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

DeciusBrutus's page

4,754 posts. Alias of Daniel Powell 318.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,754 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

We don't always need to ban toxic players if we can convert them into healthy players.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

He'd bring in his network guy, the tech conversation would go like:
"Here's what we have to do and have already done. What libraries do you have that do this, and how quickly can we adapt them to our needs?"
"The libraries don't exist."
(Up to the director)
"Shifting the networking code will take six months and three people."

"Here's the requirements for the shaders that we use."
"You'll have to redo all of that."
(Up)
"Graphics will take ten months, four people, plus art."

After a few more cases of "you'd have to redo that entirely", the time allotted for the meeting is over.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I suspect that the best option is to log all chat and have a peon skim it each morning for the time it isn't monitored live, and maybe read through some local chats that have been reported as abusive.

Perhaps even that cost is excessive for the minimal gains (over only reviewing chat that is reported through the petitions).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Kadere wrote:
Pyronous Rath wrote:
sticks n stones....
...may break your bones, but unchecked cursing makes the game less welcoming to people with little tolerance for b+*$@+$* and is detrimental the future development of the community.

No MMO has ever suffered due solely or even significantly to an unfiltered chat channel. The reasons are simple. No one forces you to enter general chat , and they are very easy to minimize or completely tab out of.

This is making Everest out of a pimple.

Darkfall:UW sufferered a lot because of toxic general chat.

A filter that removed only all profanity would not have helped it one iota, even if the filter was perfect.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

Just watch out for unintentional blockages, like when you're trying to %#* & notice up that there's a raid coming on Sa#%*+ay.

has actually seen those examples, even in NPC text

I hit this problem in two different online games. One wouldn't let me use the word "Klondike" (despite the epithet being spelled with a y), and another wouldn't let me say "accumulate"

Some filtres really are too sensitive.

That's a very clbuttic outcome of using a cheap filter.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:

In EVE, you earn skill points in real time by picking a skill to train and working until it's finished training. So the only way to get skill points is to be actively training a skill. You can "pause" that training and starting training something else but that doesn't rebate the skill points accumulated for that skill that you paused.

In Pathfinder Online you gain XP in realtime into a bank. You can then spend that XP any time you want to acquire a Feat.

Without the achievement gates, people would allow characters to accumulate XP for a very long time, and those characters would be extraordinarily valuable on the secondary market, because without the gates, you could buy one, and immediately acquire exactly the right Feats required for any needful purpose without any delay whatsoever. Those characters would become "magic bullet" solutions to many in-game problems.

With the gates you have to spend some time actually playing the game in order to advance your Feat training, in addition to just having the XP.

Running the math; the cost of such a character would be (rounding) $150/year.

After four years the speculator would have $600 invested for four years; expecting a 10% return per year he insists on $900 for the character.

That seems like it would likely sell pretty quickly.

But a different speculator sees the writing on the wall, and also invests heavily in grinding those characters. After spending three months' worth of XP and getting lots of skills to a minimum level, he pays someone to grind out the acheivements.

Assuming that nobody bans the six accounts who grind out the achievements in the easiest way possible (right now it would be stabbing the starter goblins), I figure that the speculator could manage to only double the cost of XP and get one rank-10 achievement per month.

Let's say that after four years, the speculator wants to sell six characters that he has $1200 each invested in; is it reasonable that there will be people in four years who are willing to pay as much as people today are willing to pay for a tavern?

I bet there will be.

I'm not going to speculate in characters for sale, because I am at the point that I do not prefer to have more money and more headaches. However, I am willing to keep a stable of characters accumulating XP. Knowing that achievement points are expected to slow me down later, I might start looking for ways to get those points now.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I didn't see buy orders mentioned.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Kadere wrote:

I take the opposite interpretation. Just because the Thornguard won't kill you, doesn't mean any of the NPCs will give you the time of day. If these two things aren't independent, it'll only be because they don't have the tech yet.

Being able to operate normally at home while in low rep would undermine the rep system to such an extent as it make it effective irrelevant, and I don't think Ryan would go for it.

