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

3,834 posts. Alias of Daniel Powell 318.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,834 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

Yes-alpha access (eg from the Tech Demo KS) does not include EE access unless it does.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Wyspr wrote:


I feel extremely appreciative of GW for the chance to play in alpha and a little undeserving because of the huge outlay that the alphas committed to get access.

Don't feel undeserving. I was never under any kind of impression that I was getting exclusive access to anything, and I made my judgement about the value of guaranteed alpha access understanding that there would be others joining me.

That said, I would have complained quite a bit if alpha access were opened up for sale to the public at a lower price. Giving a very limited number of slots away as part of an event isn't really a problem- especially if it convinced someone watching the stream to consider paying for a new account or upgrade.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
... through their legitimately playing of the game...
It seems to me this is the crux of it. It may well be that some of the things you consider "legitimate" aren't actually legitimate. Or perhaps you're just not talking about the illegitimate things everyone else is talking about.
My definition of legitimate is whatever legitimate means according to the design of the game, no different. If a player group is large, patient and organized enough to conquer every one of the 33 settlements through the use of feud, faction and warfare, no matter how far fetched that may be it is still legitimate.

What if the use of feud, faction,and warfare to conquer all of the settlements isn't legitimate according to the design of the game?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The "Observation" effect starts when the assassin uses their ability to start stacking observation on the target. It doesn't start when he gets close, or even when he starts to target the victim.

As long as the disguise holds, the assassin can choose the time and manner of the attack- and if he is disguised, he isn't wearing functional armor, so won't last long in a fight.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Damn, I've been out-coasted! Decius! I need more free stuff!

You should have won the raffle then!

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Duffy wrote:
Dario wrote:

No one is required to stay engaged in a standup fight either. They can always make an attempt to run. If they can successfully evade the enemy, why shouldn't that be a valid win condition? The devs have already stated the intent to prevent people from hiding out somewhere the assassin is mechanically prevented from getting (possibly worsening the Being Observed penalty if they try), and no one disagrees that logging out should not be a safe tactice to try against an assassin, so what exactly are you concerned about them doing to avoid the engagement? Rather than trying to break a core principle of the game (player agency) out of fear of some nebulous hypothetical, why don't you start pointing out things. Are you concerned about them calling guards? Guards have a transit time to arrive. The assassin will need to make sure they pick somewhere help isn't ten feet away when they try. Or they'll need to bring friends to deal with the target's friends.

There seems to be some perception that a lone assassin should be able to defeat a concerted effort by a group of players to protect someone, and that I just don't understand.

Because the mechanic is built differently. Running from a stand-up fight is inherently risky but the engagement has already been committed to.

If a target can risk free disengage from the cat and mouse engagement of an assassination attempt, then the mechanic is unbalanced. If the interest of keeping such a mechanic fair requires it to be prolonged, then the ability to simply leave the engagement with no risk is the inherently superior default strategy in favor of the target.

Do you think that the time elapsed from observation to final outcome is likely to be more than slightly longer than the time that a straight-up fight would have lasted?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Master of Shadows wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:


Suppose that the defending forces set a magical trap, but the assassin failed to train magical trapfinding. Would it be fair for that trap to automatically kill the assassin, because he didn't detect it?

No, that would not be fair, I would expect that the trap would still have to succeed on a successful attack roll vs. the appropriate defense exactly as My assassination attack would have to defeat the targets defenses.

Unless of course the trap maker had expended the time and expense necessary to create something as expensive as a "Power Word Kill" type effect that does not require an attack and allows no saves or spell resistance. Then I would be fine with it.

Empasis added.

That's a "no, I wouldn't have a problem with it."

There is a design goal that no player should encounter an outcome that they had no way of knowing was coming. "Gotcha!" moments are poor game design.

The 'Observed' state is there to combine the signature ability of the assassin, the one-shot kill and reconcile it with the good game design that a player should have some ability to anticipate and prepare for significant events.

