Blazej's page

I'm probably going to be picking up the same books I would have without the 5th edition announcement. Just like I kept playing 3.5 after 4th edition was released, I will probably continue to play 4th after 5th edition is released.

I have been really liking the latest books in the line, like Essentials and Heroes of the Feywild and I am still looking forward to Heroes of the Elemental Wild coming out soon. It doesn't even matter in my mind if it is incompatible or not.

And what about magic missile? Last time I looked the only books that didn't have the latest version were the first Player's Handbook from several years ago. I wouldn't be buying an updated Player's Handbook with applied errata. That isn't worth the value for me.

Ignoring the likelyhood of success and really hoping for a good quality, I would want more Campaign Setting books, like Planescape and Spelljammer (with a bit less silly).

I do agree the you can only res in your own territory idea, that turns travel time into a huge hindrance for a true griefer.

I'm not as certain of that, I can more easily imagine of griefers being incredibly annoying threats outside of one's claimed territory. If the purpose is to cause grief, then I would say that forcing a player to run all the way back to their faction location after every death, if that is what is being suggested, would be a good tool for providing that.

How would it be a larger hindrance for a griefer than a normal player?

Blazej wrote:

One thing that I didn't like in there though was how the capstone would be handled. Two characters with all the fighter badges both have one cleric skill, but one of them gets a capstone because one took the cleric skill early on and the second only took it after achieving the capstone. It doesn't really sit nice and good with me.

Rewarding players for sticking with it and staying focused in their class is one of the core points of distinction between pathfinder and D&D. Your exact unhappiness is the same that a George a Fighter 19/ Cleric 1 feels when he looks over at his Fighter 20 friend named Elmer.

Gorge: "Hey man, need a hit from my Cure Light Wounds wand?"
Elmer: "Nah. Got two crits on the first round and killed the monster before it could make a full attack."

But that isn't my problem with the proposed system.

While I agree that rewarding players for sticking with it is part of Pathfinder this seem less like rewarding the dedicated than punishing those who play different, this isn't about George with a Fighter 19/Cleric 1 looking over at Elmer's Fighter 20.

This is about George with a Fighter 19/Cleric 2 looking at Elmer's Fighter 20/Cleric 1.

Despite being a very similar character, both with the same ability to do healing with that wand, George is forever barred from a capstone because of the order he did things while Elmer will always be able to get what George can do.

In Pathfinder, it makes sense in that there are (pretty much) only those 20 levels and after that you don't continue choosing other classes to keep leveling. In Pathfinder, to really get that capstone, you couldn't just say "I'll take cleric levels after I get the capstone," you had to never take levels in another class. If we were to draw that reward/cost into Pathfinder Online, then getting a capstone would mean that you would no longer even have the option to train any other archetype's skill again.

In fact, the scenario you mention is exactly why I don't like this design. It has one character lag behind forever for no good reason.

The post looks pretty interesting to me and I look forward to seeing the actual implementation of it in the future.

One thing that I didn't like in there though was how the capstone would be handled. Two characters with all the fighter badges both have one cleric skill, but one of them gets a capstone because one took the cleric skill early on and the second only took it after achieving the capstone. It doesn't really sit nice and good with me.

I would much rather have it so that you could only have one capstone ability, that way you can't collect all of them within one character, but a player isn't punished for deviating slightly away from an archetype's path.

If someone has to spend two and a half years, minimum, to achieve the capstone when they are only focusing on that archetypes skills, I think just having a character who chooses other archetype powers along the way be forced to wait longer until they achieve the capstone is preferable.

No, they will likely won't release access to the comments for your item.

I recall a few reasons that they have given why they wouldn't do it.

A lot of the comments they make aren't really helpful for designers. I response for a reject may be "Reject. Spell-in-a-can." with the next judge just hitting the reject button when they agree, no additional commentary needed.

Their unfiltered commentary would be seen as quite brutal in many cases, after so many items, they may be not so nice in their responses.

In the cases of other items, they may start comparing it to another entrants item, in which case, they can't give the contestant blanket access to their own item thread without letting them see the judge's thoughts on the other item as well.

@lungdisc, Your opinions are valued, please keep sharing them. We are all trying to make this endeavor turn out better, some people are just more...certain in their opinions about what will work and not than others. Even if they do not agree with you, just remember there is probably a huge silent majority here reading...that may very well agree with everything you say.

I find it a more than a tad hypocritical to remind lungdisc that their opinions are valued and encourage them to continue sharing them right after they told someone to stop posting on this thread.

Remember, a range of forms of travel will or should exist and riding a mount needn't be a requirement. If themeparks have done anything, they've made us forget that a game can function without everyone riding a horse. Taxi services, Wizard teleportation, wilderness skills for rangers to cut through difficult terrain at speed; there are many interesting alternatives to mounted travel. In my opinion, ones capacity for travelling large distances is part of the composition of any single character.

I'm not sure what you really mean by this. The Themepark MMOs that I'm familiar with use taxi services, wizard teleportation, and I want to even say some wilderness skills to expedite travel. However while those are all often preferable to a mount when available, none of them come close to negating the need for a mount in my mind. The options that you listed overall require the character to be at a location where there is a running taxi service or ample numbers of wizards and that they want to go to a commonly known and/or safe to get to location.

Using these will likely not get you to right where you need to be meaning that everyone will still need a horse to get places that much quicker and to avoid dangers that can out run you (like bandits riding horses).

Blazej,

That depends more on how combat is implimented. Is it "twitch" based combat? Is it manual aiming?

I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the UI/combat controls will allow the player sufficient control that they won't UNINTENTIONALY target something with a spell or attack.

"Friendly Fire" situations should be the result of the player making a conscious decision to use an ability that he/she knows has the potential to harm freindly targets.

Some players may decide to make those sort of attacks anyway...knowing the risks...it may not even be a bad decision depending upon the situation.

I remember distinctly at least one situation in a PnP game where we instructed the mage to deliberately target a fireball centered on us. We were being swarmed by a mass of opponents who individualy did not have many hit points but were deployed around us in great numbers and were capable of damaging us with thier attacks. We figured each of us individualy had enough hit points to survive the blast while our opponents individualy did not.

Now if freindly fire didn't exist under those mechanics it would be a no brainer decision. There would never be a reason not to toss a fireball into a melee with freindlies. By having freindly fire mechanics it became a judgement call....does the benefit the fireball does by knocking out the...

I understand the goal, but I'm not sure what the flow of combat would be to allow an user interface for a fireball that wouldn't also allow you to unintentionally catch someone with the blast. I'm imagining this as a real-time game where you hit the button to cast the fireball and select the location of the fireball. At the very least, I imagine both lag and movement from enemies, allies, and neutral people getting in the way of this. Even without lag the person might still cast a spell not seeing the warrior charging into melee. With lag and people changing positioning, you might hit nothing or a bunch or your allies at times.

