|Blaeringr Goblin Squad Member|
I'm curious what alignment specific skills/feats there will be. Smite Evil is mentioned and presumably some cleric powers (channel energy). Perhaps some of the necromancy spells labelled as evil will actually be alignment restricted in terms of whether you will be able to use them instead of just using them periodically and hoping it doesn't make you slip too far towards evil.
I'd say the solution to this would be a matter of training. You can only learn evil spells or abilities in a settlement that allows evil training, and that to train evil abilities you will have to be at least somewhat evil.
Wait, so all Necromancers are Evil in Pathfinder Online? Did they seriously decide that's the way to go?
No, only those who create and use undead.
I'm going to add some more bold to a quote you yourself used earlier:
Notice how your own quote excludes necromancers who do choose to create undead? But how you chose to bold it in a way that almost looked like it wasn't saying what it actually said?
Surprised nobody's pointed that out yet. Especially with you making a big fuss about how someone else supposedly can "quote official stuff, and still get it wrong".
Crimson Elite: Scheherazade wrote:
...if chaos thrives in our settlements how could we maintain face as an orginization dedicated to the protect of our populace and greater enjoyment of pathfinder online.
Crush the chaos with an iron fist.
It's not just an ideological battle; the plane of chaos tears at the fringes of every plane, spewing madness into good orderly places just like the worldwound does on Golarion. Order must be enforced. The universe must be stabilized and chaos driven back.
Bluddwolf is correct: the idea of setting up all kinds of in-game and meta game contracts has been discussed by the community, and we even have forums set up specifically for that purpose.
Not just a friends list, but a system to make the game work better for a group of wildmen who will typically struggle to find welcoming settlements, given their play styles.
One issue I foresee is that when they do work things out with a settlement, said settlement will become a target. So it better be a damned strong settlement, or they may decide such a formal "alliance" simply isn't worth it.
Anyone here really familiar with C3? http://www.downloadc3.com/
Just suggesting it as an alternative to Teamspeak since you can create servers for free, and no need to join and search through a giant public one like you've got going on presently.
It seems fairly new, and I have no idea how reliable it is, although my limited experience with it so far has been positive.
Done and done. Long ago. To be fair, it was pretty straightforward.
And that is why fewer and fewer people these days are making plans to travel to Syria for a scenic Mediterranean wedding.
It was a delight to talk with the guys at Gobocast.
And obviously I'm even more delighted with the possibilities in the game that have come out since this interview was recorded.
@Nihimon when spelling it out in Futhark I use either the hard g rune or the ng rune. So ya, either way no j sound. Not that I spell a lot in futhark, but I've been using Blaeringr as a pen name for when I put my drawings/paintings on the internet, and i sign my stuff in runes.
And I can't wait to hear how the ad turned out.
It also explains why they don't ban me from the forums, as they need every customer they can get :D
If not in game terms, Tony intends to facilitate this procedure in a meta game way.
I will wait for confirmation/clarification from GWs...then you can tell me you told me so.
So first, I said this (and there were other comments along the same line)
To which Stephen Cheney, "Goblinworks Game Designer", replied:
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Perhaps brushing up on the latter contents of this thread will bring you up to speed:http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pmbi?And-Evil-Shall-Inherit-the-World
Disagree on what?
I agree that it doesn't make sense in terms of reputation, or other ways.
What you're disagreeing with is a stance GW has stated, and then clarified in the exact same context of the objections you're now presenting. I really don't see where you think there was room for disagreement in the first place.
When I suggested we get on the same page before moving on, that's what I was talking about.
But we've asked that question - that maybe we've misunderstood the blogs. Read Stephen's response quoted near the top of this thread.
If you want to make it fit with the definition of reputation, I suggest substituting Veblen's "reputability". Or think of high school, where some (not all) of the most popular kids were also some of the meanest. Maybe not the best analogy of what they're going for, since they don't want griefers, but I think the high school analogy at least clears it up a little.
Ya, Stephen's comments clarified it up a bit.
It helps me to think of it as similar to what reputation meant in the real world in medieval times, as opposed to how poets of the time described it, or modern day concepts of reputation. Knights could still be considered reputable but still be a thug and a jerk at the same time.
Vebelenist "reputability" if you will.
So you're suggesting that an assassin would have the same opportunities to train, based on the same spectrum as a bandit?
In any case, Stephen Chaney has confirmed in the evil thread that that isn't the case.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
This is an idea which is not only truly sick; but would be a total public relations disaster for the company.
Sir, my uncle committed suicide due to mental illness. I deeply resent the hostile manner in which you compare people with legitimate illness to an atrocity like slavery. Consider me deeply offended, and unwilling to reconcile.
There will always be people looking for any excuse to get upset. So yes, somebody will get upset about that. Clearly you already have. But I think it's pretty clear to everyone else that what you are proposing will happen is an absurd exaggeration.
So maybe they're using the word "reputation" here to mean different things?
Maybe in these latter cases they're talking about the kind of reputation you get as being good at what you do, and not the kind of reputation by which people judge whether or not they want you setting up a daycare in their neighborhood.
