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

GrumpyMel's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,480 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.

1 to 50 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the issues why speed/manuver/range is such an overpowering advantage is that holding a position doesn't count for squat.

If I were designing PFO....

- Heavy Armor + Shield in a defensive stance, in cover, in a perpaired position should be pretty impervious to ranged attacks of either the mundane (e.g. bows) or magical variety. You could fire at them all day and pretty much not ever do enough damage to bring them down.

- Holding certain strategic positions should really, really matter. It should matter ALOT more then getting some random kill out in the middle of nowhere.

- The job ranged should play is to lock down the manuverability and the ability to defend against MELEE attack of heavy infantry. Heavy infantry's job is to hold and defend a position. They work together to provide combined arms. You use Ranged to supress fire from you opponents ranged and allow your melee infantry to act offensively. You use Ranged to fix your enemies heavy infantry in position and hamper thier ability to defend against your melee. You use your heavy melee to hold a fixed position or to drive the enemies heavy melee from thiers.
Light fast ranged can't take or hold territory by itself (unless facing similar light fast ranged) but it can keep itself from being engaged by slower, heavier melee... unless it encounters them at close range and is not perpaired for it.


Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So here is the thing...

You can have a Pledge or Statement of Principles and these can be as specific or non-specific as the author of the statement writes. With no mechanism of authority and no mechanism for enforcing specific obligations or requirements on members and including/excluding signatories based upon thier actions, then that's all it is. Now individuals can look at the actions of a specific signatory and say "I really don't feel X is living upto what they pledged" and there may be social/reputational consequences to that, especialy if that's a widely held view among the members, but that's as far as it goes.

You can also have Alliances or Treaty Organizations (e.g. NATO). Those Alliances or Treaty Organizations. Those Organizations can also include a Statement of Principles for why they exist or how they intend to act. However, these must have some mechanism of doesn't have to be central, it can just be some sort of group voting mechanism among members. As well as specific (the more detailed the better) obligations that are expected of thier signatories and a mechanism for failing to live upto those organizations. As well as a method for including/excluding who the membership is.

Initialy RA seemed to be shooting for the latter (from what I read of the "mutual support" portion of the statement) now it seems to be functioning more as the former. The reason the latter couldn't work in the form put forward is that there MUST be some mechanism of authority and means of including/excluding membership in order for a Treaty Organization to be practical.

Otherwise (if you'll forgive an 80's analogy) the Soviet Union simply joins NATO by simply declaring it's intent to do so....and defeats (or at least undermines) the political rationale for NATO's existance (in the 80's) without ever firing a shot.

Not saying that anyones acting as the "Soviet Union" here... and while I'm pretty sure all the signatories of the RA are likely to support each others OOC goals of making PFO a fun and welcoming gaming community. I'm also fairly confident that with such a broad and inclusive membership some signatories are likely to try to wipe the floor with others in the game at some point.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is the way I see this playing out...

1) The RA is a voluntary agreement with no real enforcment mechanism and no enforcing authority nor any strict bylaws. In that it is more like a Pledge or a Statement of Principles.

2) The signatories have agreed to "promote positive gameplay". There is no strict definition of this. It will mean whatever it means to each individual signatory. However, I think generaly the signatories see that minimaly as not behaving like a "jerk" toward the general player base and purposefully setting out to ruin the enjoyment of the rest of the player base at large and thus damage the community and PFO's ability to succeed.

3) There is no set procedure for handling complaints about negative gameplay which is established or required by the Accord. Individual signatories will handle such issues in the way each deems appropriate. However, I expect most will simply take it as an informational item which may raise increased awareness among the signatories leadership toward that players in game behavior and whether they are just having individual beefs or they are acting like a jerk to the rest of the player base as a whole. The latter would likely cause the signatories leadership to evaluate whether the member was appropriate to represent the signatories (OOC) values and take whatever corrective action might be appropriate.

4) There is no enforcement mechanism in the RA nor strict definition of "positive gameplay" but any signatories who's consistantly behave in a manner that the majority of the other signatories consider falls outside thier view of "positive gameplay" will be considered to have failed to live up to thier end of the bargain and will have to bare whatever social cost that carries. It's kinda like the "honor" system in that regard.

Attempts to strictly define or adjucate other signatories policies to see how well they fall in line with the RA are, respectfully, a waste of time. Unless there is some enforcement authority or mechanism vested with the power to say Yea or Nay, there is just no point to that. What can be judged is the results of those policies based on how the signatories members behave in game....and I suspect if there is a consistant problem with such behavior which goes unaddressed by the signatories leadership, people will raise that issue right here in this thread.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well these are hex's where meteors have about the occasional (infrequent) meteor strike. No reason for every hazzard to be player based...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bloomingburg NY....

Bludd is disturbingly close, must buy better locks and more firearms!

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Kitsunes response the best.

In PFO, I have no problem with anyone waging war on any company for any reason, including that they butter thier sandwiches on the left side of the bread and/or (especialy) if they don't like bacon (who doesn't like bacon?)

However, keep it about the game not the players. If you are attacking someone because you don't like the player then it is generaly unhealthy for both you and the game... and ultimately unsatisfying because slashing a bunch of pixels doesn't really resolve anything or change anything about the situation and after the 10th time or so you've done that you'll come to that epiphany. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.


I say this only as a private player, not as a member of TEO... I'm just a grunt there anyway.

One of the lessons I've learned over the years, in life...not just gaming, is that once you give up control (authority) over something you have to be perpared to accept the fact that you'll vehemently disagree with some of the decisions concerning it. That's just the way it works.

Real life, is WAY more important then gaming... so you made the right decision there. I've had to walk away from things I had invested alot of effort into before, so I know how tough that is... but sometimes time and life just don't allow for it. Frankly, that's why I don't WANT to be anything more then a grunt in most of the games I look at playing... too many other things that I want and enjoy doing in my life to get sucked into a vortex of commitments in a game.

I'm saddened that you feel so bitter but take it as a lesson learned (for more important things then just a game - which is what PFO is). Don't give up control over anything that you feel so invested in that you can't accept going a way you don't want. If you can't do that then you need to find a way to make sure that you can delegate responsability for most of the decisions but retain veto power when you really need to excersize it.... and you've got to make sure those relationships are clearly spelled out and understood. "Power Sharing" arrangements VERY often fall apart even with the best intentions of everyone involved.

In the end, I hope you have fun and enjoy PFO (and life). Don't get stuck in the past and let any residual bitterness get in the way of that.

P.S. I didn't really like the location we picked but that matters FAR less then the people you play with. There are alot of good people in TEO...and I know Lifedragn spends a ton of time trying to accomodate everyones input.

P.P.S. Player run organizations are more like herding cats then anything else. Even when they are "dictatorships", they really aren't because people are just there voluntarly to have fun. Most players have a pretty limited tolerance for being told what to do, especialy if they are going to make significant investments of effort themselves.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not really sure that Starfall hex's need to be an exception to the games PvP mechanics.

- We are not even sure that Skymetal CAN be extracted by an unaffiliated noob ALT. It may be that the abilities to extract Skymetal or really any other high value resource require affiliation with a PC settlement and company, thus opening up the possability of War/Feud type conflicts.

- It is not safe to assume that engagement by NRDS players are the only dangers a harvester in such hex's face. I would assume that most high value resource areas also involve high level NPC threats that are beyond the capacity of any non-affiliated non-combat character to deal with. Likely that would require guards with significant combat abilities slotted in order to protect the harvester. That means significant resource investment in order to successfully harvest such resources. No one really need risk reputation loss to kill off the annoying level 1 harvester when one can simply watch the 12th level Owl-Bear do it instead.

- Any high value resource hex is going to draw the attention of bandits and brigands. I would not assume that any organization, at the very least in OE, is going to have a monopoly on all bandits and brigands in the game. I believe SAD is still a tool available to bandits and brigands in the game without reputation loss. I would also expect that a low level, non-affiliated, non-combat player is likely in some danger from even a minimal reputation combat oriented player.

Ultimately even if the harvester of such resources is not vulnerable to War/Feud PvP himself...SOMEONE who is will likely have to be present to insure the harvester can operate safe from other hazards within the hex. YMMV.

