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

4,815 posts. Alias of Daniel Powell 318.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,815 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

Only PFO subscribers can post on the GW forums, making these a good way to explain PFO to Pathfinder fans.

While we should point out that these aren't the preferred or most used forums, we shouldn't imply that they are completely obselete.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The problem with pickpocketing has nothing to do with reputation and has already been done to death in this thread and several others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't die until you need to reset your hand, so I'd use it every time I was rolling a check that would win the scenario.


Vic Wertz wrote:


mlvanbie wrote:
The old version of Silas seems to deal damage if you try to evade, but the new one would not.
Yes, he does: "If you do not defeat Silas, Silas deals 1d4–1 Poison damage to you. "
If you evade Silas, that text doesn't happen, does it?
Mike Selinker wrote:
Evade ignores the entire card except for anything that says anything about evading or things that might let you evade.

"Before you act" says something about evading, and since evaded banes are neither defeated nor undefeated the "if any player (fails to) defeat" works, unless the player who encountered the bane evades, in which case the rules for evading take precedence, because that text is ignored.

Occluding Field:
Current:
Each character at this location encounters the Occluding Field. Any character may reveal a boon with the Sihedron trait to evade the barrier; if all characters at the location do so, banish the barrier. Characters who fail to defeat the barrier are dealt 1d4+1 Force damage that may not be reduced.
If defeated, shuffle the barrier into a random other open location deck. If there are no other open locations, banish the barrier.
Proposed:
Before you act, you and each other character at your location may reveal a card with the Sihedron trait. If all players at your location do so, banish Occluding Field. Every character at your location who did not reveal a card with the Sihedron trait encounters Occluding Field.

If undefeated, you are dealt 1d4+1 Force damage that may not be reduced.
If defeated, shuffle it into a random other open location deck; if there are no other open locations, banish it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

For the practical portion, it would involve changing the email, deleting any payment information on file, changing the password, and telling the buyer the new login info. (The buyer should then confirm that the email is correct and change the password again before adding their own payment information).

I'm not aware of any escrow providers, so all trades are based on a high level of trust from at least one party.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The bigger they are, the harder they are to fell.

Ogg's heads now adorn five pikes, and the rivers run red with the heart's blood of what once was the core of his army. But his forces were numerous, and the disorganized remnants of Ogg's hubris remain a threat that still must be dealt with.

Thanks to everyone who assisted.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I know I didn't request an RSVP, but it would help for planning purposes if anyone planning on attending would say when they planned to be present.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

On the 27th Day of Gozran, AR 4715, General Vrel Vusoryn of the 4th Battle Guard - River Kingdoms, declared Reckoning on any Ogres found in the southern Echo Woods.

Shortly afterwards, scouts of the echo woodsmen discovered that the army of ogres was led by an ogre known as Ogg, who shared in the blessing/curse of Pharasma and was apparently resistant to immunity.

And so the call went out for more pikes. Ogg's head is destined to grace all of them, until he gives up his dream of leading the ogres to victory in their siege of the inaccessible Fort Inevitable.

This weekend, everybody is invited to participate in the fall of Ogg the undying near the old university. Rewards will be offered to participants based on escalation completeness. Timing details will be determined by discussion and availability of participants, but are currently estimated to be Saturday from server uptime for about seven hours and Sunday from server uptime until complete.

PFU members and recent graduates are particularly encouraged to participate and get a feel for how to handle escalations. Basic gameplay advice will be offered purely on a time and attention-available basis.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see lots of germs of ideas for great MMOs here, but I don't see much that wouldn't require writing off a huge part of work already done in order to incorporate into PFO.

Are you sure that you're not designing a MMO based off of Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis? There's probably a niche for that somewhere, but I think that there are some pretty hard problems to solve first. What would the players' goals be in a MMO succession game, and how would a player that spent only 12 sessions with a character (semiweekly for 6 months) feel that they were accomplishing something?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Audoucet wrote:
Saiph wrote:
Perhaps it's time to move on man.

Actually, I don't come here very much any more, but when I see Ryan talking nonsense on MMORPG.com, I can't help it.

