will turn a blind eye to it's effects on nature. I can name at least one council member who would not support such a course for us.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:

The core elements of Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, and other caster multiclass prestige classes will potentially make their way in sooner rather than later. That is, it's relatively easy for us to make a new role feature feat that combines the keywords of two different roles that don't normally have any overlap on their implements, so you can use two different implements with decent facility (rather than one at full facility and one at minimal facility).

That would just be the implement usage crossover, no other special abilities, and it may or may not let you keep a dedication bonus. It's essentially a way to make multiclassing work for dissimilar roles without complicating the way you acquire implement keywords. If the players and/or Paizo would prefer we not put any of those in without their signature special abilities (e.g., Spell Critical for EK, Combined Spells and Spell Synthesis for MT, Invisible Thief for AT, etc.), then they might not be as soon as I expect, but otherwise it'd be pretty simple to set up.

As others have noted, full-on implementation of prestige classes with lots of special features will depend on difficulty of their feature set and demand by the players.

That's kind of cool. It will be nice to get some of that functionality early on despite the fact that I feel like core classes, then classes from the advanced player's guide should definitely be higher on the priority list.

Goblin Squad Member

NPCs automatically die if there hitpoints go below 0 from lethal damage right? But players I know can be incapacitated from lethal damage as long as they don't go over (or actually under) the maximum negative hitpoints.

The only real difference between lethal and non-lethal vs. a player is a player brought down by non-lethal damage doesn't bleed out.

I figured for now, things could work the same way, and there wouldn't be any real need to implement non-lethal damage at this point.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
Andius wrote:
others seek out the more rapacious violence inherent in nature and feed the creeping rot and decay that brings an end to all things.

I read this to mean they consider the blight to be one aspect of nature, that of rot and decay...and they promote that aspect to bring about an end to everything. That to me suggests they are:

Andius wrote:
less committed to the preservation of natural and the natural world than any other druid
I think nature has a balance, when one focuses exclusively on promoting one side of that balance, you are no longer supporting the "natural world"...instead trying to force a new one.

I think it's important to note that it does not say their objective is to end everything permanently. Nature is filled with disasters such as plagues, fires, floods, volcanoes etc. that bring about massive destruction.

The destruction is almost always followed by regrowth, and/or new forms of life. Creatures living on the bottom of the ocean probably don't enjoy giant volcanic eruptions. Those living on the islands of Hawaii might not either when it wipes out their habitat. Yet without them, they would have no habitat at all.

The end of one thing makes it possible to bring about the beginning of another.

I'd also note that those volcanoes focus exclusively on spewing magma out of the ground. Within themselves there is no balance, it is all destruction. They are part of a greater whole that brings about balance though.

I would say the same of blight druids.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually have a very different take on blight druids than most people I think.

Quote:

Blight Druid

The devoted servants of nature corrupted, ruined, and destroyed, blight druids are the caretakers of lands ravaged by natural disaster. While some are devoted to reforming and reclaiming lands despoiled by the ravages of civilization, others seek out the more rapacious violence inherent in nature and feed the creeping rot and decay that brings an end to all things.

Nature Bond (Ex): A blight druid may not bond with an animal companion, but may either call a familiar as a wizard of her druid level or select from the Darkness, Death, and Destruction domains in addition to those normally available.

Vermin Empathy (Su): A blight druid can improve the attitude of vermin as a normal druid can with animals. Vermin have a starting attitude of unfriendly. The blight druid can also improve the attitude of animals and mindless undead creatures that were formerly animals, but she takes a –4 penalty on the check unless the animal or undead has a disease special attack. This ability replaces wild empathy.

Miasma (Ex): Starting at 5th level, if a blight druid is adjacent to a creature at the beginning of its turn, the creature must succeed at a Fortitude save with a DC of 10 + 1/2 the druid's level + the druid's Wisdom modifier or become sickened for 1 round. A creature of the animal, fey, or plant type that fails its save is nauseated for 1 round and sickened for 1 minute thereafter. If the creature makes its save, it is immune to this effect for 24 hours, as are creatures immune to disease. This ability replaces trackless step and resist nature's lure.