P.S. I'm not antagonistic to the idea of a few FFA hex's being on the map, as long as they are generaly avoidable by those not interested in such and don't break other game systems/dynamics. They may even help funnel the more agressive players away from those not interested in such activity. However, I also don't see a particularly pressing need for Starfall hex's to be made an exception to the games PvP mechanics either.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, I hope you don't count me among those "baiting" you. I participate in your threads because I think a game like this needs "antagonists" as well as "protagonists" ( obviously these terms are relative to the speaker) and UNC seems like it's positioning itself to fill that role in an interesting manner.

I can never really seem to bring myself to play the antagonist role in RP games and MMO's but I enjoy seeing others play them well and am always interested in the approach they take.

For the record, I don't see anything about UNC or the way it intends to operate that contradicts the concept of positive gameplay. For me that's making whatever conflict occurs all about the game and the characters not the other player. As long as that's being communicated to the other guy so they can understand it and it's not being made personal I don't really see a problem...not even with naked agression, it's a game about conflict afterall. I guess that's an easy concept for me, coming from both a heavy RP and wargaming background.

Personaly, while I can get very immersed and can appreciate and enjoy the competition and will do my best to try to win, I just can't seem to take these sort of games all that seriously. At the end of the day, who really cares if ones settlement burns to the ground and everything falls to ashes around long you had fun while playing and enjoyed the company of those you were fighting with (and against), it's all just pixels and bytes. It's not like you were competeing for anything truely important. The only caveat would be if losing somehow meant you couldn't continue to participate in the game in an entertaining manner which would be a complete fail of design on GW's side.

I guess the only tricky part is that they are trying to accomodate a game that appeals with very different and divergent interests and PvP is one of those aspects that can negate peoples ability to pursue other interests/aspects. That's fine, though if the PvP becomes overly dominating of the play experience then I'll only come to PFO when I'm in a mood to only PvP and nothing else....and the PvP will need to be superior to other PvP oriented games that are availble. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Wurner wrote:
I'm quite sure the guy you're looking for is Lars Andersen.
Diella wrote:
I think the person you are talking about is Lars Anderson...

Many thanks to both of you!

Diella, Lars Andersen - The World's Fastest Archer is exactly the link I was looking for.

Doing a little digging on google (I can't watch the video while at work), for his speed and trick shooting, he's shooting a 30lb bow at half draw. That would barely annoy a deer and wouldn't penetrate any sort of field armor whatsoever. In the stills I've seen, he's shooting at targets which are about 15 feet away....which is point blank range for a bow.

Admitedly he's an incredibly talented archer and it's an amazing performance but it's just that, a performance. It's entirely impractical for use in hunting and or in war.

Note, I discovered that there is also a Hungarian by the name of Lajos Kassai who practices archery techniques similar to those practiced by the Mongols. If you look at him shooting, he is also firing at targets from a range of 15ft.

As a point of reference, for modern hunting, you want a minimum 40lb full draw and 40lb-60lb (adjustable) is common for modern compounds. English longbows historicaly were thought to average between 80-120 lbs, Mongol recurve bows averaged between 100-160 lbs. You can read about the penetration tests done against historical armor for bows of various draw weights. Google Matheus Bane and/or Mike Loades for those.

Note, I'm not trying to bash archery. As I said, I bowhunt myself and really enjoy it but, as with so many things, once you actualy start doing it you start to realize the difference between fact and fiction. Archery was a very, very important component of the medieval battlefield but it was just that one component. There were reasons why it was only one component of the armies of the day and there was a reason why it wasn't till the advent of firearms that armor and melee combat stopped being such important components of warfare.

Edit: Not that this has any bearing on game mechanics, but I'm kinda a nit for such stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Caveat, I'm not playing Alpha but here are my thoughts......

My general feeling is that ranged attacks should force the attacker to be stationary or move at a very slow rate while in a firing sequence....

- I know realism is not a factor here but as someone who does bowhunt in real life, I can tell you that shooting a bow while attempting to move means a missed shot.

- Resource wise it's probably far cheaper then calculation of angle of attack and LOS to target.

- Gameplay wise it means that the archer has to have sufficient range when engaging and be able to properly judge the targets speed of approach in order to effectively carry out a harrassment tactic. Misjudging and cutting it too close means the archer gets caught in melee while in an opportunity state. Allowing the archer to move at full speed while firing nullifies that gameplay aspect.


Ranged weapons should balance Rate Of Fire (time it takes for the firing/loading sequence) versus damage. Slow firing weapons (e.g. Hvy Crossbows) should do more damage then fast (e.g. short bows) ones. Range is a very powerfull advantage, it should definately be factored into any balancing equation. I don't think an average bow should do any more damage then an average 1 handed melee weapon.


Heavly armored, shield equiped infantry should have a means of minimizing incoming missle attacks by entering into a stance that sacrifices mobility and penalizes thier offensive and defensive capabilities versus other melee combatants.

- This creates a situation that stresses the advantage of combined arms tactics. Archers can effectively pin heavy infantry but are not particulary effective at destroying them on thier own if the infantry is willing to remain pinned (e.g. simulating taking cover). Heavy infantry can't be effective in melee while defending well against ranged attacks. Nor are they capable of forcing an engagement with lightly armored archers but they CAN hold terrain (e.g. a capture circle) if engaged by archers alone. Lightly armored Archers CAN'T hold terrain (e.g. capture circles)if engaged by Heavy Infantry but they can avoid contact at will. Light Infantry and Archers are vulnerable to each other depending upon what range an engagement is initiated at.

If you've got a situation where lightly armored ranged forces can maintain distance at will and do damage significant enough to kill heavy armored melee REGARDLESS of what actions heavy melee is capable of taking then you've setup a pretty unbalanced scenario.

Just my thoughts. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My feelings on this are as follows and it realtes more to individuals then companies or settlements....

1) Can individuals, even those associated with companies allied to a settlement, gain at least some low level training in the NPC towns? I feel this is important as to not push individuals into the PvP aspect of the game before they are ready for it and comfortable with basic gameplay. It also allows companies that are not successfull to continue to play the game at some level. If the answer to this question is "Yes" then it allows the WoT to be an important but not all encompassing aspect of gameplay during EE. If the answer to this is "No" then it will likely drive alot of players who are not interested in having the WoT aspect be thier primary focus. I'm not up on the currently proposed mechanics from GW and they do seem to shift around a bit.

2) Will there be a sufficient number of hex's on the map that are free of towers so that a player can move around a bit and have some interesting things to do without needing to enter a potential conflict hex?

3) Will players have some easly discernable way of indicating to other players that they are not currently interested in conflict?

4) Will players generaly respect the fact that players outside of tower hexes and not clearly engaged in some conflict related activity are not valid PvP targets?

Of course alot of this goes away or changes once other game systems are in place. My feeling is that WoT is a cool and interesting aspect of gameplay but should not be an all encompassing aspect of gameplay where players feel "forced" to engage in it in order to play the game at all. I think that would backfire badly on GW, if it became reality.

I don't neccesarly think the community should regard taking "Alpha" towers as a violation of community standards but I do think it should be considered as an act of aggression and essentialy a "Casus Belli" from one entity to the next. I do think it would be helpfull for the community to come up with some ettiquite to define what would be considered a "non-combatant" in the WoT conflict and what might be considred acceptable behavior toward "non-combatants". For example, killing an active combatant on sight as many times as possible is probably a legitimate excersize of conflict based play. Killing a "non-combatant" once outside of the conflict zone to rob them might be considered a legitimate act of play in the context of banditry. Killing a "non-combatant" repeatedly in a short period of time probably crosses the line of acceptable play to harrassment.

As a community, trying to come to some general consensus about these sort of mores would be helpfull, I think.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think people under-estimate the value of culture in these sort of situations. Yes mechanics have to be in place to reinforce the kind of culture you want in the game BUT all the mechanics in the world are worthless if the culture that develops is different then what is desired. I've seen that happen in games. The two have to work in concert to get the result you desire.

I've also seen first-hand what sort of inertia an initial culture established by a relatively small group can have in setting the tone going forward... even through vast expansions. Vast expansions CAN have a highly disruptive result that permanently erases whatever initial culture was established but that's not a hard and fast rule and it is definately the case that the culture CAN be maintained through that. I've seen that first hand in a commercial MUD that had a player base that went from an average of 50 or so players online at a time to an average of 2K-3K players online at a time within the course of a couple months, where the initial culture was determinative of what was transfered to the expanded player base. It was disruptive and it did take a heckuva alot of effort from the Developers, GM's customer service people AND existing players to make that happen but it DID happen, so it definately can be done.

One shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that culture will mold the thinking of every single won't. However, it doesn't need to do just needs to have an effect on enough players that it becomes representative of the average experience of new players to the game. One also shouldn't expect culture to have any effect on the true won't.... they specificaly are playing a different game from everyone else and are setting out to purposefully ruin everyones play experience. Those are for the GM's/Developers to handle.

However there will be alot of players coming in NOT with some purposefull predetermined intention to be griefers. They'll come in NOT being sure exactly how one plays the game, nor what to expect of the play experience...and MANY of these players will adapt thier play to what they see around them and how they PERCIVE others playing the game and being "successfull" in it...and it is these players that culture can have a very large effect on. If these players learn that the way to "play the game" involves negative behavior then it'll swamp the ability of the GM's and the mechanics to overcome that. THAT is what, I think, Proxima was getting at.

I, for one, am interested in hearing from Proxima and others more details on what cultural norms we should try to be promoting and which ones we should be discouraging. I know this may get a little heated....and obviously we can't define a hard and fast rule on what is considered "acceptable" for all situations... however, I think it's helpfull to at least try to get a better idea on some of the specifics about what the community at large would consider desirable and undesirable play.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to add something, mainly that FPS style games have a very large audience and personaly they are quite a bit of fun. I would strongly disagree with any caracterization they they are "murder simulators".

FPS games are all about team based combat (PvP combat). There is a specific goal to that combat... winning the match... and it is understood that all players playing the game are willing combatants. Further there is no confusion about who is hostile and who is freindly. Death has no long term consequence to the players ability to play and enjoy the game, though it has a short term consequence to who wins a match. Finally to one degree or another, a players results are based upon thier individual skill.

It is the combination of these elements that make FPS games enjoyable to thier audiences and categoricaly NOT "murder simulators"

"Murder" is an act of killing someone who is not hostile to you and has no intent to cause you harm. The difference with many FFA Open-World PvP games that are percieved as "murder simulators" by the general gaming public while FPS games (such as the Battlefield series) are generaly not... and these mirror my own feelings... is that you are getting killed in them by people you are NOT hostile toward and who'm you have no expectation would be hostile toward you. If you are playing Battlefield 1942 for example and you are playing an Allied soldier, you fully expect to be attacked on site by every Axis soldier in the match. You may not know where or when the specific attacks will happen, but you know going into the match to expect them to happen. In an MMO, you are NOT expecting the guy who hired your character to chop down wood for them outside of town and who will trade you some cloth in return to be hostile toward you and to put a dagger in your back. That is the difference between "combat" and "murder". It is that constant level of paranoia, of not being able to trust anyone that most people find distatsefull for long term play.

The other element that causes most FPS players (myself included) not to want to play PvP in MMO's is that the quality of the PvP in most MMO's is very poor by comparison. It is very often determined by factors external to player skill. This can be the difference in power between one character and another or it can be related to lag and performance issues where the MMO is not optimized to handle that many characters fighting in one area. This is a big turnoff for enjoying PvP in MMO's. Further, it is greatly excaserbated by the fact that getting killed in MMO's can have a long term impact on your characters abilities. If I get killed in an FPS game it has near zero impact on my ability to play and compete and perform well in future matches. If I get killed in an MMO, it can have a strong impact on my ability to accumulate enough power/advancement to perform well in future combats and can easly create a situation where a new player gets sufficiently behind the eight ball that they can never accumulate enough of whatever they need to perform effectively in combat in the game in comparison to established players.

Really for many FFA Open World full-loot PvP games....I don't even classify most of what goes on as "PvP". It's more PvV.. Player versus Victem.... and no one really enjoys playing "Victem" over the long term.
I quite enjoy many different sorts of PvP (Chess, FPS games, Turn based strategy games on both computer and board games, minatures, etc) I have zero interest in PvV games as either the Player or the Victem. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
PvP with looting
This is kind of the big one for me. You hear "pvp with looting" and you think murder simulator. There have to be some really strong mechanics in place to balance that one out.

Or a change in attitude towards your gear. If you learn to value your gear less than your time spent in experiencing the challenge of PvP, you will mind less the loss of gear.

Why is the "go to solution" always have to be limiting mechanics? There is never any compromise or acknowledgement that perhaps your attitudes can change.

Bluddwolf, it's pretty simple because people enjoy different things and they want to do something they actualy enjoy with thier time. I'm ok with loss of gear...I'll probably treat PFO as a sort of BattleField series FPS game in terms of how I approach gear. However for some people, a fantasy MMO is all about collecting neat looking gear to outfit thier characters. PFO probably won't be the game for them... that's ok but telling them to adjust thier attitudes is kinda like telling someone that's allergic to shellfish that they'll really learn to love raw clams. It's their entertainment dime and time, they shouldn't spend it doing something they don't like.

However, that's not really the purpose of the, FFA full-loot PvP tends toward turning an MMO into what most mmo players would consider a "murder simulator" and draws the exact sort of people that most gamers don't want to associate with in ANY sort of game. It obviously doesn't have to be true and not everyone dislikes those sort of games nor is every player of them unpleasant to associate with. However, I think it's pretty well supported that is the association those game-play elements have among the general gaming public. That's what Mbando's study showed, I think.

Basicaly that's what most people are going to assume about PFO, or any games with those mechanics.... until it's actualy built and empiricaly prooves that it's not as bad or anti-social as they expect... and they can actualy play and enjoy it without being ganked within 30 seconds of stepping out of town EVERY time they do so, followed by being subjected to a minute of "P-owned U looser, we're 'leet U noob"

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The basic problem is this (IMO). PFO has all the key elements that murder simulators do.... Open World, FFA, PvP with looting... that is pretty much the murder simulator recipie. Tie in F2P (once OE happens) and you have an even stronger case. Now I know GW is putting a ton of controls and mechanisms in place to try to mitigate the more negative aspects of those gameplay elements so that PFO does not become a murder simulator and they are commited to do so. However virtualy every other game that has those elements has had thier Dev's come out and say "Our game isn't going to be a murder simulator and we're putting controls in place to make sure that doesn't happen" and they've all failed to make it work. "This time will be different" is not a very convincing arguement after so many failed attempts.

It doesn't work for GW to not mention those gameplay elements because then you are going to get alot of consumers upset that the product has features that they didn't expect and didn't want and PFO will get a bad name because of that disappointment plus GW and the people involved will burn thier reputations as reputable developers. Plus a little time investment here in reading about the game will reveal those features anyway.

Even with all the time I have invested here and learning about PFO and it's developers and it's mitigating controls I am not fully convinced it won't end up a murder simulator. It's a distinct chance and that's the (fully informed) risk I'm taking with my time and monetary investments. I'm certainly not convinced it will end up that took alot of failed attempts at manned flight before Kitthawk and Ryan and his team certainly have the talent and commitment to pull it off... but it's very difficult and delicate thing they are trying to do... definately not a sure thing.

That's why I thiink GW strategy is exactly on target. The only way to really convince people that ANY game with the gameplay elements mentioned above, regardless of mitigating controls, won't be a murder simulator is by building it, having some people play it and demonstrating empiricaly that it's not. By building slowly in a controlled environment (EE) is exactly the roadmap to try to make that happen.

GW changing rhetoric isn't going to work because to most players ANY rhetoric by a developer is just hot air and marketing. Trying to de-emphasize core gameplay elements will just make it seem like GW is trying to hide something....because information about those elements always gets out viraly.

In one of the first posts about the game that I read, Ryan said he and his team were trying to accomplish something that many people think is impossible. I think that's essentialy it.... and the only way to really convince people that the impossible is possible is by doing it. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Summersnow wrote:

The pve content will be limited in EE.

Competing with each other will be the main source of content in PFO.

I think you all give Ryan far too little credit.

In one single thread he has managed to stir up enough animosity to fuel a good lot of "content" for the game.

Perhaps enough so no one will notice its shortcomings until far enough into EE that Ryan & co will have had the time they need to address those shortcomings and flesh out the game.

What some of you see as incompetence I see as sheer brilliance.

