I feel exactly the same way as I feel about the full-weapon classes having six dedicated 'implement' slots that I would rather were available for weapon abilities.
A dedication bonus or special item that served e.g. both as a weapon and as a holy symbol, with a total of 12 slots distributed less rigorously between 'weapon' abilities and 'implement' abilities would be very cool, but only for players who use both implement abilities and weapon abilities because tradoffs: it would be bad design for there to be an item which was a better implement than the other implements and also a better weapon than the other implements. Since the regular implements aren't weapons at all, any dual-purpose item would have to have partial utilities less than the partial utilities of their counterparts in each purpose.
I meant, one thing that you could do if you had >8 players in a PvP encounter is to form more than one party, and get the benefits which apply to parties. Or were you asking if there was some additional extra benefit to having lots of people other than the ability to create a formation?
Form multiple parties, for one. Your opponents would have the same options and limitations that you do.
My prediction is that for the first two months after OE, a new player's first meaningful interaction will be with an evil character about twice as often as it is with a neutral or good character.
That's not a claim about population, only activity.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
If I read that right, there are some things that cannot be crafted in NPC settlements, but people who craft only in NPC settlements aren't useless or excessively gimped?
If the settlement has fallen and the extra effort won't stop the invaders, the noncombatants serve best by grabbing the things that can be evacuated and denying them to the invader. If they might turn defeat into victory, then they should probably try, but the premise to start was that the characters under discussion were unlikely to have a significant effect.
Thanks for answering the question that I asked.
Do you really believe that PFO has changed significantly as our shared (and often not-shared) understanding of what it will be has changed? I think that the actual design changes have been minimal, and that it is the models of PFO that exists only in our minds which have changed; because those models are influenced both by things outside of us (developer statements, other information) and things inside of us (intended playstyle, previous experience), those understandings are both imperfect (not reflecting all possible information) and variable (not the same as each other).
TLDR; PFO hasn't changed, even though what we think has changed.
Pax Areks wrote:
Let's just leave it at 'the group with the most properly equipped and trained combatants on the field is likely to carry the field'. There's a lot of variation on that one theme, but at least it's a point of agreement;.
I'm very unambiguous when I make policy statements. I was just mentioning that you had previously made statements on the subject, and that it would be inappropriate to let the discussion fester on the subject of the moderation polices.
I keep seeing the word "Expectation" thrown around here.
Everyone should realize that if you have an expectation that doesn't happen, it isn't the fault of the world. Any problem with unfulfilled expectations is a problem with the expectations, not the world.
All that is necessary for a school is a log with a teacher and a student on one side and a teacher and a student on the other side.
In times of scarcity, the log may be omitted.
Pax Areks wrote:
That's really not the point. If you've got a diviner who won't defend your settlement, you won't last as long as those that have diviners that do fight. Keep believing that those who don't want to fight won't ever have to.
You really refuse to see the point. The choice is NOT between having a crafter who fights and having a crafter who refuses to fight; the choice is between having a crafter who refuses to fight and not having him.
Settlement policies don't create members, they can only include or exclude people who already exist. I say that crafters, even if they are unwilling or unable to fight, are a positive addition to our settlement. I am not reducing the number of people who are willing to fight for us by making that statement, and regarding the edge case of people who don't want to fight but would be willing to do so if all settlements required it: Their contribution in a fight would likely be marginal, and we gain more by having ALL of them with us as noncombatants than we ever would gain from having a small fraction of them as reluctant combatants (not to mention that by getting all of them, we deny our enemies their small fraction of reluctant combatants).
Hi Goonies! You missed the party unfortunately, all of the hating for things that have happened in Eve Online is over. The most recent hating, also all over, is for the events and motivations around the creation of the d20 SRD.
The next round of hating is scheduled to begin about nine months from now, and will focus around how the investors are making 's*#~boatloads' of money off of Pathfinder Online, while the Kickstarter backers aren't getting jack, despite the fact that they 'came forth in droves when it was really needed' and how PFO 'wouldn't exist without their selfless and generous contributions'.
After that will be hating over balance issues and which base classes are planned in the short term, along with hating over the vague policy about banning various 'undesirables', with a running eugenics parallel which compares banning griefers with the Holocaust.
If you have a suggestion for how to hate on PFO, Goblinworks, or any Goblinworks employee or director, please file it in the appropriate location.