The only way I can see it working that way in my head right now is if the server itself was deciding on where to place the fireball. You would select the enemies, say you want to fireball them, then the server would correctly place the fireball to hit only them. But then the spell would fizzle if it couldn't be placed safely, or you might still miss an enemy because it could only include two of the enemies without also having your ally in the blast. And if you were fine with hitting allies, that would another option you have to select (probably you would have a friendly fireball that isn't given permission to hit allies and another that was allowed to hit allies) as you are casting the spell. That though, to me, seems to remove a bit of the thought from the process as you just are letting the computer pick the best way to hit your targets.

How do you imagine the flow of combat in Pathfinder Online to allow for thought out tactics mid-battle and lack of fireballs hitting allies?

As for your example, in that situation in the PnP game, how long did anyone have to think about that fireball smashing into the party? Even it were just 30 seconds, I certainly feel that is a much longer time in the heat of a real-time battle than it would be in a turn based PnP game. I've run into similar situations as well in my PnP games, but the players like to think about it and not do something hasty and dangerous like that. They quickly confirm that is the right choice, but if only a minute passes before that decision it met, that would be a very brief amount of time in comparison to other times it has happened.

It could be the game might be slower paced for this similar sort of thing to happen in the online game, but I would say that it would mean, that people are taking a minute or two break between each significant action in battle so that they have that time to plan and know that are doing stuff mostly correct in the battle.

Even then though, I don't think that PnP and a real-time game are equivalent as far as thinking go. In the PnP, you have plenty of time to make almost any decision you want, the only limitation is when it begins to annoy the other people at the table. Making the right decision there is relatively easy even if it took thought. In the real-time game though, the battle isn't waiting for you to make your decision, there making the right decision is much much harder in comparison because you have to make it quickly. Even if both situations require the same amount of thought, the real-time game is going to be harder.

Things like differences between night and day and freindly fire add more complexity to the sorts of gameplay decisions players need to make....meaning more thougt required in order to make good decisoions, meaning a more interesting game.

I would think though that adding something like friendly fire would add more to "a single wrong keystroke, don't move the mouse quickly enough, an untimely bit of lag..can cause the failure of the raid" than anything else.

If anything would cause a failed raid, I would imagine a friendly fire fireball could be the cause of it, either because of a wrong keystroke or because of a bit of lag.

Matthew Trent wrote:

Similarly I'm left wondering which order of Hellknights will be in the region. I don't recall any of the previously described orders being active in this part of the world. I'm sure the creative team will give us something juicy there too.

I am also curious as to why they are out here in the middle of nowhere. From the write up in the ISWG I get the feeling that they are more likely to infest themselves into cities that have troubles then setting up a fortress to keep bandits at bay. I wouldn't but it beneath them it just seems a little out of place for them.

In this case, I believe that their purpose is to maintain the route for the crusaders to travel to Mendev. While it isn't really glorious, it is critical that they keep people traveling north to combat the chaotic demonic menace.

Blaze, thank for the input. I get that there are potential latency issues and the client might need to be aware of certain things before it can draw them. The point I'm trying to raise is the larger the draw distance, the more data both machines have to process and the more data the server has to send to the client. For example, if the draw distance is 50' then the client might need to be aware of objects out to 100' because ideally it wants to try to draw them when the player gets to 50' of them. If the draw distance is only 25' then the client would probably need to only be aware of things out to 50' because it doesn't have to try to draw them until they hit 25'. That's less data being transmitted between the machines and less data that needs to be processed. Dropping the draw distance should therefore INCREASE not DECREASE performance (assuming the data...

You are correct that decreasing the draw distance should increase performance. However, although Onishi was using the words I am, I believe that we are describing the same glitch caused by a significant amount of latency and not knowing what was in the area around your possible render area.

Note, it strikes me that you've got a real problem with an engine if the communications between server and client can't keep up with a players (or objects) movement rate. ...

That is true and often games do exactly what you suggest and apply limitations to the game based on the limitations of the technology. But there are limitations to this. Players will expect to walk at a walking pace, run at a running speed, and when their horse switches to a gallop that they move even faster than that. You can work a design in that helps the issue of data transfer and latency, but the biggest reason I brought it up was because, in your suggestion, it reduced that knowledge to only what was in your render area. Obviously a character shouldn't have to know the position of every single thing in the game at every update, but they do need to know more than what they can see at the moment.

In that case, the client might need to know about things a bit beyond draw range...but not that much.

Specifically, for the case of having darkness in the game, if a character can quickly pull out a light source, then even if they were in the dark, their computer would need to know where everything is around that player so that they will be able to see it as soon as the light source is out.

Also, I strongly suspect that the server does need to keep track of the relative locations of objects to one another...regardless.

That is true for somethings, like creatures using AI, however your suggestion required more than that, it required the distance of every player character to every other player character, creature, or object in the world to determine if it was the exact right time to send the drawing information to the player's computer.

An engine that doesn't support that is going to be prone to alot more serious hacks then not just vision based hacks. Right? Things like, moving/attacking through walls, moving beneath the floor, attack from outside of attack or aggro range, etc. If the client is prone to hacking, then the server is going to need to keep constant track of the exact position of each object in the world relative to every other object.... in which case, the server knows what can be "seen" by the player in order to be acted upon.... and if the client tries to act upon anything that the player shouldn't be able to "see".... that should be a pretty clear red flag that someone is using a hack...shouldn't it?

I'm uncertain why you believe the lack of constant knowledge of every relative position would open it up to all of those potential hacks.

Relative position doesn't deal with movement through floors or walls. In that case, the server just need to know the position of the character, which it already hast to maintain, and check for itself if the player is allowed to move there. There are problems with it, but relative positions doesn't help it.

Attacking from outside attack range is an easy one. While it is a problem to know the exact relative distances from each player to everything, it is easy in comparison to check to see if a player is within attack range when they perform the attack.

Similarly, if one is trying to act on something one can't see, it is easy enough to detect if it clearly is not visible. If it is outside viewing range it is easy to check the distance when the action is performed. If it is behind a wall, there are also tests to check to see if there is a wall between you and the target.

If someone is attacking something that they can not see, that is a red flag that something funny might be going on (either cheating or they might just be lagging enough that they moved to a different place since the last message to the server).

But I don't believe that in the case presented for darkness, that people are really calling for utter pitch black as opposed to just making it very dark and hard for people to see the area around them. In that case, if someone is performing a graphical hack, they would still be attacking things that they would normally be able to see, only barely if they had the darkness.

That part doesn't make sense to me, reducing draw distance should INCREASE not DECREASE performance as both client and server have less information they need to process and less information that needs to be transfered between them.

I would say that I believe that you are off on a few of your statements.

If draw distance is only 25' instead of 50' then you only need to worry about handling the object at 20' and not the one at 30' or at 40'. That should be 1/3rd less data communicated between client and server and 1/3rd fewer processor cycles to churn on rendering objects?