Eventually, we will be able to set our Settlement Rep Limits anyway, and some will allow a lower end, just to attract more characters to their training.

The Reputation system as is, impacts newer characters more so than any other. Someday, a veteran player will reach maximum skill and they will be able to kill indiscriminately.

The settlement that supports max XP characters with -7500 rep might become unpopular enough to be destroyed.

I encourage those who wish such a settlement to exist to attempt to build it and hold it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't see any questions that are suitable for a debate; is this more of a "position statement briefing"?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Whomever might sack The University shall know no rest during my lifetime(s).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
providing intentional aid to enemies or intentional harm to neutrals runs counter to the ideals of positive gameplay and is in a very real sense prohibited of Phaerites.

As a TN settlement I would assume that Phaeros will have some role players that put profits ahead of those ideals, and perhaps sells goods at inflated prices to the enemy.

That might violate your ideals for good citizenship, but not positive gameplay.

You are free to assume anything you want.

Say What You Will, We Live Free.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

5 people marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:


Any policy statements made by the EBA would be irrelevant to the current situation, because the EBA does not have the authority to make policies which are binding to individual Phaerites.

Sorry; I said something here radically different from what I meant. I meant to reiterate that Phaeros does not make demands of citizens, and that no delegated authority of Phaeros can make affirmative demands of her citizens. To clarify, within those limits, EBA polices are as binding on Phaerites as the polices of Phaeros are.

Citizens of Phaeros who consistently act against the values of Phaeros and TSV will find themselvess no longer citizens of Phaeros.

Generally adhering to the friendly/enemy list of Phaeros is a neccesary part of adhering to the core values of Phaeros, specifically including not taking unprovoked attack actions against neutral parties.

Phaeros is a member of the Everbloom Alliance because the values that inform the EBA are largely the same as the values of Phaeros. Polices of the EBA are also policies of Phaeros, which have very limited ability to bind Phaerites to a course of action. For example, an EBA/Phaeros policy that purported to require any specific individual or individuals to train a specific craft skill to a specified level would be invalid, since it would violate the principle of individual freedom. However, a policy that simply described some groups of characters who were to be considered hostile and some others that were to be considered neutral would be in a sense binding; while no particular Phaerite would be required to log on to attack a particular hostile at a particular time, nor to escort a particular neutral party at a particular time, providing intentional aid to enemies or intentional harm to neutrals runs counter to the ideals of positive gameplay and is in a very real sense prohibited of Phaerites.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
For the record, the UNC has never produced a former, disgruntled member.

Why did Andius leave UNC? Granted, he was disgruntled when he recruited your company to follow him...

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Most people are much more predictable than they think they are. But there's a major difference between knowing what someone is about to do and being able to do something about it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tigari wrote:

Going to step in and use this example as I see a possible loophole that Thod may not.

So, according to your policies each settlement has to individually agree to this, and I've only seen Keepers Pass and Brighthaven agree to this. Does Phaeros, the actual settlement of the accused agree, and will they also not attack Thod or his people?

It is not currently the policy of Phaeros that Thod is KOS or otherwise prohibited from peaceful travel through our territory. I do not see that as likely to change because I belive that Thod will not violate our hospitality.

It IS the policy of Phaeros to defend all citizens and friends from attack, when possible, everywhere.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

As an outsider, it sounds like to me there are a lot of chefs in the EBA kitchen, but they all claim to be fry cooks, and none of them know what is on the menu.

And to think, I was criticized by one of your's for not knowing what members of different companies in my settlement are up to, but we are supposed to be free spirited, chaotic leaning individuals.

Is anyone capable of giving a straight answer, without immediately telling us not to accept what anyone says as an answer?

If no one speaks with any authority, than you have no authority. Since no organization can truly function that way, there has to be one person that is the "decider", there is always just one.

