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

3,310 posts. Alias of Daniel Powell 318.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,310 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

Where the more detailed map differs from the Land Rush map, which one is more likely to be correct?

I understand that everything is subject to change, but there appears to have been a significant amount of effort put into the details of this map, and the gross geography is based on Paizo campaign materials. Is it reasonable to conclude that the playable map area will expand to the area in that map before it extends much beyond the described area?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Kennedy hills are well situated near a major crossroads and can serve as a trade hub. Easy access cuts both ways, however, and there seems to be no way to prevent raiders from coming off of the road into the region. There's little variation in terrain type, so the area must rely on trade for most of their imports.

The Monopole plains contain virtually all of the arable land in the region, but very little else. Again, ease of transportation and security are mutually exclusive, and the road serves both to make exporting easy and to make defending from raiders difficult.

The Caged forest has the mixed blessing of being harder to reach, while remaining close to the expected trade hub in the Kennedy hills. While there is plenty of room for future expansion northwards, that area is limited to more forests. (assuming the lack of a settlement site at -11, -9 is not an error, there is more than enough lebensraum to the north)

The HI mountain seems very interesting. The settlements have easy access to transportation, but poor access to the mountain itself; the nearby road offers easier access than the settlements near the foothills. I anticipate a lot of failed attempts to prevent people from claim-jumping in the mountain itself. Even discounting the mountain, however, the settlments have a fairly large and slightly varied area of fair control. They also suffer from the effects of having lots of major road access.

The Waa mountain suffers from the opposite characteristic; there is a handful of choke points to prevent access into and out of the area. I expect exporting from and importing t the Waa region to be a difficult process simply because there are relatively few ways out or alternate sources.

The Extraq forest region seems fairly average. The terrain is differentiated enough to keep it from being monotonous, but probably not enough to meet local demand for anything except forest materials. It is close enough to the major road for travel, but mostly far enough away that raiders will not normally choose to penetrate deeply. With no choke points, the only thing keeping raiders away would be the travel time.

The Lake Suzy region differs only in that transportation is more difficult, both ways. Choke points on the treeline around FTI make transportation and raiding more difficult by making interdiction harder to avoid.

The Acadaby mountains (like 'academy' spoken with a bad cold) are fairly close to every terrain type except starting cities and roads. It might be the nearest area that can be almost self-sufficient, and with long supply lines that must traverse multiple choke points and other areas, it might have to fend for itself for an extended period of time.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Preliminary region identifiers:

The MONoPoLe plains, north and west of Fort Inevitable.

The JFK hills, also known as the Kennedy hills, north of there.

The CaGED forest north and east of the hills.

The HI mountain zone.

The ABbey hills, northeast of Thornkeep.

The WAA mountain, southeast of Thornkeep.

The eXTRaQ forest area west of the WAA mountain.

The lake SUZY region.

and the ACADABy mountain zone.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

...

  • Be exceptionally wary of anyone who doesn't respond to your hails in a friendly manner.
  • That would only be useful if responding to hails in a friendly manner and then attacking was expensive. It seems like a tiny adjustment to the Reputation system to make it so.

    What about players who don't use chat channels? How does the system decide what is "a friendly manner"?

    We don't know what kind of an adjustment to the reputation system it will be, because we don't know how or to what extent the reputation system will work. I see no reason to believe that the reputation system will likewise be at a MVP state for much of EE. If it is sufficient in that state, I would hope that GW put all of their energies into getting the settlement warfare system running in time for OE.

    I'd make it a system command. The point is to make it expensive signaling, which means it has to have a cost.

    Another option would be to make the greeting something that reveals something about how recently the greeting character has attacked another player character. If a character waves to you with a bloody hand, it might be more of a threat than a reassurance.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Nihimon wrote:

    ...

  • Be exceptionally wary of anyone who doesn't respond to your hails in a friendly manner.
  • That would only be useful if responding to hails in a friendly manner and then attacking was expensive. It seems like a tiny adjustment to the Reputation system to make it so.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    (Remember, I'm not a GW employee)

    Suppose that the bug in question is "If five or more characters attempt to remove the last stacked item from storage at the same heartbeat, only three of them fail to withdraw the item; the others all grab it."

    There's the possibility that this could be used accidentally without noticing: A smallish company returns from an outing and all start grabbing potions as fast as possible, and it's likely that eventually they might meet the apparently unlikely condition.

    It's also quite clearly possible to abuse it intentionally.