If that's not what they meant, then maybe, just maybe they better start meaning it that way.
But that's two separate systems we're talking about now. Would be lovely to get some feedback on what GW thinks about this.
Through the blogs, GW tells us there will be a reputation system (see blog Screaming For Vengeance under alignment and reputation). Reputation will be "clearly" visible to players, and low reputation will come with penalties regarding quality of settlement you can build, and settlements you can enter.
The same blog talks about how reputation loss will be greater when killing someone with a high reputation, and lower when killing someone with a low reputation.
So far it just sounds like a system that provides consequences that are mild for engaging in some PvP, but higher for engaging in a lot of PvP (other than wars).
So then we get to the next blog (I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die) which talks about different PvP "flags".
First concept regarding reputation, is they introduce to the system a way for bandits and assassins to not lose reputation if they follow a code of conduct while doing their thing. And that kinda makes sense to me, and kinda not. Following a code of conduct while committing disreputable acts is not reputably neutral.
My suggestion there would be to put a cap on how much reputation can go down while following such a code of conduct. A good upstanding citizen can't continue to be seen in said light while he goes around mugging caravans, just because he's only making threats and not actually killing people. And it would be an absolute scandal if it were found out that your mayor were sneaking around in the night assassinating people. The scandal would not disappear simply because he pointed out that he was following a contract. Well, unless you live in Evilville.
Which brings us to the second point from said blog (I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die) that mentions the following:
If an Assassin has had his flag active for at least an hour and kills a character with an active bounty or assassination contract, the Assassin gains bonus reputation up to a daily max.and
When an Outlaw receives a ransom from stand and deliver, they get reputation up to a daily max.
@Greedalox like Robin Hood. No, that's not a good example because he did a lot of good things for people. His challenge was more with law, not reputation.
But ya, it makes sense that there be a way of measuring someone's reputation regarding how good they are at what they do. How skilled a bandit, or assassin, or smith, or whatever.
But that shouldn't be muddied with how likely a town is to permit you entrance, which is the primary consequence of the currently described reputation system. They need to be separate systems.
Here's another analogy:
A bunch of locals are standing around town talking about the Bluddwolf. There is a general opinion about him.
During the conversation, one person says "ya, that Bluddwolf robbed me outside of town the other day"
"Gasp!" from the collective.
"Oh no! Don't misunderstand, he just waved a sword under my nose, then took all my gold. He never actually hurt me."
"Bluddwolf? I've never heard that name before, but I'm starting to like him. If he continues to threaten to kill people for their money, then take their money and not kill them, I just might vote for him for mayor!"
So you're suggesting that even though people have just been informed that you're a crook, your reputation still goes up in their eyes because at least you're not a murderer and a crook? And not just you, but the wording of the blog as well. I think this may merit a new thread to see if that's the precise meaning GW wants to convey.
Reputation is not based on morals, it is based on how you treat other players within the mechanics of he game.
Exactly. So put yourself in the shoes of a merchant. Bandits jump out of the trees and point weapons at him and threaten to kill him and take everything he has. Or, he can pay a "fine" to pass through.
Do you genuinely think the merchant is saying to himself "Golly gee! I'm sure glad I ran into bandits today. I now think more highly of those lads than I did before. An hour ago, I was just thinking to myself about those very bandits, and how I hope they never be permitted into my home town. But now! Now since he didn't kill me, and my pockets are a little lighter, I like him enough that I just might reconsider how comfortable I feel about him entering my town!"?
Neutral? No, it's definitely evil to threaten someone with death and then take valuables from them. Killing them on top of the threat would be more evil on top of it.
Just because they didn't put up a fight and gave a reasonable offering, that doesn't change the morality of the situation. The threat of violence for something you want is not neutral - it is anathema to neutrality.
But that's alignment, and alignment is a separate matter from reputation.
You're saying that the following scenario makes sense:
Now that's clearly how the blogs say it will work, so you're not wrong in saying that's the system. Just makes no sense.
And it says the same thing about assassins killing the target of a contract.
Ok, the issue here has to be me misunderstanding what is meant by "reputation".
I get it if they mean he has a good reputation as an assassin, but not that he has a good reputation as a good upstanding citizen.
Ok, from the blogs:
Characters with low reputations may also find they're not wanted in certain places. Settlements can set a minimum reputation to enter the city; players who don't meet the requirement are warned, and become trespassers if they continue to enter. Settlements may also be selective about permitting players with low reputations to join, since maintaining a high minimum settlement reputation is key to building several prestigious and useful structures.
Nope, that's not making any sense to me.
If my reputation is so low that towns won't let me in, I can fix that by assassinating more people? WTF?
As someone who intends to focus on playing an assassin - ya, I'm ok with that. I don't understand it, but I like it.
You're right, there it is a little further down.
When an Outlaw receives a ransom from stand and deliver, they get reputation up to a daily max.
