Gerrik's page

SlimGauge wrote:

It's quite silly that a mage can't cast feather fall on himself and THEN step off the cliff. We will continue to handle it the way we always have. You can cast it on any creature or object, but it will have no effect unless/until the creature or object falls (provided the duration has not expired).

Exactly. Why make this harder than it needs to be...

You should be able to cast it and then jump (if it was preplanned) or you should be able to cast it while falling.

And that is perfectly fine, noone should be up in arms over a GM house ruling something that makes more sense to him and his group. I personally think that it makes sense to force the check for one reason and one reason alone: it makes a player think before he has his character jump off a cliff, or into a pit, etc... It also means that pit traps and other environmental falling dangers are a little more dangerous than previously expected.

An attack of opportunity isn't an immediate action; it's an attack of opportunity.

Thanks for that, yes you are absolutely right; which if anything only serves to prove my point further.

minor clarification to your last statement - "...you must be in the action of falling for the spell to work.". The target (or targets) actually has to be in the action of falling... the caster can be stationary (and not falling). In fact, it would then NOT require a Concentration check.

You are absolutely right as well, thank you for correcting. The caster doesn't have to be falling; his targets do.

Something else I just noticed in the wording of Feather Fall itself:

"Feather fall instantly changes the rate at which the targets fall to a mere 60 feet per round..."

if you are not currently falling, how then do you change the rate.

It's quite silly that a mage can't cast feather fall on himself and THEN step off the cliff. We will continue to handle it the way we always have. You can cast it on any creature or object, but it will have no effect unless/until the creature or object falls (provided the duration has not expired).

It's as silly as not being able to cast shield on anyone but yourself (aside from the share spells ability); it's just simply the wrong target.

I am the GM in question, this issue was actually recently brought to light by a facebook post I found earlier today. Danzibe brought this to the community in hopes that we could find some small resolution or rule that someone else may have already figured out that we didn’t. We are on good terms; this is not an argument, simply a crusade for knowledge.

I completely changed the way I thought about using the Feather Fall spell due to the arguments I heard from other GMs. Originally I had been thinking that feather fall was something you could cast before you actually started falling; to keep yourself from doing so, my original belief for this was attacks of opportunity. An attack of opportunity is provoked when someone moves through a threatened square, the retaliation to this is typically resolved as an immediate action prior to the creature finishing their movement. Thus I believed that Feather Fall worked the same way, you fall, you cast, casting resolves before you fall. However, there were two problems with this concerning the RAW. The first of which is this little doozie found in the environmental rules:

“A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall. Casting a spell while falling requires a concentration check with a DC equal to 20 + the spell’s level.”

So this is the first problem with the way I was looking at things, because if I cast feather fall before I am actually falling, then why did I cast feather fall; surely, my character does not possess the ability of precognition (granted that would be cool). So then how does my character know that he is going to fall? The simple answer is that in most cases he doesn’t; he fails a save and then he is in freefall. Then I thought, well if that was the case then shouldn’t he be able to cast the spell between the time after he fails the save but before he enters freefall? That might be possible if not for what I found out next. I went to look up Feather Fall and low and behold what do I find, but this little gem:
“Targets one Medium or smaller free-falling object or creature/level, no two of which may be more than 20 ft. apart”
Instantly I thought; nope, that’s it you definitely have to be free-falling, until Danzibe pointed out that this line could have two potential meanings. The first being that the spell targets a creature or a freefalling object and that the creature is not required to be free-falling. This has a couple problems wrong with it from my point of view. The first of these being that the wording of this is similar to spell such as the target for spells like shatter:

“5-ft.-radius spread; or one solid object or one crystalline creature”

More explicitly the section after the word ‘spread’ caught my eye. The problem that seems to exist with the wording of feather fall does not exist with this spell. This is because the author of this spell specified something that makes a HUGE difference in the world of semantics and the English language: the use of the word ‘one’. Let’s look at a similar example:

“I have a new note and a pen”

The repeated article "a" indicates that these are separate items and, because new is located between note and its article, it would be assumed that new applies only to that item. (By eliminating the second article before pen, then the first a, as well as the adjective that follows it, applies to both items in the list. – english.stackexchange.com

This would seem to indicate that the absence of the ‘a’ (or use of the word one) in the targeting of feather fall means that the word “free-falling” applies to both the object and the creature mentioned, and not just the object.

At this point in time, this is where I have landed: because an object must be falling before the feather fall spell can be cast. Because of this fact, you must perform the appropriate concentration check or fall without the benefits of the spell. You similarly cannot cast feather fall on yourself before jumping into a pit or off a cliff for the same reason as has just been stated; you must be in the action of falling for the spell to work.

I believe some of you are a little unclear of the point at which you are intended to spend the points. The very first part of foe-biting says "When this item deals damage"... the order in which the decisions are made is vague I will admit; however, I believe the following is with the spirit of the rule. Here is a flow chart to help illustrate the order in which I believe things should occur.

1. Make an attack, Was it a hit?
-->YES - add up how many points of damage and proceed to 2.
-->NO - you missed, better luck next time.

2. Was it a crit?
-->YES - proceed to 3.
-->NO - proceed to 4.

3. Spend TWO points?
-->YES - double damage, proceed to 5.
-->NO - normal crit damage, proceed to 5.

4. Spend ONE point?
-->YES - double damage, proceed to 5.
-->NO - normal damage, proceed to 5.

5. Apply damage to monster.

I hope this clears some things up.

wow... mmk well thats a bit dissapointing, but I suppose asking to be a part of the alpha with early enrollment burgeoning only next month makes me think that the alpha will be short lived, I guess I'll just have to make do playing dark souls 2 till then. :(

so to be clear... there is only 1 invite (to the leader of each guild) for each guild? Is this correct?