Or dumb luck.. :=)

If that were true, it would be the worst way imaginable of stirring up "content". I'm perfectly content playing a game where I get killed every 20 seconds and had my stuff's only pixels and it's a game. However I would have no interest in playing a game where people were acting out of a sense of personal animosity of me as a human being for something that happaned out of game. That's no fun....and if PFO became that I wouldn't be hanging around for long. Who wants to sit down and play a game with someone that hates your guts? Even if you win, it's just a game but you've wasted an hour being around someone that's unpleasant and unfreindly.

I really don't think that is what Ryan was doing here, at least not if he's serious about making sure PFO isn't a toxic community. Out of game conflict tends to breed toxicity.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

First off, the thread was pretty mild compared to many I've seen on other MMO forums. However, I can understand the level of angst some in the PAX community. Feeling like you are being attacked by others as a player and having uncertainty about whether your are going to have something you are emotionaly invested in taken away from you is not fun.

Secondly, I also think the communication from GW on the issue was not as good as it should have been. One thing I've learned over the years is that no matter how clear you think you are being, if the people who are your customers still don't understand are not being clear enough.

I read everything in that thread including all the communication from GW and there definately was a significant period of time when I thought GW was looking at the opinions posted in the thread with the consideration of having them influence a decision by GW as to whether it would remove Golgotha from the leaderboard. Clearly that was an unfounded assumption and misunderstanding on my part.... but I was also clearly far from being the only one. As someone who wasn't part of PAX, it wasn't a big deal to me....but I'm sure it was very uncomfortable for the folks with something actualy at stake. What was needed was a very quick response to definitively clear that misunderstanding up, letting people now that they could voice thier opinions but it wouldn't have any effect on what GW would do in this case. Ryan, you did that...but IMO, it was too late in coming.

Ryan, I respect you greatly but I also think you guys haven't been as clear at communication as you seem to think you have on quite a few issues, including this one. Consider that a form of constructive crowd-forging from a player and a customer... not an attack on you are GW. I certainly appreciate the hard work that you all do and the difficulty of running an enterprise like this. Thanks!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
T7V Avari wrote:
Xeen wrote:

It is not up to the community.

Roseblood is not very clearly separate entities. They may have started that way, but now they are in it for mutual benefit.

Separate websites, separate private forums, separate voting structures, separate meta game guilds. No common military, no common diplomacy, not even a promise to form in game nations.

I thought you guys had some lawyers in there, jeezus lawd you all SUCK as lawyers, just a bunch of rabid dogs go back to your cages!

The only thing in question here is that despite the fact that Nihimon is technically 100% correct, this thread offers AMPLE evidence that the COMMUNITY believes Pax Golgotha is a special case to the rules.

I personally, and have been asked to say this by several Roseblood Accord members, wish to see this thread ended. Not because Nihimon is wrong, he most certainly is in the right. But because Ryan Dancey himself has said that this community should police itself and in THIS CASE, the community has voted against the letter of the law and wishes Golgotha to remain in the Land Rush.

The only evidence is that T7V and some TEO members do not like it. I do not see a greater community here.

As for lawyers... You say you have all this separation in the foreground... but in the background I bet its all different. Are you going to tell me that if the UNC invades Brighthaven that the others will not rush to their aid?

Xeen, I think you are misrepresenting the situation with the Roseblood Accord. If another entity invades Great Britain will the United States come to thier aid? Almost certainly as both are members of NATO and have similar interests and complimentary world views. Does that mean that they are the same entity or the same nation? No.

Such it is with the Roseblood Accord. Each member is it's own seperate soveriegn entity with it's own top level government. The members may have certain Treaty obligations to each other and may consider each other in freindly terms because they have mutual interests and complimentary world views but each is it's own individual entity. The Treaty obligation is really not that much different then the sort of contract that the UNC might enter into with another entity....just that there is no fixed renumeration and no fixed contract period. As a member of TEO, I have no individual obligation to the Roseblood Accord. I only have an obligation to TEO and it's governing body. It's only through whatever Treaties TEO's governing body signs...whether to RA or anyone else that I inherit any obligations outside of TEO. At least that has always been my understanding.

I say that only to clear up the specific allegation that you made. I have no clue about PAX's internal structure....nor do I have any desire to.... nor would it in any way be appropriate for me to appoint myself as arbiter of such a matter. I have no problem with PAX doing with what it is doing. No one is voting more then ONCE in Land Rush...which would be my line in the sand. PAX isn't doing that. They've said they adjusted thier votes. Golgotha adjusted thier tags. They aren't running Fidelis in LandRush even though technicaly they could. I can't imagine why anyone would need to ask for more then that. If after all that it's still not kosher, then it'll have to be GW saying so, not any of us.

This said only as a private individual. This thread is way past it's shelf life now. The horse isn't just dead at this point, its a skeletal mount.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.


Speaking only as a grunt in TEO not an officer (and I'm sure those that are will correct me if I speak in error). I'm am not aware of anyone in TEO asking anyone to join another guild in the RA with the intent of them not PERMANANTLY being a member of that guild/settlement.

What I am aware of is that we are recruiting new members for ourselves (TEO) and instructing any such members to ONLY vote for TEO (which doesn't count for anything but show in Landrush II) NOT anyone else. If the person is not interested in TEO or we feel they are not a good fit... we are reccomending they PERMANENTLY join other allied guilds... by essentialy vouching publicaly that those guilds are good people.

We are most definately not reccomending that they "join" (quotes) other guilds so they can vote for them...but that they JOIN (no qoutes) them because they want to be part of them. I rather suspect our leadership would boot anyone out of the guild for advocating such a behavior since it goes against the policies we internaly adopted.

I, for one, am not crying foul about what PAX is doing. However, I don't want anyone under the misapprehension about what our own policies are.

As a gamer.... I would have trouble staying a member of TEO, if those were the sort of tactics. Good sportsmanship is a far more important consideration to me then "winning" anything which is pretty much a nonsense concept in any game that has no defined end or "victory conditions"

Also note, I do not think PAX is engaging in "bad sportsmanship" here... I pretty much agree with Nihimon, they got caught in an unfortunate situation due to incomplete information about the rules of the Landrush prior to it starting.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gilthy wrote:

Hi, I tried it again (thanks, Taylor!) and now my account says


Thank you! You're signed up for Early Enrollment.

Which sounds good! Does that also mean the info for the other products (mainly the print addons, as I got the impression there is a time limit on that) got transfered alright?

Same process just worked for me too! Whatever Goblinworks did last night ended up fixing my problem. now shows me as signed up for Early Enrollement! Thanks for the hard work guys!

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not going to argue about EvE. I haven't played it but more succinctly EvE has a particular set of behavior involving scams that it defines as "fair play". Ryan has made it clear that PFO will not be following EvE's definition of that. Heck, maybe it even makes some sense being that EvE is supposed to be a dystopian sci-fi game.

In Pathfinder, a players character would logicaly know perfectly well whether they are handing over 1 gold coin or 1000 because they are physicaly handling each coin paid. If the interface doesn't make that information perfectly clear to the player, then that's the game's fault not the players. Taking advantage of a flaw in the games code or UI to do something your character would not logicaly be able to do in the game world is an exploit as far as I'm concerned. I believe GW is taking a similarly disapproving stance of it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again not seeing the problem here guys. War isn't a structured badmitten's a state where one side is throwing out the rules of Diplomacy because it thinks they aren't going to serve it's goals anymore.

The Agressor pays a cost for going to and maintaining a State of War, if they aren't gaining something valuable by doing so then they are just hurting themselves.

The Defender has the option of determining how much of thier economy they are going to devote to thier war effort. If they think the Agressor isn't a credible threat then they don't need to devote much of thier economy to the effort.

If the Defender thinks that turtling up and trying to avoid provoking an engagement is the best Strategic option for them, then that's a perfectlty viable approach that should be allowed.

If the Attacker drops thier DoW and the Defender wants reperations then they are free to demand them and can use threat of thier own DoW against the Agressor as a goad.

I hate to say this, but I think in this case you are trying to introduce mechanics for things that aren't needed.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Whats to stop the Defender from simply issuing thier own War Dec back at the attacker in that case?

Ruses are legitimate millitary strategy, IMO, as are cutting ones losses after encountering stiffer then expected resistance.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no problems with scams and knavery in general but they should not take advantage of mechanical deficiencies or shortcomings in the UI to do thier work. GW does have a responability to correct these when uncovered but players also bear a responability to not use them while GW is working on those corrections.