And to be honest, I consider that the 1500$ I gave to this game make my occasional complaining worth it for GW.

How much did you get for reselling the platinum account?


Based on my convention experience, don't rely on cellular data to work either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sign me up for a half-orc brain, if you have one. I'm on a diet.

I'll me there as Decius Brutus.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Neadenil Edam wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Lam, please, check your data before posting. EBA is 5 settlements:

Brighthaven, Phaeros, Keeper's Pass, Hammerfall and Blackwood Glade.

It is like your previous clam that we have have claimed 1/4 of the map. Imprecise and misleading.

I think Andius believes that EBA is just Brighthaven and the other settlements are all now TEO alts :D

Don't be silly.

We're all Blaeringr's alts.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Lam wrote:

I come into this concept from Kingdoms of Camelot and other team games (sorry, do not recall names). These were teams of max 100 who would develop their "kingdom (much like developing character) and take on other teams. Maybe that is my naive view of GW, based upon my past. But they speak to settlement vs settlement play. Not individual play, but teams of individuals.

I think that is still there. That is something Bluddwolf, Andius, Nihimon, Cheatle, Decius and not addressed. The question is how I bring my General into this game now, when it is not there, yet.

This is about generals. But it is not stable enough , yet.

Bring your general into the game now, and start working your way up. I would be surprised if the ones that started now took as long to get to where the ones who started three years ago are now.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Tharak Venethorn wrote:
Savage Grace wrote:

138 Holdings would cover the claim.

With perfectly min-maxed companies (getting 67 influence per characters) it will take 205 characters (iirc that holdings cost 100 influence before upgrades). That is well within the EBA's character numbers. But that only works if companies can hold multiple holdings... Can they?

The logistics of it all would be interesting to see.

Of course 1194 characters could claim the entire 800 hex map through the same math.

I would LOVE to see them try controlling that entire area with outposts once raiding, asset destruction, and feuds are in. If those features ever make it in without being completely neutered first.

I agree. It's far more likely that we will cede territory than that we will claim more. Whether we can hold on depends almost entirely on how strong the groups that want to contest us are.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Savage Grace wrote:

I get that, but knowing who the claimant is at war with would be vastly more important information to most travelers.

One settlement could have 20 enemies. We've already seen an area I would call "besieged" tell new players that it was a safe place for them.

Why not encourage groups to declare what territory they are interdicting, and what groups they are ganking there?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Neadenil Edam wrote:
Savage Grace wrote:

But that only works if companies can hold multiple holdings... Can they?

Yep.

You would also have to try and protect all 138 from attack though.

In reality renters would do it.

Not sure we really want renters in PFO though.

Why not?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Lahasha wrote:
Black Silver of The Veiled, T7V wrote:
The reason why AGC wasn't given a non-hostile warning was because AGC was put on the Hostile List from previous actions they have taken in and around Keeper's Pass.

The problem I have with that is when this all kicked off you guys didn't even know it was the AGC who put the tent up. Everyone was accusing Golgotha of doing it. I had someone actually tell me I was on a list of Golgothans - while the Golgothans were killing me 'cause they thought I was on your side.(That was just funny.)

No one did their homework really, and I think a lot of the arguments would have been avoided if you simply applied your policies consistently.

Quote:
Edit: To change possible relationship between AGC and members of EBA, perhaps the leadership of AGC would open a diplomatic dialog with leadership of our three settlements.
Yeah, that would probably help a lot. I'll try to bring it up next time I have a chance.

The first step would be either publicly disavowing membership in Golgotha and the Empire of Xeilias, or bringing EoX to the table.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread is for the discussion of the EBA territory and polices. Please take discussion of policies that you imagine some nominally Lawful Good group created to a different thread.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Tharak Venethorn wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Tharak Venethorn wrote:
TEO Cheatle wrote:
We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership.

This just seems like a very interesting way to tell people that all but your foes are welcome in your borders.

You don't think something along the lines of "We reserve the right to tell anyone harvesting resources and attacking escalations to cease and desist on a case by case basis" might have better conveyed the idea you are now backtracking to and trying to convince us is what you meant from the start?

