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

AvenaOats's page

Goblin Squad Member. 2,945 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,945 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Hrn, here's some guidelines I was looking into in case of issues:-

1. Restart your router!

2. Check if your ISP is throttling your BB

Use measurementlab.net . If throttling then maybe complain to EE's customer service department (who will get complaints daily). Keep records of your communication with your ISP. If you do dump them then look for a new provider who uses Local-Loop Unbundling (LLU).

3. Switch to a faster DNS Server

There's "DNS Benchmark" "DNS Jumper" tools grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm to use for this exercise if desired.

4. Wi-Fi problems would involve further solutions (Channel, new firmware for your router, repeater and positioning of router), but the above are worth looking into if you have a direct connection to your computer. And check none others are using your wifi channel.

After that I guess you're at the mercy of your ISP.

A quick google for general solutions:-

blog.wtfast.com/2013/01/8-tips-to-reduce-lag-while-playing-mmorpg.html

Maybe there is something helpful here. It's just a bit of research I did for my own uses in the event.

Goblin Squad Member

Thod there should be various tech boffins in the forums who can advise?

That said, I've looked into this and when I get time will try to post/posit some resources for use on such issues. It's a very energetic w/e so forgive me if I fail in advance to get back today and I'm not a tech expert either so these are just pointers/resources you may already have covered/know of.

Goblin Squad Member

Really interesting blog. Won't be able to log in until end of Sept but really looking forward to it when I do.

Thank you so much Goblinworks... "Stay thirsty my friends."

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just ensure networking and performance work and then gameplay and then art.

Goblin Squad Member

I was sold on the idea of PFO in part what I wanted in mmorpg "more freedom" from myself and in part from what Ryan demonstrated in design and again in engagement with interested people.

I was sold on the idea of EE despite limitations in part due to lack of alternatives and again because there's a chance a good quality community will harbour in EE, which adds a lot of value imo.

I did not realize Ryan had such a history in games previously but certainly did recognise the design idea was really great even if the implementation challenges still remained "staggering"!!!

Goblin Squad Member

Veeeery interesting interview (good interviewer and interviewee: It takes 2 two Tango as the saying goes).

What stood out for me the most was the way Ryan mentioned how unpredictable confluences were often important in how things shaped up.
Kinda interesting how the players seem to be the best sovereigns of an IP, in the end?! At least that was my take from the interview... !

Good question on "was it Pathfinder or was it an MMO?"

Maybe it's redundant if as per Ryan mentioning, at these various stages it provides "opportunity for conflict". Also combines with the idea of licensing the online aspect and the financial choices behind that.

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:

I think we need proto-settlements and marketplaces (planned for alpha 8, yay!) so that people can truly start to attach themselves to a patch of land, and start accumulating wealth for their settlement even if there's only a single shack standing there.

I feel that we are very close to these things, so I would say it is almost MVP. Certainly needs tweaks and improvements on the UI-side of things though (Tooltips, Targeting).

I definitely see where you are coming from here. Guess this is MVP + 1, given all the below stuff needs to run smooth and iron out more "stuff". Then we get this it becomes more about as you say sustaining interest.

Lisa Stevens wrote:
Btw, there are also some high level wolf-type monsters that have been built, but I haven't seen them yet in the game, including worgs, winter wolves, and even hell hounds!

Music to my ears.

Feel like I'm more up to speed with where the game is now.

Goblin Squad Member

Actually sounds positive to me: The game world being dangerous and players sticking to their locality, I think that is ideal for a denser game world.

Goblin Squad Member

I think once territory kicks in the game world map becomes that much more dense and navigating a route more of an accomplishment itself.

On to that what do people make of the hex sizes and distance to travel?

That's a big parameter?

Goblin Squad Member

Calidor Cruciatus wrote:

These are just the observations of a NON-ALPHA player from a few hours of watching streams:

1 and 2 are done in fairly rudimentary state. Especially the crafting parts. Due to the pretty limited testing I think we just don't know about #3 and especially #4.