Example of fair play scam "Hey listen, you can save on contract fee's, escrows and all that rot. Just give me your load of furs, I'll take them to market for you, sell them and give you the money minus a comission" <takes off never to be seen again>
- The players loss is entirely due to his excersize of poor judgement

Example of unfair play scam. Player knows that in a certain interface, the font used makes a comma seem nearly identical to a decimal so he uses that interface to sell a dagger to a player for 10,000 gp rather then the 10.000 gp the player thought he was paying.

- The players loss is due mostly to a flaw in the game interface that should never have been allowed to exist in the first place.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's much of an issue. If the Defender wants to continue a conflict that the Agressor does not (presumably because the Defender is winning and counter-attacking), they can simply DoW the Agressor in return to renew the conflict. I'm not sure any special mechanics would be neccesary to handle such usage cases.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actualy, I think wars/feuds SHOULD be relatively expensive precisely because you don't want them used frivolously to circumvent the other PvP systems GW has put in place.

A company/settlement should have to consider whether there is actualy something worth justifying the costs of going to war before declaring war.

You don't want small or new companies routienely and automaticaly curb-stomped simply because they are small and new. That's bad for the game. If they have something valuable or are doing something directly threatening....sure....but every single time an organization should consider whether it's really worth the cost to Feud/DoW them.

The Kingdom system is really where you can have much larger scale these are larger scale political entities.

Perhaps you could even have a system where there is a declared War (or Feud) which is an object itself and where player organizations can pay a single cost to join that conflict as a belligerent as one side rather then having to individualy declare war against every belligerent on the opposite side.

What you don't want, IMO, is where War/Feud is cheap enough that an organization can trivialy DoW a ton of neutral organizations that have no interest in becoming belligerents. That kinda defeats much of the core design of PFO, IMO.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
That's because the SAD has the cost of training, whereas maintaining a settlement and its territory is a free activity bereft of any costs.
LOL...lets say just for the sake of arguement that we stipulated that the exact same costs as SAD be neccesary... what then?

Why don't we wait and see the further fleshing out of the Marshal system?

But, if you want all of the mechanics of the SAD, then let go of your hang-up over the name, and use it. That is the only argument some people have against it. They don't like gage fact that it can be used for both chaotic and lawful means. Or the real problem is, it does have a skill and slot cost, and some want a freebie.

You can't use the argument that you have a settlement with its costs. Your settlement also gives you every advantage in power as well.

It's like you are writing a letter using the most advanced word processing program, complaining that someone else is writing a letter using crayons.

A pretty weak argument.

There are multiple reasons why SAD itself can't be I've illustrated perhaps 3 times now Bludd.

- If a settlement wants to make banditry illegal then it needs to make one of banditries prime mechanisms.. SAD illegal as well or it's got a huge gaping hole in it's laws to be exploited. If it makes SAD illegal then it's law enforcment can't use it as a mechanism to stop banditry as that would make thier use of it a CRIME.... catch-22.

- The goal of SAD is to extort wealth from people to enrich yourself. The goal of something like tresspass would be to get people to leave your territory so they don't attack innocents doing business in your territory. The two goals are not remotely the same.

- It would be very easy for a bandit to bypass SAD being used on them by simply having no material wealth or coin on them and letting a handler character hold it all for them. It would be completely exploitive to allow SAD demand more wealth then a character possibly has or can pay. Thus all a bandit need do is pay the 1 copper the character has to his name when SAD'd by law enforcment, nullifying the ability to use it as a tool to keep him away from his prey.

- SAD likely involves CHAOTIC shifts. Law Enforcement is, by it's nature, a LAWFULL activity.

All these, as I've explained several times already, render SAD unsuitable for this function. A mechanism that works along similar general lines to SAD would be functional but not SAD itself. It is not simply the name that is unsuitable but the nature of exactly what the mechanism is designed to do.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I struggle to understand is how someone can on the one hand argue FOR the existance of SAD which allows one to engage in banditry without negative reputation or alignment consequences BY ANYWHERE in the game allowing the BANDIT to extort money from the target or force the target into PvP with no negative consequences for the bandit...

AND At the same time...

Argue against allowing law enforcment a similarly effective tool which ONLY in Law Enforcments OWN territory, allows Law Enforcment demand the target exit said territory or be forced into PvP without negative Alignment or Reputation consequences for Law Enforcment.

It boggles the mind how anyone can support the former and in the same breath argue against the latter.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

How exactly will they be perma-flagged for PvP?

We are talking about throw away low rep alts right?

GrumpyMel wrote:

...and under what logic is a Soveriegn entity not legaly allowed to enforce who is allowed into it's territory?
Im kinda missing this point... I said if you have people in your settlement who will not proactively enforce the laws, then fire them and find someone else who will.

No your arguement is that Law Enforcment must resort to continualy breaking the laws in order to enforce them, which will result in thier inability to enforce the law within thier own settlement. You are arguing for a catch-22 situation which is unresolvable and I'm rather suspecting you know it at this point.

The only effective recourse a settlement will be left at enforcing it's laws under this paradigm is to utilize UnAligned Criminal Alts to do so.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


If your purpose building ALTS to prey on merchants/crafters and non-PvP characters then any advanced combat training would be completely superflous if not entirely wasted. Why would you need advanced PvP skills to engage characters who had no PvP skills slotted and little to no experience using them if they did?

I believe this notion is even fully supported by Bludd's comments about running around in EvE flagged Red and never getting engaged by non-PvPers.

Under this paradigm....the only characters that advanced PvP training would be usefull against (Law Enforcement/Millitary) can't legaly force a combat engagement.

You dont need the high end skills in that situation, but when you run into someone who does you will die.

The thing is, with your arguments, the characters that are built for this very subject will be perma flagged for PVP. So Law Enforcement will be fully capable of engaging them consequence free.

If you cannot engage consequence free... Then engage with consequences, If Law Enforcement will not enforce the law, no matter what... Then I suggest finding someone else to enforce the laws.

How exactly will they be perma-flagged for PvP?

...and under what logic is a Soveriegn entity not legaly allowed to enforce who is allowed into it's territory?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

You are not getting around the system, you will take rep and alignment hits and you will not have high end training.

@Grumpy Mel - Sure, they can not be feuded. Im not sure that matters anyway... Those will be the guys you do not want to feud anyway... as it will just cost you.

The point is Xeen, they won't be ENGAGE-ABLE by Law Enforcement while operating in Law Enforcement's territory no matter how many past crimes they've commited in that territory.

What I want to prevent is this scenario...

Day 1 - Bandit SAD's non-PvP merchant in owners territory. Escapes before Law Enforcment can respond.

Day 2 - Bandit SAD's non-PvP merchant in owners territory. Escapes before Law Enforcment can respond.

Day 3 - Bandit SAD's non-PvP merchant in owners territory. Escapes before Law Enforcment can respond.

(All of the above perfectly fine so far....the problem comes the next day)

Day 4 - Law Enforcement intercepts bandit skulking in thier territory.

- Law Eforcer "Get out. If you've commited banditry in this territory every day this week. You aren't welcome here"

- Bandit "You can't make me. I haven't commited a crime in the last 20 minutes in this territory so as far as the system is concerned I'm completely innocent...and I'm unaffiliated with any settlement or company so you can't lawfully target me...hence you have nothing you can do to PROTECT your merchants from me. I'll hang out until you logoff then attack a merchant when I feel like it...and the only way you can stop it is become a criminal in your own territory"

What I want to stop is the above scenario. It's patently absurd that a settlement owner has no ability to exersize soveriegnty over who is allowed into thier territory without being subject to hostile action by thier millitary/law enforcment. They have that ability if the intruder is affiliated with a company or settlement (through War or Feud).....they lose it once the intruder is not. It's patently absurd that they can't effectively enforce the law in thier own territory without becoming a criminal there themselves.

If we really wanted to make this realistic....once a person commited a crime in a territory they'd remain a criminal there forever after...unless absolved by the settlements own justice system or laws. While not advocating to do banditry should be a viable path within the enforcment/millitary should not become automaticaly handcuffed simply because a character chose to remain unaffiliated.