    By basic logic, there's some area in the middle where it's not obvious whether a group accidentally duplicated, was attempting to abuse the system, or was doing something misguided like trying to figure out the exact conditions under which an exploitable bug occurred (I assume that replicating a non-exploitable bug and reporting the exact conditions under which it happens is desired, which could be legitimately confusing to some people)

    The response must be based on several different tiers of response, with the full knowledge that there will be both false positives and false negatives involved. Burning every character of every account that was involved in an item duplication event is probably overresponding. If there's a detectable economic disruption, not burning any characters is probably underresponding unless they cannot be identified.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Bluddwolf wrote:

    Every merchant will need one of these

    Scale for Measurement

    That gets you a unit of mass, but what you need for length is the Smoot.

    Volume is of course measured in olympic swimming pools, (1 olympic swimming pool=500 cubic Smoots) for larger volumes, Superdomes: 1 Superdome=900,000 cubic smoots.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Nihimon wrote:
    Bringslite wrote:
    I went out into the danger zones (in DFUW) often, as did many of the Goblin Squad. I went alone a great majority of the time. I made it back to "bank" my goodies 80 - 90% of the time.

    Just in case it's not clear by my saying "most of the people try to kill you most of the time", I'm really not talking about the rate of "outings without being killed". I'm talking about, if you see 10 non-allies while you're away from the safe zones, do 7 of them try to kill you?

    And yeah, I've gotten for a very long time that there will be lots of PvP in PFO. Please don't let the way some folks like to talk about my motives lull you into thinking I don't want a PvP game.

    There's probably a nonzero amount of selection bias, in that you notice every character that attacks you but possibly not all of the ones that don't.

    But by and large, the biggest positive factor in my safety on extended outings was the low population.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Bluddwolf wrote:
    DeciusBrutus wrote:


    That's the wrong scenario. The right scenario is "N. Ewbie wanders outside the marshal-patrolled area because he saw an interesting rock formation out there and he wants to play around on it. Somebody sees him and kills him."

    That is the expected outcome of being noticed playing around near interesting scenery in Darkfall. If there was interesting nullsec scenery in Eve, that would be the expected outcome of gawking at it. It should not be expected that gawking at scenery in PFO will result in getting attacked.

    Having played both games, Darkfall for about 6 months and EvE Online for over 9 years, this false characterization is the problem here on the PFO forums. Not only will PFO be different from those games, but those games are different from those games, based on your description.

    The Boogey Man does not exist or is represented by such a small population it can be largely ignored. There will be do few Boogey Men, that GW will be able to deal with them. For those that slip through, your player grouping will have all if the tools they need to exact revenge.

    (nesting fixed)

    Go back into Darkfall, walk from a starting city out until you see an interesting feature outside the green zone, and explore and play with it the way an Explorer playstyle would. How many players would see you and not attack before a player attacked you?

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Are the hex boundaries from -7,4 to -7,5 and -6,5 passable or not? Likewise is 1,18 in the higher elevation, lower elevation, or bridging the two?

    The newer map disagrees with the prior one on -16,8 and -18,8; I think that the more recently published one has the correct meteorite hex location, based on the patterns I see across the board.

    But the pattern I see is broken in other places: -6,-24; -28,-20;5,-16;-31,-14; -10,-7; -27,29; and the southern border all break the rule of "Exactly two settlement sites two hexes distant, with a third three hexes distant where feasible.

    Many of those impact sites are near protected roads and/or starting areas, while others are on blocking terrain, but I cannot reconcile -10,-7 with either a rule nor an obvious exception.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Nihimon wrote:
    Sadurian wrote:
    I would be happier if units of measurement had archaic names. It doesn't really matter what they represent as everything in the game is abstracted anyhow.
    This. I wouldn't even mind if you simply renamed "meters" to "feet" or "yards" and "kilometers" to "miles" or "leagues". It wouldn't make the slightest difference to me that those distances didn't correspond to their real-world namesakes, and it doesn't matter to me in the slightest whether you decide to make a league equal to 1,000 feet, or a mile equal to 1,000 yards, or any other combination.

    A 1000 foot mine would be a serious problem for me. A 2000 yard mile would be less so, as would a 5000 foot mile. Likewise a currency that had 10 shillings to the pound sterling would be a Very Bad Thing.