Hi, I'm the one Iammars' rewards got shipped to. He ordered the print pack add-on but apparently something went wrong with the shipping address in the pledge page and it came to me instead... The following Items are indeed his.

pathfinder Flip-Mat: The Emerald Spire Flip-Map Mega pack print edition
pathfinder campaign cards: The emerald spire superdungeon
Pathfinder Tales: The Crusader Road print edition

These items are all a part of the print pack add-on which he paid for. I don't know if it would be better for you to send me a shipping label to have them sent back to paizo and then have them shipped to his address or if it would be better for you to reimburse one of us for getting these items to him.

Additionally the print pack was supposed to come with the emerald spire superdungeon book but it seems that copies may have run out and that is why it may not have been with this order. That also belongs to him under the print pack add-on and should be sent to his address and not mine. Thank you for you understanding, I will check up on this thread periodically to see if there is any more instruction for me to follow. I can confirm that the shipping order number is correct.

Thank you again for assistance in this matter and I hope we can resolve this matter quickly to get this gentleman his items.

Hello everyone,

It has been a very long time since this thread has been opened, Please allow me to re-introduce ourselves, we are Hearthguard!
for more information on the guild you can go scroll to the top of this thread (I don't want to clutter this post with what has already been said).

We have planned to make our selections for phase 2 of the land rush and if anyone is interested in joining our cause or our guild and taking part in this process, you are more than welcome to join our ranks. We currently have a page with pfofan.com and are a friendly enough bunch. We are still small but we are friendly. Most guild business is conducted on skype and we are all eagerly awaiting early enrollment, considering we are one of the earlier guilds to form here on paizo.com. I think most of what needed to be said has been said.

Hearthguard Guild Page

It seems that there is an SSL error on the goblinworks page whenever I try to load the server in google chrome. When I looked into the error it seems that this is due to some kind of certificate error. I tried to load the same page in internet explorer and had the same problem, I assume this is because I am using the same settings for both. Additionally I was able to get into the site via a friend sending me a link for the thunderstrike update which is reason why I was able to find this thread. I hope this helps you troubleshoot the issue and let people know if this is an issue they need to fix individually or if it is a server problem... either way I'm sure you guys will be able to figure it out, it would be nice not to have to ask my friend to send me a link anytime I want to get on the site. Thank you guys for being so awesome!

Before our guild makes any considerations to alliances, It would be nice to know what alliances our would be allies have drawn. It would also be nice to know if any of your orders have any enemies we should be wary of. At this point I must confer with my council and discuss such friendships. Know full well that we mean no offense; and the offer of peace from so many already speaks worlds of your character as well as the character of your organizations. Alas, a swift descision without the slightest consideration as to the consequences is a foolhardy descision at best and I must discuss such an important descision with my fellow compatriots.

Additional Information about the Guild.

Guild Forum - Pfofan.com

Guild Slogan - Our bond is unbreakable. Our will is unshakable. Our craftsmanship is unmatched. We are Hearthguard.

Ideology:
We carry the firm belief that everyone within this new world should have the right to protection and safety, but those who do should be expected to carry a certain discipline of personal peace; we will not harbor criminals. We believe in the right to self-defense; we believe whole-heartedly in the Defense of our homeland and the protection of our members and allies against all enemies who would wish them unprovoked harm. We are explorers; adventurer’s seeking new enterprises for business and craft. We accept most roles of play and encourage those who do not have any interest in crafting to join as well; every expedition needs escorts! We need defenders to ensure our business is conducted securely and safely. We need crafters and businessmen, networkers and liaisons; the list goes on and on. We expect for the name of hearthguard to carry with it connotations of fine craftsmanship, security, and exploration.

Means of Communication:
At the moment our guild is listed with pfofan.com and the main form of communication at this point will be conducted through the forum; however, we also have a skype chat and we are currently looking into some other voice server options.

Stance on alignment:
Evil characters will not be allowed to join this guild. If you are already a member of the guild and your alignment changes to any evil, you will be excommunicated from our organization. We are slightly opposed to chaotic aligned characters; this is mainly due to the way that contracts work, we do not want any bad business. We will accept applications from chaotic aligned characters; however, you may undergo some additional scrutiny during recruitment.

thank you

Thank you Nihimon, if you wouldn't mind posting us in the help links I would appreciate it. Here is something you can add in the description for us:

Comment:
Our bond is unbreakable. Our will is unshakable. Our craftsmanship is unmatched. We are Hearthguard.

We are a guild dedicated to the ideals of safety, the defense of our homeland, and the freedom of creation and exploration.

Name: Hearthguard
Alignment: NG
Preferred Alignments: LG/NG/G/LN/N
Role: exploration, mining, smithing, alchemy and other professions.
Player Roles Accepted: Almost any

On griefing and random pvp: We are opposed to it and we will not allow it in our guild.

Goal: To create an environment conducive to advancements in smithing, alchemy, mining, etc...

Mission statement: We are the the Hearthguard, we will put the protection of our hearth and home above all else! We will pride ourselves on craftsmanship and good natured fun. We expect to take crafting very seriousley and aim to ensure that the name of Hearthguard is synonomous with fine craftsmanship. We will be a community oriented guild; We will watch out for each other, we will work for each other, and we will do all in our power to protect those of our order and our allys. We are a team! We know the value of good friends and what it means to band together to achieve a common goal. Loyalty and business go hand in hand; our word is our bond, we always follow through on deliveries of goods and payments. Honor in busniness is honor in life!