Tork Shaw wrote:
I think it might make more sense for there to exist some one-use items that can be also used to learn an ability, rather than having something intended to learn an ability be usable as a one-off. A scroll can be used to create a spellbook page for little cost, but turning a spellbook page into a scroll costs as much as the scroll. That doesn't matter much for Magic Missile, but the faucet for spellbook pages of Wail of the Banshee should be separate from the faucet for scrolls of the same.
He doesn't like PvP, I can't imagine that will be hard.
Your lack of imagination isn't important here. In the Zen sense, to truly dislike something, one must understand it well enough to love it first.
Oh, and, as above, even if we had a diviner who refused to fight, we would be better off than an opponent who lacks a diviner who refuses to fight.
Well, you've already made statements that Nihihon's "not one copper" stance on extortion will garner red status, and I can provide the mathematical justification for why publicly and credibly precommitting to such a stance is superior against rational opponents who cannot precommit. From that, I conclude that you are trying to commit as credibly as possible to be Nihimon's enemy if he continues with his Not One Copper policy.
Because I know that Nihimon will not back down from his policy even if rational games theory proves that he would be better off doing so, I conclude that it is harmful to question your commitment to declare him red for doing so; such a question is expected to result in a greater commitment from you, which has a negative effect on the expected outcome.
That is why I have no doubt that you will carry out your plan to be hostile to Nihimon's characters. The politics become problematic when discussing how your posture towards one of The Seventh Veil's leaders interacts with your position towards the organization, or how your posture towards either changes the political situation between them and the organization which you intend to use to shelter and harbor your activities.
Personally, I like the idea of Pax gaming and want to see them help create a healthy game. I think they can do that better without your 'help' than they can with it, and I am trying to cause them to see all of the same evidence I do so that they are likely to come to the same conclusion, as quickly as possible.
The Seventh Veil's position is that a settlement with an armorsmith who will not fight has an advantage over a settlement who has no armorsmith.
Only time and subjective judgement will tell which position is more correct.
Pax Charlie George wrote:
If I understand this clarification, your original statement was that you expect PFO to be written in a manner such that a character who lacks minimal defense skills is either not viable or not possible to create. Nihimon (and orginally I) interpreted that to mean that you expected there to exist a settlement policy requiring that.
I disagree with both statements; I expect that there exist some players who will have fun with a character who cannot PvP, and I further expect that there will be a way to advance a character for a long time without ever slotting a combat ability.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect players to reach shift, alt, and the number keys as well.
Really? Super caps and Titans can be converted to ISK? And nullsec corps let members mine, manufacture, and sell without giving the corp most of the ISK?
Are you saying that the crafters who work for large nullsec corporations make a lot of profit? There's minimal ISK to be made in eve commerce because there's a fairly low barrier to entry and not much that anyone can do to differentiate their products from anyone else's.
I expect for the richest crafters to be paid in things other than pure coin, at exchange rates far better than market price, by the richest PvE and PvP players, who are themselves paid in kind. The harvester who is repaid for his work with gear, training, and recognition is much happier than one who is given only coin, with which he must purchase his own gear and training (often from the very people who buy his raw materials). Likewise a PvE player who contributes to a bank of the items used to learn expendable skills can expect to learn more skills than one who buys and sells at an auction house.
The main reason to exalt PvP players is that players who focus on PvP tend to be the kind of person for whom exaltation is a terminal goal. (because that kind of person tends toward the PvP styles of play). Part of my goal in PFO is to make the small group of players who like PvP but aren't reminiscent of the Call of Warfare crowd a dominant faction within a small niche.
We have taken enough flak for not making policy statements, and this is topical and relevant and certain enough to make one.
It makes no sense to say that every member character must contribute to defense when needed, unless we are saying that we have no use for characters or players who lack the skills and inclination for a smaller subset of all gameplay.
Let's consider what we can do with only 1-6, alt, and shift. None of those are a reach from the 'gamers homerow' of WASD.
Six weapon abilities, six implement abilities, and six other abilities. Sounds like 1-6, alt1-6, and shift 1-6. Q and E fit well as swapping keys.
Downside: alt-1 requires dexterity to hit while holding WD; continuing to move while activating an ability is hard.
There is no way to resolve the dexterity problem, even though certain hardware can help.