If the draw distance is 25' then it will have to worry about handling the one at 20', most likely 30', and probably 40'. Transmitting information over the internet isn't instantaneous so your client computer needs to be ready to draw anything that comes within your viewing range right away. For example, if you have your character moving forward, and a monster comes into view right at 25', then right then the server will send you the information about it's position, appearance, velocity, and so on. Then you will receive soon after, but because of network latency, that might mean you see it pop into existence when you are 20' away or even closer depending on lag and how fast your character is moving.

It would also be likely putting more pressure on the server because it would have to be aware of the distance from every character to every thing a every moment to be able to send that message out as quick as possible to the player. Normally, you might be able to just send the information for the area in general and let the client computer deal with the issues of distance of rendering (which is what the vision hacks rely on).

In any event, if that's really a problem, you can always trip up the exploiters by salting the data with some false positives. Have the server send the client a key right before render saying "Yeah that's really there" or "No I lied". Doesn't hurt the folks playing by the rules as they never see it on the screen...but the exploiter who has cracked the client and is pulling in stuff before it enters view range (p.s. how would they render that to screen anyway if the game engine has trouble keeping up with rendering...design a more efficient method of rendering then the game does?) can't be sure if what he's seeing out there is real or not.

The server can't send the client the key "right before the render" for similar reasons I brought up above. I believe that the speed that a game is expected to render a frame (from the end of the last, to the end of the current), is shorter than the average response time to a server.

I do believe that is some merit in the idea, but it would mean that these phantom images would have to be far enough from the player so that they couldn't run up to them fast enough to see them during a period of lag (otherwise you just confuse the honest players), but still close enough that the server still needs to send you information about creatures within that area.

Scott Betts wrote:

It doesn't make the game any more or any less Pathfinder to leave it out.

Now here's the philosophical bit that you fail to address from your soap box.

What is Pathfinder? I have Pathfinder setting books, they have numbers and things in them to relate to the Pathfinder rule books. So what is Pathfinder? A setting? In which case what are these numbers for? A rule-set? In which case what are these maps for?

My long winded point being your view is too simplistic of what Pathfinder is.

S.

In pathfinder though, it is often the case that players use fireballs for more than just pulling mobs. They use it aggressively and often very close to the center of combat. Spells like burning hands often come very close to including allies in the area or barely including the enemy you want to hit, but that is fine because you have time to look and place your spell location before unleashing it.

For a online game, not only do you have to deal with people being able to move around as you are casting the spell, there is also network latency that might mean that you will cast the spell correctly, but have it take so long to get to the game server that you include your allies within it. Worrying about spells accidentally hitting allies is not a part of the Pathfinder game to me.

I've found it much more common in games that players look to others for help with their faction mission, always asking it as a personal favor for the character and not mentioning it is their faction mission (even though the players all know what it likely is).

In my games, I think that the biggest reason is that the players are all friends and feel bad if their friends fail. Maybe it is also because the players are friends, but the characters themselves seem to care a lot for the rest of their party even when they are from different factions and are more supportive of their party members than their own faction.

I'm not sure it is a problem really because it really is less fun at tables when the party just cares less for each other. I would be fine if faction missions would be solved by that character, but as long as they don't require the character to do it themselves, characters will ask for help and other characters will be happy to give it.

Most of the things you described (razing farms, poisoning wells, repeatedly killing someone who returns to the same area) are things I see no need to punish. If those things are being done in the high risk zero security areas, then it's totally valid.

I wouldn't really say that it is either a realistic world nor something that excites me for PvP.

Realistically, there should be punishments for terrorizing the wilderness, and it should come the response from other players, the game mechanics, and the game moderators.

Without the game mechanics backing you, it means that the established kingdoms just don't care how many of their people you murdered, just as long as you did it outside their borders. I'm not suggested they perform a full military response no matter where you might be, but they might at least acknowledge that known bandits are not welcome in their cities.

I wouldn't really enjoy going out to poison wells, raze farms, or repeatedly kill someone who returns to the same area.

Neither do I really find a game where I'm defending my farm from constant attacks, continually having to spend endless amount of time purifying my water supply, or being killed for the dozenth time trying to get somewhere I want to go to.

jlord wrote:

hp 19 | Temp 0 | NL 0 | Total hp 19

AC 13 | touch 13 | flat-footed 10 | CMD 14
Fort +1 | Ref +3 | Will +3 (+2 racial bonus vs enchantments)
Immunities magical sleep
____________________________________________________________________

What would be cool is if there was something like a signatures that aliases could have that had vital information for the pbps. Alot of the DM's like it when players add this information to each post, so it is immediately available for them to see. Something as simple as what is at the top of my post would be awesome. However, Even that can be exploitable. If this could be done is there a way to limit it so that the option only works on the pbp threads?

While a very intriguing idea, and one that when I first read, I thought yeah, that would be cool, on a second thought, I don't like it. It will have the same effect as signatures, to clutter up the PBP thread with the same information repeated over and over. I prefer that information to be placed in the character profile where I can refer to it as needed.

What about however if that signature was only displayed on that character's latest post in the thread, once per page, or have them all combined at the end of the last page?

I don't expect that every post in the thread would need the signature information forever, I'm pretty sure that the most use of it would come from it being only in last action of the character.

Scott Betts wrote:

Unless there's incentive in it, I really don't see this being prevalent.

f there is a viable role of being a murderer and murderers do exist as a force, the reward for such a role will be that of a monetary incentive; players gear. Should this be the case and has been demonstrated in past games, players will in fact form Anti-PK guilds as the monetary reward works both ways.

...that and bounties! ^^

From the descriptions everyone has given, and correct me if I'm wrong, that isn't what has been demonstrated in Eve.

Part of the concern I have for the updated rules for module play is that one sort of has to waste or ruin their PFS experience if they just want to play the module as a module rather than a PFS enforced scenario.

What about, if you play through a module with a non-legal PFS character of the module level and level appropriate gear, upon completion of the scenario, you can still get a chronicle applied to any of your characters (without punishment for conditions or death) but for 0 XP, 0 PA, 0 GP, and no additional gear from the chronicle.

So the only thing you would get from the chronicle would be the module boon at the top of the chronicle which would reward module play in a similar way as owning Pathfinder Novels, but more a reward for playing through the module and possibly helping any PFS characters in the group build a more solid table.

Edit: Or what Thursty suggested a while back.

*Promotes the purity of a well run, first-time played module/scenario. I think the game is at its best when the players, characters, and GM are all aligned and in sync with rewards, risk, and results.

I have to disagree with this point and really it focuses on the use of "first-time."

With the new rule changes, I would say that is much more likely that I will be running several modules (most likely the high level ones) outside of PFS as they are intended. In this case, I would suggest it promotes people to more likely play this within their own groups before playing in the module in PFS.

Blazej wrote:

If some arrogant tyrant decided that all who weren't allied with him would be killed on sight, his kingdom should dry up within a fraction of the time it took to build their empire. If you try to build a kingdom and ignore the River Freedoms, then the will of the people of the River Kingdoms should be enforced and punish that kingdom.

You shouldn't be rewarded for that level of paranoia or punished for not having it.

And they likely will. If you build an area no one is willing to travel to for trade because of the dangers of travelling to your area, you probably will have major issues.