Note: This guild was started partly in thanks to the communities of the "Pathfinder Society Online Collective." If you are a member of PSOC and wish to join the guild; you may find there are people you already know in the guild.

Recruitment: We are currently actively recuiting; however, if you wish to join, please make yourself known here in the thread as we are currently in the process of choosing a forum in which to recruit prospective members.

There are two problems that I see with the capture mechanic other than the automation of what should be a player responibility and the lack of a limit to incarceration. It appears to presume the capturing player's alignment is going to be non-evil. To be fair and balanced evil players would also have to have the power to capture. Someone suggested evil might kidnap people who offended them. Well, if Good can capture evil players for being evil, shouldn't evil players be able to similarly capture good players for being good?

If not: where is Justice?

Second a situation could be engineered to trap somebody into killing you. Death is relatively trifling in this game, except that you then would be able to order captured the Victim you trapped, and then you could confine that player and torment him, so long as you didn't kill him. Where is the check and balance to that?

My conclusion so far is that this mechanic should definitely not be permitted. How do you see a solution to these issues? Do you even see them as issues?

There are plenty of solutions but just to make sure I have the Itemized list of problems correct:

1) Time limit to incarceration
2) should evil characters be able to capture good characters.
3) what is there to keep players from being trapped into killing someone else and then getting flagged and captured.
4) would capture permit the torment of that character so long as the character was kept alive

So now that they have been identified here is a proposed solution:
1) Time limit to incarceration
Absolutely otherwise players could get to the point to where they get fed up with the game and ultimately leave.. I think this should be equivalent to the crime; however, perhaps just long enough to allow people to intereact meaningfully and not too long as to cause players to want to just quit.
2) should evil characters be able to capture good characters.
absolutely; but again, only if there has been some kind of conflct to prompt such a response.
3) what is there to keep players from being trapped into killing someone else and then getting flagged and captured.
I honestly cant think of a specific situation where this would occur; but ill try my hand at one.. trapped in a cage perhaps and the only way out is to attack the guy in front of you? dont attack him attack the cage maybe and make all cages destrucatble? maybe there will be times where people knowingly have to commit a crime to get themselves out of a jam in which case they would have still committed the crime and I think they should still pay the consequences.. again tho.. these instances of bounty should not occur for victomless crimes.. in truth I think these instances would be few and far between.
4) would capture permit the torment of that character so long as the character was kept alive.
Absolutely not! I would put a time limit on this as well as to ensure that players would not be allowed to hold a captive indefinately. perhaps an in game formula to decide the amount of time allotted to get the captured person back to the city where he took the bounty. the farther out you are from the bounty the more time you get.. even if it is only a couple more minutes.

Gerrik wrote:

the more people you kick out of a kingdom the less of a kingdom you have..

If a kingdom begins running out of people then that kingdom should revisit its policies, should it not?

Gerrik wrote:

yes its a viable option but again that should be reserved for petty crimes.. kicking someone out of a kingdom (especially when thats all that character knows) could be seen as even worse than spending a bit of time in prison where you can still do stuff.. break out, organize, bribe, etc..

Especially if your crime was engineered against you, in the same manner as Goons or Brotherhood or whoever might engineer a situation. Then as Victim a player is in your dungeon... for how long? At whose discretion?

Gerrik wrote:

you advocate against the improsonment idea for specific reasons then propose somthing thats even worse ..

Worse than being held captive against your will?

Gerrik wrote:

I wonder about you..

Have I wronged you then? Want to lock me up personally?

Look Garric. This is supposed to be a sandbox game and I have high hopes for it. Asking for the game to do what is a player responsibiity is contrary to the sandbox design. Punishing players you believe have wronged you is something you would contract over at Tony's Totally Legitimate Bread making business.

I absolutely agree that players should be expected to resolve their own conflict.. I have agreeed with that from the very beginning, like you said it is a sandbox; the problem is when there are no checks against players being taken advantage of.

You seem to believe that this imprisonment system is permanent.. that if you do something wrong that you will be in prison forever.. the mechanic proposed is meant as both a deterent for unacceptable behavior and an IN GAME way to deal with unscrupulous characters. You kill someone and maybe your character spends a half hour in prison as per the descision of the one that created the bounty in the firstplace (a bounty for which you can only create if you have been killed by the character in question). I hate what the American judicial system has become; Good people are found guilty while those who commit inhuman atrocities walk our streets free of the law because our system thrives off of money... without certain protections against unlawful insurrectioun our society collapses into corruption and chaos.. those checks and balances must be upheld to ensure justice for each and every person within their own society.

Granted you have to take into account that there will be societies operating withing the game that will not follow any kind of nuetral good alignment or even a true nuetral alignment. but my guess will be that most evil societies won't have laws against such things as murder.

The idea of imprisonment in the way it is proposed here does nothing but further the interaction between players and create content for other players to enjoy.. players will be urged to come up with creative ideas to escape! they recieve a whole new motivation for playing and It adds a whole new dynamic to the game!

but you know I dont think your problem is with how imprisonment will work as much as it is with how the contract system works but as it stands that is somthing you will have to take up with GW because they have already set that fascet of the game in stone. The contract system is how players will be able to create content for others players, which I believe would be enhanced by an imprisonment system.

either way I am tired of arguing with you.. I have stated my case time and time again... so you know where I stand and there really is nothing more to be said than I dont agree with you.

Gerrik wrote:

Being wrote:

Who do you propose should adjudicate any given case?

thats the point.. its a game you dont have to adjucate if its automatic..

...