Blightblooded (Ex): At 9th level, a blight druid gains immunity to all diseases, including natural and supernatural diseases. She also becomes immune to effects that would cause her to become sickened or nauseated. This ability replaces venom immunity.

Plaguebearer (Su): Starting at 13th level, any creature that strikes a blight druid with a touch attack, unarmed strike, or natural weapon must succeed at a Fortitude save with a DC of 10 + 1/2 the druid's level + the druid's Wisdom modifier or contract a disease, as the contagion spell. If the creature makes its save, it is immune to this effect for 24 hours. This ability replaces a thousand faces.

The first thing I'd like to point out is that there are no additional alignment restrictions. That means while blight druids can be NE they can also be TN, CN, LN, and even NG.

The next thing I'd like to point out is the first line:

"The devoted servants of nature corrupted, ruined, and destroyed, blight druids are the caretakers of lands ravaged by natural disaster."

It does not say:

"Blight druids corrupt, ruin, and destroy nature."

It does say:

"...blight druids are the caretakers of lands ravaged by natural disaster."

However. I think it is also important to note the domains allowed to the blight druid:

Quote:

Darkness Domain

Granted Power: You manipulate shadows and darkness. In addition, you receive Blind-Fight as a bonus feat.

Touch of Darkness (Sp): As a melee touch attack, you can cause a creature's vision to be fraught with shadows and darkness. The creature touched treats all other creatures as if they had concealment, suffering a 20% miss chance on all attack rolls. This effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum 1). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Eyes of Darkness (Su): At 8th level, your vision is not impaired by lighting conditions, even in absolute darkness and magic darkness. You can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 1/2 your cleric level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.

Domain Spells: 1st—obscuring mist, 2nd—blindness/deafness (only to cause blindness), 3rd—deeper darkness, 4th—shadow conjuration, 5th—summon monster V (summons 1d3 shadows), 6th—shadow walk, 7th—power word blind, 8th—greater shadow evocation, 9th—shades.

Quote:

Death Domain

Granted Powers: You can cause the living to bleed at a touch, and find comfort in the presence of the dead.

Bleeding Touch (Sp): As a melee touch attack, you can cause a living creature to take 1d6 points of damage per round. This effect persists for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum 1) or until stopped with a DC 15 Heal check or any spell or effect that heals damage. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Death's Embrace (Ex): At 8th level, you heal damage instead of taking damage from channeled negative energy. If the channeled negative energy targets undead, you heal hit points just like undead in the area.

Domain Spells: 1st—cause fear, 2nd—death knell, 3rd—animate dead, 4th—death ward, 5th—slay living, 6th—create undead, 7th—destruction, 8th—create greater undead, 9th—wail of the banshee.

Quote:

Destruction Domain

Granted Powers: You revel in ruin and devastation, and can deliver particularly destructive attacks.

Destructive Smite (Su): You gain the destructive smite power: the supernatural ability to make a single melee attack with a morale bonus on damage rolls equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum 1). You must declare the destructive smite before making the attack. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Destructive Aura (Su): At 8th level, you can emit a 30-foot aura of destruction for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. All attacks made against targets in this aura (including you) gain a morale bonus on damage equal to 1/2 your cleric level and all critical threats are automatically confirmed. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.

Domain Spells: 1st—true strike, 2nd—shatter, 3rd—rage, 4th—inflict critical wounds, 5th—shout, 6th—harm, 7th—disintegrate, 8th—earthquake, 9th—implosion.

I see nothing here that would lead me to draw the conclusion that blight druids are less committed to the preservation of nature and the natural world than any other druid. In fact I would challenge that a blight druid would indeed seek to corrupt, ruin, or destroy nature. They simply champion it's lesser loved aspects.

Obviously, the death domain gives necromancy spells though. Based on that I would say one need not assume all druids and druidic orders hate the undead. However there is nothing saying they don't either. Clearly this order does, and blight druids belonging to this order would likely keep the familiar or take the darkness or destruction domain.