Some players will want to bring order to the chaos. Some players will want to bring chaos to order.

This is the internal conflict of the game.

The WoW analogy is for the people who don't seem to understand that the game isn't going to be an instance based dungeon delve. It will be a sandbox economic game me that has dungeons.

First person civilization.

That may work if the game is significantly dependent on trade and the NPC kingdoms react to a player kingdom (and their trade allies) killing any non-ally that enters their territory. Or some other element by which NPCs react to the way your kingdom is managed in the wild wilderness. But it was said that there shouldn't be game enforced punishment for committing an act out in the wilderness.

Some mechanic within the game that punishes you for managing your kingdom like a jerk. The NPC kingdoms (and by extension, the game itself) should punish kingdoms who are out of line even if they are committing these acts in the player's own kingdom. This punishment doesn't need to mean sending out an army to destroy them, but it should do things within it's power to show that that actions of the kingdom, it's soldiers, and it's allies are not ignored once they are out of view.

Blazej wrote:

When I get new players they come alone or groups of two. Rather than turn them away the higher level players are happy to switch to their lower level characters to allow them to play. They are less enthusiastic about continuing replaying scenarios many times for players that may not come back.

So you have one or two new players at every game day? If so, then after three game days, why not try to schedule those 4-6 players together so they can play the same lower level scenarios? This frees up the higher levels to play higher scenarios.

What happens when you use all 15 modules and credit goes to lower level PCs? When you are out of modules, what is your plan?

I don't really plan as much as play things by ear.

It isn't one or two players every game day though, they come much more infrequently than that and hang around a play for a few weeks, then never come back without any indication of why. Given the number of times this has happened though, these types are walk ins aren't really the sort that I would try to include in a module as their first or second session just because the turn over is so high.

Really though, it is largely a problem of scale of interest in the area and my inability to do enough with my time to draw more people to it rather than a lack of low-level scenarios. I just wanted to explain how it was in my group that the prolific players kept mixing with newly created characters.

I really just rambled on for a bit in my first post in the thread, I had a few question that I think just got lost in there.

Specifically, if I want to run a high level module (while granting any PFS chronicles), do all players have to be legal Pathfinder Society characters or can four players use PFS characters (and get the chronicle at the end of the scenario) while the fifth makes a 8th level character with level appropriate gear (and possibly options that aren't available for PFS like magic item crafting feats) for no credit?

In addition, I recalled a discussion a while back about not allowing player to play in scenarios for credit after previously playing in them with pregens. I wanted to know if there was any thought or plan to barred players from getting credit in PFS sanctioned modules if they had already played in them without credit.

Then why not group 4-6 new players together and let them play together,while grouping your vets together to play higher levels. Why are you constantly mixing them? I don't understand.

When I get new players they come alone or groups of two. Rather than turn them away the higher level players are happy to switch to their lower level characters to allow them to play. They are less enthusiastic about continuing replaying scenarios many times for players that may not come back.

My game however is small with only with three or four consistant players that show up and a number of players that have passed through for a few scenarios.

Part of me likes the changes here, and another part of me believes that it means that I won't be able to run most of modules as I have been.

Let me start by saying that I've run three modules with PFS rules (Godsmouth Heresy and Cult of the Ebon Destroyers) and I have played in three. I tend to run home games and not very often have completely open online games.

When they were originally introduced, I've liked using modules for the PFS rules for a few reasons.

1. Bring parties who have several levels of difference between themselves together. Just one player could have joined in late and is always a level or two behind the rest of the group. This is somewhat solved by having a slow advancement track for the higher level characters, but it does consume a significant number of scenarios in doing so and just increases the chance of random death which just would be a sort of double-whammy of now not having a character to play with the group and having now played in most of the scenarios available that would have let you advance another of your characters.

2. Combine groups of the more prolific players with the newer or less active players. A few of my players have played through nearly every low level scenario there is. There have been times where I have been running lower level scenarios and I've just run out of scenarios where everyone can play for credit. This could also be solved with the less active players using the slow track as the more active player just replays scenarios for fun or just sits out (because replaying three or more scenarios isn't something most people look forward to), but I'm not sure that is my favored solution.

This is actually why I first used a module. One player had played all the scenarios in a tier and I just needed that one boost to get them past into the next tier of adventures. Now this is with my mindset of a very small number of scenarios in existence, now there are plenty (for the foreseeable future in my groups) to go around. Right now it would be pretty easy to use the proposed changes with this goal in mind.

3. This module is sounds awesome and I want to work it into my PFS games for a few weeks. There have been a few modules that sounded so awesome that I looked forward to getting myself going an running them in place of PFS scenarios. That is actually one of the biggest reasons I ran Cult of the Ebon Destroyers rather than other modules because I thought it was cool.

Now, that really is only applicable for when the group all has characters of the level required by the scenario or really wants to play a pregen (while I prefer a pregen to not being able to play, characters of my own creation feel a bit more satisfying to play with). That is annoying, but mostly workable.

However, once one gets into the 9th level and higher modules (of which there are a few I was looking forward to running prior to this), it becomes a lot more sad to me. For these one does't have the option of running a pregen and has to sit out for the game to be PFS sanctioned.(*?) Now, here I always still have the option to play or run in a module outside PFS like they were and are designed for.** I was excited to see The Ruby Phoenix Tournament given it's apparent promotion of PFS play as part of this latest arc, but at this point, using this set of PFS rules, my regular groups wouldn't be playing it for at least two years at which point the Year of the Ruby Phoenix arc will have long since passed by.

I'm still excited to run the Ruby Phoenix Tournament for my group, but with this rules change, it would have to be not using PFS rules or rewards. When it comes down to it, this section is the only one that I really can't see workarounds for that don't involve the group breaking off from PFS.

-

I do like however the retirement rule changes though. The transition from a cap for PFS characters to extending the leveling system out. Even if PFS scenarios of that level are never created, I like that a lot more than freezing PFS characters at that level while they accrue more and more wealth from adventures.

-

Really, I will be able to live with the rules. The point I brought up in three will be my only lasting pain I believe. I want to run/play these modules soon for/with my group and right now I see the options of having to wait years to run them in PFS, or run it now and kind of ruin the mystery of the module if they need to play in it PFS to continue to advance their character (and possibly get them barred from tables for their knowledge).

-

*As I wrote this, I wanted to ask a question about sanctioned modules with unsanctioned players. I'm pretty certain what the answer has to realistically be but I wanted to ask anyway. If I want to run "The Harrowing" do all players have to be legal Pathfinder Society characters or can four players use PFS characters (and get the chronicle at the end of the scenario) while the fifth makes a 8th level character with level appropriate gear (and possibly options that aren't available for PFS like magic item crafting feats) for no credit?

**I also would like to know that if it is intended or expected that players be barred from playing and receiving credit for PFS sanctioned modules if they have already played it once, but outside PFS for no credit.