The specific possibility of a target logging out in response to an attack is a complication of logging out in general, not of assassination in particular. Solving the general problem is the best way to resolve that issue.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Somewhere there needs to be an accounting of how much work it would be. Plus, transparently allowing the community to suggest a priority order would result in complaints when things "jump the queue", as perceived by people who follow the voting.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I was really expecting more consolidation already...

Goblinworks Executive Founder

It would be a bad idea to prioritize an idea without knowing if it was good enough to warrant inclusion in the first place.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Wow. Epic ninja. My consolation prize for food poisoning making me see my breakfast again.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

DeciusBrutus wrote:
I cannot connect now either.

And now I can again.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Master of Shadows wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Quote:
Will the target know how many stacks of observation he has?
Yes, part of being a skilled assassin group is varying up your observations to keep the target from deduction. Being able to see the stack totals is part of the target's agency, in basically being able to figure out how close he's getting to being able to be one-shotted (e.g., a high-HP heavy armor wearer may be in the mood of "Bring It!" at one stack, but may start to get a little antsy as the number rises and he realizes he's not going to get to fight back unless he can figure out where the assassin is).
This is even worse than the original description for Observation. If the target fails to perceive the threat he should never know what hit him.

Suppose that the defending forces set a magical trap, but the assassin failed to train magical trapfinding. Would it be fair for that trap to automatically kill the assassin, because he didn't detect it?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Guurzak wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
There are other confounding factors that make this summary not a fair estimate for the purposes of game balance.

"I'm gonna say a bunch of stuff, but it's not going to tell you anything."

>8-]

My accuracy is much less than my precision- For example, +100 defense can be as much as 60% reduction in damage, or as little as 0% (if the attacker has an absurd amount of +precise on the attack, it always hits). Likewise shifting from the tier 1 to tier 3 attack distribution might have more or less of an effect based on where the outcome distribution falls; for a target number of 50 or so, the tier 1 weapon will do about 90% of maximum damage in the long run, while the tier 3 weapon will do about 100%. For a target of 100, the difference is greater.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I cannot connect now either.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
EoX Hobs wrote:


So let us cut to the chase. As a player, you obviously don't like or trust us. We can live with that. I've dealt civilly with people I don't care for before - it's part of being a mature adult. So what can we do to reach some understanding of how we deal civilly with one another as players for the sake of the community?

You could start by disclaiming cheating when you see it. Every time, even when it blows up into a firestorm.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Kabal362 wrote:
serious question :"is the mutual success" thing still rolling?

Clarification (which does not change the original) Mutual Success of the players means everyone has more fun.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

thebluebunny wrote:
If i remember correctly items also come in tiers from one to three. so whats the power gap between a tier one +5 and a tier three +5?

Summary of a lot of math:

Roughly, tier 3 armor reduces damage by about 60% when attacked with a tier 1 weapon wielded by a equivalent balanced character. A tier 3 weapon against tier 1 armor improves damage by about 10%, and does more critical hits, as compared to a tier 1 weapon.

All told, if all characters are balanced (equally trained in offense and defense) and of similar XP spend on the same combat skills, two characters with tier 1 +5 gear will be a fair match for one with tier 3 +5 gear.

There are other confounding factors that make this summary not a fair estimate for the purposes of game balance.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Meaningful choices abound. Everything is going according to The Plan.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The point if observation is that it provides a mechanism for starting the fight without giving away your location and identity. The target has the ability to react (and not by going to a trainer and buying "not auto killed by assassins"), but he might not be able to identify who to attack. He might try sprinting away and looking for who follows (which might mean he starts the fight fatigued), or guessing and attacking a potential assassin, or gathering friendlies to protect, or any number of emergent tactics- but the engagement has started, and if it lasts a minute before the assassin finally engages, the assassin can fairly receive the benefits appropriate for having fought for a minute on that first attack. That can mean that the target dies on the first attack, having had a chance to defend themselves- giving the assassin their major cool thing while not destroying g a major gameplay requirement.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

EoX Hobs wrote:

Avari,

I asked a simple question. Yes, I was thinking roster (I'll get to why in a minute) whereas you said "Official RA document". My mistake. Do you usually answer mistakes with snide remarks about the poster's group? Odd, especially when the poster is willing to admit they erred.