Every automatic judgement is a move away from sandbox and meaningful player interaction. There is enough of that, as you have reiterated. There is already the bounty system, the criminal flag (or was that something we only proposed?), and alignment (we think... less so if alignments cannot be changed).

The ability to lock up anyone you feel has slighted you in your own private dungeon for who knows how long is not a power I would wish you to have.

I also would not wish to have that power myself. I wouldn't mind being a Marshall tho... as long as I get to lead my deputies from behind...

wow you really dont read do you.. contracts ... contracts... contracts.. you can only issue a bounty contract if someone kills you unlawfully. if thats too much power than you must be one of those guys that thinks he should have the porogitive to ruin the expierience for others for his own amusement .. killing another player unlawfully SHOULD warrant a reprecussion... otherwise its just like eve..

Gerrik wrote:

...

A citizen review will not work! Some people just don't care.. you have a whole nation of idiots 70 percent of which dont even freaking vote IRL and you expect them to take any interest in something as petty as "this guy isnt doing what I think is right".

What do you propose should be your substitute for democracy in your settlement?

Gerrik wrote:

In a lot of cases thats going to be a matter of opinion.

If it is the opinion of the majority then it is the opinion that counts.

Gerrik wrote:

not only that but you could be inciting grief by kicking someone out of that position when he thought he was doing a good job but the person who got judged rose a vote and got him kicked out.. how is that right???
It might not be. But that is the judgement of the community. If the ex-Marshall believes he has been seriously wronged he can either take it to a neighboring settlement and make grievance, go into the wild adnd become a bandit himself, or possibly ally himself with an enemy or rival of that unjust settlement and seek satisfaction by other means.

Gerrik wrote:

...

some people wont give a...

And that is THEIR right.

you are really getting away from what this thread was about in the first place but if all you want to do is argue .. then find a different thread an i'll be glad to join you. But you think this idea is bunk because you deny yourself the oppurtunity to see what it could be.. You already know what ring I have thrown my hat into and obviously the same goes for you; so lets stop beating the dead horse here eh?

Who do you propose should adjudicate any given case?

thats the point.. its a game you dont have to adjucate if its automatic..

you kill someone unlawfully, you are flagged for murder.

you steal somthing you are flagged as a thief..

you commit fraud you are flagged for fraud... Etc...

Because this is a game we can do better than trials in the real world.. you will only get those flags if you actually commit a crime.. I.E. if you get flagged, the person you wronged recieves the option of sending out a bounty .. some bounties its possible depending on the severity of the crime that they will be capture only .. at which point it should be up to the antagonist and the protagonist of the contract to resolve the issue.. if it cannot be resolved because either the protagonist wants justice or because the antagonist will not yield.. then the sentence would be carried out.. whether that be banishment, imprisonment, payment, etc..

with the exception of the capture feature and the imprisonment feature.. this is pretty much how contracts are going to work..

Gerrik wrote:

Being wrote:

So you want everyone to be able to confine each other for anything they feel like, right? Or are you appointing yourself the omniscient judge?

YOU CAN ONLY ENACT A BOUNTY IF YOU ARE WRONGED!!!! YOU CANT ARBITRARILY THROW UP A CONTRACT FOR ANYONE!!! that has already been decided by the GW staff...

Right, and you want to get around that by allowing a capture mechanism so you can grief people who haven't wronged you by making there characters unplayable.

wrong.. I want it to work WITH the bounty option.. you get the OPTION of bringing that person back instead of outright killing them! its not up to anyone but the person who recieved the prompt and the bounty hunter.

Gerrik wrote:

there are so many problems with that its almost hard to discuss.

1) there is no check or balance on that.. how would you be absolutely sure the sherrif or marshal was being fair.

Citizen review. The citizens can take away his office if he is out of line, and if necessary banish him and his deputies.

Gerrik wrote:

2) whats to stop them from making descisions against alignment if there is no alignment consequence when a descision is made.

They are elected, and know they can lose their immunity if found unjust or unfair, and could lose everything when banished.

Gerrik wrote:

3) what control would they even have to keep the peace besides kiling people??? other than that my guess is ... nothing. "hey you, you better stop that or else!" " or else what!? ... make me !" this especially wont work for small crimes .

There are other ways than death, such as expulsion from the settlement.

Gerrik wrote:

4) what is to stop people like this from becoming zealots to their cause and exerting their controls (if any) on others especially if the marshal or sherrif is wrong... you will have a lot more people wrongfully judged under this system than any other

Better than having everyone able to confine each other intrminably for a whim of their opinion. Because if you don't give the power to confine someone to everyone who do you propose should be able to do that to another player? You?

A citizen review will not work! Some people just don't care.. you have a whole nation of idiots 70 percent of which dont even freaking vote IRL and you expect them to take any interest in something as petty as "this guy isnt doing what I think is right". In a lot of cases thats going to be a matter of opinion. not only that but you could be inciting grief by kicking someone out of that position when he thought he was doing a good job but the person who got judged rose a vote and got him kicked out.. how is that right???

some people wont give a crap about their positions.. after all it is a video game.. corruption is everwhere.. whats to stop that when he has no alignment or reputation consequences.. or on the other end you have people tip toeing every line because they are afraid they are going to judge somthing wrong causing unnessesary stress for the person playing the game... games are about having fun not being stressed out..

the more people you kick out of a kingdom the less of a kingdom you have.. yes its a viable option but again that should be reserved for petty crimes.. kicking someone out of a kingdom (especially when thats all that character knows) could be seen as even worse than spending a bit of time in prison where you can still do stuff.. break out, organize, bribe, etc.. you advocate against the improsonment idea for specific reasons then propose somthing thats even worse .. I wonder about you..