Finally the bandit really doesn't suffer much due to lack of high level training because thier desired prey will usualy be merchants/crafters with no PvP training or experienced....once they run into people with serious combat capacity, most of them will not want to engage in the first place or run if they are already engaged.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Grumpy Mel,

Your assumption that these tactics are solely "bandit modus operandi" is actually limiting the the scope of the usage.

Many settlements, particularly the more aggressive ones will use these "Monsters in the Basement."

A Bandit Company, made up of main characters, will use feuds and or faction to create their pool of consequence free targets. Raiding outposts will also be another source, where reputation loss is still unlikely and the alignment shifts if any are not undesirable as long as not paired with low reputation.

My usage of "bandits" here is simply descriptive of the type of activity the character/alt was engaged in rather then the type of organization they are supporting.

I'm sure there will be some bandits and bandit companies that operate differently then described. They are not as problematic as those I describe since (at least in theory) they can be held accountable for thier they will pay a price for feuding and they can (theoriticaly) be held accountable for thier activities by being marked as targets of feud in return. There is some mechanism within the system as we currently understand it to make things work there.

What I infer, is that absent any other compensating control, there will be a very strong motivation for unaffiliated bandits precisely because they would circumvent some of the controls that would ordinarly be in place to help make them accountable for thier activities and allow settlement owners to counter-act said activities.

If your company starts raiding or engaging in banditry against a settlement then at least theoriticaly that settlement could feud or declare War upon you....and thus not have to wait until your company members initiate a first strike while raiding to engage them in battle. Then it's all about, IMO, whether the cost of Feuds is reasonable enough to give the average settlement some chance at counter-acting such tactics.

With no company affiliation and and an NPC settlement membership.... there is nothing one can target for feud or war.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:

What reputation and alignment shifts would be ideal for a known false-flag operation, and how could those be easily exploited?

Please, don't give an answer to the effect of "I want false-flag operations to be Easy Mode." the intended goal is that it is unclear if the costs and risks exceed the value, which will result in some people doing false-flag operations and others not.


What's shifts or other mechanical ramifications that might be desired doesn't really matter in this case. The game has no way of understanding that the thugs used to conduct the "false-flag" operation are in any way associated with the characters it's being conducted to benefit. In other words "false-flag" operations are impossible for the game systems to detect....even if they are patently obvious to the players.

As such the only type of mechanical penalties that the game system can allocate are to the thugs conducting them. However there is a very decent chance that those Thugs are simply "throw-away" penalties don't matter much. Even if they aren't....I think the people using them are pretty much expecting that they are going to suffer from the same sort of mechanical penalties that "thugs" not innvolved in Flase-Flags are.

Heck, since the goal in such operations isn't really to do alot of effective material damage just incite tensions and shift political allegiances...the actual effectiveness of the "thugs" is kinda incidental.

This is one area where there are no mechanical controls the system CAN impliment, even if it was desired. The real control was if the target or any of the other powers in the area found out that it WAS actualy a False-Flag and who was responsible for it. THAT would be the only really effective cost toward the power running the False-Flag, the ramifications that might result from discovery of the operation.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Edit: Making it manualy applied should give folks like Bludd who want to play bandits have the opportunity to do so even in a controled hex. They just have to avoid the PC patrols that can manualy apply the condition to them. You could even make it a trained/slotted it really does become law enforcment/millitary that can apply it, not neccesarly his merchant targets.

This may in fact be the way that the Marshal position Tork was talking about works.

As long as it has costs, requiring training and or slotted skills, I would welcome it. It would be a reasonable counter to the SAD, and or any person you "suspected" to be of criminal intent before they actually committed a crime.

It would also create reciprocal hostility states and allow both sides to square off without reputation consequences, should the "criminals" choose not to accept the demand to leave.

Or... You could train and slot the SAD mechanic and do the same thing, just that you won't be limited to your own lands or tie up a settlement title to do it.

You see it keeps on coming back to the SAD. People on these forums want to use the mechanics of it, but not the name of it. I have to wonder, is it really the name or is it the cost?

You Grumpy Mel, at least mention that there needs to be a cost with your idea.

I've explained elsewhere the reasons why SAD can't be utilized. It could be an ability SIMILAR in function to SAD but not SAD itself. In brief...

- If SAD is utilized as a method of commiting banditry, which it will be and you outlaw banditry, then law enforcment can't use SAD to stop banditry as they'd have to make SAD (and by extension banditry) LEGAL to use and thus eliminate any just cause they had to use it in the first place. Creating a catch-22 situation.

- SAD involves CHAOTIC alignment shifts. If anything law enforcment acting to enforce law and order in thier own territory should be a LAWFULL not CHAOTIC activity.

- The goal of SAD is to extract money. That is not the goal here, the goal is to get the target to leave the territory.

- Bandits typical modus operandi would be to not carry much money or items of value but leave that to handlers. It would be exploitative to allow an SAD'er to demand more from a target then they owned....thus it would be rendered ineffective for the purposes desired here.

Note, I don't believe it would be of much/any real practical value if such an ability was limited to a single character per settlement. That simply creates an impossible situation since the game is live 24/7/365. You would need multiple characters within a settlement that had such power. I'm willing to accept that it be a trainable/slottable ability.... I wouldn't accept any cost in DI or anything like that per application of it's use. Unless there is some sort of cost in Influence, etc to engage in banditry (or SAD) then there shouldn't be any costs of that nature for PLAYER CHARACTERS to be able to engage/combat if you want to talk NPC guards or Guard Towers, etc sure...but not PC's....the only cost that would be reasonable there would be to require some training or slotting to have access to the ability.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

So like I said, two exiles could commit crimes against each other and there woukd be no effect on the settlement corruption / unrest scale.

Since company members can defend other company members, without penalty, once a company ends up in thus exile list they can head to that settlement zone. They hunt down other exiles, or even arrange to meet there and now they have a consequence free mosh pit.

Now that may not have a mechanical effect on the settlement DI, but the reputation of the settlement hex would be that the place runs red in rivers of blood.

Except that Exile/Tresspasser wouldn't neccesarly make them HOSTILE to ANY could simply make them HOSTILE to settlement MEMBERS/LAW Enforcment/Millitary. You'd also run into the same exact issue with CRIMINALS.

Exile/Tresspasser really needs to work consistantly with the same rules of engagement for any other criminal.

The whole corruption thing needs a little more baking, since it becomes pretty easy to exploit.

My suggestion is that rather then having someone engage in criminal activity (which could include tresspassing/exile) fire off corruption. It starts a TIMER on the character which when it counts down to 0 will kick off a corruption tick but that the TIMER gets DELETED whenever the individual leaves the territory, logs off or gets killed.

This methodology eliminates a whole host of exploits such as SPAMMING, BORDER HOPPING, LOGGING, etc and better represents what "corruption" generaly is understood to be...which is not that crime happens but that the authorties are unwilling or unable to respond to crime.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

1) One cannot make the same mechanism to fight banditry as is used to commit banditry.... that would make it impossible to make banditry a crime or require that the only people who can enforce the laws of a territory be criminals in thier own territory.

2) The goal of law enforcement is NOT to rob the criminals, it's to prevent the criminals from preying on lawfull citizens in ones territory.

3) We know full well that Bandits will be Alts who have no monetary assets or material wealth in thier own name. It will all be held by handlers. It would be entirely EXPLOITAVE and against the purpose of why SAD is allowed in the first place to allow the SAD'er to demand a sum of wealth greater then the target actualy has or could possibly pay. That circumvents the INTENT of PFO's PvP systems.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lets be perfectly clear about how MOST Bandits/Brigands will operate.

- Most bandits/brigands will be ALTS specificaly designed for the purpose of banditry.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT be members of any company so there will be no way to feud them (at any expense) and no way to hold them accountable for thier actions.

- Most bandits/brigands WILL be members of the NPC Starter Settlements so no way to declare WAR upon them (at any expense) and so that they will be able to use legitimate newbies as cover for thier operations.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT have a copper to thier names nor any material goods and the minimal equipment required to do the job. All wealth they aquire will immediately be transfered to HANDLER characters who have no official association with them so the bandit/brigand has little of material value to lose if any does take action to hold them acountable for thier activities.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT flag themselves for PvP while anyone is around that is capable of fighting them. They will wait till they can engage a soft target at minimal risk with little possability of armed reaction against them.

- Bandits/Brigands WILL take advantage of SAD in order to enjoy PvP against other characters with little mechanical penalty against themselves.