I think the MVP is missing something very important right now though... and that is a PURPOSE. Even Ryan has said that launching EE (or MVP) without meaningful territory combat wouldn't make sense and that is why they were developing the War of the Towers as a placeholder.

I think it's a very key and valid question to ask when that functionality will be in game and functional because to me, that is really the feature that makes this a game and not just a pointless, kill monster fest with occasional pointless ganking via PvP.

Yeah I'm hoping the various player groups get their identities and parcels of land and become very territorial (and touchy!) and then seek to amass power and the strategy kicks in.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks for the specific insights on the combat quality. That ramps up the appeal of the MVP a lot.

Let's hope the War of Towers gets the ball rolling flagging some more.

So far more positive than I was expecting.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks a lot Xeen.

Hrm, they did say PvP would be kept on a tight leash to begin with iirc / same with the economy? I'm hoping they'll loosen up on this over time eg contract system and career systems of being a bounty-hunter or bandit etc via flags?

What's the combat like? Satisfactory for MVP?

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks for that Urman.

I don't suppose you've got feedback on segment 4 too?!

And what about the overall feel of the game and the responsiveness of combat etc?

Anyone else alpha testing, don't be shy! Thanks.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Described this very well here in this interview:

The core game loop

To make our MVP, we had to figure out what the smallest number of features were needed to implement a compelling game loop with meaningful human interactions. We decided that our loop would have two interconnected segments.

  • Segment one would be finding monsters in the world, killing them, and taking their stuff.

  • Segment two would be finding resources, harvesting those resources, and turning the resources into crafted goods.

  • The interconnection would be that the stuff one character crafted would make another character better at killing monsters.

We also accepted that there would be a complication of this interconnection:

  • Killing another character and taking its stuff would be a shortcut.

We have a grand plan for where our game will eventually take us that involves vast territorial battles for control of the map, fought by huge organizations of players collectively working together for common purpose. We imagine a time when players can build characters that are experts in a wide range of careers from soldier to diplomat to teamster to spy and hundreds more. But for the purposes of our MVP, we think we can be viable with the game loop described above. Everything else can (and will) come later.

I'm guessing the basic gameplay "feel" is the key as is the core combat and how fun that is. Then how those are a part of the above game loop successfully.

All comments appreciated. I'm probably going to hold off hopping into EE on day 1 (moving around and getting a new graphics card etc) but also will jump in when I think the above is up to standard.

Please provide your feedback modelled on the above or in a more relevant way?

Thanks.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks OP, such feedback is worth knowing, I'm sure there's a successful market segment for PFO and it's a question of where to scan for it.

My bros are married with young families and they are always asking me over to "visit". :)

Goblin Squad Member

Welcome/Aloha GrandpaDJ.

Just curious, where did you stumble by PFO, first? And bonus question, what in particular concerning the vision caught your eye?

I ask, so as you can contextualize the questions, because it provides me with an idea of who is drawn to the idea of PFO at this early stage any what about it they feel compensates it's vestigial current state of development.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:

By Christmas...(around the time we have to start paying)

This game will be vastly different, WoT might be over, maybe not? Although everything they have stated that will be in during month 1, will be in by then.

They will also have a ton of the kinks ironed out, bugs fixed, and code optimized. At this point, they will probably be working on implementing bulk resources and PoIs, while we will be sitting pretty at around level 10, in our mini settlements, attempting to craft T2 Gear...

Worth holding onto that thought, rough seas ahoooy!!!

Goblin Squad Member

Calidor Cruciatus wrote:
Ravenlute wrote:
Calidor Cruciatus wrote:

Very disappointing news that the barebones MVP is going to be even further cut back. Yes, the small hardcore base will not complain, but it's not a good sign IMHO.

Just delay the damn thing for another month. The recent survey shows overwhelming support for that.