The idea that we are 'backtracking' to is that coming in without permission is prohibited, but that permission is not onerous to obtain. Which is much less a change than saying that prior permission is optional.
Ah so you are retaining that part. Is it your belief that all, or even the majority of players that will come into your territory to adventure and gather read the forums enough to be aware of these borders that exist only as lines on the forums and rules only laid out on the forums?

Ignorance of the rules is not exoneration, but it is a reason. We would be providing no useful information to anyone honest by announcing how we handled players who were ignorant of the rules.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Tharak Venethorn wrote:
TEO Cheatle wrote:
We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership.

This just seems like a very interesting way to tell people that all but your foes are welcome in your borders.

You don't think something along the lines of "We reserve the right to tell anyone harvesting resources and attacking escalations to cease and desist on a case by case basis" might have better conveyed the idea you are now backtracking to and trying to convince us is what you meant from the start?

The idea that we are 'backtracking' to is that coming in without permission is prohibited, but that permission is not onerous to obtain. Which is much less a change than saying that prior permission is optional.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Tharak Venethorn wrote:

What's the point of even having this policy then if acceptance is guaranteed? Wouldn't it be simpler to say "Hostile factions can't harvest in our lands."

Given that Brighthaven was founded on the principle of being a safe haven for all but your enemies to come and find a place to play in peace under the protection of TEO what's the point of telling everyone they need prior permission?

We haven't denied permission so far. When we need to deny permission, the need to request it will not be new.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I use lots of player-based solutions.

I take extra care to be security-aware while doing so, because any one of them might have a vulnerability that could compromise many things.

I would not take bets at the odds offered that eg XenForo does not have a vulnerability that might compromise a token that can be used to change the email address listed on the account, or otherwise compromise my characters.

Unified sign-in is the right long-term choice, and treating security of that login seriously at every point is far more critical than forum features.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Is there any clarification about whether melee range cantrips and orisons are intended to consume charges, and will not be buffed, or are in the same class as longsword attacks and will be, or neither?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Atheory wrote:
what point would that be?

That you can't set up base camps in our territory with impunity. What did you think the point of taking the tower was?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Atheory wrote:

@Decius

I'm sorry, but the feud mechanic isn't in the game yet. Try again later.

What's that got to do with anything? According to my understanding of feuds, settlements and nations wouldn't be able to declare feuds against companies. In the finished game, I bet we'd have raided one or two of your holdings and considered our point made.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

"Expense" being largely measured in programmer time, which is a resource that would take lots of programmer time and money to increase.

Doubling the number of programmers would take a significant amount of productivity away from the existing team for cultural acclimation and task organization adjustments.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gol Phyllain wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

I love how

Gol Tink wrote:


We had no intention of beginning a war with Keepers' Pass or Brighthaven. We still have no real intention of being in a war with Keeper's Pass or Brighthaven, which is why we have been keeping the vast majority of our operations close to Phaeros lands.

is equivalent to "2 hexes from Keeper Pass, in the mountains".

I get the tactical reasons perfectly, it is way easier to get targets if you sit in the main access to KP, where your target movement is restricted to a single hex and the ogre help you. But I find that that beavyor make the statement "we want to fight only Phaeros" blatantly false.

Not a surprise as this is as much a propaganda war as a guerrilla war for Golgotha.

I liked this response, the first night of our interdiction campaign we in point of fact did not attack anyone up on the mountain we only operated in the area around Phaeros. The next day the entire brighthaven alliance mobilized to take all of our towers. The next day I opened up the area of engagement to include the mountain that PK and Brighthaven reside on.

I am willing to provide prof of the original set or orders to my members if anyone would like to see it. There is some profanity in it how ever.

If you didn't want a war but felt forced into one because we defended a tower for a day, would you be willing to settle for a state in which there isn't a wave that sweeps up from the south and wipes all of EoX's towers, and EoX generally respects EBA territory and doesn't try to inderdict anywhere outside its own borders?