Anytime I say "Phaeros policy is that...", or a similar construction, It is a statement of policy. Any time I do not use such a construction, it is not safe to assume that I am stating policy.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:


However, again - "The EBA does not recognize the ownership of any unclaimed non-settlement hex. And, unclaimed means not explicitly claimed by a recognized power." seems to me to be a logical conclusion of the positions expressed, I was just confirming it as such. If it is not, I am still confused about the EBA public policy and supporting statements made here and elsewhere.

But...Since my purpose has been forced from "be constructive to the understanding of situations of this type, for myself and others" to "justify why my question(s) are not an attack on the EBA", I obviously took a wrong turn somewhere...and am going to shut up now.

The EBA has no policy regarding any claims that might be made by other groups. That's an important difference from what it looks like you are confirming.

Don't construe everything that Cheatle says as EBA policy, and don't construe everything I say as Phaeros policy.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Understood, thank you for the clarification.

So there is no confusion, would the statements:

"The EBA does not recognize the ownership of any unclaimed non-settlement hex. And, unclaimed means not explicitly claimed by a recognized power."

be true at this point?

Also, can you clarify whether the EBA views husks as resource nodes?

The EBA has not made any policy statements regarding those questions.

Any policy statements made by the EBA would be irrelevant to the current situation, because the EBA does not have the authority to make policies which are binding to individual Phaerites.

Phaeros does not as of yet have offer official guidance on how citizens should handle husks of strangers.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Thod wrote:

Decius

The part you really seem difficulty to understand my position is not what happened but where it happened.

This was inside the core 6 of Emerald Lodge.

This at a time just after EBA publicises it's rules what other people are / are not allowed to do in their regions.

It was the where that made it unexcusable unless an appology was given - not the what. As settlement leader in a PvP game that is about regional control I'm doomed if I don't take action if such an incident happens at my door step - no matter who has done it.

Are you making a claim of territory and describing prohibited behavior? You might have a point under Courts Are For Kings, if you had made a suitable public claim about your territory.

If you want to claim a looting policy in your area, feel free to do so. I suggest also declaring a travel policy, harvesting policy, and escalation policy at the same time.

But you didn't. You just decided to act as though you had set a policy, without even explaining what the policy you didn't set in advance was.

So let's hear it: what territory does EL claim that it's laws apply within, what are those laws, and what is the punishment for violating them?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cloakofwinter wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:


Now, to discuss the matter of honor:
You Have What You Hold: Once it falls from your cold dead fingers, you don't hold it anymore; once you pick it back up again, you do. Trying to lay a claim to goods which you don't hold is in direct contravention of the River Freedoms.

Which is fine. The thing that concerns me throughout this thread is what I am hearing from various players is tales of you saying "you tried to help the victim until the victim (myself) started being a jerk." If this is some rumor you are trying to spread in roleplaying terms throughout your settlement and the world, that's fine. But it seems like you are spreading this out of play, and both you and I know exactly what happened - it's pretty simple. You found my corpse, looted it and bailed without saying a word.

When we talked later in whispers, you said you ran because you would have decimated me in combat and I'd just be dead again.

I'd like to keep things clear.

Which means Thod wasn't trying to extort anyone. He was simply asking for me to be made whole, and you refused. A valid choice. But lets not poison player's ears with OOC rhetoric.

I never claimed to try to help you, to anybody. I also took exactly zero action to spread it. Thod spread that story, presumably based on your story to him, and Thod has caused this to spread further.

And to be clear, I left because I couldn't get anything more without attacking you, and I chose not to.

I didn't even think that you would consider fighting an option, considering your experience (specifically, that you were carrying lots of stuff when you decided to PvE). I stand behind what I actually said, which was "You didn't want to fight me."

Which is not what Blodwulf said he would say, which was "hey", but apparently that makes all the difference.

Also, I also stand behind my characterization of Thod's actions as extortion (or, if you want to be a pedant, possibly blackmail). Across multiple channels of communication, to multiple different players, Thod strongly implied that a payment from myself personally, from Phaeros, or from the Everbloom Alliance would cause him not to make this post.