Note, no one here is expressing that banditry or brigandry (sans griefing) should NOT be a legitimate play style within the game. But lobbying that it should enjoy the advantage of engaging anywhere/any time completely at it's liesure without any risk of proactive measures from law enforcment is simply arguing for too huge an advantage for it.

If Outlaws want to engage in Outlaw behavior then they should run the risk of PvP from law enforcment every time they enter a territory with strongly enforced laws. They still have the ability to use stealth and mobility to avoid law enforcment patrols when entering said territory and to enjoy the advantage of engaging at thier liesure in any unclaimed or lawless hex.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:

@Nihimon The burden is on the low rep character and you expect them to faithfully execute this responsibility because... they're such upstanding citizens?

As I originally said, problematic.

I want to put my part of the bickering to rest.

Nihimon and like-minded are so lawful they trust GoblinWork's (still unwritten?) computer code to be an infallible judge of moral fiber* and trust their victims will want to know specifically why they were attacked.

I don't hold either of those faiths. I'm going to catch dipwads in the act and smash their faces when possible whether or not they're flagged hostile to me so they feel an instinctive causal connection between acting like a jerk and getting beat up and losing their stuff.

Neither of us are bad people.

*GW's CEO doesn't think it will be an infallible indicator of toxic behavior. He mentioned multiple nuances in a recent interview and posted about squads of low-rep alts having a legitimate game use for settlements.

Proxima, from what I've read, there are only a very narrow set of circumstances under which a person CAN be flagged "Hostile" to you. Such action must have happaned immediately prior to the Flagging and the person so Flagged would recieve a WARNING that they were about to be Flagged before being allowed to continue the action which would Flagg them.

Frankly GW's proposed mechanisms err's VERY MUCH on the cautious side of NOT Flagging people HOSTILE outside of a very narrow scope of actions. Nihimon, IMO, is actualy being rather generous in affording High Rep "Hostile" flagged characters the opportunity to try to explain why they were so Flagged...and I support that.

Low Rep and Hostile Flag to you is almost an assurance of a character upto no good, IF GW's mechanics are working even partialy as intended. If not and they are completely off the wall (a possibility I'm sure), then I'm sure folks like Nihimon will make allowances for that until such time (if any) as GW can get them working reasonably as intended.

No one here wants to go around attacking people without just provocation. If "Hostile" isn't a very, very strong indication that the person is actualy "Hostile" toward you, then the game has very fundamental, game breaking, mechanical issues...because GW's entire game design premise kinda rests on that.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Xeen wrote:

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...


At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Why do you assume that you have some inherent right to enter territory that you don't own? and that the owners of the territory should have no right to expel you from that territory...or should be considered criminals, chaotic and evil for enforcing millitary control over thier own territory?

The very definition of Ownership implies the right to exclude others from access or use of the Property Owned. By seeking entry when you have been prohibited, you are engaging in a criminal act.

They pay lip service to the river freedoms, but as soon as someone tries to hold what they have, they get upset. Defending your territory is wrong, didn't you know?

I have the right to enter any territory I wish. You must force me out.

Lip service, lol.

You are conflating ABILITY with RIGHT. You have the ABILITY to enter any territory in the game. No one is proposing that the game restrict you from doing so. You do not have the Legal Right to enter property that someone else ones within thier own Soveriegn jurisidiction. Those are part of the very definitions of Soveriegnty and Property Rights.

The fact that you would insist that a Soveriegn Realms own Law Enforcment should be flagged as Criminals, Chaotic and of Low Reputation for thier OWN Laws in thier OWN Soveriegn Territory is beyond absurd. Yes, I must physical force you out...but there is no way in heck I must be CRIMINAL or CHAOTIC or LOW REPUITATION in order to do so in my OWN Settlements Territory, If my settlement desires it be illegal for you, XEEN, to enter.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.


I believe they see it as a threat to thier prefered modus operandi. They know that most prosperous settlements will see members of thier company as generaly undesirable due to thier prefered vocations. That means they'll be exiled/tresspassed from most such hexs. That takes away the huge advantage they have to engage defenseless targets entirely at thier own leisure. They now have to deal with the fact that local Law Enforcement or Millitary patrols can engage them at a time not entirely of thier own choosing.

Essentialy they want to live the Outlaw lifestyle but not have to deal with the natural consequence of being Outlaws.

The thing is they are still perfectly free to engage in thier prefered behavior with the full advantage of engaging at thier liesure in every other hex on the board aside from the settlement hex's that people OWN. Sorry guys, seems perfectly balanced to me.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...


At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Why do you assume that you have some inherent right to enter territory that you don't own? and that the owners of the territory should have no right to expel you from that territory...or should be considered criminals, chaotic and evil for enforcing millitary control over thier own territory?

The very definition of Ownership implies the right to exclude others from access or use of the Property Owned. By seeking entry when you have been prohibited, you are engaging in a criminal act.

Edit: Since the game has no mechaism for ARRESTING or DETAINING individuals....that leaves attacking.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.


What Andius is advocating for is simply the right for a Hex's legal owner to excersize control over which individuals have a legal right to enter thier territory. It makes entry into that hex without permission a CRIME and therefore the individual in question becomes a valid target for law enforcment and millitary forces of the owner to engage WITHIN THE OWNERS TERRITORY without suffering alignment or reputation hits themselves.

It is one of the most basic aspects of Soveriegnty...the right to determine who is allowed legal access to territory one controls.... without it the Kingdom building aspect of PFO would be pretty much broken.

It is ENTIRELY different and far more limited then WARS, FEUDS or SADS. WARS, FEUDS and SAD'S can be applied to targets ANYWHERE within the game, regardless of the targets actions or attempts to avoid them. EXILE is applied only to the target WITHIN THE BORDERS of the OWNERS HEX. The target can easly avoid it, at ZERO cost to themselves by simply not entering that one HEX.

What this means in practical terms is that if you have an ALT who is a member of an NPC settlement and has a KNOWN past criminal history or KNOWN but unofficial association with the owners enemies, you don't get to waltz into thier territory and be untouchable. At the same time, the OWNER can allow genuine newbies or other peacefull members of that NPC settlement into thier territory if they choose.

You can still hang around outside the OWNERS territory waiting to pounce on anyone you like. You can still enter the territory to commit your ill deeds, just that you'll be a valid target to the settlement owner for doing so. You can still use ALTS that are unknown to the OWNER and therefore not exiled. You just can't be a NOTORIOUS individual who is affiliated with and NPC settlement and says "I haven't commited a crime in the last 20 you have to wait till I am ready to start raiding here before you who OWN this hex is allowed to take any action".

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Basicaly if users of an internet application can do something, then they will do it. The only way that you can impose rules that have some effect is to tie those rules to real world consequences. For example if a player needs to invest significant real world $$ and real world time to build a character to the point where they can effectively do something within a game...then the consequences of having that character/account trashed actualy holds some consequence to many players.

However if a player can create a character under a F2P model for no investment of time or $$$ and PvP even semi-effectively against other new/low-level characters then the idea of rules and consequences pretty much flies out the window since the player can void all that simply be creating another character/account ad infinitem. They get to do an end run around the only consequences they might care about....which is something alot of Developers simply don't get.

Even with $$$ and time investment to lose, you still have some people who are willing to invest that simply to mess up someone elses day. So there is a risk there.

Frankly what PFO is attempting to do is pretty risky. It'll be interesting to see if it works. Almost ALL Developers of FFA PvP games have historicaly set out with the exact same design goals surrounding PvP that GW has....and almost ALL of those Developers have completely failed to meet those goals. Not saying it can't be done....but the historical track record has not been good, as the article points out.

Again, it'll be interesting to see how things work out. GW certainly has the drive and talent to make it work if anyone does, but it's a tall order.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Andius wrote:
You still have to hold it for 10 intervals of 10 minutes.
I find it unlikely that numbers of participants will not make a difference in the time it takes to destroy an object. Five sledge hammers do the work of one, five times faster.
If you have to hold something for 10 minutes, you have to hold it for 10 minutes.

That is now on paper, but what will it be after testing?

I think that there should be a minimum amount of time and manpower needed to perform a task, but adding additional manpower to that task should reduce the time it takes to complete it.