Edit: Even if I'm not entirely happy with the solution, I thank you for your work and effort into making improvements into this system. One of my most irritating moments running a module was when one player really just broke the feel as they announced that they were going to be free and lose with their wand charges because it wasn't going to carry over past the end. Most of my players knowingly didn't press that option (aloud or without the declaration) so I'm glad that is handled now.

Finding the balance to make this work is hard and making fit perfectly may be impossible because modules just aren't designed for PFS in mind. This is hard and I realize that what I want may just not be in the best interest of PFS OP. Thank you again.

Blazej wrote:

ciretose wrote:

I think that you are forgetting that this is a sandbox game.

PvP isn't just part of the game. In a sense it is the game.

Punishment will come not because you killed a player, but because you killed a player who belongs to a faction that will then hunt and kill you for killing a player.

If you kill at random (without purpose) you will be killed by other players, because you will not have support or protection.

Think mafia/gang rather than dungeon diving for loot drops.

Problem is that sort of points at Eve and I really don't think that Eve's system of player response produces a reasonable world that I want to play in.

I'm imagining a mafia/game game where everyone shoots on sight outside the "safe zone" and that isn't the River Kingdoms that I know.

But that is the game that is coming.

Before, no one thought anything was coming.

Now you are getting this.

It actually is the River Kingdoms as written.

"The River Kingdoms of northeastern Avistan have long been a haven for inland pirates, anarchists, exiles, and anyone who can't seem to make it in more civilized nations. The Kingdoms are by no means a unified nation, but rather a constantly shifting group of city-states and fiefdoms, each at war with the others both to gain more power and to prevent their own demise."

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/River_Kingdoms

They aren't going to make an instance based game like WoW for a few reasons.

1. Cost
2. Market is already filled.

This is why it is in the River Kingdoms and not Varisia. Because it is EXACTLY how the river kingdoms are envisioned to have a game with every changing loyalties, factions, etc...

From your link, to the pathfinder wiki, it isn't the River Kingdoms as written.

"While many inhabitants of the surrounding kingdoms think of the people of the River Kingdoms as back stabbing curs they are wrong as one of the codes of the River Freedoms is that oathbreaker must die (usually in a very painful manner), as a result most people from the River Kingdoms would die before they broke their word but are also very cautious about giving their word in the first place. The River Freedoms have a heavy influence on the lands inhabitants and almost all respect these freedoms as those who don't often suffer severe consequences."

If we look at Eve though, I would say that oathbreakers make up a number of the most successful members of the society. And respect for freedom isn't synonymous with shooting anyone on sight that isn't an ally.

WoW reference seems completely random and irrelevant to this.

I didn't say anything about changing loyalites, factions. I spoke specically about the fact that we would get that with just a safe zone and the rest of the world relying on only the response of other players. In that case I point at Eve as an example of that and it ISN'T the River Kingdoms I know nor the River Kingdoms that your link speaks about.

If some arrogant tyrant decided that all who weren't allied with him would be killed on sight, his kingdom should dry up within a fraction of the time it took to build their empire. If you try to build a kingdom and ignore the River Freedoms, then the will of the people of the River Kingdoms should be enforced and punish that kingdom.

You shouldn't be rewarded for that level of paranoia or punished for not having it.

I think that you are forgetting that this is a sandbox game.

PvP isn't just part of the game. In a sense it is the game.

Punishment will come not because you killed a player, but because you killed a player who belongs to a faction that will then hunt and kill you for killing a player.

If you kill at random (without purpose) you will be killed by other players, because you will not have support or protection.

Think mafia/gang rather than dungeon diving for loot drops.

Problem is that sort of points at Eve and I really don't think that Eve's system of player response produces a reasonable world that I want to play in.

I'm imagining a mafia/game game where everyone shoots on sight outside the "safe zone" and that isn't the River Kingdoms that I know.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I think it likely there will be horribly evil kingdoms run by rogues, assassins, spies and traitors.

Awesome. I'm really glad to see that the potential for being a double agent and switching sides at critical times is there, makes things all that much more interesting. An espionage aspect to a fantasy game, who'd have thought it =D

So far though, I haven't seen a single story about a double agent in Eve that actually made me want to play the game. Rather, it made me feel more like my desire not to be a jerk within the game would mean that it isn't the kind of game that I would want to play in.

I like to be trusting, and given that the game itself can not tell you if the player is an alternate character of an enemy player, that level of paranoia isn't appealing to me.

To be honest, as long as there is a thriving NRDS empire I will be quite happy with the game. I would hate to see all null sec frontiers in the River Kingdoms fall under NBDS. At least with NRDS the solo or small groups can experience null sec without being bullied by goons.

I would go even further to say that I believe that NBSI should be rare in the game. The River Kingdoms to me isn't a place where kingdoms can expect to perform a strategy of NBSI without suffering incredible losses. If I can't walk through a player controlled kingdom without suffering a death sentence for that offence, I would think less that I was playing in the River Kingdoms and more that I would playing in another world.

You raise some good points Blazej, and I agree that resources that don't recover independently would be problematic. By the same token though, I would really like to see some sense of long term effect you know? Have trees regrow and animals replenish themselves, but let it be slow enough to notice and perhaps work around through other areas.

Furthermore, doing such widescale damage should take a lot of effort from a lot of people over a lot of time. An army popping on for one IRL night shouldn't do it. Regretably, this is one of those areas where something sacrificed for playability [real darkness] could be handy. Maybe attempting to harvest/damage resources at night should have significantly reduced returns to simulate this? (Having mages around keeping light spells active would negate the effect of course.)

"Real darkness" isn't the real problem though (In fact just setting the forest on fire would likely solve some problems of speed and lighting). It is the fact that the characters vanish or become incredibly less active as soon as the player logs out.

In theory, that second faction has dozens of characters "sleeping" inside who can't be woken up (if characters are put on autopilot while logged off they will still be operating less effectively and intelligently than a player would). Compared to that, real darkness is a lot less meaningful.

Also, a reminder that real darkness isn't sacrificed for playability, but because people will be able to turn it off. In the foresting example, it would be worse because the few people on watch in the keep (assuming that they are not cheating as well) would be vastly limited in being able to see what any army is doing around their keep. (In addition, if we are defining "night" as the time most people are not able to play the game, then there will be people in the world that will be shut out of the bulk of the game play because of their time zone.)

If the system is set up such that characters have to be aware and careful of not adversely affecting their environment, then I wonder what would happen if people were not being careful.

Setting aside a dedicated band of griefers just destroying the game's environment just to ruin the game, what would it mean if a faction of fifty or so people decided the best way to destroy another faction was to destroy all their resources while they were in bed? The entire faction gets on at some time where the other side is not prepared to deal with this and just torch the entire forest around them.

From the indications here, people are thinking about druids with prentative powers and maybe restoration, but nothing that could undo the level of damage a dedicated band of people can do in the terrain. Especially outside the protection of the cities.

The only difference between the two sarcastic posts is that you give one preference for whatever reason.

However, in addition to other differences, Kryzbyn didn't feel the need to shout out yours or anyone else's name into his post as opposed to yours which randomly threw a shot out at Scott Betts as you responded to Kryzbyn.