Thod wrote:


...Needless to say that Decius right now won't come out well in the comparison. ...

... I wanted to give you an ahead warning as Theodum will try to squash Decius Brutus intergity in character as hard as possible. Some players will take this as personal insults as they will read it ooc. Especially as I expect other parties to throw oil on the fire after I post. ...

... Should Phaeros want to make repatriations(sic) for one of there(sic) members - let me know. I won't have time to write the piece today - and something like this needs a little bit of word smithing.

I don't hold it against Thod; it is a PvP game after all, and it isn't clear enough to him that I actually want the site that Emerald Lodge occupies held by a strong group that is neither affiliated with the EBA nor aggressive towards it. It would have been great if EL could have been neutral, but it is equally strategically valuable to have EL independent but non-expansionist.

And to reiterate, I will not pay any form of blackmail or extortion, even when the price to be paid appears less than the cost of not paying, because the actual cost to me is the nominal cost plus the ability to credibly precommit. That is because it means that anyone who considers blackmailing me should notice that it has an expected negative outcome for them, causing them to not perform blackmail.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Thod wrote:

@Teo

I did contact Nihimon - I went several times to the T7V TS server yesterday. I left a message that I was on the Golarion server while helping the Ogg escalation.
I tried to speak to Decius - but it seemed not possible. I'm not saying that Decius avoided me. And I'm the first to admit that my member likely didn't behave well when he noticed Decius.
But I only had his description of the encounter and his feelings about it afterwards that I could go on.
What would you do if something simlar happens outside Brighthaven and one of your members complains. Let me know what I should do better next time.

edit: There are always 2 sides in a communication and I'm sure both sides have acted in ways that the other side felt was wrong. I only became really upset by it when I learned it had happened inside our core six. This after the EBA declared their borders and what others are not allowed to do inside them.

You did get ahold of me via Paizo PM. I was on the TSV TS for more than half of the time since I gave you the address, hardly 'avoiding' behavior, even though we didn't overlap.

You attempted to extort "reparations" based on dubious reasoning, making the implicit threat to engage in forum warfare. That resulted in four major errors on your part: Firstly, not realizing that I have already precommitted to reject all extortion and blackmail attempts; secondly, making a threat that was more costly to you that to me; thirdly, making your threat not significant to me at all (separate from making it more costly to you); and fourthly, having made (but not precommitted) those threats and being advised that I have precommitted to reject them, following through with them.

Now, to discuss the matter of honor:
You Have What You Hold: Once it falls from your cold dead fingers, you don't hold it anymore; once you pick it back up again, you do. Trying to lay a claim to goods which you don't hold is in direct contravention of the River Freedoms.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Al Smithy wrote:
Quote:
Without that, I see continued calls of "look at the evil EBA" as just refusing to engage in constructive conversation.
You have chosen to label yourselves as Lawful Good, the onus is on you and your players to live up to it. Shirking that responsibility because it is difficult, while hiding behind the veil of provocative discussions is really just a disservice to serious role players.

Who are you talking to?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Capitalocracy wrote:
I'm certainly not arguing you should expect to lose rep in a fight in a hex with an open PVP window, that's very unfortunate, but we're still playing a game with feature rollouts and bugs and all that. My argument is that a game where killing people means a rep hit which affects your ability to train is literally the game we all signed up for, and there are workarounds and there are things we have to be patient for. It would be fun to train something and see that kind of character improvement on a daily basis, but soon it'll be weeks and months before we're training our next big thing, which gives you plenty of time to do a lot of PVP as long as you're willing to bank in your smallholding or Rotter's Hole. Are the numbers right on target? Probably not, and I haven't been doing PVP, so I can't really say, but we're seeing people on both sides of the argument complaining that the rep system is either too harsh or too lenient. I'd hate to be in the devs' shoes on that one figuring out which side is right, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now. Maybe rep is too harsh too soon without settlement customization options, maybe rep needs to be harsher because there isn't a formal bounty system yet... it's all a tough balance, but for now, you should plan for the consequences of your PVP according to the rules in place now. But being mad about taking a rep hit in an open PVP window I can definitely sympathize with.