My stress of the roster is that two exist. The question is, which of those is official, since I'm guessing those who signed the longer one but not the shorter one will want to know if they're included in Nihimon's comment a few posts before:

"groups that were openly hostile to TEO or T7V and our mutual goals began to try to subvert the Roseblood Accord."

Edited to reply to Nihimon's most recent:

Ah. You've referenced the original thread several times lately, so I clicked on the link that was on the initial post. That clears up the discrepancy between lists, but not who on that list are "openly hostile to TEO or T7V" and tried to "subvert the Roseblood Accord."

To answer the question that I think you thought you asked: There is not, and is no provision for there to ever be, an "official" membership list. If there is a dispute regarding what groups and individuals are signatories, the resolution authority is reality.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Master of Shadows wrote:
Guurzak wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
What i think the most interesting thing to do would be to put a single observed stack on a target, and then leave.
Yep. Do it several times over the course of a couple of weeks- get them desensitized, so that when you're ready to actually make your move it's just another nuisance to ignore.

So I should waste weeks of my time on something that a fighter can accomplish in seconds on the field?

I can think of better ways to spend time then throwing out stacks of Observed just to annoy someone. I would hazard a guess that after enough people complained about being observed over and over again to no effect that the behavior would be labeled griefing.

A fighter in the field can't create paranoia and distrust, nor can he cause his target to cry wolf. Nor can he have the effects of assassination. Nor can he enter a hostile settlement unnoticed.

Why do you want to be an assassin, if you don't think any of their unique effects are noteworthy?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The RA is not the list of signatories. Nor is it the thread. The original post was intended to stand by itself with no clarifications required. Empirically, that failed. However, the RA intentionally provides no mechanism for changing it and can only be clarified by supplemental posts, not changed by them.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

What should the target being observed do to know that they are being observed? Why wouldn't the targets simply macro those actions? If there isn't something that the specific target can do to detect the observation (because they lack the XP to learn perception, for example), then that particular Observation is undetectable.

What i think the most interesting thing to do would be to put a single observed stack on a target, and then leave.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Why do you think that one library/tower wil specialize in every school? Or that one fighter school will specialize every weapon?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

If it is possible to apply Observed without being detectable, why have it?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Guurzak wrote:

I would think it very strange if refining ingots did not count towards crafting achievements.

If you want to just gather and not even refine, then yeah, collecting your achievements is going to be hard.

Currently, crafting feats aren't required to gain gathering skills.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Dakcenturi wrote:
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
I've not counted, but it sometimes feels as if Pathfinder's come up with dozens, if not actually hundreds, of beings worshiped somewhere/somehow/somewhen/somewho. I can only imagine how many more times we'll see this question asked; it's good to see GW's able to articulate its thinking in this arena.

I know when I jump in Hero Labs to create a character there is a pretty significant list between all the normal dieties, the elder ones, the empyreal lords, the various racial dieties, etc. I would say it is probably in the range of 30-50 entities you can worship.

I see over 350 options when I look at Hero Lab. Almost all of them are sourced to Inner Sea Gods (and many fall under other books as well).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Stephen Cheney wrote:

The plan is, indeed, to have trainers "run out" of training and have to get more over time. And to let settlements assign a coin cost to training at their building that they receive when someone trains. But that's not super high priority to get in right now.

I suspect that Tier 1 training will always be functionally unlimited and extremely cheap in coin cost, because we want the starter towns to offer it and not have new player N get the last of something and new player N+1 not understand why he can't get what the tutorial is telling him to buy. But I'm not sure exactly what we'll settle on for that.

Perhaps the first few levels of training don't deplete the trainer resource at all? The NPC locations will already have to provide literally infinite amounts of what they do provide.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Darcnes wrote:

I believe that whoever is being observed should need to notice it on their own, or even someone nearby with a high enough perception and a clear view of both the stalker and prey.

Letting anyone get a free notice like this tells players they do not need to invest points into being observant.