I really don't see the end of most arguments for "realistic" worlds. With similar arguments I could see the undertaker business being incredibly effected by anything less than permanent death. One could even say that starting as an adult limits those who would portray teachers, mentors, caretakers, and parents in the world. Or that when one goes to sleep, all perceptions for that character should be cut off until he awakens to give incentive for locks for bedrooms and people standing watch over a camp.

There are games about capturing and training animals, taking care of horses, cooking food, traveling a long distance safely in a wagon, maintaining a transportation network, and building cities, but each are different from one another as they try to make different experiences be fun for the player.

If the goal is to create an interesting dynamic within the game that mirrors what happens in our world, I can support that, but I would argue that a rational (where the game works like our world) world within a MMORPG is impossible because it is a game. At the very least, people will throw their avatars into death's maw with more ease than they do in the real world because the worst thing that could happen is that they lose that avatar. People will be more careless and aggressive with their lives in the game at a rate that I would say is high compared to the amount experience in our world (not to say that people don't throw their lives away in the real world, but just that people will do so more easily with their digital avatars).

Even if the world presented isn't perfectly realistic, players will operate within those rules to create a living breathing world. At some point though, adding more complexity into the system will just make the game more complex with less interesting behaviors that emerge from the addition. It will just take up time from development from other parts of the game while simultaneously weighing the game down.

Edit: That is not to say that all suggestions for realistic elements are bad or dissuade people from still voicing what they would like to see in the game, but just that there are elements of real-life that wouldn't help Pathfinder Online because it is a video game and not a real-life simulator.

Blazej wrote:

I'm pretty sure that isn't the definition of griefing.

A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game that deliberately irritates and harasses other players.

Are you not a griefer if you grief one who is griefing? Playstyles are subjective.

For every random player killer in a non-consensual PvP game, there exists an equal if not larger number of anti player killers. They are and have been (for the record) far nastier to their respective enemy in my own experiences.

This is arguing for the sake of arguing lol.

If you grief a griefer than you are griefer. However, griefing a griefer is different because you aren't harrassing the player at random for no reasonable reason to drive them out (and destroy the game), but because they showed themselves to be a deliberate and active threat to you.

I'm pressing this specifically because there has been a bit of abuse of the term griefer on this forum that would try to make griefers not look as bad or use it to try to describe all players as guilty of "griefing." Griefers are very bad and the worst type of player the game will draw.

People often forget that everytime you kill a player killer you are griefing him from conducting his playstyle of feeding on the helpless; a well designed open pvp game places far greater risk on the playerkiller than on that of the helpless.

I'm pretty sure that isn't the definition of griefing.

Perhaps he hasn't given an indication yet of how quickly someone can be killed, but the phrasing as "discourage all but the most egregious criminal activity" seems to imply to me that even considering attacking someone inside the walls of a lawful town, is flat out suicidal and can bring you little to nothing good, even if you manage to successfully kill the target person before your inevitable demise.

But the phrasing "discourage all but the most egregious criminal activity" would also indicate that egregious criminal activity wouldn't be stopped by that. The question comes up, what happens with a band of 50 characters attack a lawful town? It is pretty much suicidal and will they lose within minutes of their attack? Or, with enough power, can someone effectively hold a town as long as the group is willing.

If it even remotely possible for them to hold that city, then that 99.9% or 90% safety is going to be meaningless when you are facing an army who just want to ruin fun for other people.

For those talking about worrying about your blacksmith getting stabbed in the face and robbed. Even the scraps that Ryan has implied about the game, pretty much show that isn't going to be possible. He's more or less shown the idea of tiers of safety. In a town, that will be a 99.99% safe zone. IE anyone attempting to PK or harm someone in the town, will be unlikely to pull anything off before the guards jump him he is flagged as a criminal and instantly attacked by dozens of strong NPCs in addition to pretty much any PC in the city, and he will be guaranteed to lose far more then what he gains in any circumstance, Areas near a town will be Low risk areas, as in anyone attempting to PK there will have an 90% chance of getting crushed, as getting killed in that area will immediately warn all members of the players kingdom (or possibly just whatever kingdoms turf he is in, Ryan also implied something of a fast travel option to allow them to get to the scene of the crime quickly).

Basically what these 2 mean is that your non-combat blacksmith, will more or less be absolutely safe when in town, and in minimal danger when traveling between towns (though he could hire an escort if he is carrying excessively valuable things).

Where are you getting these numbers because I haven't seen anything noting how safe a town would be. I haven't seen any indication of how long it would take for a person to kill a character or how quick the response would be to them attacking another character. Are those situations describing only a single character doing the killing or do they account for a large group of people launching a coordinated attack?

I would even say that the majority of requests asking for PvP options are completely counter to those values of safety.

The more I read these threads, the more I fear our differences may be irreconcilable. That those in fear of a persistent world with a risk vs reward paradigm and interaction with other people who very well may be after what you hold dear will never yield on their position and will end up not playing what everyone is hoping will be an awesome game.

I know I envisioned Pathfinder Online as a persistent shared world, where everybody is in a single instance of the same world (perhaps using similar server technology to Eve, according to what I've heard of that game on the boards.) But if PvP can be turned off, that suddenly makes the game unfair to those who aren't hiding from everyone else (or worse, griefers who hide behind the inability to attack them to harass you in other ways.)

I'm not terribly fond of spending a lot of time in a thread when the divide is presented like you have.

In the first quoted paragraph you seem to describe the anti-Open PvP posters as being stubborn and losing out on an (hopefully) incredibly fun game.

In the second, you don't attempt to portray anything possibly good about
a consensual-only PvP limitation, instead, you describe the bad elements that you believe would result.

So, I think the first step in removing the divide would be to stop trying demonize the other side's premise as you asking how to remove the divide.

I have a question for the 'no non-consensual pvp' crowd, and I figure this could be a good place to ask it rather than starting up a new thread.

How would you react to Pathfinder Online in the month or two following launch, if it DID have full non-consensual PvP with various restrictions in place and proved itself to not be the horror you all believe it will be.

Feel free to include pessimistic "not possible" stuff in your posts if you see fit, but please be sure to also include an answer to the "what if" I presented.

I'm not certain that is a fair question. It would be analogous to asking, "how would you react if it WAS that horrible after the release because of non-consensual PvP?" It seems ultimately preloaded with an answer.

If I have fun because of or despite non-consensual PvP then I will be happy to play and have fun.

I'm not getting a clear enough picture of the world for me to have a solid idea how the feel of the game might be. The posts by Vic Wertz and Ryan Dancey have helped me understand some of it, but some people are just generating a lot of noise that muddies the issue for me.

With the regulated PvP system presented, I can't tell how often it would happen that a character is killed in a safe city. I'm not certain how aggressive and significant PvP will be outside of safe towns. If I walk out of town to collect mushrooms, will my character's death be certain? I'm not even certain what the game will be shooting for in these areas. I don't know how much punishment death will be in the game so I can't even say how much death will be too much for me.