1 week. How is that not a good sign? They are willing to say that they need to do a little extra before going ahead instead of just dumping it out there. It was only recently that they even announced when they wanted to start EE.

Sheesh. *drama*

I don't think you read my message correctly.

Tbh, staggering probably makes the most sense. Sure a lot of peeps might be a bit disappointed not to jump in on day 1 along with everyone else because they want to wait for the full MVP features to be in, but it balances the various necessities this way I imagine.

Just hold off and dive in a bit later. That's what I plan to do.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty simple, if you don't feel like the game launch on 22nd is up to scratch, then don't spend your xp-time on it or even just pop one month's worth.

Personally I'm fine with others jumping in and myself jumping in later, given the current update.

I'm sure the devs appreciate that but I doubt they'll cheerfully announce that option: They want players both playing (working the game code) and paying (paying them to work!)

Goblin Squad Member

Q1: What do alpha players think of the current status and how that translates to M.Viable.P. for EE?

Q2: One of the reasons GW may want an earlier release than later irrespective of full content/features implemenented could be to do with the server and network of having many more players in the game (it sounds like they're keen to raise the numbers but ensure the density is kept managed in the recent update. If so, would GW consider free training-time for those that take the plunge and jump in without the full features, listed as a compromise, or even x1/2 cost of training time?

Q3: I kinda want to know some spec info, as I need a new graphics card so this info to have before hand is useful to be prepared to download and run the client, any details on this before EE start?

Goblin Squad Member

Hello, "So, how many times have YOU clicked refresh on goblinworks.com / blog?" my old friend, I've come to talk with you again...

Goblin Squad Member

albadeon wrote:

There will always be a bit of each due to the necessity to adapt your character concept to game mechanics. To me, the relevant question is, what takes precedence, when the two conflict?

IE, I play a dwarven cleric of Torag with a nice big hammer as a weapon. Now, in game, I happen to loot a bow and find that bows are seriously op.
As a role player, I stick with my hammer.
As a non role player, playing the game as intended, I take up the better weapon.
As a meta-gamer, I look through the internet to find which bow has the best stats and go look for that one.

If the Hammer is significant part of your character concept whom you're building and attempting to understand how they would act, then I would hope you do what MUST be done, and not rest, nor stop until the sound of hammers falling on anvils (and goblin heads) rings across the River Kingdoms, that all players everywhere know the importance of hammers!

I'm working on a character concept myself and when it's done I'll pass it by you.

Goblin Squad Member

To square the circle imho, RP needs to match emergent gameplay from the mechanics the devs have designed. I think a balance is possible, but not full-blown "theatre of the mind" without connecting to the possibilities of emergence from the game rules itself.

Goblin Squad Member

Quote:
Thornguards in all settlements now have one minute respawn timers. (Try your takeover NOW Cheatle!)

Thornkeep's Most Wanted!!! XXXX Goblinsballs!!!

Goblin Squad Member

Q.9: I'd argued an open question of how much delay would you tolerate from 15th Sept for GW to continue development from days to weeks to months?
Q.10: Appears to be missing.
Q.11+12. Ideally point out they are both linked
Q14. Was the most interesting; I think if you can ask lots of question with different formats, it keeps the questioner's brain more engaged in providing a true-to-gut feeling response... so this is good here. That said I struggle to find 3 lowest from the options available, so it felt random providing 3 lowest as my answer. 3 Highest was clear to me by contrast. Also highlight 3 highest and 3 lowest in the question for clarity.
Q.15+16. Ideally point out they are both linked.

Q.X (10!): Suggest a question on what sort of things do you want/expect from Crowdforging too.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm no artist, but there's a very solid balance of light to heavy gradation change that is visible but essentially imo, not over-the-top either but looks right: Function -> Form not Form -> Function if that is a distinction that is clear to make.

Goblin Squad Member

Will Hide-Outs perform a similar function albeit more "gamified"?