You cant have system without working cogs.. without appropriate checks and balances your machine will fall apart.. and again you can only enact a bounty if something happens to trigger that option.. its up to the person that was wronged to decide... not me, not you, and certainly not some other stressed out player that has a bug up his but to play a paladin.

So you want everyone to be able to confine each other for anything they feel like, right? Or are you appointing yourself the omniscient judge?

YOU CAN ONLY ENACT A BOUNTY IF YOU ARE WRONGED!!!! YOU CANT ARBITRARILY THROW UP A CONTRACT FOR ANYONE!!! that has already been decided by the GW staff...

So you want all players to be able to imprison one another?

you must not have read the OP or several of my posts because I explained in each one.... you will not be able to imprison ANYONE unless specific conditions are met.

example:

1) A bounty must be up for the person specifically naming for capture (see the blog on contracts for more).

2) the character in question must be CAPTURED not killed.

3) the time must match the crime (you stole a candy bar you get 5 minutes in the box)

I think it would be better to have the character that did weong brought before the character that put up the bounty and talk things over and if things cant be resolved then they are imprisoned.

there are so many problems with that its almost hard to discuss.

1) there is no check or balance on that.. how would you be absolutely sure the sherrif or marshal was being fair.

2) whats to stop them from making descisions against alignment if there is no alignment consequence when a descision is made.

3) what control would they even have to keep the peace besides kiling people??? other than that my guess is ... nothing. "hey you, you better stop that or else!" " or else what!? ... make me !" this especially wont work for small crimes .

4) what is to stop people like this from becoming zealots to their cause and exerting their controls (if any) on others especially if the marshal or sherrif is wrong... you will have a lot more people wrongfully judged under this system than any other

But Gerrik that is just it: WE are supposed to play the game. WE are supposed to handle it, and with the ability to work together and coordinate our efforts we can. IF we have the will, the wit, and the wisdom to do it. If we don't we will have earned the world we allowed to happen. It is a sandbox. It can be evolved into an enlightened world, but the Devs cannot enlighten it for us we have to do it ourselves.

which is exactly why this is being discussed. The developers wont be the ones handling improsonment...PLAYERS are... it is a tool that is being discussed not having the DEVs solve our problems for us.

@Being: But this conversation isnt just about griefing... its about dealing with other in game crimes with an in game mechanic... there WILL be societies that have laws against things like stealing, fraud, etc... what mechanic has GW provided against those as of yet??? with the exception of alignment changes and reputation.. as far as I know there is none... thats why I like this idea.

Gerrik wrote:

Dont think that is likely to happen in an MMO where you can only be flagged for murder if you actually murder somone.. and also with the proposed ways this would be handled; certain conditions would have to be met for characters to actually undergo imprisonment... the reasons for why people get wrongfully imprisoned in the real world are vast. However in a game where things are certain I don't think you will find anyone wrongfully imprisoned.

certain conditions already have to be met for characters to draw up a bounty contract against a character..

You may consider the criminal flagging system infallible, but I promise if you give griefers half a whit of incentive, they will find a way to get other people flagged. False flagging *will* happen. And if you put in an incarceration system, innocent people *will* have their play time taken away from them.

And they will quit, justifiably so.

I guess thats where our point of view differs because I think thats a total excuse and nothing more. I played wow for nearly 6 years without being incorrectly flagged and killed on a PVP server. point being, flagging works... as long as GW is one step ahead of griefers you wont have any problems.

and again noone said anything about playtime being taken away. you just start into another dynamic... you will still be playing possibly trying to put together some kind of escape... its not a time out from the game that the OP was proposing its just another meaningful obstacle that your character must overcome.. but if youre so unimaginative and dull that you cant see that then maybe youre advocating for the wrong game...

As soon as you have players using the incarceration mechanic to imprison the innocent, especially anyone unjustly accused, then you have a griefing situation. The bounty hunter has not been killed by the suspect: Unless there are safteties put in place he could walk up and 'capture' the wrong guy. Me, for example. He might 'capture' someone he just wants to pick on, and extort payment in some form to let the player out.

Dont think that is likely to happen in an MMO where you can only be flagged for murder if you actually murder somone.. and also with the proposed ways this would be handled; certain conditions would have to be met for characters to actually undergo imprisonment... the reasons for why people get wrongfully imprisoned in the real world are vast. However in a game where things are certain I don't think you will find anyone wrongfully imprisoned.

certain conditions already have to be met for characters to draw up a bounty contract against a character..

@Gerrik, I'm not sure what that has to do with my post. Someone was suggesting that incarceration would somehow be acceptible if people could instead choose to fight to the death. I am asking in what situation people would voluntarily choose to give up their ability to play the game rather than take the death penalty. If there is no such case, or it's sufficiently rare, then there is no gain to creating a game mechanic for it. If people just want it for RP, there doesn't need to be a mechanic.

perhaps it was the wording that made me think you were trying to convey something else; however, in regards to the current argument, I don't believe it would be up to the antagonist of a bounty to die or be taken prisoner.. it would be up to the protagonist or in this case the bounty hunter as to whether or not the situation would allow for him to take the victom alive..

Yet if the rationale is that they would prefer to be captured than killed, do they need a mechanic to force them into captivity rather than simply volunteering to RP that way?

Granted, it could be as much griefing to imprison someone as to murder them, but isn't that a reason to forbid such a mechanic rather than build it?

