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

DeciusBrutus's page

4,250 posts. Alias of Daniel Powell 318.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,250 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

Now that we've identified the capacity and failure mode of the servers, making sure the servers don't regularly reach capacity should be a mostly-solved concern, right? I would be very surprised if scaling up required much more than bringing more hardware online.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Speculation: if you log off immediately and wait, the server sometimes catches up and saves your most recent state so that when you rejoin it catches you. If you stay in, expect that the new server that has you will save your new position.

Caveat: all of that is speculation based on incomplete information.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Just FYI, in the industry, "AAA" means "a budget at the top end of what similar games spend on development. It doesn't have anything to do with quality ratings. There are many "failed" AAA game that were just not good.

So the "top end" for MMOs today is between $100 million and $200 million, compared with Pathfinder Online at about $5 million.

That's the definition I'm familiar with.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Thanks for explaining how all of these presentations are a "desync" error.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

It feels like people want a short explanation that covers everything. If that were possible, the system wouldn't have the depth to keep people engaged for a long time.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Using that rating system, most AAA games aren't AA games. Lots of games are huge financial successes without being innovative at all (Assassins' Creed being several).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I belive each settlement will eventually be able to define access and facility usage rights on a rather fine scale. Early on, I suspect that it will be based on company membership.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I thought that AAA in game design referred to the production methodology; large teams working very hard to perfect small areas each.

The size of the "animations" team in some games is larger than all of Goblinworks.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogues being underpowered/harder to learn is a different problem.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:

@Calis

I feel quite the same way and I had higher hopes for the product at this point but up til recently I never really had any idea how many people are working on the game compared to ANY other AAA type title, and the low early production values are a consequence of starting wholly from scratch, coupled with how very few programmers they actually have at their command.

As RD has said, what we are seeing now is the kind of Alpha gameplay most games would see when they are still 2 years out from release, which to the GW timeframe is pretty close. We are playing Legos with a hand carved set of prototypes right now, not the production models.

"Other" AAA title? PFO isn't AAA.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I suspect that +2 will be more common than +3 to start, because it is moderately cheaper and provides the same benefit until well after T2 gear is in demand.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I doubt that making T1 +0 equipment will ever be profitable. One goal of having relatively high drop rates for starter gear is to make it very cheap.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf, I just painstakingly documented that for Fighters, Clerics and Rogues there is nothing you cannot train that requires you to take any Feats outside their core Role features. Including in the thread you're responding in. Please stop spreading misinformation.

I needed to train mining to get my constitution up, and I needed to get the mining achievement 2 in order to get mining 4 or 5, I forget which. So please tell me where this misinformation is?

(Emphasis added.

it isn't the way it used to be anymore.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

They will have (raw) material and (total) time costs about 10% and 15% lower.

Time costs are more different because it is faster to refine and faster to craft lower-quality stuff.

I also don't think it's wrong for the market price to be only moderately higher for +2 gear. The benefit to having it is fairly small in most cases.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Regarding pricing: I estimate about 5c per for T1 raw materials that are sourced locally, because that makes the reward per hour about the same for gathering as hunting. I figure finished goods prices will be based on material and time cost, but haven't figured how to quantify time cost.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Schedim wrote:

Perhaps hardening using of magic order essence, extra support by steelwires and runes written with green ink ...

Perhaps tempering the wood with weak acidic elixir after being scrubbed with brimstone and lastly dipped in potent lampoil ....

Or a pommel of an azure crystal, fasten in a silver clasp and treated with potent nettles...

Or actually all three reciep could exist ...

That's a good description of a wand recipe. Higher quality refined materials would provide lots of the flavorful description you use.

But pine batons are still made out of pine, it's just that you have to waste 30% or so of your logs to get only the +3 batons out of them.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

What would you add to the refining of +3 pine batons?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Armor tier increases defenses, roughly equal to weapon tier affecting attack roll.

Attacks outstrip defenses because each character can focus in one attack, but has to spread out defenses.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

You are welcome to join with Phaeros as well.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I ended up binding my PTT mouse button to scroll lock, and learned to double-tap when using a program that cares about scroll lock.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

4: crafting time is base time times quality squared divided by the product of facility rating and crafting skill.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

In addition to the vulnerability window not being set properly, they don't open when advertised. Currently seeing that the current one will open in minus twenty-one minutes.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

What is the game balance reason for it to be easier to descend then to ascend?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I think that there are kinds of server behavior that are perfectly acceptable in an Alpha test but not acceptable during a paid Beta. I agree that the current iteration is not ready for release, but I don't know what the iteration will be in two weeks.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the hints that the effects of the civilization that built the Emerald Spire have not been fully detailed yet. It feels like there might be a plan for the lore that hasn't been published, and hidden plans are much more exciting than actual plans.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The best addition to the AH right now would be the ability to view the current price of every crafting component for sale that has "Stock: Weak Adhesive".