Or is one tower important enough to go to war over, but all of them not important enough to be an important part of peace?

Phaeros believes that the principle of punishing gank squads, regardless of how effective they are, is important enough to war over, but that the cost of total war leaves every participant worse than a more limited war.

"Limited war" was the reason why we took only one tower, and the fact that it wouldn't result in any loss of training or support was a factor. After EoX started ganking in retailiation, the amount of damage that I intended to cause increased significantly.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Phyllain wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Gol Phyllain wrote:

We are talking about a different tower agreement not the original NAP.

You are correct

Asking us to remove it would have been a nice place to start yes. We might not have agreed but it would have been nice.

There was no such agreement and you know that. Try to act in good faith.

Ah, I'm sorry, the “unilateral cooling off”. While we are being candid, will you admit that the EOX did not, in fact, break any deals that we had with you? I'm not talking about respecting your “territorial rights”, as we never ratified those territorial claims. To the EOX, that Mordent Spire hex was fair game. Our towers were also fair game to you, apparently, and in attacking us you dragged your allies, who were very much in an agreement with the Empire, into an unnecessary war. A war that, in turn, made all of the EBA's towers and players fair game to us.

Would that be us acting in good faith?

We only attacked a single AGC tower, and they are and always have been independent of you.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Rynnik wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Try to act in good faith.

Good faith?

Like people from Phaeros trying to tell new players in general chat that there is not a war ongoing in the SE last night? Purposely putting new players who may NOT be aware of the ongoing situation in harms way for the sake of political posturing? THAT sort of good faith?

Because that is pretty lame and if Phaeros can't even set aside political perspective long enough to be honest and helpful with new players I don't want any of your brand of 'good faith'.

Lol. All we said was that most players were as safe as anywhere else. And based on the alts that various people had looking for you, that was pretty much true.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

An interesting end state would be making each shrine have an owner and the owner decides who can res there.

TKP shrine would allow middle and high rep, Rotters Hole shrine would allow everybody. Wilderness shrines might vary depending on who controls them.

Each time you can choose one of your threaded shrines or the nearest one that allows you.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Atheory wrote:
You could have asked AGC to remove it, Golgotha had nothing to do with its placement. I saw no distinction between having that there or just banking up a hex away.

Phyllain claimed full responsibility for all of AGCs actions. Are you now claiming that AGC is not one and the same with Golgotha?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Phyllain wrote:

We are talking about a different tower agreement not the original NAP.

You are correct

Asking us to remove it would have been a nice place to start yes. We might not have agreed but it would have been nice.

There was no such agreement and you know that. Try to act in good faith.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Pax Pagan wrote:
As I have been outed(with my permission) sorry Pax guys you are a great bunch and it wasn't personal

Man, I thought for sure it was going to be Arecks/Obakaruir that was being outed!

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Savage Grace wrote:

My neighbors are willing to deem PvE to be a hostile act and try to punish entire settlements for someone's PvE.

Yet somehow their PvE-ers are all poor innocent "non-combatants" who shouldn't be touched.

How can *I* become an untouchable PvE-er?

Operate in an unclaimed area or area in which you have permission to operate in.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tink wrote:

Well then he should actually provide some evidence to back up his inflammatory statements, like suggesting that we might be griefers. Something, I will add, that he has been trying to push onto Golgotha since before the Alpha.

When a settlement does very little but accuse my people of being cheaters (Nihimon) and griefers (Decius), it is rather difficult to take them seriously.

Goblinary.

"Very little"?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Phyllain wrote:
I think he is talking about the three guys who ran at us over and over again on the road we where interdicting. They prob accused us of spawn camping them or something.

Like I said, when I make a specific allegation of griefing it will not be judged in the court of public opinion.

Your other behavior has already been judged, and the community expressed it's opinion. I don't think their opinion is likely to change. You can stop posturing about how evil and bandit you are.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Rynnik wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
If your members and leadership abide by a policy of not griefing in the territory of foreign powers

Golgotha doesn't grief ANYWHERE.

Please watch the language you choose to employ.