This is the first book I've picked up in a while and I'm really glad I did. Overall the pixie is my favorite race from the book for no special reason beyond being a pixie. The other races are fine but don't really hold a strong place in my heart.

My favorite part of the book however are the alternate classes. I can definitely feel the marks of essentials on these classes and I think that it has improved them.

Berzerker

The berzerker is a barbarian subclass and it continues what I saw in the Essentials Ranger by mixing martial and primal keywords on powers depending on what type of power it was. Powers that seem to require more skill as a warrior are labeled as martial and those with more barbaric ferocity are primal. The special thing here is that these differences have a significant impact on the way this class works. The role of the subclass is both defender and striker, but not at the same time.

Each battle you start out with the defender aura from the Essentials books and you have at will opportunity attack that you get to use when an enemy shifts or attacks an ally (and not you) while in that aura. During the battle though, if you use one of your barbarian primal attack powers, you enter a berzerker fury (you can also use a minor action while bloodied for this same effect). Then you lose your defender aura and opportunity action power while gaining extra damage with your basic attacks and at-will powers.

From my rough look through, it seems that the primal encounter and daily attacks already take into account extra damage as they have a bit more damage than their martial counterparts.

Not sure how well it plays, but so far it is among my favorite mechanics for rage that I've seen.

Skald

The skald is a bard subclass and even though it has at-wills, encounters, dailies, and utilities at all the right levels, it feels like post Essentials class and I love it.

The skald has an odd leader mechanic where they can produce an aura, and then use their twice per encounter minor action ability to heal an ally in that aura (either you or an another ally in the aura can do this). On the first read through it just looks very oddly worded for what it does, but looking through the rest of the class, many of skalds powers grant additional bonus effects through this aura.

Like most martial Essentials classes the skald uses basic attacks instead of attack powers. There are no powers in the skald write up that cause you to make an attack (unless the power just makes you make a basic attack). The actions required the all the powers in the class are minor actions, immediate actions, and many that require no action.

They are powers that add additional abilities to your healing aura, add effect to when you hit with a basic attack, or otherwise heal and aid your allies. Pretty much every turn a skald has will involve them making a basic attack while using other powers to augment it.

I really do like it using basic attacks (like some of the essentials classes) while having a great number of options to play with (like the pre-essentials classes). I even like that it also has the same mix of martial and arcane keywords rather than just applied one of the two throughout the class.

Protector

The protector is a druid subclass. I don't really like the name for this subclass, it does have the same memorable feel as the others. I almost started this section by just calling this option "Druid."

Overall, it is a normal druid class option, but it has one notable Essentials-like area (not terribly accurate as I would have called the psionic lack of encounter powers "Essential"-ly than not if they had come after the Essentials books). The subclass doesn't have any choices for daily attack powers even though the book does give daily attack powers for other Druid classes (and a Protector who takes a feat for the option). The subclass gains Summon Nature's Ally at 1st level and at any level where they would have gotten a new daily power choice, they get a more powerful creature to summon and they can use the daily power more times per day (up to a max of three times per day).

Other than that difference these are more or less the standard summons I've seen from other classes. The protector needs to use their own actions to fuel the summon, however each one has something I haven't notice before. If not given any commands they perform basic actions (usually performing a melee attack or moving up to an enemy). Commanding makes it do more, but even not commanding it leaves it acting in battle.

Witch

The witch is a wizard subclass and is most normal of the classes in the book to me. The first Essential-type thing I see from it is that your choice of coven as a witch dictates what encounter power you start out with (and I believe that power later is intended to turn into the improved version of itself that appear at later gain the other coven's power but it doesn't specifically note this). That is a very loose connection though. The only other thing is the Augury power each witch gets, but only because that is more flavor and less direct mechanical bonuses than early class abilities.

I really do enjoy all the class options in the book so far and I'm looking forward to seeing them in play.

That was news to me as I assumed PF would be using their own rules to supplant the MMO system. If they're not, well then this whole discussion is rather moot as neither Paizo or WotC/4E can be directly tied to MMOs and thus, the argument falls apart.

I recall a couple of reasons I've seen them give for this decision. The first reason being that the mechanics that work in a turn-based tabletop game don't work well in a real-time MMO game. Another reason given was that the implementation of the OGL in a video game would be tricky (at the very least).

Because it hasn't been released and we're not sure what the rules will be based off of.

But, in that case, Pathfinder Online is still far away from being released as well and they even announced that they wouldn't be using the OGL in this game. You included it despite it not being released and not knowing what rules system it would be using, but excluded Neverwinter for the same reasons.

As for the mechanics of making a 4th edition MMO, there are definite problems because of the transition of turning a turn based game into a one played in real-time. Some powers would not be able to be incorporated or would need to be changed to make sense in the new system. For example, a ranger attack power that could be used in response to being missed by a melee attack (in 4th edition) might be incorporated into an online D&D MMO by making that optional attack only possible/active in the moments after an enemy misses you so that it does the essential thing that it did in the tabletop, but without requiring the game needing to be interrupted to resolve it.

Someone said wrote:

Someone said wrote:

Someone said wrote:

Hooray!

Woooo!

Huzzah!

(Apologies if everyone else has already figured it out)

I noticed it earlier, but I couldn't tell if it was a new addition or if it occurred earlier in the month without me noticing.

One way to have darkness be dangerous without trying to use it to vastly limit vision. Bring out monsters that only become active at night (like vampires and spectral undead) and make other monsters who have a significant advantage in the darkness more sensitive to your presence (so they can detect and react to you at a farther range). This possibly would allow for a significant difference in how the game would play in light and darkness.

Blazej wrote:

Diffan wrote:

Also, one has to admit that comparing 4E to an MMO in light of Pathfinder actually producing an MMO in their image is rather funny, if not a bit hypocritical.

Again, in this thread, I find the comments like that to be the hypocritical ones.

They aren't making a Pathfinder RPG MMO.

A month ago, I would say that it would be considered laughable if someone used the existence of D&D Online as proof of 4th edition's MMO-ness. I do not believe that most of the people here would even consider that as a serious comparison.

It isn't a serious comparison as D&D-online uses 3.5 ruleset and not 4E's ruleset. The two only share the name D&D, and....well that's pretty much it rules wise.

I admit that prior to this I hadn't paid any attention to the system D&D Online uses and that even now I've only read a small bit about it. So this is news ot me.

I'm glad to hear that it's focusing more on other regions of Golarion. I mention Sandpoint because it feels as if every Adventure Path starts there. Sorta repetitive IMO. As for my statement having truth, you don't find it funny that a certain amount of people call 4E an "MMO-game that uses paper" yet when the system they prefer goes out and makes an MMO based off their own system/setting a tad hypocritical? I mean, just a tad?

This doesn't mean that Pathfinder is an MMO (I'm not saying that) but I find it funny that 4E was (so people say) infused with a lot of MMO properties yet there hasn't been a style of game designed with that edition rules. Yet Pathfinder, OTOH, does have a...