@ Being: I believe you may have some concepts confused.. according to wikipedia the definition of a "Griefer" is as follows:

A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways.[1] A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals.

what we are talking about here with the implementation of an imprisonment feature is not considered a griefing mechanic for several reasons:
1) It provides an in game mechanic for dealing with characters that operate outside of the law (outlaws, Bandits, highwaymen, etc...) In truth, this is a very realistic concept BECAUSE it works in our own societies today... although it has it's flaws.. incarceration is a valid deterant for almost any crime.. which brings me to why I think this is a good idea in the first place.. Is character death a large enough in game penalty for dealing with criminal PCs? Really that is what this post boils down to.
2) Adding this kind of a mechanic to this game also adds a great dynamic to the political structure of the game and allows for crimes to be scaled appropriately.. is it really realistic to have the in game penalty for every crime be death????!! seriously "I only stole a candy bar and youre gonna kill me?!!" ... "yep"... how the hell is that fair play?
3) Incarceration as it is proposed is not going to be a "time-out" it would be a dynamic all it's own with its own social structures and mechanics to keep "prisoners" occupied and enticed. like the OP mentioned before, perhaps some people will HAVE to get into a prison in order to complete some sort of contract.. get information from a particular person and then break them out.

All I am trying to say is that the proposed idea may not be perfect but it has elements and dynamics that could be applied very well to this type of setting. And it isnt your duty as a crowdforger to shoot down ideas like this specifically because you dont like them or because you dont thing they will work but instead work with the idea, consider it seriously.. and make a descision that isnt based on personal opinion but rather on reasoning. Leave GW to decide whether its a good idea or not but let's try and polish this idea so it can get to that point.

@Keign, what incentive does a bandit, or anyone else for that matter, have to submit, and literally lose the ability to play the game, rather that just dying and losing their unthreaded stuff? Sure, they might have something really valuable on them they want to keep, assuming being incarcerated doesn't let them loot you either (guards make off with your stuff while you're locked up?). Role-play is not an incentive. Roleplayers do not need a mechanic for this. A mechanic is to enforce it on people who *wouldn't* do it anyway.

There is no forcing the idea... the game is intended to be an open world for MEANINGFUL pvp.. not "im a highwayman and a bandit and Im going to take your stuff and there is nothing you can do about it" in reality there are consequences for bandits thieves and murderers... thus the bounties.. without in game consequences for behaviour that does nothing but upset other players (victoms of bandit antics) the entire game would be nothing more than meaningless PVP and chaos.. there should not be incentive for players to be inconsiderate to others; in fact it should be quite the reverse which is exactly what was proposed here. So don't be blinded by a good idea just because you want a fantasy clone of Eve Online.

I actually started out leveling everyone based on the plot line but switched to the fast xp track for a couple of reasons. 1) I found that it is easier to keep teack of levels easier this way and It gives players incentive to show up every week due to the fact that when players dont show up, they lose out. I still keep a minimum level for charcters that bounce in and out because I dont want 2nd level characters.goin g into a CR 15 encounter. I feel this helps maintain a party balance whilr awarding those who show up to games while not punishing those that dont to severely. 2) I also award bonus xp to characters accomplish impressive acts of heroism, cleverness, and daring. I think this provides players with mor incentive to roleplay their characters to accomplish truely heroic deeds. to me, thats what pathfinder is all about. right now my grouo is about to head into book 3 and most of them are 6th level. there is 1 or 2 that are 5 but should be 6th by the time I actually start the 3rd book. Im ok with this because there are about 6 players for this campaign so the APL is actually a bit higher than 6th. anyway i guess what i am tryong to say is that you have to tailor your levelibg system to the AP and your style of play. (sorry for any grammatical errors. typing on my phone is not easy.

Im thinking more along the line of phrases that would compliment the mmo genre and show that players play a large role in the development and ultimately cause the game to evolve and change based on the feedback that they give.

How about

player impact gaming

or

player impact game evolution

Ok, got some more time, read some more, so here are some more Ideas

Player-Developer Refinement
Perpetual player developement - I particularyly like this one
Player opinion progression
User guided expansion
player advised game advancement

I'll think of some more later, but hopefully one of those is a step in the right direction.

how about:

Survey testng/programming/phase/etc...
Q&A testing/programming/phase/etc...
Feedback testing/programming/phase/etc...
Community Response testing/programming/phase/etc...
Player drafted testing/programming/phase/etc...
Player Pool testing/programming/phase/etc...
Adaptive world feedback testing/programming/phase/etc...
Player trial feedback testing/programming/phase/etc...
co-dev (short for cooperated developent) testing/programming/phase/etc...
Communitive testing/programming/phase/etc... (communitive being a dual phrased word insinuating both community involvement and communication)
player choice testing/feedback/phase/etc...
PC(short for player character)judge testing/feedback/phase/etc...

i'll think of some more and post later.. let me know if any of these stick.

@Ajaxis
But its not a theme park. At least not in the traditional sense. I think what Ryan was looking for was a name for the process of implementing players into the world to help develope parts of the game that are going to be mostly "sandbox" components and provide feedback that will help provide a more polished experience for players later on. As to the part of your question about what it should be called. Thats kind of part of this naming process and is something that could be left up to the developers to determine or the players. Ultimately I think it just comes down to who thinks what sounds best.

I like that the ephasis on "pilot" because it gives a general idea about how what phase of development that you are in; however, im not sure if it will stick specifically because the term "pilot" carries with it negative conotations of having the possibility of being unsucessful.

I have done a lot of thinking these past few days about what I think would be a good name for this type of release, specifically oriented around the idea that players will be basically building the infastructure for other players to enjoy while working within the lines of the developers rules and using player feedback to strengthen the experience. That being said, here's what I came up with.