I was very precise. If I have enough evidence to make a more specific accusation, I won't make it on the forums. I truly hope the credible reports I have are abberations that will not repeat.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tink wrote:

Golgotha does not have a policy of aggressive, extended attacks against non-combatants of those settlements we are not at war with. Barring the occasional roam into the lands of other entities, we have no business taking the fight to your home hexes. For those settlements that deal with us in an above-board, reasonable manner, we will extend the same courtesy.

The situation in the SE is an exception, not the rule. Unless Forgeholm does something to particularly provoke us, chances are you will only fight a dedicated, organised group within our own lands, or at a tower. Again, barring the occasional roam.

Thanks for letting us know of your policy change. If your members and leadership abide by a policy of not griefing in the territory of foreign powers I expect that there will be no need to have to retake the towers that you care so little about.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Remind me how taking a tower does not harm non-combatants?

That is being compared to placing a small holding, to harvest a Monster Hex, which is not only PVE but it is harvesting a completely renewable resource.

Lol. Four GCEs in two sentences.
GCEs?

Gross concept error. When you are not quite not even wrong.

First, that non-combatants exist. That harvesting resources isn't PvP. That escalations are 'completely renewable'. And that smallholdings are appropriate tools for harvesting escalations.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

Remind me how taking a tower does not harm non-combatants?

That is being compared to placing a small holding, to harvest a Monster Hex, which is not only PVE but it is harvesting a completely renewable resource.

Lol. Four GCEs in two sentences.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lifedragn wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
Its almost like T7V claimed they were going to try and keep non-combatants safe in an open PVP game, spent two years being called naive carebears on the forums, and are now accomplishing exactly what they said their goals were all along.

This would not so easily be accomplished if it were not for the incompleteness of the game.

Bottom line is this, PFO would be a very different experience for all parties concerned if only partial threading (as was planned by GW) were actually a thing.

Item decay 1/5th (5% not 25%) of what was also described as the plan by GW.

A character needs to die 20 times before having to concern themselves with new gear, that is a tremendous altering factor to the desirability of PVP, both pro and con.

Tier 2 advantage over T1 has made combat far more gear centric than was originally advertised. So those who focused on Crafting are seeing a short term advantage over those that concentrated on combat. I say short term because eventually all will have T2 gear, and crafters will have little or nothing to do.

I agree to some extent with the durability being a little too lenient, but would perhaps take a more moderated approach. Leave tier 1 as it is, give T2 items 10 durability and T3 items 5. This provides a more lenient atmosphere for novices and grows less forgiving as you gain play experience. It also makes sure that T2 and T3 crafters are kept a little more busy.

That would also require making t3 costs a fraction of what they are.

Seriously, look at the amount of raw material in t3 equipment, most of which nobody has seen anywhere yet.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gol Tink wrote:

You know, it's strange, Decius, we have been saying the exact same thing about you and Nihimon since pre-Alpha. We believe that you are toxic to a cohesive community, and that you will do everything you can to undermine positive influences while hiding behind the pretense of being "the heart and soul of the community".

So how about this. We will hand Callambea off when you and Nihimon unsubscribe form the game.

That would satisfy me as well and anything that I can tell you to do.

That was not an opening position. I can not negotiate my beliefs.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

It was during the land rush that I noticed that Pax was behaving antiehically to positive gameplay and would improve PFO by their absence or reform. I haven't seen any movement to reform the organization. Would it be too hard to, without admitting wrongness, put Callambea into a non-Pax member's hands, publicly disclaim any obligation they have towards you? That, combined with not encouraging random ganking, would satisfy me as well as anything that I can tell you to do.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gol Phyllain wrote:
You really need to make up your mind man. Did we have a ceasefire or didn't we?

Brighthaven was having talks, and Phaeros advised that we would not agree to any written terms but would like things to cool off. Things cooled off for a while, then there was aggressive action against us, then we responded to the heat with a measured move, then the murderhobos came down and we responded to the escalation.

Had it been only the two towers we lost that night, we probably would have taken them back, noticed the removal of the offending base camp, and cooled back off.