Goblin Squad Member

Snitches Laden wrote:
Thanks Man, I fell back in love with MMO's once I found out about eve-online unfortunately I was ten years to late to the party I'll see what I can do man Love Path Finder and not having to DM would be amazing lol.

That's my story with EVE tbh. I always meant to jump in but kept delaying and now it makes more sense to give PFO a go. So much choice and so little time. I like the idea of a Game Of Thrones dynamic more as well. I'd say I really want to see mmorpg genre take more of EVE's concept forwards also and see what it leads to.

Goblin Squad Member

Devs plan on designing this:- Screaming for Vengeance, amongst other Contracts: Signed... in Blood

But the game will launch in Early Enrollment as an "MVP" (Minimum Viable Product) Big Things Have Small Beginnings and add systems via "Crowdforging" Announcing a New Crowdforging Tool: Ideasscale or this ad hoc unofficial one: Poll: Crowdforging feature implementation priority

Snitches Laden wrote:
I think that adding something like this to the game will not only make player interactions more meaningful...

Bingo. Could be an awesome role for player to take up.

Goblin Squad Member

Well I'm happy to see the Legal System is top of the charts atm.

However, I'd IMPLORE! :) people to vote for Caravans next. The Legal System is highly necessary to create status information between players and groups of players: Such information is rich for gameplay. But also just behind that is moving heavy goods is also rich in gameplay due to it's information impact on the economy and if it needs hauling via caravans that is a major economic trade requirements if it cannot be moved so easily without such "heavy-lifting" major operations to move. It should make economies more localized due to such severe limitations of movement of such goods and time to do so and exposure as high exposure target for aggressors further increasing the importance of this feature to the game for economy and pvp and organization.

Goblin Squad Member

I really like it (big fan of ambushing). It's allowing the a option to actually "hide in cover" which you normally can't do in mmorpgs. hence my usual favorite of finding a climbable tree and spending a few minutes climbing high up out of field of vision. Few and far between in most mmorpgs though.

Could limit to requiring some vegetation nearby instead of anywhere?

Love the idea, think it's necessary.

Goblin Squad Member

Master of Shadows wrote:

Some of this goes back to one of my fundamental frustrations with this game.

When I first heard of PFO back in the begining of kickstarter 2 I was sold on the concept of a Classless skill based system where I could train any character to have any skill. I thought to myself, "great, finally a game where I don't have to be pidgeonholed into someone elses preconceived notion of what makes an effective character! I can build the character I want who has access to the skills and abilities I want him to have in order to best meet the play style I enjoy. And its even being made by the folks who make my favorite table top game!" Alas it was not to be. Although I can train any skill from any role (read class), I am limited to slotting only a handful of them at a time, and if I want to acheive peak efficacy in one ability, I must sacrifice access to another ability, and won't have access to certain other abilities because you can only slot one role(read class) at a time.

I argue that abandoning this silly notion of Roles/Classes altogether is the right thing to do. It would be a simple matter to take all the abilities currently tied to roles and just give them xp/achievement requirements like any other feat or skill. If someone wants to make a Arcane spell caster wearing full plate he should be able to (with enough investment) be able to achieve maximum efficacy for both his spells and his armor. If someone wants to make a pajama-wearing unarmed monk who focuses on total defense actions and can Tank he should be able to.

It can be hard to untangle.

Imho, however, the way to conceptualize it is as per Spaceships:-

1. Choose a hull type
2. Choose weapons/shieds
3. Choose speed/movement
4. Choose fuel tank

etc.

When you make once choice eg Hull, you're already building a particular kind of tree-build with a particular emphasis: Slow but high armour-shields, low movement, but high cargo hold etc...

IE you're anticipating and planning your FUTURE FUNCTION for the specific goal you want to achieve.

Tbh, this is the best way forward. It allows players to choose MORE future functions but keep each built for those functions specific/specialized towards doing that more effectively. It's not about the build it's about the goal = interesting decisions for players and ideally as they play more MORE of those to be able to make.