Goblinworks Executive Founder

What's your activity cycle?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

This thread is now kitten pictures.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Shaibes wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Shaibes wrote:
Conceptually, I disagree with MOBS dropping recipes. If one assumes our trainers are sufficiently proficient to be training us in higher skill levels, it should be reasonable to assume that they themselves would be able to train us in higher-tier recipes. I could even see having to quest for a super awesome T3 recipe known only to a lone hermit crafter deep in the wilderness somewhere who demands a heavy toll for his knowledge... but random drops? No, that doesn't make sense to me.
What it sounds like you really want is for your character to be fully agenty and self-sufficient; you want a crafting character to be able to be nothing more than a crafting character and do all of the crafting with minimal support from other characters. Is that an accurate assessment of why you would prefer that crafters have to undergo a pilgrimage (or perhaps pay someone else to undergo the same pilgrimage repeatedly) in order to advance, rather than paying someone to fight level-appropriate monsters?

No, I want there to be some logical connection between my recipes and where I get them from. Why would some random monster have a scroll of parchment detailing how to craft a masterwork sword? Why wouldn't the high-level trainer back in the settlement have that same recipe or one similar to it? Now, if the trainer tells me "Gorok the Foul stole from my father and killed my sister--bring me his head and I will share the secret of silvered iron with you" THAT is a logical reason to go kill a boss. Just wandering around killing everything I see until I get the stuff I need is not immersive to me.

EDIT: Xeen understood what I was getting at correctly. I apologize if I didn't convey my opinion clearly enough in my earlier post.

That would lead to "queue here to Gorouk the Foul", or possibly a set of procedurally generated quests with a similar outcome.

It also requires that recipes be untradeable, or the emergent behavior is that a few people spam the recipe quests and sell the recipes, again yielding the outcome that everybody buys their recipe off the AH.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me that targeting a demographic that your competitors don't is a good business practice.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

This is a bad place for this entire discussion. There are so many people that are wrong and will have trouble admitting it, and the tribal affiliations and arguements as soldiers biases will shout down all of the actual discussion that is attempted.

Yes, I've said things here that break solidarity with the people who agree with me, by pointing out their biases. If that is a problem, it is part of the point.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Even the best equipment (especially the best equipment) requires resources that can be gathered with no training. If the price for T1 +2 weapons and armor rises significantly above the purchase cost of their refined materials, some entrepreneur(s) will start making it. Likewise if the price of the refined materials rises much above the cost of the raw materials.

I estimate that, with a fair profit all around, a fighter will be able to get a +2 weapon and armor for less than he can sell 100 combined iron and coal for (once T2 and T3 crafters are in operation, there will be plenty of dabblers who can make T1 equipment, and they will accept low margins).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Shaibes wrote:
Conceptually, I disagree with MOBS dropping recipes. If one assumes our trainers are sufficiently proficient to be training us in higher skill levels, it should be reasonable to assume that they themselves would be able to train us in higher-tier recipes. I could even see having to quest for a super awesome T3 recipe known only to a lone hermit crafter deep in the wilderness somewhere who demands a heavy toll for his knowledge... but random drops? No, that doesn't make sense to me.

What it sounds like you really want is for your character to be fully agenty and self-sufficient; you want a crafting character to be able to be nothing more than a crafting character and do all of the crafting with minimal support from other characters. Is that an accurate assessment of why you would prefer that crafters have to undergo a pilgrimage (or perhaps pay someone else to undergo the same pilgrimage repeatedly) in order to advance, rather than paying someone to fight level-appropriate monsters?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Lisa joined me...with her uber character of uberness.

So...you've just let Lisa play herself in-game, then, eh? :-D

Thank you very much for these write-ups, Ryan. Pleasepleaseplease, do the other two Roles as well, when you find the time and patience!

It goes better all around when nobody stands in the way of Lisa getting what Lisa wants. I can see a few things that are probably there because Lisa said so, like Goblin Bombers hurting other goblins enough to draw aggro.

At least, if that wasn't intentional, it's a feature now.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I don't know where they are, but it's the one with the adventurer skeletons.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I think that it's far too early to declare defeat. It is certainly late enough to start aggressively recruiting through all available channels. The slow sell that worked well enough when there was two years or more to let it work.

Right now to be viable, a settlement that has only a handful of members needs to be recruiting just as aggressively as one with a hundred, because the ones that are successful in six months will have around 500 members at least.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Settlements with few active members and lukewarm recruitment will quickly become non-factors, and will be quickly captured once they can be.