    If you're going to use a set of units in order to be compatible with prior art, you need to use them consistently with the prior art.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Urman wrote:

    @Nihimon, from your quote above:

    Ryan Dancey wrote:
    In order to do that we must repeatedly and powerfully shock the system. One of those shocks is a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development.

    If Brighthaven/TEO has a group harvesting nodes in a skymetal hex, those harvesters might be getting some good wealth. A competing settlement or company might enter into PvP legitimately, and the two groups might kill each other early and often. This is fine, working as intended.

    Joe Dirt the Ragman and his party of ragpickers might enter the hex and try to kill and steal from the harvesters. If they keep coming back, any 'unsanctioned' attacks are going to drive down the ragpickers' Rep. This will disadvantage those characters as well as putting them into a 'practically free to attack' status.

    So yes, I'd hazard that the rep loss mechanic, as well as other shocks, may well change the pattern.

    That's the wrong scenario. The right scenario is "N. Ewbie wanders outside the marshal-patrolled area because he saw an interesting rock formation out there and he wants to play around on it. Somebody sees him and kills him."

    That is the expected outcome of being noticed playing around near interesting scenery in Darkfall. If there was interesting nullsec scenery in Eve, that would be the expected outcome of gawking at it. It should not be expected that gawking at scenery in PFO will result in getting attacked.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Thanks Stephen. The map with updated hex numbers will be out shortly.

    Probably even sooner than the one I'm working on...

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Nihimon wrote:
    Bluddwolf wrote:
    "In low risk areas" translates to the NPC Starter zones...

    I understand that's your definition, but I don't think it's the definition.

    I think most people recognize that "low risk areas" really means places that: aren't intentional conflict zones; don't have extremely valuable resources; and aren't claimed by your enemies or by groups that are known to be hostile to strangers.

    I would say that 'low-risk areas' are the areas in which you are not likely to be attacked. I don't expect the developers' intent to be perfectly executed, so I expect there to be a small number of areas that were intended to be low-risk that aren't, and a small number of areas that were intended to be high-risk that aren't.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Urman wrote:
    Stephen Cheney wrote:
    Also, if you get an XYZ coordinate and compare it to another one, the delta of the two will probably be metric, no matter whether we show you a waypoint in feet, yards, or miles.
    Nods. Surveying in the US uses decimal feet just fine.

    To the point that I once had to learn how to convert from decimal feet to eighths of an inch in my head. I'd much, much rather convert from decimal meters to millimeters.

    I wouldn't have a problem with rounding a meter to 3 feet for conversion purposes. I doubt that less than a 10% distortion would even be detectable considering the artistic scale conventions involved.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Linked map for easier reference.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    You say that you've abandoned song titles, but I know better. Don't worry, I won't judge you for your taste in music.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Think of the blog as a birthday present.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Bluddwolf wrote:

    There is a difference between a member, even an officer, sabotaging or stealing from within and the Settlement / Guild leader / Admin of the player organization doing it,

    Really? What is the difference?

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Bluddwolf wrote:

    @ Being

    So you are under the assumption that GW will clearly identify griefing and attach mechanics to punishing those actions. That runs counter to what they have said.

    If the program can not identify the emotional state of the victim, it can not identify the motive of the perpetrator either. At the very core of the definition of griefing is "intent". It is not measurable or quantifiable, but subjective.

    That's exactly what they said they would do. What they won't do is clearly identify griefing in advance, nor rely on programmed responses.

    I believe that intent is "objective but not practical to directly measure." For practical purposes, that might simplify to "subjective", but it does not simplify to "every stated position is equally correct."

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Bluddwolf wrote:
    Nihimon wrote:
    Tuncale wrote:
    Unless there is a huge difference in carry-capacity between the killer and victim...
    Folks specializing in transporting goods will no doubt have increased inventory space equipped, while folks specialized in killing them probably won't.
    Not in the case of groups that focus on killing and looting.

    Those groups will get wiped by the groups that focus on killing alone. Opportunity cost is a thing.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    I don't think that at the party scale there's anything better than the freedom to kill the offender and boo his Reputation through the universal Reputation rules.

    I wonder if there's an appropriate place for some kind of flag applied by a Settlement's leaders to an ex-member of the settlement...

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Oathbreaker is problematic unless it references the River Freedom "Oathbreakers die."

    That in itself indicates possibilities.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    If there's a good reason for there to be valuable stuff left on the corpse unattended and no good reason to guard it, then camping the corpse is possible.