"Player SPAWN Program/process/test/etc..."

I took this one step further and came up with an acronym for SPAWN that I think really encapsulates what you guys are trying to do.

Sandbox
Population
Adaptive
World
Network

If GW is going to allow poison chances are that the potency and abundancy of poison will rely heavily on the abilities of the crafter/user as opposed to the world of warcraft model "I need poison, Ill go ask this NPC named 'poison vendor' and see if he has any". Also the more effective poisons are going to be rather expensive/difficult to craft/require rare materials/ and some knowledge of how to use an apply poisons (that last part will probably be required for all poison use). This is to ensure that not everyone is running around with large quantities of deadly poisons that devastate players with a single application, otherwise, why would anyone bother doing anything but using poisons.

Alright heres the deal. I know about poisons pretty well; however some of this rules on them are quite unclear. Here's what I need to know.

1) inhaled poisons stack and can be inflicted at the same time. What i need to know is how many doses of inhaled poison are you allowed to stack together before you would have to make a second attack to deliver more.

I found this on another thread:
"Firstly it says: Multiple doses of poison stack, (notice it does not say multiple doses of inhaled or ingested poisons stack) it is referring to any and all poisons. If you are hit with multiple doses of the same kind of poison they stack, it doesn't matter what type of poison it is.

Secondly we have the sentence that is throwing you off: "Poisons delivered by injury and contact cannot inflict more than one dose of poison at a time, but inhaled and ingested poisons can inflict multiple doses at once." I believe what is throwing you off here is the way you are interpreting the bolded sections. I take this to mean that you can only inflict one dose of injury/contact poison per injury/contact or per attack. However, if you pack three doses of inhaled poison into a vile and then throw that into someone’s face, he will be inflicted be all three doses in a single attack. Same with ingested, you can load up three or four doses into one drink. You can only put one dose of contact or injury poison on a weapon though. And so you can only deliver one dose at a time. But they do still stack with each other as per the first sentence of the quote as well as the example at the end of the quote."

In a roleplaying perspective what the character would be doing is "packing" several doses of the same poison into a singular container. But as far as mechanics are concerned I have not found anything that reveals exactly how many doses you can pack into such a container. So lets say i have 20 doses of small centipede poison that I crafted for 30g a dose and then changed the property to inhaled via the master poisoner ability available to the poisoner rogue archetype and combined all 20 doses into a single flask. When I throw the flask (considering this is possible), the unfortunate creatures caught in the 200ft cube of this massive cloud of poison would have to make a dc 49 fort save or take 20 points of dexterity damage. Is this right????

All im looking for is some clerification on exactly how this is supposed to work or a ruling one way or another if this is legal or not.

Gerrik wrote:

I just wanted to say that by no means was I insinuating that the mobs should be so powerful that they leave the corpses of players in thier wake! All I meant was that I really don't want to see the same cookie cutter mob mechanics that ive seen in every other mmo. I.E. I run up and attack.... mob attacks back... mob low on health... mob heal..... mob low on health again.. mob run away... player chases mob.... mob dead... loot and repeat... Gets kinda boring after the 1,000,000,000 time of repetition.

...

That is what PVP is for, you are never going to have a PvE system that isn't a cookie cutter to some degree. There needs to be an intuitive mind behind your enemy for combat to remain 'fresh', otherwise it is just a matter of time until all the winning strategies are discovered.

The only reason i know you say this it just hasnt been done before.. But just because it hasnt been tried before doesnt mean its not possible. Other mmo's choose to make "cookie cutter" mmos because it cheap to design millions of mobs the exact same way and then change the skins. But because goblinworks is trying for something atypical of the current mmo market, following cookie cutter AI systems is not a good idea.

I dont know if you have ever tried playing terra, but they really have come up with an original approach to combat. Everyone in terra is given a reticle through which you target creatures, you must place the reticle over the creature AND activate a chosen ability to achieve a hit. If you fail to place the reticle over over the creature when you attack, you miss. Pretty simple system, which forces players to rely on some amount of skill and not completely on gear and abilities. This probably isnt the path that PFO will take, but this is the out of the box thinking that I think developers need to consider when creating a revolutionary mmorpg.

I Also would like to see what you can come up with on netlogo dorje, kind of excited really.

Well, to be honest, heres the way that I see it. Yes there are mobs in the game that should act "without a brain" and do nothing but attack you relentlessly. Most creatures of low intelligence will only do as much in real life so why expect any more out of them in a video game; however, there are some creatures that are a little smarter than your average bear and should be treated as such.

For example, there was a game I ran with some friends a while back, It took place in a maze that was composed of plants(various types of shrubs, hedges and the like). As the players began their way through the maze, They were attacked by a small trio of creatures that popped out of the hedges and harrowed them with spells that hurled thorns and splinters at the PC's and then the creatures would again dissappear as quickly as the came. The heroes were only able to get a couple of swings in on them before they once again became a part of the hedges. what's more is the creatures were restricted to the plantlife, BUT they had spells like entangle which would then allow them to move around more freely. It was really an interesting strategy that I had never seen before and although i can see how it must have been frustrating from the players view, once the things had been defeated, everyone looked back on the combat and saw it as a rather memorable experience.

These are the kinds of strategies that I would like to see come alive in pathfinder online. To be completely honest I would rather have 600 intelligent mobs that made the game more interesting than 6,000,000 that existed for nothing more than to be mindlessly slaughtered for fluff XP.

It would be trivial to make AI that would destroy the players. The AI after all can "cheat" as no information is hidden from it. But even if it simulated just normal senses for the AI minions, it could still easily beat you. It will always have perfect aim, perfect timing, perfect positioning, etc.