There's no way around that; a mechanic that encourages settlements to refuse members will hurt the players without helping other settlements,

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The forum software needs to authentice with the same system that the game server authenticates with. Most COTS software doesn't do that well, and it would take a lot of time to properly program and test to security standards a way to make a user-friendly system authenticate through a different method. I think two-factor authentication is expected at some point, and it would surprise me if it was more than a configuration setting to enable the GW website login to accept the new information required to log in.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

There is a lower level hellhound out there as well. It looks like the best possibility right now is the champion skeletons, who IIRC aren't escalation bosses.

A full party is highly recommended.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

There are apothecary recipes the use those chemicals.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Audoucet wrote:
Takasi wrote:

Could you legally force a refund right now? Have you consulted a lawyer? Do you have a foundation for the terms with which you would win a lawsuit that you could share with us here on the forums?

Even if you had unlimited time and energy to 'lose' to get back your 150 bucks, do you have a legitimate case in your region that entitles you to a refund?

I understand that it's possible to be entitled. However, are you actually entitled at this point? I would really like to know your specific current legal status based on the contract you signed for any purchases related to this game you've made thus far.

Also if you have time how that contract relates to this thread.

I'm entitled to a refund for anything not yet delivered. Even if I signed a contract saying otherwise.

I find that surprising; I thought contracts for future delivery were required for basic trade to happen at all.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

So basically Decius, what you are saying is the availability of accounts purchased during the first Kickstarter which people have come to regret exceeds the number of new players who are seriously excited for this title but missed the first Kickstarter over a year ago.

That we've lost more serious players than we've gained in that time.

This isn't raising any red flags to you?

I swear you and Nihimon will be in the middle of defending every decision GW has ever made when the server shuts down for good.

No. I said that everyone who wants to pay $85 for EE (and is rational and has knowledge) has already done so.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Audoucet wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Are you saying your 1600.00 investment was 16 post-kickstarter EE packs?

No, I am saying that I have : 500$ from the KS, 100$ for an EE access, and 900 to get the alpha update. And a few addons, I don't remember which ones because the GW interface sucks. And a DT I bought to someone who decided that he wouldn't play the game.

The 100$ EE is indeed a sold product.

$500 from the Tech Demo KS was for the Tech Demo to happen (it did) and for some physical goods, of which there were no major delivery problems I know of. Simply put, you got everything you paid for from that $500.

$100 for EE access is the standard purchase; you aren't in any deeper than anyone else.

Alpha access? Provided you have the ability to log in in alpha, you got everything you were ever even remotely promised. Alpha was never expected to be ready for release.

The best-founded complaint you have at the moment is that EE didn't start in q3 2014; it's slipped a month, so far. I hardly think that qualifies as being "stabbed in the back".

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Doc || Allegiant Gemcutters wrote:

Another issue is that when I run up to go kill a wolf or some mob, it seems that in every encounter, the first attempted strike I try does nothing. I'll click the button or press "1" but nothing happens.

So, I end up mashing the "1" key in an attempt to get that first strike to fire.

Since there is no auto-attack mode like in WoW, and you have to manually initiate each attack, this first strike really needs to be fluid and work as expected when called.

When it doesn't it basically means I lose a fight with an equally matched opponent because they get in several hits before my first one finally fires.

Wolves in particular will cause knockdown with their initial attack. Most archers will interrupt your attack if you are granting opportunity.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
randomwalker wrote:
randomwalker wrote:

I'd probably prefer the brute force in this case

scratch that. The analytical problem for the first part is simple enough i could do it with pen and paper while supposed to read work emails, so I'd probably try finesse before force (still no monte carlo though).

Spoiler:
for 3 dN (with N^3 possible outcomes),
the #outcomes that has a certain dice=x is

#low(x)= (N+1-x)^3 - (N-x)^3
#high(x)= x^3 - (x-1)^3
#middle(x) = 6x (N+1-x) - 3(N+1) +1

The middle one was a bit tricky, so feel free to confirm it independently. Doing it for a d20 in excel gives a checksum of 8000 and the right averages in each column, though.

Checking your math on "middle":

Spoiler:
Out of N^3 trails, the expected number for X is equal to the number of times there is at least one value of exactly X, at least one additional value at most X, and at least one additional value at least X.

All permutations of that are: X,X,X; X,X,<X (3 permutations); X,X,>X(3 permutations); X,<X,>X(6 permutations);

The frequency (number of times the outcome happens in N^3 rolls, for each X) of X,X,X is 1 (Every X will come up triples once).
For X,X,<X, it is x-1 (the frequency out of n of rolling less than x; because there are 3 ways to get two the same and one lower, the total frequency is 3x-3

By similar mathX,X,>X has total freqency 3n-3x.