    Most MMOs have the reasons "you can't take it" and "you get nothing for sticking around". If the reasons are "you can't carry it all right away" and "someone else (including the previous owner) might take it", then leaving a guard on the body might be a reasonable behavior. Other reasonable behaviors would include coming out in force.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    So, consider the possibility of a Traitor flag, which is for roughly the same things with player organizations.

    What would the requirements to apply such a flag, how long should it last, and what should the effect be?

    Also, is there better terminology than Traitor? It seems hard to distinguish from Betrayer and I could understand confusion about the differences.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Bluddwolf wrote:
    Nihimon wrote:
    Bluddwolf wrote:
    They (his group) probably feel he is useless dead weight as well.
    Why is it so easy for you to insult people? I would genuinely feel bad about myself if I'd said something like that, yet it seems incredibly easy for you.

    I found it easy in his case because he is not a team player and his question was based in selfishness. His real desire in that question was to get at least one Dev to affirm that players should not have choices and that the Trinity is the best way to go. Most of all his complaint was that other players in his group were healing themselves, and he had a problem with that.

    It just harkened back to my last days in WoW when I could not get into a raid group as a dual wield warrior because I was more dps oriented and I did not have taunt trained. Players telling other players how they should play or how they should be spec'ed out just rubs me the wrong way.

    I admire your ability to deconstruct motives of a person from ten seconds of audio. When you have the chance to verify your conclusions, how often are they accurate?

    I don't think a limited slot in a WoW raid can be given to someone who doesn't meet the needs of the raid. If the raid has enough DPS and needs a tank, it can't afford to bring in a hybrid DPS/tank. Not having puzzle-based raids with gear and Ability quotas means that your particular problem shouldn't even be easy to express.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Bluddwolf wrote:
    Nihimon wrote:
    Bluddwolf wrote:
    On a final note, I did not say I would corpse camp. I said "if I were to corpse camp, this is how I would do it."
    You're right, I misread you. For what it's worth, if I were to corpse camp someone in the way you described, I would sincerely hope the GMs would give me a stern talking-to.

    The problem I have with your perspective Nihimon is, you always seem to turn to GMs and game mechanics to solve problems.

    Corpse camping is best stopped by players cutting their losses and not returning to get the junk left behind if anything at all. GMs have more important things to do then to tell corpse campers what not to do, on the other side of that equation.

    In an MMO with heavy emphasis On PvP, a certain amoun of self reliance or player group reliance are needed, otherwise you lose the sandbox and you might as well lose the MMO. This is why theme parks end up being almost completely solo game play. The only two multiplayer aspects are raid grinding for end game loot and chat channels.

    I think a more effective way to handle corpse campers would be to tell the factional or feud enemies of the transgressor where, how well equipped, and with how large a group he is camping said corpse.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Audience member wrote:

    I feel that the identity of classes is being lost. I mean, when I used to play in a group I was the cleric, I was the healer and I wanted to be THE healer. And now every class can heal, you click a button and change your talent spec and the tank's the healer now. I think that's a very bad thing because I don't feel like I'm contributing anything to the group.

    Do you feel the same way?

    Ryan Dancey wrote:
    Yes.

    :)

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Bluddwolf wrote:
    "If I were to...." Some how you two keep missing that. Is it by choice or just poor reading comprehension?

    I might certainly be interpreting your word choice in accordance with standard practice.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Bluddwolf wrote:
    Nihimon wrote:
    Something really rubs me the wrong way about Bluddwolf's warnings about never returning to your corpse because it encourages corpse-campers, and that Bluddwolf himself is the kind of player who gets off on corpse-camping. (Though, no doubt, he's only doing it to help the pour souls learn how to play a PvP game)

    Perhaps it rubs you the wrong way because it makes no sense for me to warn about something, that I intend to trap you or others with.

    Maybe you should take it for what it was meant for, a genuine warning for those who know little of the tricks and traps of PvP based MMOs.

    Although I hope that the River Kingdoms (PFO) will be a dangerous, and treacherous place to tread, I want new players to understand that upfront.

    On a final note, I did not say I would corpse camp. I said "if I were to corpse camp, this is how I would do it." I'm sure someone will take it out of context, maybe a year from now and try to smear me a griefer.... Lol!

    Bluddwolf wrote:


    If it becomes standard practice for players to return to their corpses, it will become standard practice for their corpses to be camped. If I were to do such a thing, I would sit by the corpse and wait for the owner to show up. If he or she should show up, I immediately loot from the corpse and get the thief / criminal flag. Then hope the player is foolish enough or underpowered / outnumbered enough to attack.