And you knew all of that, but if you gave the order to not attack, it would have been ignored, so you bought off on the consequences of recruiting players who want to advance "player killer" more than they want to meaningfully interact.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

TEO took five, HFL took two, HRC took one, ROS took four I think? I'll have to check my strategic notes.

I used sharpie instead of wet-erase, so now I have a permanent record.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tink wrote:
You are aware that 5 of our towers are literally in the hands of TEO right now, yeah?

5 of TEOs towers are in the possession of TEO. And 5 of Phaeros' towers are in our possession. Oddly enough, the rest of our towers are as well.

When you can hold towers, you can have them.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gol Tink wrote:

Well then, let's be clear.

The EoX believes that our ceasefire with Phaeros ended when they attacked one of Kruez Bernsteins towers on... Tuesday night I think it was? Our talks with the Cheatle at the time made us believe that our ceasefire with the rest of the SE still stood.

The EoX believes that our ceasefire with the rest of the SE ended when they cooperated with Phaeros on Saturday night to attack the rest of our towers. Until we heard reports that Cheatle himself was a part of those attacks, we still hoped that there was a chance that it was a rogue op, and that the ceasefire held.

Edit: Cheatle, that is not what we agreed upon. I have told you, explicitly, that we would attack Phaeros on their lands. I made attempts before our ops to contact you, so that you could pull your people out of the Red Zone. Unfortunately you weren't online. You broke the ceasefire, not us.

For the record, this is an excerpt of our internal SOP prior to your tower attack:

"It should be noted that our agreement with the rest of the EBA still stands. We are operating under the assumption that Cheatle is good to his word, and that though they will assist in the defense of Phaeros, as long as we do not go into Brighthaven lands and begin attacks, we will not face aggressive reciprocation.

Make every reasonable attempt to avoid the mountains in the SE. Keep your attacks within the immediate area around Phaeros, and Phaeros controlled lands. I do not want to hear reports of obvious attempts at attacks within Keeper's Pass or Brighthaven controlled lands. "

I assume that if you don't have the authority to speak on behalf of EoX Phyllain will step in and say so.

The detente was over when AGC was observed to have established a base camp for the purpose of farming t2 escalations in EBA territory. It could have been resumed after their tower was taken in retaliation and then retaken. However, there was further escalation afterwards. When EoX forced resumed attacking random targets around Phaeros, there was no way to offer a measured retaliation. So we organized for a total retaliation, even coordinating with other groups to make the response as overwhelming as possible.

If EoX continues with their policy OR the actuality of hit and run attacks anywhere outside of their own borders, Phaeros will not entertain any softening of their stance towards EoX. Any EoX member state that wishes to seek a separate peace should consider disavowing their imperial alliance.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Savage Grace wrote:

Stop being reasonable. ;-P

Yeah, 10% might be enough, but Eve suggests that those who want to be free of PvP will be paying PvPers for the privilege to PvE in territory held by PvP-ers.

Who will be the first settlement to admit they have renters? :-)

"Admit"? Who will be the first group to boast that they support renters?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Al Smithy wrote:
Quote:
People don't want meaningless PvP. People don't want PvP that deliberately targets inexperienced players around starter areas. But that doesn't mean they don't want PvP.

Then all those people who have posted on the forums that they didn't want PvP at all, and ragequit the game because of PvP are just bad at typing?

I'm willing to bet that your stipulation only comes close to being true because most of the staunchest anti-PvP people have already ragequit, and the most active PvP-centric groups or sub-groups have already left as well. What is left behind is likely just the people who have crafting alts who will switch characters to engage in PvP when it appears there are more than a dozen people online playing the game.

Every single person that I engaged with who initially said that they didn't want PvP came to adjust their position toward not wanting meaningless PvP. Some of them didn't believe that PFO would provide meaningful enough PvP for them, and many wanted a theme park game, and some left before I could engage them, and some were driven off by other forumites. But nobody, without exception, stayed long enough to hear that PvP would be meaningful and then said that meaningful open-world pvp was an absolute deal-breaker.

1 to 50 of 4,815 << 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.