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

3,291 posts. Alias of Daniel Powell 318.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
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.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
What 'rest of the market'?

I am not quite sure why I have to explain part of your own argument. Read some of your previous posts.

What does yellow taste like? I can tell you its not sunshine flavored.

I'm trying to keep things down to a WP-level understand of both economics and philosophy. Am I failing to keep things that simple, or is that level of simplicity still unclear?

I was expecting you to oppose my position that if buying out the market and reselling for massive profit was possible, then the suppliers are selling below market clearing price. They are the only agents that could possibly be being victimized in this scenario, because they are the only ones with any stake.

If anything, the first player to put a commodity up for sale significantly below market price is the most disruptive to the market. The proper response by the other sellers to such an action would be to buy it at the asked price and immediately resell it at fair value. I think that it the dynamic which exists in the WoW auction house that has been referenced: someone puts something up for below value (for whatever reason) and someone who pays attention snaps it up and resells it for what the market will bear.

And of course yellow doesn't taste like sunshine! Taste and photoreceptor excitation are completely uncorrelated. Yellow has ᎡᏆᏯ where sunshine has a hint of ᎭᎦΣᏍ.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:

You felt risk while going into low sec space? Good, you will not feel any while playing the markets... but you can sure make more ISK on the market.

Kinda throws risk vs reward right out the window doesnt it?

Consider the case of someone who tries market manipulation and fails to keep prices high enough to unload his inventory; he paid over FMV for each unit of the commodity he tried to manipulate, and is able to sell little of it for more than he paid.

Now he has a large amount of a commodity that he can either sell quickly (below value) and take a greater loss, or try to sell at value (slowly) and eat the opportunity cost of the capital he has invested in it.

That's at least as much risk as "I might lose some equipment", which is the baseline risk for bandits.

And consider the low-risk merchant, who simply looks for people who want to make either a quick sale or purchase or a long-term high-volume deal and charges them a small premium off of the market value, but who has either outstanding contracts or inventory when a major event changes market conditions- he, too, has a larger exposure than someone who is concerned only with the instrumental value of gear on hand.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:

Buying high and selling higher is price gouging. In fact you went on to call it that in the rest of your post.

So you understand that Merchants/traders/crafters can and will earn massive rewards with little or no risk right? You pointed to exactly that in your post. 10% is not cutting profits to the bone in fact its the exact opposite when you own the rest of that market.

Suicide ganking does not play into this one bit.

What 'rest of the market'? If your profit is based on your ability to buy literally all of the Iron within an easy transportation distance so that you can sell it for 1000/ton, then expect to buy all of the iron in that radius that people are willing to mine if they get 900/ton for it- and if you can sell that much at that price, then that's closer to the market price than whatever it was before.

What you seem to think is that there will be widespread cases where there is iron for sale at a small fraction of the fair market value. Why do you think that situation will be common enough to create a niche that will be highly populated?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Buying high and selling higher isn't price gouging at all. It's taking arbitrage on sellers who want a quick sale below market value and/or buyers who want a quick buy above market value.

A smart producer in an environment where his wares are being resold at a 5x multiplier to what he believes is fair should up his price to 4.5x fair (undercutting the attempted gouging by 10%). Either the gouged is now buying high and selling only a little higher, cutting their profits to the bone (especially since they STILL need to buy the entire supply in order to sell anything), or they need to cut their prices to compete with the gatherers, or they need to start cutting the supply side of the competition (for example, by suicide ganking ice miners).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

The idea that the more dangerous hexes would have the rarest of resources has been written here on these forums, and it is a fact that appears in practically every MMO I can think of. It is and has always been the carrot for taking the additional risk.

We can imagine that PFO will be so revolutionary that it breaks from all norms of the MMO genre, or we can assume that it will bear some resemblance to the MMOs that it's Devs have actually worked on in the past, namely: Eve Online, Fallen Earth and Darkfall.

Funnily enough, in all three of those games you are slightly safer in the "more dangerous" areas, provided you don't offend or impose on someone who controls the territory. It's higher reward, higher investment, lower-risk.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Suicide ganking is equivalent to banditr in economic terms. Controlling a large enough fraction of the supply to control overall pricing requires either paying more to control it or having some comparative advantage in doing so (such as already being established there).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

I finally had a chance to finish listening to the whole thing. I don't see the benefit in having all of one role shift to one settlement, within a kingdom.

Settlements should have a diversity of roles. By having settlements choose just one role to reach the heights of training not only creates interdependency, it also creates individual weakness.

Interdependecy and weakness are the reasons to require settlements to specialize in order to excel at one thing.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Jiminy wrote:
Nevy wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nevy wrote:
My issue is not with merchants being able to deposit their goods on a regular basis. What I have a problem with is taking risk vs. reward out of the bandit equation by the game recognizing bandits and merchants as enemies. Bandits should be flagged as a criminal when attacking or robbing a merchant, or anyone, for that matter.