I say this even as a town leader knowing that I am likely to attract this sort of attention. If I and my cohorts fail to notice A) the potentially disguised assassin, and B) the observation action itself, I really do not feel bad about what comes next.

It is not a clear death sentence even then, but at that point, if you die from assassination, you have failed three times.

Are you talking about player skill, or character feats?

If it is possible for the assassin to have feats which make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to detect them, they will.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

-Aet- Charlie wrote:

Reposting something I asked in the UNC discussion thread by request.

I didn't have anything constructive to add to this new line of conversation until this point was brought up by Decius.

This is not trying to start a fire, if there are discussions on positive gameplay and proactive building I and my ambassador would love to be privy to the conversation.

-Aet- Charlie wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.

I am curious of this point as well. If the RBA is talking about what steps we need to take towards a positive gameplay goal I have not been privy to that conversation.

I would not mind having that conversation, but it isn't happening in the KotC RBA forums.

Have I misinterpreted your statement or are there more permissions I and my ambassador need?

At the risk of sounding like inquisition: Isn't there discussion about how to contribute to positive gameplay on the Aeternum forums? I figured Hobs would be working on how the guide program should function, what kind of central authority, repository, or consistency of service it should have, and the like.

There simply is no central authority for how to go about our goals, and as of yet we haven't gotten enough feedback to share iterations on our various methods.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

So, what would prevent a character from setting their inventory to destroy on death and then going out gathering with no equipment? Since that character will be able to move at maximum speed, it would be a pain to chase him down, and it will quickly be known that they are always trapped to self-destruct.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

Your position remains unproductive and argumentative towards the principles of the Roseblood Accord.

J
The principles of the accord are:

1. There is no central authority
2. There is no hard set definition of what constitutes positive game play.
3. The only requirement of a prospective signatory is that they pledge to adhere to positive game play, as GW will deem that to mean.

While two and a half of those are true, they are not the central principles. There is no central authority, nor is there a definition of "positive gameplay" for reference. The requirement for membership is that one is committed to positive gameplay which stands by itself.

If Goblinworks policy were the definition of 'positive gameplay', it would be referenced instead of not defining the phrase.

I don't think that your description of "positive gameplay" was a description that a large fraction of people concurred with.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Don't be silly. Oliver North has an afternoon radio call-in show.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

In accordance with UNC defacto policy, bringing this here:

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I also don't think it is productive to discuss whether or not a commitment to positive gameplay requires more than following the rules. Nobody is likely to seriously consider different opinions on that subject.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.
I will give you the benefit of having changed your mind on the subject.
If you want to continue discussing that, do it in PMs or in a thread appropriate for it.

Is there a thread more appropriate for this? You are also free to PM me and explain how the two quotes I posted reconcile with each other. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had changed your position.

If that is not the case, this is the place to have that discussion. TSV is a signatory of the accord, and you are a Steward of the Seventh Veil. Every other signatory has the right to know how what they have signed is being interpreted.

I will keep this civil, but I will not take this discussion into the shadows. The UNC has made it a defacto policy to discuss public issues out in public view.

DeciusBrutus wrote:
I also don't think it is productive to discuss whether or not a commitment to positive gameplay requires more than following the rules. Nobody is likely to seriously consider different opinions on that subject.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.

There is no conflict between those two statements. Nobody is likely to provide any new information to the discussion, so nobody is going to change their mind.

And failing to break the rules is still insufficient to demonstrate a commitment to positive gameplay, because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Does the DLC have a position on heavy barding?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Nihimon wrote:

Just got clearance from bonny Bonny to invite everyone to join The Seventh Veil's TeamSpeak for voice chat for this event.

Server = atl01.mainvoice.net:7183

Everyone involved should at least download TeamSpeak and join, even if you don't have a microphone. Being able to hear other talk is a major communications upgrade from text chat, especially on the tactical scale. If you aren't familiar with TeamSpeak, you should try to get on the server a little bit earlier to allow time to resolve tech issues.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
All I got was a rock.