Shane Gifford wrote:
The point is that effects limited to the RK area are perfectly compatible with there being no noticeable difference in PFS games.
Pax Pagan wrote:
Faction warfare will have no significant effect on the larger faction because neither the Church of Pharasma nor the Hellknights will significantly change their position in the large scale based on their interaction and influence in a small provincial territory dispute. The petty baronies and counties of the River Kingdoms have no influence outside of their territory.
That doesn't mean that within their territory in the RK, these changes aren't relatively important.
I hope that the comments used to craft the items that provide the highest expendable abilities are found only as escalation rewards or other high-level PvE play.
I'm not sure what the numbers would look like to make trading those via staged PvP looting unattractive; to have that characteristic would require setting a fairly low ceiling on the value of the ability.
I expect that the players with the highest win rate will typically be kitted out in the best gear available, and it will be a long tome before they spend much experience on learning to thread more of it. I also expect that they will be closely associated with a settlement that provides all of their equipment for them, and that the same group will be setting server-firsts in PvE combat.
I meant to imply that I only had experience with low-stakes situations, rather than with survival decisions. If a player thinks that the potential of their character losing gear is high enough stakes to panic, then there are other problems.
Which isn't to say that cutting and running in different directions isn't the proper action to take in some cases, nor that when it is the right thing to do one shouldn't execute that tactic without hesitation.
If the formation doesn't break when one member is incapacitated, the formation doesn't break if a member retreats. I've handled new paintball players and built loose formations out of them, mostly to make it non-obvious where the few experienced players are. (slow-moving marksmen down the center; fast, athletic, fearless kids down the flank; and sneaky bastards around the long way to behind the enemy). Having filled all four of those roles with both pneumatic phosphate-based paint and seminution, I can say that the formation doesn't fail only from a few losses. Things are probably different without the cannon fodder, or when there aren't many players of lower skill, or when the stakes are high.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Rather than make the negotiations PvE content, they could be selections of risk/reward; a choice of which solution set to use, rather than a solution set of itself.
A 'resolution' to an internal discussion which results in a change in policy already announced to outsiders is a policy change. I'm not going to say that a policy change is inappropriate in such circumstances- I think it's the very most appropriate thing to do.
That's part of why I have been slightly evasive and haven't been making hard policy statements; I fully expect that what I currently believe to be true will not be what I believe to be true at the beginning of EE.
So, when Bluddwolf said "Now the UNC may have a Red that is not Red to Pax, or vice versa. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.", he was mistaken?
One consequence of the interaction between all of these policy statements is that UNC may not behave in the manner they say is directed towards Red within the boundaries of the Xeilian Empire unless the Xeilian Empire considers those targets KOS. By extension, anyone NOT KOS to the Xeilian Empire is also not Red to UNC, as used here.
I expect there to exist settlements which allow the house bandits free rein within their borders. I further expect there to exist settlements which permit open hostilities between neutral third parties within their borders.
Most of all, I expect settlements to be able to implement laws such that assisting people who are being held up by the house bandits is criminal- but I don't expect anyone to actually set that law, because anarchy.
Shifted back from a tangent on another thread:
The only exception is the activities of our guards, army, and security forces.
If UNC stops you with the express purpose of conducting banditry they are operating outside of our agreement. If they stop you as a security action, they are operating as a security force and not a criminal element.
It can't get clearer than that.
Outside of Pax territory, Blue is still Blue. UNLESS Blue is trading with Pax's enemy, then Blue is Red.
Red is dead, inside or outside of Pax territory.
Now the UNC may have a Red that is not Red to Pax, or vice versa. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.
From my understanding then, Pax's security policy is that anyone hostile to UNC is subject to 'security interdiction', and/or Pax is hostile to them. Is my interpretation of the multiple interacting policy statements wrong?
Pax Charlie George wrote:
This is a change to my understanding of Pax policy as regards UNC banditry; previously, I understood that it was only people doing business with Pax who were prohibited targets. This clarification that banditry activities against any person in Pax territory not hostile to Pax are prohibited to all parties is a radical departure from my previous misunderstanding.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Well, "consuming calories". Since stored calories have very little useful value in the era of readily available food, I don't consider the expenditure costly.
If my total caloric intake were restricted, I might consider spending calories more stingily.