By factionalizing the roles GW creates both risk and reward for both bandit and merchant.

Merchants who opt into the faction system, will have access to higher faction based skills that will presumably lead to great efficiency or profit.

Bandits who opt into the faction system, will have access to a greater pool of potential targets, without risk of reputation loss.

Merchants who opt in will have greater access to PC guards that are also members of the faction. These guards would likely be a lot cheaper because the guards will gain faction benefits for defending faction members. Otherwise the merchant would have to hire mercenaries, who are only loyal to the coin and their own self interest.

There will always be more merchants than bandits, and so your shear numbers is also your greatest protection.

Why would merchants need more risk? And why do you think bandits will always have a population disadvantage? Heck, if I can kill merchants who spent hours of their time working for their goods, in less than half the time, I'll become a bandit also! And guess what? So will my mom, and yours too!

It is imperative, I repeat, imperative that bandits have a harder time victimizing merchants than merchants have being victimized by bandits. Goblinworks shares this same sentiment I believe...

You keep saying bandits are the 'victimizers' and that merchants are the 'victims'. When a group of merchants corners a lucrative section of the market and they price gouge and restrict the trade of others (maybe even via bandits) with their massive profits, are they then 'victimizers'? What is...

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.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The gear cycle is going to be a little bit different. For one, the equipment is almost all produced by player crafting rather than by mob drops. Equipment beyond your abilities (having keywords that your abilities don't use) might not make you any more effective. And I don't expect the world will be segregated neatly by monster level; the dungeons under cities will reach advanced levels, as will remote ruins.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Mafoon wrote:

The complexity and possibilities of this user created world are very exciting.

Let me paint a picture, what I hope the game turns into later in it's development after a few years of the developers giving us more tools to work with in the game.

Wondering out deep into wilderness as your tyrannical villain character you lord over a group of whipped and scared goblins to run your mischief for you; you begin speeding up the escalation cycle with your great renown as it draws in more monsters for you to lord over and soon other players join.
A monster settlement is born, run by cruel player overlords. Self Proclaimed King of the Goblins adopts the other players as his lieutenants, lackeys, slave drivers and other assorted minions.

Eventually you'll create a larger domain if you can gather enough monster settlements into a kingdom. Those players who've had a character rule over part of a monster Kingdom for long enough unlock the ability to create a Monster character from that kingdom (a goblin if you rule over goblins, a skeleton if you rule over undead etc), kind of like a prestige base class, the same way you build your way up through the social structure to being able to use the nobility and royalty classes.

In this game that you are imagining, what keeps PC goblins from living in the same settlements as PC elves and humans, in the same way that humans and elves seem to be able to live in (and even rule!) settlements with PC goblins?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Lifedragn wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:


Ryan had also written about FFA zones and had also stated that those zones would also hold the rarest of resources, to reward those willing to tread those dangerous lands. Perhaps I should pull up that quote as well?
Actually, I would love to see that quote from Ryan. I remember a big discussion about FFA Zones the notion of requiring players to enter them to get the rarest resources, but I do not remember much developer input let alone any solid positions. I remember it being a fairly contentious topic.

I don't remember when it was said that the FFA zones would have anything special either. I'm guessing that was a extrapolation from Fallen Earth's PvP areas, which in my experience were safer than the wilds during a resource boom. Since there's so many people there, and none of them want to waste time in a fight, armed truce strictly dominates once even two units folllow that strategy, and anyone who tries to fight loses hard. Some amount of scarcity would shift the balance enough to make the cost of sharing greater than the cost of winning a fight.

To attract people to a PFO FFA area with economic incentives, the expected reward needs to be higher than the expected loss for each actor; this requires that the total reward be greater than the total loss (but is not guaranteed by that one condition). Less than all of the equipment lost will become equipment gained. The 'rare resources' acquired must be more valuable than the total amount of equipment destroyed by looting damage and total encumbrance limits plus the total value of all of the players' time spent in search of economic gain; otherwise it isn't profitable. I can't imagine that with a winner-take-most distribution system the rewards from such an area could be balanced with the general needs of the economy.

On the other hand, a FFA PvP zone that is a net economic loss is easy to balance. Just let the players decide how much equipment they are willing to subsidize and let them.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

There will be no "shocking the system" if the domination centered organizations operate as I previously suggested. They won't be breaking any rules to do so, nor avoiding any system (well perhaps indirectly they will), and so there will be no behavior for GW to shock.

Through the use of feuds, faction, war, SADs, spies, low rep alts, assassination, meta game tactics, etc a company or settlement will be targeted and for no other reason than they are not part of the evil empire. No level of diplomacy, short of accepted subjugation, will meet their demands.

If none of those methods have a prohibitively high cost when collectively used against everybody, then something's wrong.