I am not questioning the expected loss of PVP in situations where you should expect to lose Rep. I'm looking at the inability to accurately assume the risk level of your choice.

Now that reputation recovers offline, high reputation is potentially a matter of inactivity. Why should it cost as much to kill a frequently inactive character as it does a character that has had frequent interactions in the game?

A flat rate of loss and regain is what I'm suggesting.

Would being able to see exactly how much rep you would lose (or how much someone had) remove enough of the uncertainty? Because making the cost lower to attack someone with low Reputation is a primary goal of the system and making the loss flat would significantly weaken that.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Atheory wrote:

Let us broaden this otherwise declaration of lines on a map.

How does one go about obtaining permission to harvest in your "claimed' territory. Are there limitations? If not, do you trade? trade what for what? rates?

Who speaks for the EBA? Are request completed by committee or still done at the individual settlement level? Just yesterday a Phaeros officer, who I will not name, plainly stated they have policies that the rest of the EBA do not. Where is the consistent message? Will Phaeros honor something agreed to by another settlement in the EBA.

Help me, help you.

Atheory
Allegiant Gemstone Company

Someone other than you would contact the settlement nearest the location you wished to harvest with their request. Requests will be evaluated on an individual basis.

Trades are also negotiated individually.

In no case should members of companies or settlements hostile to EBA or Phaeros expect to be granted privileges or safe passage.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tink wrote:
Capitalocracy wrote:
Savage Grace wrote:
Nonsense, we're all just Thod alts, roleplaying villains and victims.
That's another part of the problem, just villains and victims. We've got some proactive robbers, but we don't have many people playing cops yet. I suspect that will change with time, but it would be nice if there were some sort of brute squad people could call on to come fight bandits that are just camping around ambushing people.
To be fair, Phaeros are doing a good job acting as Team EBA, World Police right now. They are keeping us occupied with things that aren't accidentally picking on small settlements.

Darn! I thought that our motive to get you to follow the funnel towards the desired type of behavior was going to be unnoticed for at least a week or so.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tink wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Gol Tink wrote:
How does T7V respond to ongoing rumours that Tink is actually their super secret leader, and this has all been a ruse? It's all anyone is talking about.
How does Golgotha respond to ongoing rumors that Phyllain changed Golgotha's PvP Window to the middle of the night when no Golgothans were online to defend their Towers, despite all the rhetoric about how much you guys want PvP?
The same way that TEO responds to moving theirs to 11am server time? You said you wanted a war, we aren't going to be stupid about it.

Y'all launched the war, we just moved it to the known location on your doorstep at a time of your choosing.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tigari wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
What wasn't fun for the last week was a pattern where Gologthans camped out around Keeper's Pass in moderate numbers, killed a few individuals until word spread and a small response could arrive, and then ran away.
Our moderate number was always between 3-7, and your small responses where normally double that, it wouldn't be too smart to stick around..

So it wasn't fun for you either. Change is good.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tabomo wrote:

First of all, Decius and your squad: nice defense. For me personally, I had fun. :)

Secondly, I didn't personally notice any of you all going red, which was clearly the smart move as you were tower rushing to lower our ticks and waiting for us to attack. In that case my next question may not be answerable.

But on the off-chance that one or more of you did get a kill while red, did any of your guys lose rep? Even though it was an open pvp tower hex, I personally lost about 4k rep, and a lot of my team mates were in a similar boat. Just wondering what the deal is with that.

At one point I made a targeting/command error and flagged vs. myself. I got a message indicating that I lost Reputation for participating in my own murder, and my reputation was lower after that skirmish than it was before it.

I submitted a bug report with that information.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Savage Grace wrote:

I (currently) don't want Eve station safety. That could change.

My problem (and I call it a problem because I know I'm in the minority, even though I'm right) ;-) is I want *some* risk even in crafting because I view crafting as just another cog in the military industrial complex.