I'll chip in for a string.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I also don't think it is productive to discuss whether or not a commitment to positive gameplay requires more than following the rules. Nobody is likely to seriously consider different opinions on that subject.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.
I will give you the benefit of having changed your mind on the subject.

If you want to continue discussing that, do it in PMs or in a thread appropriate for it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I think that letting the target know that he is under attack before blades are drawn is a design goal of the Observed status, rewarding players who manage to infiltrate deeply enough that they aren't suspected. Making it possible to apply the effect without the target noticing gives that benefit to everybody.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I also don't think it is productive to discuss whether or not a commitment to positive gameplay requires more than following the rules. Nobody is likely to seriously consider different opinions on that subject.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I'll be there, probably playing a mixture of cleric and fighter.

Everyone who will be wearing armor should consider bringing a change of clothes for the trip out.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

Obviously behavior that we deem to be inappropriate would be met by our own internal sanctions. To say that a lack of understanding was created by not stating the obvious is absurd.

Right. You have now explicitly said that behavior which does not merit a sanction from Goblinworks is not deemed inappropriate by you.

I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.

If you want to say that you will have standards that are more stringent than "Don't break the rules", then do so. If you want to actually have standards that are more stringent than the bare minimum, then having a feedback form that doesn't actively mock complainants is... not quite a good start, but at least it isn't a giant leap backwards.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

Well then, I'll stop being generous with my interpretation.

I see no way that a policy of refusing to self-police mild behavior is compatible with a comittment to positive gameplay. I think that claiming "no behavior that doesn't result in Goblinworks punishing the offender is harmful to the community"

And so what is your recommended punishment for said "mild" behavior?

Make it clear that such behavior is inconsistent with being a member of your group. Start with gentle pushback, such as a "that's not cool", and escalate up as needed, considering the seriousness and number of offenses.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I was just ballparking the design and art costs of adding werewolves. You can cut the design costs a little bit if you use the rules for wild shape, but I don't think anyone wants that any more than they want firearms that use the same abilities as bows. The art costs cannot be reduced without significant negative effect.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

It would be good if people took the idea seriously enough to want to "win" it, but bad in that they don't understand the concept well enough to know what "winning" means.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

My estimate of the cost of developing such a feature to be in the five or six figures. That would have to be paid before developing the content. I think that is likely to be a deal breaker for most of the people interested. Does anyone disagree?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well then, I'll stop being generous with my interpretation.

I see no way that a policy of refusing to self-police mild behavior is compatible with a comittment to positive gameplay. I think that claiming "no behavior that doesn't result in Goblinworks punishing the offender is harmful to the community" requires taking a spurious position on one or more of the key issues. And I think that the reason that that position is being taken is to intentionally make "positive gameplay" meaningless enough that few people dedicate themself to improving the community.

The confusion comes from refusing to act as though I believe that any given person is malicious as long as there is a reasonable alternative explanation. "I don't know what this person means when they use this phrase" is a reasonable alternative explanation.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Guurzak wrote:

I actually wonder how long it will be before someone DDOS's an opponent's leadership by having a bunch of alts flood them with plausible but spurious complaints. Time spent investigating complaints is time not spent doing other important things.

We may have to end up with a system where complaints are submitted by the complainant's settlement leadership rather than directly by the complainant.

This is why I said, the "victim's" first step should be to report it to GW. We (UNC) welcome the complaint to be brought up with us as well, and with proper evidence, we will have a talking to our member.

We will of course defer to GW's decision. If GW bans the player, what we would do has no meaning anyway. If GW does nothing, neither will we, as far any sanction beyond a "talking to".

I keep getting confused by UNC's policy here; right now you are saying that no behavior that doesn't result in Goblinworks sanctioning the player is undesirable in your company.

Granted, the expected first minor offense outcome should be 'counseled offender regarding acceptable and desired behavior', but saying that you would never progress toward a warning, reprimand, reduction in status, or other sanction seems unwise.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

How is this proposal different from Enchanting, as most recently described?

1 to 50 of 3,834 << 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.