I specifically said, not against the world (everybody). A large enough settlement, with multiple companies, can rotate the cost and thus maintain continuous aggressive action against a specific targeted settlement.

I also don't expect there to be "prohibitively high costs" to do many of those activities I mentioned. I don't expect it because it makes little sense for GW to set the cost so high as to prohibit playing the game using the systems they created. They want feuds, SADs, wars, assassinations, raids of outposts and POIs, etc. they can't stop the use of spies and meta game tactics.

There would be something wrong if we couldn't participate often in those activities.

So, if every company and settlement not in the dominating empire has an equal chance of being the 'enemy of the week' of that empire (if some companies and settlements have a different chance, then there's a reason for that), and only a small number of them are selected each week as the feud target, there's still lots of room outside of that conflict.

The more successful domination groups will select their targets much more carefully- rather than "for no other reason than they are not part of the empire", their targets will be based on the ratio of how much resources can be taken from the target compared to the resources expended in taking them. ("Resource" in this sense could mean anything from coin to player time to building sites to territory)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

There will be no "shocking the system" if the domination centered organizations operate as I previously suggested. They won't be breaking any rules to do so, nor avoiding any system (well perhaps indirectly they will), and so there will be no behavior for GW to shock.

Through the use of feuds, faction, war, SADs, spies, low rep alts, assassination, meta game tactics, etc a company or settlement will be targeted and for no other reason than they are not part of the evil empire. No level of diplomacy, short of accepted subjugation, will meet their demands.

If none of those methods have a prohibitively high cost when collectively used against everybody, then something's wrong.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Working as intended. I trust that there will be sufficient room for all the other group playstyles, just like there is in Eve.

Here's the thing Decious, the map is thousands of times smaller in PFO as compared to EVE.

So why do I bring the specter of the "Evil Empire" into this conversation of Factionalization and SADS?

I bring it up because I see Faction / SADS as a step towards creating more PVP at the small gang level. I see that as a positive step, and it will bring the entry level of PVP down a bit as well.

Oddly enough, the number of players will also be thousands of times smaller. I can't figure out where to research how many sectors existed when sovereignty first became possible, but I doubt that it was so many that there was good territory that went unclaimed for long.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:

I'm curious how the keyword system has been inferred to work. Especially initially, I feel like it's a lot simpler and more straightforward than it seems like it's being interpreted.

My inference was that most abilities would look for one or more keywords on the weapon or implement that activated them, and if that keyword was present the ability would have an additional effect like more damage (bonus to damage factor, bonus to base damage, reduction to armor resistance) or apply some kind of buff or debuff or status to the attacker or defended (bleeding, stumbling, feinting, off-balance).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

When the more organized and aggressive organizations come to PFO, they will be focused on just one thing... Dominance. They will find settlements with misconceptions about the nature of PvP, ripe for the picking, because some people lack a basic understanding of what type of game play Settlement vs Settlement PvP will bring.

They will have every reason to kill anyone not in their own player grouping...

Meh. They don't worry me; they're going to learn hard lessons about PFO.

... a lot of people will come to Pathfinder Online with two incorrect preconceptions about the way the game is played. Those two preconceptions are:

1: Open World PvP implies a murder simulator

2: Killing early, often, and without discrimination is the route to long-term success

We are going to break this pattern and we are going to redefine those preconceptions. 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.

(emphasis in original)

I'm actually looking forward to seeing the folks who think they have "every reason to kill anyone not in their own player grouping" when they start feeling Ryan "repeatedly and powerfully shock the system".

You have misconstrued my meaning to imply that these groups would indiscriminately kill anyone. That is not what I said or implied. They will methodically use the system, within its parameters to pursue their objective of dominance.

They will use feuds, faction and wars (all sanctioned) against all that do not fold within their dominion. When they do not wish to cross any lines, they will hire those that have an active disregard for those lines.

Working as intended. I trust that there will be sufficient room for all the other group playstyles, just like there is in Eve.


Organizing and running this event.

I'll be the sleep-deprived one in the red volunteer shirt.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lam wrote:

Real GM are a mixed breed. I have played with 3 classics. I have played and been part of the tweaks of the foundation (1974- 1976). Great ideas influence the game. Great GM move beyond the (then) rules.

There are games for which the RULES establish the game. And there are RULES that describe the vision. As the customer base moves younger and the game has wider ranking (who is better) it moves to rules lawyers/exploiters.

MMO can not afford the personal creativity of GM nor can they allow the rules to be exploited.

If you want personal, play TT. Maybe I can join you (Skype). But that is not here. That is a fundamental problem in MMO. The owner/developer of an MMO can not create enough new material that keeps up with the community. The dream here is that other players create your content in imaginative ways.

They are your opposition (and you defeat them) or your target/victim (and you exploit them).

That sounds like a job for Fantasy Grounds, or Roll20.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Put a different way: don't self-insure for a larger amount than you can cover.

1 to 50 of 3,291 << 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.