I feel that I deserve a chance to interrupt that, which of course means the other guy deserves a chance to interrupt me.

The improved Thornguard behavior and an open mini-map might be all I need to be comfortable.

It is hard to say, though, because you can't predict how your human opponents will surprise you, later.

Emergent player behavior will probably make crowdforging as difficult as it makes being a developer difficult.

Would you be satisfied if the settlement itself could be attacked in some manner to disrupt the industrial base?

Because what I see now is roughly analogous to a squad of German soldiers walking into the Detroit tank factory and shooting the assembly line workers during the Battle of the Bulge. And I think that is not how large-scale warfare should play out.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Midnight of Golgotha wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Midnight of Golgotha wrote:


I want to be able to craft, gather, carry recipe drops, etc. without unreasonable risks. You can't get far in this game without doing that stuff.

Can you be more specific about what the necessary and sufficient conditions are for an unreasonable risk?

It is subjective for each person, obviously. Thus the need for whole INFORMED crowdforging thing, tempered of course by the devs' intentions and the way the game is/was marketed.

I'll offer some SUBJECTIVE personal views...

To offer you an Eve-online example, I didn't like 4 cheap destroyers being able to kill a far more expensive Mackinaw before the Concorde "guards" could stop them.

In this game I wouldn't want to see a throwaway 1,000 point character two shotting my tier 2 equipped character. (I don't think that can happen now, but I also don't imagine myself crowdforging to get such a gank-friendly world).

I completely agree with the crafters who want to be able to see the mini-map while having the crafting window open.

I didn't start crafting until the devs improved the Thornguard behavior to fire on an attacker flag (and I'd *still* like to see the mini-map).

I was asking what qualified for what you want, yourself. Not anyone else.

Based on your response, the current state of crafting is roughly borderline, because it's possible to suicide gank crafters, and that level of risk is greater than the level of risk in EvE? Would being "in the building", off of the main map, be sufficient risk reduction to make you happy? (The EvE equivalent isn't Hisec, but being docked at a station)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Midnight of Golgotha wrote:


I want to be able to craft, gather, carry recipe drops, etc. without unreasonable risks. You can't get far in this game without doing that stuff.

Can you be more specific about what the necessary and sufficient conditions are for an unreasonable risk?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gol Phyllain wrote:
I mean the deal I made with Nihimon where we wouldn't engage in tower swapping. In that conversation I told him that we would still come south to fight and you guys where more then welcome to come north to fight us. Just wanted to be completely clear that you guys where breaking that agreement. Which I'm sure you will now say was never formal or lasting and that we some how broke it by killing people. It's your typical method.

That wasn't a deal; it was simply an acknowledgement that tower swapping wasn't fun.

What wasn't fun for the last week was a pattern where Gologthans camped out around Keeper's Pass in moderate numbers, killed a few individuals until word spread and a small response could arrive, and then ran away.

So, we're doing something different and expecting a different result. With the shorter PvP window, fewer towers to defend, and better capture mechanics, I expect that tower PvP will either be fun enough to satisfy the Golgothan PvP contingent, or that we will be able to provide specific feedback on what is wrong with it that can be incorporated into the system where Holdings change hands.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
It is nice to see you have agreed upon setting up a theme park, battleground PvP arena. Will there be various rule sets, limitations on numbers, tier of gear, etc?

Yes.

1: You have what you hold.
2. You have what you hold.
3) You have what you hold.
4- Courts are for kings.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Phyllain wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Charlie George wrote:

I have no stake in this game, but have those in EBA that feel Golgotha is a net negative considered merely marching to their door and showing them the error of their ways by the point of their swords?

Result: More pvp between "non sheep". Less pvp against "Sheeple"

Your stake remains unchanged.

And the gauntlet was thrown quietly, so you might not have noticed. Golgotha will continue to lose one tower per day until/unless their PvP-thirsty players overcome their aversion to fighting and defend their towers during their short window.

