"Balance" as an all encompassing philosophy is garbage.
Designing classes so that different classes excel under different circumstances is much smarter game design. In a way though, it still amounts to balance.
But a barbarian who doesn't know when or how a barbarian can be better than a wizard and allows the wizard to set the situation against the barbarian deserves to lose. A fighter who treats every enemy the same, or wants every enemy to be "equal" in all ways is going to ruin the game for everyone else.
Some classes should have the upper hand in group combat, others in single combat. Some should have the upper hand when they manage to pull of a surprise ambush, others should excel in facing the enemy directly. If the game design doesn't reflect that, you should take it as a direct personal insult: the game designers suggesting you want something that simplistic.
Obakararuir asked about discerning based off of one specific trait. Had his question included other traits to consider, then obviously I would have directed my comments to that hypothetical question instead.
But one can hardly expect to have a logical discourse when parties are directing their answers to hypothetical, unasked questions.
Bold added for emphasis. And "ceterus paribus" implied.
But, I think what Obakar meant was like "solo" freelance.
So ceterus paribus, you have two assassins: one loyal with a long history of solid performance doing tasks for you, and one with a long history of solid performance for the highest bidder.
Obviously both deserve respect, but is there any question that you will hold the one who is clearly loyal to you in higher esteem?
There's no question here.
ceterus paribus, of course.
Obviously if you find your loyal group of assassins to rather incompetent, then obviously you'll be looking elsewhere.
But when trying to establish a starting point - a working model of behavior - then you must be consistent in your comparisons. Else you have no hope of formulating a rational plan.
Thus, ceterus paribus.
Ah, it's been a long time since I've heard from my frosty little fan.
Where are you getting that? Any of that? The group I belong to is strictly forbidden from any banditry or griefing.
This whole system is meant to deal with the exception: people who are using the in game mechanics in a manner other than what is intended. Looping the same money over and over on a bounty against someone who is not a legitimate griefer. If you read the blogs, that is not intended. It is a form of griefing.
Not the first time you specifically have grotesquely misrepresented my words though. Am I to assume it won't be the last either?
As previously stated, the Bounty System is very easily exploited. I plan on exploiting it as well. If I have a bounty placed on my head, I'll be sure to get in contact with the Bounty Hunter, and offer to hand myself over nice and easy, for a cut. The only loser in that is the original victim.
Tony conveniently has a forum set up for that too ;)http://tonys-breadmaking.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=contracts
Read the blog: To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms
Knowing that these experienced and deadly foes may be lawfully unleashed to hunt down and kill murderers will be a powerful deterrent to griefing.
In that blog, they also "loosely" define griefing. GW has never refused to define griefing, they have only refused to give a narrow definition.
Loosely defined, griefing means taking actions within the game that are designed to harass another player to elicit bad feelings without any other reasonable purpose.
And stated just after the line about a "powerful deterrent to griefing" they say this:
Oh, and one more twist: Each time the bounty is paid, the victim has the option to issue it again. And again. ... on the head of a murderer for a very long time—forever, if they like.
This proposal is all about finding appropriate ways as a community to make sure that doesn't happen to people who are not actually griefers.
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
How about putting a time limit on bounties? A character can only issue a bounty on the same person after some or more hours have passed.
It would make bounty griefing harder to do. Given that the devs want us to be able to use bounty griefing against legitimate griefers, that is a problem that shifts more responsibility onto the GMs to deal with griefing.
Bounty Hunters can work for a fee, and they can choose to work for no fee.
The point of the op was not about the norm: that most bounty hunters will work for a fee, but rather about the exception.
Generally frivolous use is expensive, but there is a loophole. I laid that out in the op. Please re-read this part of the op before attempting to continue this discussion:
It's not so much about game design though. I fully admit that bounty griefing may or may not happen. All this is, this thread and the forum link, is an infrastructure set up to combat bounty griefing should it actually arise. If it doesn't happen, great - problem solved. If it does happen, we already have a plan in place to deal with it.
The bounty system put in place with its primary goal, as stated in the blogs, to help players control griefing. If it is expensive, then that strips newer players of that tool.
Also, please re-read this part of the op:
If the bounty griefer isn't following that pattern, he's not doing it properly anyways. If he is following that pattern then as long as he can afford one bounty, he can afford infinite bounties.
Just a thought on the underlying mechanics: If issuing a bounty is a coin drain, with the drain increasing each time the bounty is reissued, how would that change the mechanics of bounty greifing?
Please refer back to the op:
Increasing the coin drain is just a different twist on the same problem. Yes, it cuts back bounty griefing, as well as the consequences for straight griefing.
Updated EO poster with clearer text:
And here's what I've got for Golgotha:
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Feedback helps. My goal is to have a poster for each of the companies that are currently active on these boards - a sort of pioneer companies collection.
I'm still working on a few others, and haven't personally contacted all the leaders yet, but I have also gotten little feedback from some whom I have contacted.