Goblin Squad Member

There's 2 major technological opportunities with digital games vs physical games I can think of to compare:-

1. Networking many, many people into the same game space.
2. Linking many, many hugely powerful human brains to harness in that game space.

The design of PFO does align with this in mind, so at least it's first step is in the right direction unlike most mmorpgs that have been developed, which may have travelled very far - but in a different direction and hence you can't help but ask the question, if not using the above, then why not just play a nice game of turn-based DnD/Pathfinder/TT instead?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
What is the expected problem that death penalties are intended to mitigate? Spawn rushing is already a prohibitively expensive tactic.

I just see the suggestion I proposed above as a fun system to mess with the "reality of the game world" according to Pharasma's Mark.

Interestingly I see Camelot Unchained has similar idea for stealth; it's an idea that I would like to see more of in fantasy. There may be important repercussions with the pillars and a fair bit of fiddling with the radius of death - who knows could be an upgrade path!

Goblin Squad Member

Good work, nice to have a variation to interpret priority.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
It's still TBD whether we'll let you respawn at your choice of any threaded bind point, or just close ones. Doubtless, there will be some use of the Suicide Railroad no matter what we do, but we don't really want it to become common behavior or strategically significant.

Here's an idea that adds a bit more complexity but also more nuance.

Atm, you're saying options on respawn are, either:-

1. "Respawn at your choice of any threaded bind point." OR
2. "[Respawn at] just close ones."

=

Now if we conceptualize your soul-binding as in the Ethereal Plane for your soul to travel to soul-binding to reform a body.

We have:-

1. Material Plane where your body exists
2. On Death your soul now has options depending on WHERE it is in RELATION to your chosen Soul-Binding points:-

i. Your soul-binding points: IF one, then greater radius and you travel instantly back to it in that radius. IF more less radius but more of them and so on.
ii. If you die outside the radius of your soul-binding, your soul enters the ethereal plane and must travel to within the nearest radius of it's soul-binding point before the transmission is reconnected and you "respawn".

You could make the ethereal plane a sort of dreamworld overlay or alternative spatial dimension with the Soul-binding points like beacons. Here there could be ethereal dangers and demons that could cause further soul-damage to the character if caught up and that would cause a greater death penalty on respawn.

In time, it could be a whole other side of the game to explore further...

Take-homes:-

1. Variable risk cannot be predicted
2. Further the soul has to travel in the ethereal world the longer the reconnection to it's nearest or chosen soul-binding points.
3. Fits the lore is very thematic to high fantasy.
4. Potential scope for future.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm glad they were useful; at least to peel back the eventual scope of PvE plans that PFO is envisaged to one day climb towards.

Wandering Monsters I thought meant static/trash mobs who are in the way of you harvesting?

That said what you are saying is 1-off uber-monsters such as a dragon attacking a settlement randomly etc. Now that would be a feast.

Goblin Squad Member

Sluce wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:
What you want for complexity out of PvE is only seemingly possibly with Dwarf Fortress simulation complexity or MUDs that only use text (as opposed to ascii graphics). That is the honest appraisal of the current technology I think.

True, you can't get super super super fancy but what I am trying to get a crossed is I feel like escalations are a bit like FATES in ffxiv or events in GW2. Yes, it is alpha and there is really not much implemented, and a whole list of stuff that needs to be implemented.

I was only wanting to bring my concern to attention and maybe have a brainstorming session for the future of PvE in game. But I see by Karlbobs post that people already have starting to take into consideration how to make escalations and monsters, in general, more immersed into the environment with interesting combinations.

note*- by PvE I mean the interactions of players and non-player characters, not really static situations like dungeons, but more on the lines of escalations, monster hexes, etc...

Here's some links to the PvE Blogs I can remember if that is of use (in case it is):-

Adventure in the River Kingdoms => PvE Overview

Where the Wild Things Are => Dungeons & Mobs

Over the Hill and Far Away => Map Hex Types

When the Demon is at Your Door => Escalation Cycles

Goblin Squad Member

Avatar-1 wrote:
Whenever I think of roleplaying in an MMO, I am reminded of this.