Granted it would not have to be a 100% increase for each additional manpower unit added, you can factor in a certain amount of inefficiency, but 5 x will always do the same job in less time than 1 x.

Are structures any different than monsters? Or will one sword take 10 minutes to kill the monster, and adding 4 more swords will make no difference in the time it takes to kill that same monster?

I think some of you would argue an ice cube is warmer than the Sun, if I claimed the Sun is warmer.

Except in meatspace, there are just so many swords (melee weapons) that you can reach a single monster with. Same with most formation combat, the front rank or 2 are doing the fighting, the rear ranks are waiting to fill in for casualties or rotate out those who are exhausted.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
The Dev Blog was pretty clear that making outpost raids illegal was not really a good idea.

You do so love to read things your own way, don't you?

You do love avoiding Dev statements that don't support yours.

Please read the Blog sections "Going - a - Viking" and "Hostility" and then read the posts suggesting that it is not really wise to pull NPC guards from your POI, to defend your outpost. That will just make your POI vulnerable, which might be the real ploy of the raiders.

You could of course expend PC assets to protect your outposts, but if outposts raids are part of a coordinated attack, again you will be peeling off your defenses from higher value targets.

Now if your settlement chooses to make raiding illegal, you will open yourself up to that scenario of raiders coming in, hitting fast and then escaping back over the border. This will reduce your settlements DI (adding corruption), and again, if part of a coordinated effort the raiders will not just hit one outpost but many if not all of them at once (Tet Offensive).

No one is saying that your settlement can't make raiding illegal. It is just that there will be a potential cost for doing so. That cost might outweigh the benefit that you are getting from making it a crime.

It does not change the conditions for the raiders all that much. Raiding an outpost flags the raiders Hostile to the owners of the Outpost. If that outpost is supported by a POI, it will also flag the raiders to the owners of the POI. If it is a crime, it will flag the raiders as hostile to the settlement.

I would assume that the owners of the POIs are also members of the settlement, and the outposts are sponsored by the POIs.

So how many players are you really adding that would see the raiders as hostile, by making raiding a crime?

How many of those additional players will be PVP combat focused, not already attached to the POI?

How many of those settlement citizens, that are non...

Alot would depend on how large the settlement is and how it is set up. I would think that detering casual raiding of it's outposts would be a rather high priority for most settlements since they are (I would assume in most cases) a significant source of economic activity. Preventing your economy from being weakened will be an important consideration for most settlements. If you can open up a significantly larger PC response (e.g. you have alot more settlement members then POI owners) then there is a good arguement for it. The other thing you do by making it a crime is force the opposition to use CHAOTIC characters for it....since engaging in criminal activity entails chaotic shifts.

Under the current Alignment paradigm we know that Chaotic settlements will tend to be weaker then Lawfull ones....which means that an opponent might be forced into using Alts to do it. Training and equiping 2 characters will be more expensive then one (both in real world $$$ and in game resources) thuse your forcing your opponent to spend more himself in order to inflict economic harm on you. His alternative is to hire mercs to have him do it for him...but that comes with it's own set of expenses and risks.

This assumes that the raiding is part of a campaign of economic warfare not just some criminals out for a quick score.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My preference would be to put a simple timer on the criminal. The timer drops if they get killed, leave the territory or log. If the timer expires with none of those conditions occuring, then you get inflicted with corruption.

Giving you credit when you kill the criminal doesn't work because they could just willingly allow an accomplice to kill them to deny you credit for the kill....or presumably just jump off a cliff. So it would have to be when they die for any reason. Also it couldn't just be when your forces kill a criminal in your territory because then a settlement could just farm thier own criminal alts (that commited crimes in another territory) to lower corruption.

A simple timer takes away alot of the complexity since all it needs to have record of is the remaining time and what settlement it occured under. Also I think putting in the "leaves the territory" condition avoids alot of the border hopping issues....including having your own law enforcement get tagged as criminals for crossing into somebody elses territory to deal with the situation.

There may be other methods that work though.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
@GrumpyMel if you are suggesting that settlements cannot bar individuals or groups then that means no one can be anything other than NRDS which makes this whole topic even worse frankly.

Steelwing, as Andius has mentioned, we've been told that Settlements will be able to set rules/filters for the TYPE of character allowed in... example "IF Reputation < 0 then character is not allowed". What we've not be told and has kinda been hinted by Ryan will not be the case is that you as Settlement leader CAN NOT say... "You know, non-aligned character X, you don't technicaly meet any of our filters but I happen to have definite knowledge that you are working as a spy/sabotuer/assasin for Enemy Faction Y....I'm marking you as a tresspasser you have 10 minutes to leave our territory or else". That means that you pretty much have to have a NBSI policy to have ANY border security whatsoever. Your alternative is having to attack that character, suffer alignment and rep hits, become a criminal in your own settlement and thereby increase it's corruption index. Clearly that's onworkable.

What I'm saying is that local law enforcement has to have the ability to flag dicey them a tresspasser/exile flag and X amount of minutes to leave the settlement or become a criminal and open to PvP from that settlements law enforcment.

I'm also saying that if crime is going to effect the corruption index of a settlement then law enforcement needs a REASONABLE amount of time to respond before that corruption kicks in....because unlike in the real world where you can put a criminal out of circulation for X number of PFO they can come right back after you kill them, or even log onto another ALT that is completely "innocent" as far as the games systems knows and repeat the behavior 5 minutes later, ad infinitem.

There has to be something which says "If Law Enforcement responds in X amount of time to something that would increase corruption then corruption is NOT increased because Law Enforcment IS actualy doing it's job" . Corruption is when officials ARE NOT doing thier job.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

AS a follow up, I think you should be able to INVITE other individuals/groups to assist you in combat providing those individuals take the same Alignment/Reputation consequences that you did when you engaged in that combat.

This happens all the time in the real world as well with nations that have difficulty patroling thier own territory and invite other nations or mercenaries to send thier forces to assist in Peacekeeping duties.

There is no way the US Navy would be flagged as "Chaotic" for coming to the assistance of a French freighter that had requested assistance in international waters when it was being attacked by pirates....that's just absurd, gamey and gimmicky.... Nor would a nations forces lose reputation or be considered "Chaotic" if coming in to help another nations forces provide law enforcement and security in another nations territory when REQUESTED by that nation to do so....the notion is completely counter to basic logic.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Steelwing by the same logic you have provided here one could argue that PFO should not have a combat system as the players can just work it out themselves.

PFO is currently in the design stage, with a great deal of it's mechanical systems not designed at all yet, let alone set in stone. So what Andius has proposed is not a change to anything but a specific set of mechanisms for something that has not been implimented or fully designed yet.

Developers create mechanisms for the sort of play they want to see happen in thier games and adjust those mechanisms when it's not achieving what is intended. That's why the pass interference rule exists in football.

In this case, the Developers may (or may not - we don't know yet) for settlements to welcome travelers who are not members into thier territory since that promotes a greater degree of meaningfull human interaction.

I likely expect setting the trespasser flag on a fairly granular level, down to the individual, is an important aspect of doing that. It could easly be done with a timer so that when people were flagged as tresspassers/exiles they were allowed sufficient time to get out of the territory. There is absolutely no reason why a settlements law enforcement should take reputation or alignment hits for ejecting suspected spies, sabotours or criminals who are not their own citizens from thier territory while allowing peacefull merchants and traders to access it. In fact this is what real countries do all the time with thier passport and visa systems as well as diplomatic visa's. It is a rather gimmicky, gamey and unnatural system to not allow for that.

Again, this should only be valid for territory that your settlement officialy and formaly controls and therefore your law enforcement has jurrisdiction.

As for markets, I think it goes without saying that low level equipment/resources need be readly availble in the NPC towns but high level or specialized equipment likely should only be available in player settlements. I think you could potential achieve this by assuring that the cost to transport anything in bulk be non trivial thus producing a significant price advantage for specialized items in local markets. Also NPC markets could impliment a TARRIF on importation of such items, if neccesary.....

And yes, I would like to see the significance of escalations, production of raw materials and actual expansion of the settlement sufficiently involved that having extra labor (and/or imported materials) beyond what the settlements own members provide often becomes a boon rather then a bane.

It should be rather difficult for a settlement to be entirely self-sufficient within it's own membership. Once again furthering the goal of meaningfull human interaction that GW wants to encourage within it's game.

1 to 50 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.