Goblin Squad Member

What about the other part to my question. Could members of other organizations join in without renouncing their loyalty to their primary organization?

Basically is this a traditional group such as TEO, TSV, or Pax that is looking to attract a following primarily loyal to it, or is it one such as The Guide Program which members of organizations like TEO, TSV, or Pax would be welcome to join?

If it's the latter, a Druidic type organization of this sort is something I've been waiting to see and fully support.

Goblin Squad Member

You are a member of TSV correct? So would this be an organization open to members of all settlements?

If so this is an interesting proposal and one I will bring up within TEO.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:

Not sure if you saw this, Andius.

There is currently a pre-death state in the game.

No. I didn't. That's awesome to hear though.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm sure a lot of people who played the tabletop or regular D&D know these terms. Or those of you who have played Darkfall you might be familiar with the terms kill, revive, and gank. Though there is no parallel to stabilize in Darkfall.

This proposal could be framed. As translating the table top kill mechanic into an MMO.

This proposal could also be framed as translating the Darkfall kill mechanic into the Pathfinder setting.

It is either and both at the same time.

Incapacitate

When your HP hits 0 you are put in a helpless state on the ground. You are unable to take any actions (Unless abilities are added that allow you to do so). From this state you will either slowly bleed to death or be able to revive after a certain period of time. Obviously in the tabletop you slowly bleed to death, in Darkfall it's been done both ways at different times. From personal preference I would say slowly bleeding to death was the better of the two mechanics both in PvE and PvP.

One essential competent of this mechanic is the ability to "release" from the incapacitated state. This allows a incapacitated character to let themselves to die to prevent incapacitation griefing.

Stabilize

If you slowly bleed to death after being incapacitated, stabilize would be a mechanic that stops that process, meaning your character would no longer be slowly dying but either paused between dying and healing or slowly healing.

This would probably be a function of the heal skill as well as healing magic.

Revive

This brings your HP back up above 0 allowing you to take actions again. In Darkfall everyone has this skill by default, but it could be made a function of the heal skill and healing magic within PFO. There are merits to both sides of that debate IMO.

Coup De Grâce

This would allow you to instantly kill an incapacitated player. It functions identically to the "gank" skill in Darkfall.

Why?

This allows for:

• Friendly duels and training exercises.
• A way to defeat opponents without killing them.
Simpler ways to rob people than SADs.

Goblin Squad Member

The major upside of the SAD mechanic, and why it belongs in the game is that is that this game has loot drop. Loot drop means people will run around attacking other players for loot. Plain and simple it's going to happen.

The SAD gives people a reason to ask for loot rather than the general kill and then loot you see in other titles.

I think a simpler way though, would be to make it so that like in Darkfall and Pathfinder Tabletop you can be incapacitated without dying. Unlike Darkfall, they should be able to loot you in this state, and it should have lesser consequences than simply ganking you.

That's what I originally proposed before the SAD system was ever created, and I think it would be much simpler for the developers to execute and the players to understand. It's also one of those rare instances where the table top mechanics translate extremely well into an MMO environment as Darkfall has already proven.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As far as I understand SAD at the moment you can use it to walk up to anyone in the game and demand up to (undetermined and potentially unlimited) amount of money. If they refuse, you can kill them without consequence. It's undetermined if there will be good-evil rep slide for this action. Really all that's known is it will be a chaotic action, and that if you happen to be in a settlement where it's against the law it grants you a criminal flag.

My concern is that this could potentially become a tool where players can walk up to anyone in the game and demand ridiculous sums of money with no real expectation of getting paid. Basically it becomes the method those seeking to kill whomever they desire can use to do so. When you've got 5 level 10-20 guys and you come across 1-5 level 1-9s revealing yourself before the attack is not a major drawback. That only becomes an issue when people are actually seeking out competitive targets which will be the opposite of what most bandit groups actually do.

Should this be the case that is frankly a tool too powerful to be allowed in this game, and certainly too powerful to allow one side of an alignment axis unlimited consequence free use of, while only allowing the other rare usage of it.

