But I also realize that if everyone has low reputation, then no one has low reputation. If the majority of the population choose to ignore reputation, the reputation system has no meaning. I would say that depends on how much reputation influences training. If your settlement is considerably stronger because you are of higher rep then it has meaning.
I do not believe the reputation system will be as layered as the Devs have said. If it were it would be far too limiting on PvP, and there is little else to do in PFO, other than PvP. How many escalations are you going to grind before you get bored of grinding escalation? You dont lose rep for PvP'ing in Feuds, Wars, Factional PvP and killing already other hostile players. The major reason the rep system was introduced was to penalize the constant meaningless PKs. How many ''meaningless'' kills we can get away with without losing too much rep is TBD. So yes you can do plenty of PvP and still be high rep.
Thats a big pie to eat for the UNC. Good they got such big mouths!
I hope you guys get to play soon cause it's getting hillarious for us lurkers *shakes head*.
In general i hope seizing an enemy settlement will cost so much (both in coin and DI) that you only will try to do it if there is big rivalry in the picture. This would leave smaller settlements who just wanna do their own thing a greater chance of surviving if they play their cards right.
To me the graphics are okay at this point and i really like the artstyle.
Someone mentioned how WoW wasnt graphically advanced when it launched, which i guess is correct. WoW tho had some pretty smooth animations, which i hope PFO will get right aswell.
Enjoying the stories guys. Seems like Shadowbane, EvE, Darkfall and other sandboxes really made some good stories and can't wait for them to happen in PFO.
I think you are right to advice good alligned new/unexperienced players/guilds to setttle in the north. Have in mind tho that resources will be unevenly distributed over the map. So while evil alligned settlements can turn to war for gaining resources, and chaotic can rely on banditry, i see good alligned to be heavily relying on trade. And they will most likely have to trade with settlements in the south/east to get the resources they need to develope their settlements. So having allies there might become a must. These don't have to be good alligned tho. I think this is where good look to trade with actually any neutral and/or lawful settlement.
I don't know if this has been discussed before (but i would be surprised if it hadn't). Basically an Agreement could be a long term contract between social organizations. It could change some in game mechanics, and would have to be renewed in regular periods. I think this could provide a lot of meaningful interaction and value to the community. Brainstorming: Trade Agreement - The most basic form of Agreement, that most resembles a normal trade contract. The accepting party agrees to continually provide specified resources, items, or other goods to a specified location, in specified intervals. This can be in exchange for coin and/or goods, but also for other services. For instance useful if a settlement wants to hire a company to run a nearby mine for them. Peace Treaty - Pretty self-explanatory. The two parts are unable to attack each other for a specified amount of time. Safe Passage - The accepting party agrees to not attack any caravan moving through their area (settlement controlled hex), in exchange for coin, for a set period of time. Defensive Pact - The accepting party agrees to join defense if the offering party has been declared war (or feud) on. Does not apply if the offering party declares war (or feud) (du'h. Might be tricky to specify therms. This could be useful in many different ways: Could be a step towards an alliance. A company could be accepting party in exchange for usage of a feudal manor in a settlement controlled hex. Etc. Training Agreement - Accepting party accepts to continually provide 1 or more training slot in their settlement in exchange for coin. And I'm sure there is more...
Regarding alignment in settlements. While i understand people might be let down they can't live in the same settlement as their friends, i think there are good reasons why the system is as it is right now. It sort of makes sense that mixing child killers, who rob all their neighbors, with the nicest neighbors in the world wouldn't work. Reality may not always be the best way to set up a game, but in this setting i think it is. GW looks at previous sandbox games and wants to avoid the constant kill on sight PvP that seem to be the main gameplay in such games. They want diplomacy, trade, craft etc. to flourish (but also wars of course). They call it meaningful human interaction. So a way to handle this is to penalize those who constantly kill random people for no reason whatsoever, with the alignment system. By having settlements of certain alignments be at a disadvantage when it comes to upkeep, training etc. (at first i disliked this, but i see what GW wants to do). So if we were to allow people of any alignments into any settlement, this system would not just go to waste. I think people need incentives to play meaningful, for this game not to turn into a KOS PvP game. For people not to ruin other peoples experience to the extreme. The only solution i see to the problem is that: A settlement is the most efficient the closer to its set alignment it's members is. The further spread out it's members is on the alignment axis, the less efficient it is. This way any member of any settlement has real incentives to be as close to the settlement's set alignment, for the settlements well being. At the same time you could have your free haven settlement (which i think is really interesting), but it's would run really bad (bad training facilities, upkeep etc). A lawful good settlement that has an evil necromancer summoning undead in his basement would take a toll on it's indexes. People would not really want him there cause he is making the settlement less efficient. Of course if he is a dear friend you might decide to let him live there, but you have to pay a price.
Hey guys. I am just here to voice the need for dense forests, fog and dark nights. Traveling or fighting under such conditions should be different than on sunny days. When watching the tech demo i realized how dull the world would be if it always looked like that. I haven't had much experiences with such things in mmos, except somewhat from the recent The Secret World, but i heard stories about dark nights in EQ for example. How would you like this to be implemented in PFO?
Hello guys. Can we have spears in the game? With suitable animations, not using it as a slashing weapon (then we're talking halberds maybe). I like spears.
Pathfinder Online: Raw Launch |