    What I certainly might do is set up a blind right on top of your corpse, and attack the second you enter or SAD you.

    I guess setting up a blind on top of a corpse isn't "corpse camping"?

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Jiminy wrote:
    DeciusBrutus wrote:
    Start a thread on economic PvP, list some behaviors that you think might result in players getting frustrated and quitting, and discuss ways that those behaviors might be discouraged.

    The reason I haven't started a separate thread is...

    Bluddwolf wrote:
    There is no need for GW to try to regulate economic PvP, the players can handle it on our own.

    The thing is though, players can do this with combat oriented PvP also, but everyone seems too worried about the solo gatherer or merchant not being able to participate in combat that they want all manner of restrictions and regulations put in place. Yet, look at it from the other side of the coin - a solo hedge knight wandering the countryside not being able to buy any good gear, because some enterprising company has cornered the market for a particular metal and hiked prices through the roof which in turn forced crafters to raise their prices.

    The hedge knight has zero ability (solo) to do anything about the economic situation going on, just the same as a gatherer can do little (solo) about roving bandits. Yet, these bandits can get alignment shifts, reputation losses, death curses and all manner of mechanics levered against them (the stick). What do the people playing the market get for interfering with the ability of the hedge knight to play solo?

    In any case, I'm not too worried about economic or social PvP - and definitely not worried enough to start an entire thread on the topic. I am more trying to bring into the picture the fact that PvP is about conflict, and conflict is more than just simple combat. Hopefully people will think of that when calling for mechanics such as reputation loss simply for being a bandit and playing a role within the game.

    Considering that their methods would have to include ganking the reference case hedge knight consistently (or else he simply harvests enough of the metal in question himself), I think that additional controls regarding for-profit warfare aren't particularly needed.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Bluddwolf wrote:

    @Urman

    We are talking about different things. I was strictly speaking if returning to a corpse to recover what might have been left behind. Believe it or not, I have sen this a number if times in several MMOs.

    What you are speaking of is returning to a resource node or some other location, where your corpse just happens to be as well.

    Once you have been killed, your corpse becomes a resource node. Anyone camping it has to defend it against all comers, not just you.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Ryan Dancey wrote:

    Other than the reward for completing an Escalation there are no current plans for "PvE" gated content. There are no raids or similar constructs in the current design.

    The most dangerous opponents will be other player characters, not monsters.

    The most dangerous player characters will be in the hexes where those characters face no NPC law enforcement, and where the interior lines of communication with nearby Settlements will be most lengthy.

    How are "raids or similar content" different from the Dungeons and Ruins that are expected to require many groups and an extended period of exploration?

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Jiminy wrote:
    DeciusBrutus wrote:
    By what actions are the merchants cornering the market, price gouging, and driving their competitors out of business? I see only two ways- one is buying all of the supply of a given input, which requires that they pay more per unit than anyone else can. The other is to target competitors with frank banditry.
    I can think of a few other methods, but the point I was making was, that if they even attempt it, they're participating in PvP. Conflict is at the root of combat, as it is at the root of several other mechanics in the game. I am concerned everyone seems to worry about the band of roving bandits and creating rules or regulations to ensure they don't run rampant, but completely ignore they other 'PvP' aspects of the game - most likely in a deliberate manner as banditry is not their preferred gameplay style, whereas other styles are, and bandits will potentially impinge on their styles.

    Start a thread on economic PvP, list some behaviors that you think might result in players getting frustrated and quitting, and discuss ways that those behaviors might be discouraged.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    linkified.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Bluddwolf wrote:
    DeciusBrutus wrote:


    The implication I read in the stateless statement was that top-tier resources would be gated behind the most difficult PvE content. Very few people would attempt to complete the hardest escalation bosses, while very many people would take harvesting kits into zones that were FFA PvP. (At the very least, it would never be the case that nobody tried to harvest in such zones because of the number of bandits...)

    Can you try restating this is a less convoluted way? Your posts often lose their value when they have to be read 5 times, and they still can be taken 20 different ways.

    @ Ryan,

    I find it hard to believe you would be uncertain of what our interpretation of FFA meant. It is a pretty standardized definition in MMO circles.