The frequency of X, <X, >X comes out to 1*(x-1)*(n-x). Six permutations contribute -6X^2+6xn+6x-6n

Summing the frequencies, I get 1+3x-3+3n-3x-6xx+6xn+6x-6n
simplify: -6xx+6xn+6x-3n-2

I can factor that to 6x(-x+n+1)-3(n+1)+1


math checks out.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

Oh btw I actually sold the Idris for 3400$. So I got over three times what I paid for it.

Source

That other games are capable of doing that while DTs seem to actually be falling price should be a huge red flag to anyone who really cares about this game at all.

It doesn't surprise me that you would be able to sell a collector's item for a 200% markup after sales end.

The target market right now for DT accounts is "People who want to play PFO EE but have not already purchased an account and are at least above standard in the amount of money they want to spend."

In order to find someone in that market, you basically have to market the game and sell it to a new customer. That's a challenge even for people who are skilled at making people believe that they want what they are selling. When you add the difficulty of overcoming the appearance of fraud that is presented when you try to sell an account that fell off of the back of a truck, it's probably literally impossible.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the problem is demand outstripping supply, there should still be buy orders for those things.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Andius the Afflicted wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Andius - I'm really curious about your comments about graphics.

I've looked at this game and the graphics seem neither meaningfully better or worse than ours. What is it about Life is Feudal's graphics that has grabbed your attention?

A look at Life Is Feudal's graphics and a brief look at terraforming.

Summary of differences noted:

+Lens flare
+Render distance for terrain
+Water
+Trees
+Ground vegetation

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Tyncale wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Tyncale wrote:
Maybe that Trader is not even planning on collecting the goods he buys...

As long as the money is transferred immediately when the Buy Order is placed, that shouldn't be a problem.

Tyncale wrote:
Since physical presence is not needed, a lot of gamemechanics are being circumvented, like Reputation, Alignment, Faction, Wars and Feuds.
That's a really good point, and compelling enough for me to change my mind. As long as the information is available, I don't see a lot of downside in there being a possibility that someone else will have already bought the goods you traveled to get. However, I do see a lot of downside in letting folks buy something remotely when they wouldn't be allowed in the Settlement to buy it directly.

He lost the money, but he does not really care because he is so rich. I am talking about someone who is consistently buying every resource of a certain AH up untill a certain price, basically wrecking that AH for local users. Obviously the sellers on that AH will put up those resources at ever higher prices, untill that remote buyer reaches his cutoff point, but at that point the AH has become useless for local buyers who now have to buy coal at 3 silver a piece, instead of the normal 10-30 copper. So now they have to resort to direct trading, rendering their costly AH useless.

And in the end, the buyer still has that cache of Coal stored there, and may well be able to somehow move the goods out of there too.

Superrich dude + remote buying feature + no way to block/restrict access to your AH = potential for Economic griefing.

So either no remote buying, or Settlements should be able to opt out of the GLobal buying thing. That seems like a pretty easy fix. If you want lots of potential buyers from around the world, take the risk and open up your AH; if you do not want people to mess with your AH, then close it off. Or just open it up to friendly folk: members of friendly settlements, certain factions,...

That's not economic griefing, it's bad business. Or possibly good business. If someone wants to drive the price up, provide him all he offers to buy.

Likewise if someone tries to dump the price, buy it and relist it at the market price.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bob Settles wrote:

The escalations have been designed so that a party of 4-6 characters can drop the escalation strength by one phase (usually about 20%) in 2-3 hours of dedicated play. That assumes the party is strong enough to clear even the large encounters reasonably quickly and without constantly taking losses. Most new escalations start out at about 20% strength, so a party should be able to wipe out a fresh escalation in one evening. If the escalation reached 100%, it should take 5 times as long, or 5 parties spreading out the work.

The numbers seem to meet that goal in the early stages of an escalation, but are getting out of whack when escalations hit 100% in lots of hexes. I'm reviewing the reinforcement numbers to bring things back in line, hopefully without slowing the spread of escalations too much.

That feels about right from my experience. One problem is that several of the escalations I have seen have been impossible for any party to complete reliably without dying or becoming more skilled and better equipped than XP allows.(Ustalav invaders, Undeath squads, Skeleton rangers)

Would it be unreasonable to have/modify an escalation so that the typical large spawn is about as difficult as one of the large spawns of bandit( recruit)( archer)s without a bandit captain, or the goblin spawn with a bomber, a shaman, and a subchief? Players used to theme park mentality will have the idea that if they are allowed to attempt something, they should probably be able to do it.

Maybe I'm being a little bit selfish as well; having a paradigm where players can learn the basics of communication and gameplay where learning is positively reinforced is part of several of my plans, and a noob escalation hits several of those wickets.

1 to 50 of 4,250 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.