My other concern is even used for it's primary intent, to attempt to extort money from others, that this is the only non-conditional way to engage anyone in PvP without consequence. With a short delay, you can walk up to anyone or demand money or death. With other mechanics:

• They must belong to a specific group you have paid influence to get kill rights for.
• They must have done something to provoke you such as initiating an attack.
• You must have a contract or some form of kill rights on them.
• They must have violated a law in territory you hold official sovereignty over.
• They must have voluntarily joined an opposing NPC faction and gained the appropriate rank or put up the appropriate flag.

These are MUCH stronger conditions then "You must reveal yourself and wait for them to accept or refuse your demand of coin."

I'm not saying the SAD doesn't belong in game. I like general idea of the SAD. But we need the limitations and downsides spelled out. Here are the questions we need to know:

• Just how much will you be able to extort through SADs? Will it be a set cap or based on the targets carried or total wealth?
• How long is the target going to have to refuse or comply?
• How quickly will SADs cause you to slide toward chaotic? Will they also cause evil drift if you murder your targets after they refused to comply?
• What will lawful and neutral forces have to balance this out?
• What kind of flags will you incur and how long will they last? In territory where SADs are outlawed? In territory where they are not? In neutral territory?
• What tools will groups looking to protect people from SADs have at their disposal?

Or really. To sum it all up, how are you going to stop the SAD from being such a powerful mechanic that everyone goes chaotic and everyone uses it constantly to engage in PvP whenever and wherever they want as though there were no reputation system at all?

Goblin Squad Member

I'm probably going to join in and throw parties together from the TEO/Allied members available online as tasks worth our combined effort arise.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm. Yeah I would imagine "(Title) (Name) of (Player Settlement)" should be titles that the settlement itself can award for free.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
It would be a pretty poor design if anyone could block movement of anything, simply by standing in the way. If there are such conditions of "collision" programing, the offender should at the least provoke "hostility".

The solution is Mortal Online's shove option which lets you push people out of your way without harming them. But it's been stated in another thread we are unlikely to have collision detection because of technical limitations.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:
oy what did they do with the "Tresspasser" flag?

It was made part of the criminal flag.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to point out the answer to my problem given at the same time as the outlaw flag was the champion flag.

At the time, and still to date, a good aligned character carries the highest penalty to kill in terms of drift toward evil, and a high reputation carries the highest penalty to kill in terms of drift toward low reputation.

The champion flag removed both of those penalties for killing the flags wearer, and in exchange gave us higher reputation gains, higher good alignment gains, and added protection against critical attacks, but would remove itself if we attacked good or neutral targets with no flags.

I still believe there should be a way for good/high rep characters to sacrifice the protection of their status to gain more ability to fight for the common good either through faster rep/alignment gains or access to additional targets. Protection is not a good reward for PvPers.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Monty Wolf wrote:
Gold sellers and exploiters are also rampant in every mmo ever. Should we just give in to them? Don't give in to botters either.

This is giving into botters the same way PLEX gives into gold farmers. Really the exact same way, they undercut the gold farmers and give you a legal way to buy in-game currency in a way that profits their company and won't get you banned. PFO's own version of PLEX has already been confirmed.

This makes a simpler, easier way to multi-box that profits GW and won't run the risk of getting you banned.

Literally the exact same solution to a different problem.

Goblin Squad Member

Lam wrote:

Opposition to tyranny sounds more Chaos, not Neutral. Not saying that Neutral can not have some opposition to tyranny. Moderate opposition. But dedicated focused opposition to all tyranny sounds CN (or NC).

8-)

Tyranny is a cruel or oppressive implementation of the law.

It's strongly associated with the lawful evil alignment and therefore largely opposed by both good and chaos, or really just about anyone not a part of it/benefiting from it.

Goblin Squad Member

RHMG Animator wrote:
Andius wrote:
RHMG Animator wrote:

I'm with Qallz on this.

To remove the multi-boxing pay to win problem, remove the tab targeting.

As much as I would love to see that I think this is a lost cause after the video presented in the last blog.
The Game Design Document is a living document, so things can and do change from what was originally planned.