    Usually FFA is also combined with Full Loot, which is generally considered "Hard Core PvP Rules" (EvE Online Null Sec for example). Then you can also have FFA + FL + Permanent Death for a "Nightmare Mode". I am however unaware of any MMOs with that rule set, or server type.

    What are three ways you could take the post that prompted this, without being uncharitable?

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Nihimon wrote:
    Ryan Dancey wrote:
    There has been no discussion as a group about the idea of Hexes without Reputation and Alignment effects, if that is what you mean by "free for all".

    That is what we mean :)

    The overall impression I have right now is that FFA (consequence-free / every is flagged to everyone) PvP zones might be in the game, and they might have resources that can't be found elsewhere, but they aren't a major part of the design vision and probably won't show up until we've had a chance to heavily influence them via Crowdforging.

    The implication I read in the stateless statement was that top-tier resources would be gated behind the most difficult PvE content. Very few people would attempt to complete the hardest escalation bosses, while very many people would take harvesting kits into zones that were FFA PvP. (At the very least, it would never be the case that nobody tried to harvest in such zones because of the number of bandits...)

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Banesama wrote:
    DeciusBrutus wrote:
    But there WILL be some stuff that is hard to acquire for done reason or other, and I'm willing to bet that there will at some point be an opportunistic gang waiting along the return path from that stuff to try to get some the "easy" way.
    Good reason why not to take the easy straight path hope. Go the round-about way and do variously different ways each trip.

    And the effective bandits will be waiting along the circuitous route you take, and won't waste time on the ambush spots you avoid. #infiniterecursion.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Traianus Decius Aureus wrote:
    Being wrote:

    There is a potential downside unless it is well considered: the game will not know whether you are heading back to loot your corpse or not.

    Soon we would survey the fields of the dead everywhere, as far as the eye can see. Corpses, stacked to the lower branches of small trees, everywhere.

    A necromancer would chortle with glee.

    Don't most games that give you the ability to return and loot your corpse have a timer? I was under the impression you had 15 to 30 mins to get back to loot it before it was despawned. Outside of a really big battle, I can't imagine there would be a lot of bodies anywhere for more than a really short amount of time.

    And once the battle is over, the victors would loot the corpses of the fallen. I assume that they would despawn when looted.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    But there WILL be some stuff that is hard to acquire for done reason or other, and I'm willing to bet that there will at some point be an opportunistic gang waiting along the return path from that stuff to try to get some the "easy" way.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    So then, it's all about the experience. The coin is incidental.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Where I think he's specifically saying that he's not saying it, but without saying that he's saying that he's not saying it.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Ryan Dancey wrote:
    The easiest way to get gear will be to buy it on the markets. Only a limited subsection of characters will go to the places where the most exotic materials are harvested, and brave the dangers of those locations.

    That reads like a marketing professional wrote it to be deliberately noncommittal regarding the point at hand. Because I can justify reading it at least three different ways.

    Well done sir.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I won't be at PAX East this year, so I can't provide the low-quality video I was able to last year.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Bluddwolf wrote:
    Nihimon wrote:
    Bluddwolf wrote:
    If one group some how manages to dominate the world through legitimate means, I'd have an issue of GMs stepping in and plaguing them with artificial mishaps to undermine what they have built.
    If one group somehow manages to dominate the game and causes the culture to significantly degenerate to something toxic, Goblinworks damned well better step in and do something before it gets to the point where Ryan feels the only solution is to shut down the servers.

    You don't recognize bluster when you see it?

    Goblin Works is a business and it's business is to make money. If PFO is turning a substantial profit, there will be no shutting it down because of any feeling that it is not what was intended as part of his vision.

    I have seen plenty of Lead Project Designers or CEOs go, while the product lives on. This is particularly true in the MMO industry.

    You emphasized the wrong part. I would expect the proper response would be to close whatever loophole allowed one group to become dominant enough to degenerate game-wide culture.

    Even a Nation that controls more than half of the Hexes might not be dominant enough to inform overall culture, especially if they aren't uniform in their own culture.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Bluddwolf wrote:
    Nihimon wrote:
    Nihimon wrote:
    If you're being attacked by one or more characters in melee range, and your target is not one of those characters, I think you should take significant penalties to both your attack and your defense.
    Thinking about this more, my intuition is that only two or three attackers should gain the benefits from attacking you while you're not targeting them. Any more than that and their attacks should start actually degrading. I think this should apply whether they're ranged or melee.

    For melee attacks I could understand diminishing effective hit potential (attacks never miss, but don't always have effect), however ranged combat does not hold the same reasonable explanation.