The challenge is actually making an AI that is JUST GOOD ENOUGH to challenge most players without being so good that it TPKs all the time. Nobody aw to to play against AI that usually wins.

I just wanted to say that by no means was I insinuating that the mobs should be so powerful that they leave the corpses of players in thier wake! All I meant was that I really don't want to see the same cookie cutter mob mechanics that ive seen in every other mmo. I.E. I run up and attack.... mob attacks back... mob low on health... mob heal..... mob low on health again.. mob run away... player chases mob.... mob dead... loot and repeat... Gets kinda boring after the 1,000,000,000 time of repetition.

Through the years I have played a managery of mmorpgs and so far there are very few that differ when it comes to fighting NPC monsters or "mobs" as some people call them. These fights are often times dull and repetitive. What I want to know is would it be possible to program these monsters to:
1) all do something different (i.e. Tactics and strategy for beating players). Include some movement. Things get a little more interesting when the goblin youre fighting all of a sudden zips behind you ans buries a dagger in your back as opposed to standing in the same place and hitting each other every couple of seconds. When NPC start thinking like players is when things get interesting.
2) reduce the predictability of encounters to provide more of a challenge to players. I cant tell you how many times ive run the same dungeon over and over and over and the same orc does the exact same tjing evertime. It just feels like a merry-go-round without the merry.

The worst and best feeling you can get as a player is the feeling that you are going to die and coming within a hairs bredth of being defeated only to find yourself a cut above the creature at your feet.

Is this something that would be possible in the PFO mmo.

You can only keep the ratio of Skymetal to coin higher than market value, unless you prohibit skymetal trading among players or allow making skymetal with coin.

If you allow skymetal to be a faucet, then you are explicitly allowing people to bypass the coin economy with the dollar economy. If skymetal is only tradable to players who themselves use the faucet, there is a finite effect on the game economy, the demand for RMT coin purchases is partially legitimized (driving away some of the illicit gold farmers), and there is no content which is accessible ONLY via direct paywall.

I think the main goal of the skymetal trading is to beat out gold farmers by out marketing them to players. If I had the choice of two different companies, and one company costs more than the other AND I have a chance to have my information stolen, then chances are I'm going to go with the other guy.

As far as faucets are concerned, such subtle changes to the economy can be adjusted via drains (i.e. the farmer NPC that wants 2g for that carrot you want.) The adjustments of drains and faucets should allow the developers to keep a relatively close eye on the economy of the game reguardless of how much coin comes in and goes out of the game. that being said, I dont believe that such exchanges will cause the uneccesary inflation you are suggesting.

Yes players will be able to essentially trade skymetal currency for coin. I do not beleive that trading coin for skymetal should be allowed because then there is no reason to differentiate between the two currencies and it may cause GW to lose out on business. The only reason I can see from prohibiting players from trading skymetal bits between players is that it allows players to utalize that secondary currency for things other than the rewards that would be available only through the use of SMB, (I.E. "Hey ill give you this +3 flaming longsword for 3000 Skymetal bits.")

Pricing the skill training packages so that they undercut the RMT vendors is a key. Priced too high, people will still do RMT because the perception will be that the in-game system is a poor value. Priced too low, and we'll end up with a lot of folks buying Skill Training and being unable to sell them (lack of buyers) and therefore being stuck with a good they don't want. So the price has to be monitored and adjusted constantly to find the right balance.

Pricing may prove difficult to do, especially if the skill training packages only provide a minute benefit. Balancing supply and demand is never a sure thing, if it was, then wall street would be more of a track than a roller coaster; However, it might be possible to have a simple exchange of skymetal bits for coin and cut out the market completely to eliminate the supply and demand and keep the exchange prices of SMB (sky metal bits) to coin at a desired ratio.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Is it really "expected to release in 2013"? I wasn't expecting it so soon (I would have confidently predicted such a pace was impossible).

I don't think we've said that anywhere...

It was on another thread I think..

I already have... as I said before there are quite a few things that will be different.. mechanics for a computer game are bound to be different in order to creae a fine tuned balance and a game that will continue to keep players interested. But MMO mechanics amd TTOP mechanics dont work together because they work off of two completely different systems.

for instance death. In TTOP pathfinder the general rule is, if you die .. you die, theres no coming back unless you have a resurection spell/raise dead/ETC... But for a MMO computer games its not really feasable. Thats why the system they have created reguarding death works well and still gives players hard incentive not to die with the threat of losing all thier gear.

At the same time however if you look at the leveling aspect of the game they are keeping the capstone at 20 and the level progression is going to be REALLY REALLY slow just as it is in the TTOP. Granted the way that skills and abililties will be allocated will be different but essentially character development will remain relatively the same.

perhaps you are interpretting things differently than I am, because you are focusing on the smaller details and mechanics.

All im saying is that I think we can expect them to do the TTOP version of the game justice with this MMO and even though the mechanics will be dramatically different, the embodiment of the Pathfinder world will still be evident.

By no means do I expect the MMO to replace the TTOPRPG because personally I would rather have that face-to-face gaming experience with my friends.. you cant really replicate that with a computer game.

I like the idea of a skymetal economy, with skymetal bits being purchasable for cash and redeemable for cosmetic or metagame (training) rewards, or transferable to other players for coin or items. It doesn't create a faucet anywhere, and it doesn't add coin to the economy or create the incentive for someone to try to make money by gold farming (since skymetal cannot easily be turned back into money). At the same time, it handles some of the cash-for-coin demand, reducing the demand for illicit trades.

As do I.