True but it seems as though they have already expended a fair bit of effort into building a tab targeted combat system.

Goblin Squad Member

RHMG Animator wrote:

I'm with Qallz on this.

To remove the multi-boxing pay to win problem, remove the tab targeting.

As much as I would love to see that I think this is a lost cause after the video presented in the last blog.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

I want my destiny's twin and any other alt character to be distinctly different from my main character and my other alts.

If I'm paying for separate training time, I want them to have separate experiences and be seen as unknown or separate entities from each other.

This system does provide for that if you want to do so.

Goblin Squad Member

I still feel like the absolute best method is to give each alignment the best line up of abilities for someone truly wishing to play that alignment. For instance good having abilities they can use to render aid to others and evil having abilities they can use to benifit themselves or their group at the expense of others. Make those abilities nice enough that everyone will want at lest a couple and reserve the best ones for the more extremes of each alignment.

Then open up settlements to ranges on the -7500 to 7500 system. True Neutral can have access to every alignment on the 9 point system but be blocked to anyone who's to one of the far sides of either axis. So True Neutral only gets the most extreme abilities for extremely neutral characters.

I think Nihimon's suggestion would benefit TEO the most as our population of players planning on LN/CN is very small, but I think mine makes the most sense. Why would a +7500 lawful paladin join an order that says "Law and chaos are not concepts worth any real concern, morality is the only thing with which we should concern ourselves." I would say simply affiliating themselves with such a group would lower you from +7500 lawful, which should make you a paragon of lawfulness.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since the initial crowdforger pole crowdforging has mainly taken place in the form of player feedback on the forums. What other forms can we expect to see crowdforging take, and what other kinds of crowdforging processes could you see yourselfs implementing as we approach and move in to the EE period?

Goblin Squad Member

@Bluddwolf. My apologies if I missed it but my main concern with that system is the main objective seems to be ending the war. If your intent is just to flag the opponents as hostile for free kills I don't see the value in pursuing the end of the war.

If you implemented something in that system that incentives you to win and stings when you lose it could be workable once the objectives were a bit more refined. It would be more difficult to implement than the currently planned system but if the objectives were very well created and added much fun I could see it being a good system at some point.

It would go a long way to prevent the problem I've brought up in that if you war-dec the whole server, and there is a bit of a sting each time you lose, you'll have no time to win most of those wars, and get a lot of stings when you end up losing them all. I would also suggest that rather than wins/losses bringing a resolution to the conflict you just continue to get hit with the victories/defeats as long as you maintain the war.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Andius wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Feuds, Wars and Faction conflicts will cost in coin, material resources and the consequences of losing. These costs alone will limit frivolous conflicts, or futile ones.
You are stating the costs of losing conflicts correct? Not any additional coin/material based costs?
No, not just in losing wars, in waging them. It will cost you in time, coin and resource materials to wage a war or a feud. There is the preparation (time), there is the equipment needs (resources), there is the potential for purchasing those things you can not provide for yourself (coin). These are the costs, regardless of the outcome.

While that's very true, those are the costs of actually waging a war with an objective of victory.

In Darkfall, back when there was some form of alignment and war were cheap there were groups who declared war on every company in the game simply to bypass the penalties for killing them. They never actually pursued them as real wars until limitations on how many wars they could participate in at once were implemented, and then they simply picked the factions with the most newbs and fewest vets to back them up, and vet groups held off from warring with them because they wanted their war decs for more serious conflicts. Goblin Preservation Society and Fallen Lords are the prime examples of groups who did this.

These factions were viewed as jokes, non-factors, or minor annoyances by all the major alliances, but they did do a considerable amount of harm to the newbs of the community.

So if we were to remove the influence cost is there any way you would propose making sure wars and feuds are not frequently declared by factions with no intent of waging an actual conflict with an actual objective?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Feuds, Wars and Faction conflicts will cost in coin, material resources and the consequences of losing. These costs alone will limit frivolous conflicts, or futile ones.

You are stating the costs of losing conflicts correct? Not any additional coin/material based costs?

1 to 50 of 2,952 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.