That's fairly funny; tbh some of the skill of these RP'ers is impressive so I can relate to that outcome!

This said, I believe the concept of RP can evolve beyond "Olde English" words and work more with actions. Working on this atm.

Goblin Squad Member

It's been a long time since I last looked at the game in this perspective, so thank you for reminding me of it OP. There is indeed much "validity" to your point of view, your periscope (at this point in time!). :)

Try to dig back through memory some of the ideas, but it will only be a rough pile of ideas for you to inspect for nuggets of value (!):-

1. Concept: PvE = Faucet to the Economy ; PvP = Sink to the Economy

This is a major conceptual adjustment to themepark mmorpgs. It's of paramount importance for PFO to develop an economy "the beating heart of the game" that drives human motivation and leads to as per the features of the game on the website:-

A. Agency
B. Persistence
C. Emergence (some call this consequence but it's over-abused by mmorpg marketing of games) real Emergence is much easier to point out if what they say is what actually is in the game.

2. Time: PvE costs buckets of money. Want proof:-

Themeparks cost 250m$+.

Hence PFO will work under a different basis of building systems that integrate: The collective of these adds complexity from which emergence derives. As the game grows the devs can add more of these things and more on a bigger scale and better quality and deeper (as per Ryan) "fractal" nature for eg:

3. Example: Dungeons:-

This is major PvE "sheeeeet!"

Let's take 2 types:-

A. Emerald Spire - whopper really highly crafted by great designers. Cost = buckets and long dev to fully develp all those levels.

B. Wormhole Dungeons - These "pop" are procedural, require specialist adventurers and dungeoneering spelunkers. Devs could integrate into economy. Best of these wormhole dungeons could pop in most developed Hexes = draws PvE'ers...

I think you can see how PvE has to evolve at the pace of the game and as a part of the whole.

You can also see how high quality PvE has been the preserve of Themeparks and how expensive it is but how low in longevity it can end up being.

Maybe this helps understand how things develop over time.

Given enough time PvE could be some great specialization opportunities for characters in PFO... given enough time and using Pathfinder's rich lore and strong designers (Eg Emerald Spire).

Sluce wrote:
There is so much stuff they could bring into PvE that would be so new and fresh to the game and bring the next level to sandbox games in general. Has the environment been forgotten for a more static stagnant system only focus on player to player interactions? I don't know maybe it is just me who is starting to fear this?

Now, going to be honest: The design of PFO is for the reverse of this to occur, as per the above reason, and following what you suggest would be the reverse of that; as proven by many previous mmorpgs.

What you want for complexity out of PvE is only seemingly possibly with Dwarf Fortress simulation complexity or MUDs that only use text (as opposed to ascii graphics). That is the honest appraisal of the current technology I think.

Goblin Squad Member

OP, there was a plan for those meteorite hexes to be highly contested. No idea what the latest scoopy on that is from the devs?

To go back to basics, there was 2 schools of thought:-

1. Some area for the wilds where people expect "anything goes"
2. Constant gearing of methods to add layers of disincentives to griefers so they find PFO is not rewarding enough for their commitment or investment and wander off to other games for that. Eg one idea is I think that tab-target is not a combat that's going to thrill hardcore pvp'ers who want FPS type of experience of murder simming. It's just a component of these layers.

So if 2. holds, then I guess it rubs up against 1. and making 1. ain't such a good idea afterall?

Ryan said a while ago, "killing in context" quote-unquote eg ritualized forms of interaction of who fights who for what reason (and how and where) > is superior to what you get in other games "murder" ie no reason other than a reward of having a toon who can freely do this against another player. That is don't get me wrong fun because it's another player and not dumb/inert AI; but it's piss-poor gameplay when it's frequency rises and is bad for the growth of the game.