I encourage others who believe that Golgotha's PvP players have written checks that their swords can't cash to arrange independent blows at Golgothan holdings to provide them all the consequence-free PvP they can handle, so that they will have no need, reason, or justification to spend hours each day looking for a target that they can handle.

Oh no, our towers. I take it that our deal with TSV is off then?

Deal? Did you mean the situation that briefly existed where we would live and let live, or did you make a personal deal with someone?

The understanding that we would both end up worse if we fought each other in earnest didn't survive the actions of various Golgothans, and any deal you made with any individual remains in just as much force as before.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Savage Grace wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Charlie George wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Charlie George wrote:

I have no stake in this game, but have those in EBA that feel Golgotha is a net negative considered merely marching to their door and showing them the error of their ways by the point of their swords?

Result: More pvp between "non sheep". Less pvp against "Sheeple"

Your stake remains unchanged.

And the gauntlet was thrown quietly, so you might not have noticed. Golgotha will continue to lose one tower per day until/unless their PvP-thirsty players overcome their aversion to fighting and defend their towers during their short window.

I encourage others who believe that Golgotha's PvP players have written checks that their swords can't cash to arrange independent blows at Golgothan holdings to provide them all the consequence-free PvP they can handle, so that they will have no need, reason, or justification to spend hours each day looking for a target that they can handle.

That's good to hear. At least i can get back some interesting stories. It might even convince me to start using up my "free" months :)

Edit* Bonus points if you conduct corrective murder while you are there. I am not sure taking towers that are unattended will make a compelling story.

If the towers are unattended it will be very strong evidence that there is enough/too much PvP for the individuals in question, or else that their actual priorities differ from their nominal ones.
Or that they aren't redcoats who are going to march in straight lines for you.

Good point. If you would prefer to meet us at your tower at a time of our choosing instead, we can accommodate you.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Charlie George wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Charlie George wrote:

I have no stake in this game, but have those in EBA that feel Golgotha is a net negative considered merely marching to their door and showing them the error of their ways by the point of their swords?

Result: More pvp between "non sheep". Less pvp against "Sheeple"

Your stake remains unchanged.

And the gauntlet was thrown quietly, so you might not have noticed. Golgotha will continue to lose one tower per day until/unless their PvP-thirsty players overcome their aversion to fighting and defend their towers during their short window.

I encourage others who believe that Golgotha's PvP players have written checks that their swords can't cash to arrange independent blows at Golgothan holdings to provide them all the consequence-free PvP they can handle, so that they will have no need, reason, or justification to spend hours each day looking for a target that they can handle.

That's good to hear. At least i can get back some interesting stories. It might even convince me to start using up my "free" months :)

Edit* Bonus points if you conduct corrective murder while you are there. I am not sure taking towers that are unattended will make a compelling story.

If the towers are unattended it will be very strong evidence that there is enough/too much PvP for the individuals in question, or else that their actual priorities differ from their nominal ones.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Charlie George wrote:

I have no stake in this game, but have those in EBA that feel Golgotha is a net negative considered merely marching to their door and showing them the error of their ways by the point of their swords?

Result: More pvp between "non sheep". Less pvp against "Sheeple"

Your stake remains unchanged.

And the gauntlet was thrown quietly, so you might not have noticed. Golgotha will continue to lose one tower per day until/unless their PvP-thirsty players overcome their aversion to fighting and defend their towers during their short window.

I encourage others who believe that Golgotha's PvP players have written checks that their swords can't cash to arrange independent blows at Golgothan holdings to provide them all the consequence-free PvP they can handle, so that they will have no need, reason, or justification to spend hours each day looking for a target that they can handle.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Elsworth Sugarfoot wrote:

Erian: I would have liked to continue that chase off the mountain, but didn't want to lose the rep at the time. Next time I know it's you it'll be worth the hit :)

Decius: I would have stuck around a bit longer, but a few people in our party weren't keen on trying to fight so outnumbered after we had died a few times. It seemed a waste of durability. Plus, we'd been chased to a non PvP hex, so we couldn't fight you there. Also, I had been down south for 3 hours trying to start PvP. I mistakenly assumed you would be in coms with your allies and was wondering why no one was coming to the assistance of BWG so I came up to Keeper's to taunt you once your PvP windows opened.