I personally look forward to running what ever they end up calling the evil cleric training center. That and using the undead as cheap labor and assault troops should those mechanics be implemented.
To which malevolent entity shall the supplications be directed in your unhallowed halls of malediction?
My understanding is you're talking about privateering. UNC will wage economic warfare to Pax's benefit. And I assume UNC will have their own schemes on the side.
Think of the colonial days how the British empire would hire crews under the table to go out and harass merchant ships of enemy nations. If Britain were at war with Spain at the time, then the "privateers" would attack Spanish ships but let the French pass.
For a LE company to avoid getting in over its head in conflicts over resources, I would point out the following to the community, as well as suggest such LE settlements try to underscore this point in their diplomatic entreaties: while evil can be a dangerous neighbor, LE are more obsessive about keeping contracts, agreements, and treaties than anyone else.
Veblenism would say that humans are also this way. Humans have become so intricate with their displays though that to fully appreciate the fine raiment of a proper modern gentlemen, one must spend a considerable amount of their time educating themselves about current fashion.
The subtlety of modern male finery is part of the point - a male's showiness is in all the hard to notice details.
Women on the other hand are more showy because the role that fills is to be a decoration for their patriarch and show by his vicarious conspicuous consumption that he is so potent and reputable in society that his propriety can't help but spill over onto the rest of his estate.
This is of course all written back at the turn of the 1900s, and was half in mockery but also half serious about society. Well, maybe 90% serious and 10% jest, and a heavy flavoring of anti-socialist sociology.
Does this mean that Settlements will be defined more so by their Faction, than their alignment?
If you join a faction that is very militant and enemies with another faction, then you'll get plenty of PvP with no alignment or rep shift against that specific enemy faction, but not against everyone else.
Some of you have already received PMs about this. Here's a little peek at what I've been working on lately: Baseless Propaganda
More explained at the link provided.
Construct! Death to All Fleshlings!!!
I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you fleshlings do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Fleshlings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague. And we are the cure.
There seems to be a lot of concern about whether PvP will become too "toxic" and drive many away.
Also worth discussing, I think, is how toxic discussion on these forums have become, and not just on the surface. When I speak to individuals in this community on different issues through PM or voice chat, I am hearing a common thread to what many of you are saying: that you have your position, the other guy has his position, and making your statement is more about making more noise for Goblinworks' sake than for the purpose of convincing those you are debating.
I suggest another approach: have confidence that the folks over at Goblinworks already know what they want the game to look like as far as how aggressive PvP will look. So what if someone keeps saying something you disagree with over and over. Just let stupid comments speak for themselves.
All you're accomplishing by nitpicking every little comment you disagree with is to rub some of the stupid off on yourselves.
Rovagug is on no one's side. Rovagug has no meaning other than an end to everyone and everything.
Saying you're on Rovagug's side is like riding an atom bomb out of an airplane and saying you're on the bomb's side.
In Golarion, his humanoid followers are all nihilists (suicidals who just want to take down as much as they can with themselves).
If that's not the angle you're going for, then I strongly encourage you to reconsider your terminology.
Not really. I'm pretty sure that GW has stated somewhere that you will have to go pretty far out to find the best materials. So while we might be hard to get to the area I hope to set up in should be pretty wealthy.
They have also said that they do not intend for any settlement to be able to stand on its own without trade. Picking a far off remote corner will increase length and danger of vital trade routes, especially when said trade routes lead to a bandit town.
And far out where the best materials are will also be where the toughest monsters will be. How devoted will your supporters be to the defense of the settlement, its supply lines, its wealth, etc?
This isn't something that can't be done half-assed. I think it can be done, but it will definitely take your full ass.
More time = better quality makes sense. So what do we do with that time? Are we all forced to play the exact same mini games, which will lose any semblance of any challenge even for those who really struggle with puzzles after a few players write walkthroughs for them, or even scripts? Or do we get to personally decide what to do with that time.
Just because one person thinks mini games is the best of the narrow scope of choices his mind can imagine, that is no justification to make that the choice set in stone for everybody.
Not possible in a game that doesn't rely on tab-targeting. That's why all alts in Darkfall are harvesters. I would imagine a smart target system would work the same in that regard.
Depends on coloration. There's a tutorial on the AHK forums that teaches you how to write a headshot script for a first person shooter that reads nothing but pixel colors to lock on. If there is a unique color anywhere on a target, you can use the known distance from that color to the head to program a perfect and undetectable headshot script (undetectable except for the fact that a guy keeps getting headshots).
And failing a unique color that can be used in that way, there's an other tutorial on how to write a script that generates quick small mouse movements to compensate for gun recoil so you can use heavy machine guns like sniper rifles.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
#4 play mini games on your phone. #5 learn to play the violin while you watch the screen waiting for crafting. #6 do anything else other than play the same mindless mini games over and over. ANYTHING.