That puzzles me: I get that this happens when the bandits don't kill, but they still robbed the people at knife point. So I'm trying to figure out how that reasons out to society thinking more highly of them (ie. reputation)
I mean, I get how it makes people think "wow, that's a skilled bandit" but not how that makes people think "ya, let's let that guy come into our very lawful good settlement".
Bandits stealing, as bandits will do, is not gong to result in alignment to shift to evil or dramatic reputation loss. As a matter of fact, a bandit can increase his reputation by using the Stand-and-Deliver mechanic.
That's not what the blog says. Is there some comment on the forums that sheds new light on this?
From the blogs:
If the victim refuses, the Outlaw gets to carry out his threats of force without losing reputation.
"without losing" =/= "increase".
So the suggestion is that Goblinworks takes the griefing aspect of the game, a game that is putting food on their tables, and put a significant portion of control of griefing into the hands of players.
This is the kind of thing that if it works out well, that's awesome, but if it doesn't - it will break the game. Good players can go bad, and many forum reputation systems have demonstrated exactly that.
So to distance myself from arguing for one side or the other of the notion of putting anti griefing power more into players' hands than GW has already suggested, I would conclude by saying this: it better work and it better work consistently, or the game is screwed.
Disagreement =/= animosity. Nobody has said anything hostile to you.
I get what you're saying, that you want to have a conversation based on certain assumptions. I personally don't think the assumptions are solid enough to consider. If others do, they're free to chip in and have that conversation with you.
1) In the real world a person cannot disappear into thin air, but in an MMO if a player logs out then the character is gone and cannot be interacted with. This simple fact kills the Bounty Hunter aspect since all I as a play have to do is have multiple bandits that I rotate through, let's say bandit1 though bandit7, that I attack with on a rotating basis, let's say one day each a week. The Bounty Hunter cannot touch them as they are not in the game and will not be until the bounty has expired. As far as the loot goes, I setup a front man in the city that I send it to that reaps the rewards of my ill gotten gain. As for reputation, the player would not care, as the only character that ever interacts with the city has a good reputation and if the bandits need anything from town then the front man simply takes it to them or they can use what they steal off the other players. In addition, since damage regenerates over time, I can attack multiple people each day, maybe stealing 1 to 2 weeks of in game gathering of resources.
A paid account will be able to allocate incoming xp (time based, not quest based xp) to one character at a time. If you get the destiny's twin option from supporting the kickstarter, then two characters. And from the sounds of it there will be options for pay to play for more. So most people won't have 8 competitive characters.
As far as reputation, good reputation is needed to access a settlement to gain access to the trainers of that settlement. You can't do that via dummy characters. So low reputation weakens the potential of a character.
And there is no mention at all of hit points regenerating automatically over time, in or out of combat. The only mention the blogs make so far of healing is actively healing (ie. divine magic).
2) People can die (and stay dead) in the real world, but in an MMO that is just a minor setback. Given this fact then a wizard can, by himself, destroy a town with a little perseverance. Since it is easier to destroy the build all the wizard has to do is sneak into town and blast a building with a AOE spell (assuming that they will damage building), get killed and come back and do it again and again until each building is destroyed. Why not, they cannot be permanently killed. The same goes with armies or any other player attack on a fixed target. So if I have 10 players attack a town, after the attack, win or lose, I still have 10 players to attack the town again. Assuming I can do a little damage to the town then eventually I will destroy it.
I don't know how to even discuss that. It's all built on assumptions that are not supported by the blogs or other dev comments. Highlighted some of them.
If your assumptions are correct, then there may be something to discuss.
Bolded that part for you. Since contracts can be traded, he doesn't need to get his hands dirty. You just stop by Tony's, and he'll tell you who to talk to about making a contract without Tony making a contract. Next you set up a contract with a dummy character in game, who then passes it on to the real assassin (identity protection).
Especially when he isn't even in the actual guild and is handling all the contracts on a meta game level. So the question is not so much how should that be handled, but how can it be handled.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Does limiting the really cool assassination tricks (whatever those might wind up being) to benefits of allying with and staying allied with NPC assassin factions (like the Red Mantis or Skinsaw Men/Church of Norgorber) handle worries about everyone picking up assassin tricks? Would that limitation bother the players here who are intending to play assassins?
Makes sense to me.
Aunt Tony wrote:
My understanding was that gear is crafted by players AND found in dungeons.
From Where the Wild Things Are:
If the final challenge is overcome, the dungeon will be removed after a short interval (giving you time to make several trips to and from the dungeon to haul out the loot within).
There are other ways to 'earn' a bounty than through killing, most of which can't really be described mechanically. Rival company harassing your people? Put a bounty on them. Or just their leadership. Or the gatherers that keep poaching the nodes in your hex. A bounty really has nothing at all to do with justice, but with revenge. You could place a bounty on someone's head and restrict the contract to a guild of assassins. It's not a bounty, it's a mark. Even if you restrict it to being killed, what's to stop a bandit killed by a merchant he was attacking from placing a bounty on the merchant?
You're talking more about assassination than bounties. Bounties, by definition, are tied to specific crimes. If you want someone eliminated for personal gain, political reasons, or just shnits and giggles, then you want an assassin.