    With too many melee attackers, they could actually get in each other's way or they would have to be mindful of their swings so as not to hit each other accidentally (in theory not in game mechanics).

    A target can however be hit by a dozen or more arrows, and there is no rational reason why they should not all have the same chance of hitting or each doing its maximum potential in damage.

    Degrading attacks for multiple attackers isn't a nod to 'realism', it's intended to make concentrating attacks on one target an interesting decision rather than a foregone conclusion.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Lifedragn wrote:
    Bluddwolf wrote:
    I'm just glad that when I kill a bear in the woods, it won't drop a +1 battle ax!
    This bear wants to know why he can't keep his axe.

    I'm not going to try to take it from him...

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Bluddwolf wrote:
    Lam wrote:

    Many months ago I proposed a protection racket to Bluddwolf for one of my alts. It needed some tuning. It might have had flow of material and wealth with reduced risk. Bluddwolf was not interested -- not even worth exploring. Too interested in the actual Bandit encounter.

    It is not about SAD (that came later). It is about the robbing and dominating the victims.

    Xeen has said as much. They will overpower and ravage the weak, not because of any philosophical reason, but because they can wreak havoc on the weak.

    That is one game style. Don't expect more.

    Welcome the bandits but realize they are not about gain, but about pain.

    It is (also) about freedom, adventure, a life style, a social network of like minded individuals, role playing, etc.

    It is actually philosophical, almost completely so in my opinion. It is the "Bandit's Life for Me".

    When I have said "it's all about the coin" I should have been more clear. It isn't about making an honest coin. It is about getting coin more easily, but probably less of it over all than if we harvested and sold for ourselves.

    As for your idea / proposal, first let me say.... I typically do not post PMs on the forum, so I believe you are being a bit unfair to the reader. In a nutshell, you wanted me and UNC to agree to acknowledge safe passage to anyone stopping in at one of your roadside shrines.

    That would require that I do two things. First, I would no longer be a bandit, but a toll collector (with a set fee). Second, I would be acknowledging the beliefs and principles of your Deity. I reject both based on philosophical differences.

    What does it mean to get coin more easily but spend more time getting it (or get less for the same amount of time)?

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    Bluddwolf wrote:
    DeciusBrutus wrote:
    Bluddwolf wrote:

    I have recently encountered a low sec pirate cultural nuance that I did not realize existed before, and it is something I'd like to foster in PFO. I unfortunately don't have time to explain it now.

    I'd be interested in hearing about it and how you think it can be adapted for PFO when you have time.

    As some of you may know, the low sec pirate corporation of EvE, are not what they used to be in the days of old. There was a time, before official sovereignty, that pirate corporations held de facto sovereignty over certain system. Amamake and Arziah are the two I was most familiar with. But, those days are long gone, or at least I believed they were.

    Yesterday I was reading through my new corporation's kill board messages, and I made a strange discovery. Some of our members had teamed up in an ad hoc fleet with a group of pilots we had killed last week. I inquired about the standings and was told....

    "The Pirate's Life, Before Corporation"...... Or I would explain it as "Our Play Style or Role Comes First".

    Ad hocs are formed frequently, and the prey is any "outsider" not in a corporation of any of a corporation in the current ad hoc.

    What also struck me as new, was the number of 1 v 1 engagements that take place in low sec. 1 v 1 takes place more often because there is no stigma or animosity attached to losing amongst pirates. Again, it is all about "The Pirate's Life".

    However, unlike what some of you might think, it is not mice cannibalizing themselves. If another passerby appears through the gate, especially an industrial ship, the pirates break off their present fight and swarm to kill the new "outsider".

    The spoils are divided among all who participated, in a fairly equitable way, and the former conflict is not picked up again. The bond of brotherhood holds while in that system, and in some cases new ad hoc fleets are formed and they go off and hunt together.
    ...

    That's new to you? I always assumed that 'pirate' corps didn't recruit openly or through standard channels, and got new members when they saw someone being a pirate and were suitably impressed by the quality of their performance to offer them memmbership.

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Bluddwolf wrote:

    I have recently encountered a low sec pirate cultural nuance that I did not realize existed before, and it is something I'd like to foster in PFO. I unfortunately don't have time to explain it now.

    I'd be interested in hearing about it and how you think it can be adapted for PFO when you have time.

    1 to 50 of 3,310 << 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.