I've garbled a lot of things hazy from memory there but hope it makes some sense by providing context to the decisions being made or taken.

Goblin Squad Member

(A thousand...) Thanks Gaskon! Great notes btw.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan tweeted for the 16th (Sat) that they were holding a PFO Presentation. Last year the slides were uploaded here to slideshare: rsdancey/presentations.

Potentially a similar thing this year or something a bit more jazzy seeing it's in alpha now? ;)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That map is awesome!!!!

This is the sort of thing I think that will eventually "sell the game" to more interested people: Not the combat or basic features, but the emergent powers and interaction complexities. G8J.

Wonder if this article has relevance for the map construction and other considerations of promoting a dynamic equilibrium of conflict:-

=

In EVE's early years, the map was split between hundreds of small alliances, each of which slowly expanded its influence by conquering the star systems bordering its space. Skirmishes and pirate incursions were brief and commonplace, while border wars over territory were long and protracted affairs. Today's nullsec is a different animal entirely, with nearly the entire map carved up between two colossal mega-coalitions of alliances (N3/PL and CFC), each one internally held in a state of perpetually monotonous peace. No alliance in a coalition can break away and stand on its own for fear of being demolished by the others, and so all of nullsec is at peace with its neighbours and bored to tears by it.

Goblin Squad Member

albadeon wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:

For an MVP idea:-

1. Building required
2. Monster-hunters who capture suitable monsters to use
3. Gladiatorial combat rules and discipline to systematize bouts
4. Betting

5. = 1.-4. = player entertainment

For example on 3. it might make sense to have a standardization of this role progression eg Soldier, Merchant etc?

Imho, what you're proposing is a step beyond MVP.

1. is necessary, though an existing model could be used with some modifications.
2. is optional; for MVP, PvP combat would be sufficient. PvE and related issues could be added later.
3+4. can be player-organized, does not necessarily require game-mechanics to run.
5. can be achieved :-)

You're right of course, it's a bit beyond MVP, but I thought if it's worth doing then it's worth integrating other systems into it atst hence monster-hunter trade/training springs up, gladiator role springs up, builders have another expensive high-grade building to build, idk the betting system is the idea the building draws business and punters so makes the investment worthwhile and feeds the economy, leading to competing venues outbidding, out-splashing each other...

... yeah imagination run wild, but integration as well as the actual activity itself of face-offs.

Goblin Squad Member

For an MVP idea:-

1. Building required
2. Monster-hunters who capture suitable monsters to use
3. Gladiatorial combat rules and discipline to systematize bouts
4. Betting

5. = 1.-4. = player entertainment

For example on 3. it might make sense to have a standardization of this role progression eg Soldier, Merchant etc?

Goblin Squad Member

Doesn't it work:-

Trialers = Fun = Instant or very immediate gratification desirable
Beginners = Learning = Slower gratification but lots of diversity of sources/options of it to find and follow.
Converted = Doing = Even slower gratification but focused by now on achieving and goals (and maybe knowing and chatting to ppl)

So, I think if the character is more mature, the xp gain is about doing better what you're enjoying doing?

Goblin Squad Member

I like the idea the devs are gods walking in the midst of mortals, inscrutable and unknowable, they perform their own works. That old beggar you just kicked out of the way on the street, perhaps it was the king of the gods? In which case you just made a very very bad mistake.

That's usually how religions work. Why not provide PFO's pantheon of gods/religion with teeth and hands?

Goblin Squad Member

Btw, there is an online MOOC for: Introduction to Linux (by EdX) if anyone is interested in learning Linux.

Goblin Squad Member

Those who are interested in RP'ing of Inn-keepers appear to have a role that could be exceptionally well suited to RP with the full works to support such a role, btw, and of course such a role is by nature highly sociable... unless we're talking about "The grumpy/surly inn-keeper at the 5 Bells Inn... but the bitter is the best in the business, and hence the customers put up with the bad service,"?

1 to 50 of 2,945 << 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.