"Outnumbered". I do not think that means what you think that means.

And I, personally, was known to be streaming the PFU lecture during that time.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

It would be a lot nicer for the aggressive PvP aficionados if they had an extra 20-30 minutes during the nights they attack. That way once the response has a chance to arrive, they would be able to fight more than a couple skirmishes before having to log off in KP.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Plus, the low granularity of the D20 system is well-suited for games where you want to be able to have humans do the math on the fly, but poorly suited for a MMO where you want there to be ways to seek out ever-smaller advantages. Hence the 3d200 mechanic; by not being binary hit/miss, the importance of to-hit bonuses is reduced, and thus +1 to hit in PFO is not the relatively huge expected difference that +1 to hit is in Pathfinder.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After wrestling with various software, the recording is finally up here.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Well it sounds like the developers are going to learn a few interesting things about unplanned interdependencies. :)

May you learn interesting things in time.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Savage Grace wrote:

My only fear is that the popular kids will just decide who gets to own what and everything will remain as static and conflict free as they are now.

How can devs thwart players who don't want to fight?

More importantly how are they going to entertain those folks, if the players won't create entertainment through conflict?

Of course, for the 32 or so people drawing the boundaries they at least get to play Diplomacy.

Will the rest of us just have to sit back and wait to hear what we've been apportioned?

No. You're quite permitted to take whatever you can hold, or join an organization that doesn't agree to the distribution, or join an organization that does agree but doesn't hold their members to that agreement.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Mai Shael wrote:
My client crashes roughly every 20 minutes, I'm on a newer mac with 8mb of ram. The fan runs fine, it doesnt have a great video card but it should be adequate. my graphics are set to fast, I'm using a lower resolution but it doesnt seem to matter. heat doesnt seem to have much to do with it, just more data to deal with in terms of players, buildings or mobs, animations, in a big fight and the client locks up

Assuming you meant 8GB of ram: That might be the problem.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Broadcasting from now until complete here.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Yrme wrote:

I'm not sure why crafter settlements are expected to thrive at this time, compared to other settlements? All settlements have some crafting capabilities; crafting settlements have the advantage of all crafting stations *plus* an auction house.

Just speaking as a EBA member, I have spent more time in KP than in any other settlement during the last 6 weeks. I don't need to belong to Keeper's Pass to use their crafting stations or auction house.

I think this is a big part of it. You don't have to belong to a crafting settlement to use their resources right now. Keeper's Pass is absolutely overflowing with activity right now, but it isn't all from their citizens. Members of EBA are spending all their time there gathering, crafting, and foraying into the field.

I don't think pure numbers of members is going to be a good indication of the health of a crafting town. I think the other non-crafting settlements around it are going to use it as a base for their trade, help those settlements with defense, and basically ally with them for mutual benefit.

-Lisa

Indeed. If Keeper's Pass needed resources and labor to improve at being a crafting settlement, they would have it despite not having many direct citizens.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Is there a way to track video card RAM (or other resource) usage in a meaningful way? My guess, based on crashing more frequently in congested areas and less frequently when not crossing lots of tile or hex boundaries, is that something is hitting a hardware limit unexpectedly.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

It sounds to me that the original problem might be related to swapping weapons around combat. How exactly did you change staves for the first test?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

If nobody else is doing so and I get no objection, I plan to broadcast on my own Twitch and maybe expand the audience by a couple of people.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
How was it "rejected cleanly"? There is probably a good reason you can't replicate it, I'd say.

It's rejected because in the initial data sets, the series that should have a max and mode of 98 has one of 79.

The problem is that we cannot replicate how to get those results. In many circles, the presumption would be to consider it a failure to follow procedure and move on, instead of asking if there might be a bug related to updating keywords when weapons are changed out.

1 to 50 of 4,754 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.