To be honest, it doesn't seem hypocritical, but that may be in part because you and others are proposing this argument in this specific thread where I would say that the community in this subforum had very different reactions to people who posted misinformation about 4th/WotC edition and others that posted misinformation about Paizo/Pathfinder (as in one side was very heavily defended and the other was, in my opinion, ignored).

Even without that though, even if 4E doesn't have a style of game designed with that edition's rules, from the barest bits that have been released, your inference that Pathfinder Online will be a game designed with that Pathfinder RPG's rules is currently incorrect. For right now at the very least, Pathfinder Online isn't going to be using the OGL, rather, it will be using a skill system for developing characters.

Both you and Sebastrd mention there being no recent MMO game for D&D (specifically 4th edition). Obviously I was off base with D&D Online, but what about Neverwinter? From what I can tell that is a upcoming MMO for D&D, why isn't that being counted here?

One of the many accusations directed at 4E is that it was designed intentionally to translate seamlessly to an eventual video game incarnation. Now that there will be two separate MMOs based on the 3.X rule set, while no such game has yet been announced for 4E, those accusations look both laughable and hypocritical.

What are the two MMOs based on the 3.X rule set? D&D Online is definitely one, but I'm not familiar with the second. I thought you were talking about Pathfinder Online until your second paragraph where you clearly seem to understand that Pathfinder Online current intention to not use the Pathfinder RPG system.

Scott, you say that "it's potentially very frustrating". How do you know this? Have you experienced this frustration first hand? What do you mean by "it affects certain players more than others"? Scott, you say that "it makes the game visually unexciting and undesirable to explore for roughly 40% of the day". What in game experience to you have with this?

One game that comes to mind talking about darkness is Minecraft (a very open sandbox game). It, in general, is how I imagine full looting would work out even. The day/night cycle moves relatively fast, when night falls things get very bad, very quickly (creatures spawn in the darkness in that game, and most are harmed by daylight or become more passive when in the light.). Exploring in darkness limits your vision to a very small area where, if you can see something, it is likely to late to be able to evade it. The area is so open that things can attack you from any direction and you drop everything you have if you are killed.

The result is, in that game, when darkness falls, I waiting inside until daylight. I get a bit braver once I have sword and armor, but that doesn't change the fact that the limit of vision makes large threats out of things that would be easy to avoid that I still spend half the game above ground within my shelter.

NyxShiArammu wrote:

"I'm Lord Derpington of Herpington Castle" means nothing when i come along and brain you with my axe. It is through PvP that you can forumlate RP status and 'titles' otherwise it is all meaningless drivel.

+5

To build on this though, think about the warfare and kingdom building. How the hell is that supposed to happen when you can't match armies of PC's against eachother. (And please don't say party vs specific enemy elite units in PvE. Lets save that for tabletop ok?)

+5 isn't really worth much if you give them so freely. Especially to someone who is so freely insulting others on the forum.

Blazej wrote:

Count Buggula wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Count Buggula wrote:

That's assuming in-game time is mapped directly to real world time, which is not the case in any RPG I've ever played.

You've never played WoW?

Yep. I guess there wasn't enough of a difference between day and night to even notice when a cycle had passed.

I find that odd because they felt distinct to me. Wow: Day/Night Cycle

Watch the video again but hold your hand over the top of the video so you never see the sky.

If you're in 3rd person with a more or less isometric view of your character (which is how I played) you'd never know if it's day or night.

Did what you said and covered also but a very small portion of the bottom of the screen and I could still tell see an easy difference between light and dark.

While it has been a while since I have played Wow, I don't recall my camera continuously pointing at the ground so that I never saw the sky.

Blazej wrote:

Count Buggula wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Count Buggula wrote:

That's assuming in-game time is mapped directly to real world time, which is not the case in any RPG I've ever played.

You've never played WoW?

Yep. I guess there wasn't enough of a difference between day and night to even notice when a cycle had passed.

I find that odd because they felt distinct to me. Wow: Day/Night Cycle

The moon is rising from the same place at which the sun set... fascinating.

Also the moon seems to be attached to the night/day cycle rather than it's own unique clock so that it and the sun are not visible at the same time.

But what is that fascinating?

Scott Betts wrote:

Count Buggula wrote:

That's assuming in-game time is mapped directly to real world time, which is not the case in any RPG I've ever played.

You've never played WoW?

Yep. I guess there wasn't enough of a difference between day and night to even notice when a cycle had passed.

I find that odd because they felt distinct to me. Wow: Day/Night Cycle

All this talk of cheating the system and hackers shooting magic missiles at the darkness or whatever...If I drop a human with no lightsource into an underground tunnel, they are not going to be able to see anything...no matter how much you turn up the gamma.

Turning up the gamma isn't how the cheating works.

It has been a while and I'm making educated guesses at parts so I might be off a bit, but the principle I understand of how darkness is bypassed is because your computer is drawing the screen image you see every frame. That is for good reason because it would easily eat up all the game server's resources to draw the screen for every player.

Instead of drawing it for you, the game sends you the information for all the stuff you can possibly see (even if something is behind a wall, the server doesn't have an easy way (without a lot of calculations per player per thing) to determine if something is too far behind a corner for you to see or if it is just partially blocked by that corner (so you can see part of it).

If you spin around to see what is behind you, because of latency of information through the Internet you need to know that orc is behind you before you turn around toward him so that you computer can draw him as you are facing him and have him appear into existance a moment after you look into his direction. The game sends you everything you might see, including things your character isn't able to detect because it doesn't have the processing power to make that precise determination itself just based upon blocking walls and lack of strong light.

Now, since their computer has all that information, it is a "simple" enough hack to trick the game draw everything at normal light levels (or even draw things that would be hidden behind walls) even without a special monitor.

Also, one has to admit that comparing 4E to an MMO in light of Pathfinder actually producing an MMO in their image is rather funny, if not a bit hypocritical.

Again, in this thread, I find the comments like that to be the hypocritical ones.

They aren't making a Pathfinder RPG MMO.

A month ago, I would say that it would be considered laughable if someone used the existence of D&D Online as proof of 4th edition's MMO-ness. I do not believe that most of the people here would even consider that as a serious comparison.

For your statement to be true, either D&D Online had to be the entire argument from people doing the comparison (which isn't true) or the existence of on MMO based on your other products is anything like valid evidence for saying that those products are obviously more MMO-like (which up until now has found no ground in this sub-forum).

Also, while it doesn't completely negate the chance of the game starting in Sandpoint, reading the actual FAQ about the game show that the online world is focusing on an area several countries away from Sandpoint.

Most of the ant-4E stuff is reasonable really. I could comment more on that but won't. I admit I was wrong. I'm not one of those who hides behind free speech or that by saying it's opinion it makes my posts immunie to feedback or criticism. At the very least just wanted to give a taste of what some of us 4E fans have to endure here and elsewhere.

Thank you. I just wanted to remind that I am a 4e fan and a Pathfinder fan so I just don't want to deal with double grief being in the middle of it.