Thank you to Paizo and all involved; Ultimate Campaign is a superb product.
I posted a quick UCamp Kingdom Building question regarding settlement consumption over in the rules sub-forum.
Unless I missed it somewhere, the new UCamp text regarding Consumption seems somewhat different and potentially less explicit than the Kingmaker text.
Is settlement contribution to overall kingdom consumption still equal to 1BP per district?
The new rules on Investment are potentially helpful as a tool to reward Kingdom ruling PCs. If the PCs use their noble influence to gain access to and steer business to the best investments in the nation, a GM could reward their royal charter investments with slightly lower risk and potentially higher returns than other investments of a similar kind.
Have the new kingdom rules changed the calculation of consumption for settlements/city districts?
Is the Consumption cost for settlements still one consumption point per district or is it calculated another way?
I can’t find explicit text in UCamp that states exactly how consumption is impacted by settlements. If anyone else has found this, please point it out to me. I’m left wondering with the new rules if consumption is 1BP per settlement or 1BP per district.
New UCamp Consumption:
Your kingdom’s Consumption is equal to its Size, modified by settlements and terrain improvements (such as Farms and Fisheries).
Old Kingmaker Consumption:
A kingdom’s Consumption is equal to its size plus the number of city districts it contains plus adjustments for Edicts minus 2 per farmland.
The recent Goblinworks blog regarding design of hexes reminded me of a pair of articles written by an EVE Online player regarding similar design issues.
I think the bottom-up sovereignty concept discussed in these articles might be a useful design guideline for establishing or maintaining control of Pathfinder Online settlement hexes. Anyway, it's just a thought. ☺
I hope everyone on the Goblinworks team is doing well and wish Ryan all the best at PAX East.
Fabius Maximus wrote:
Although I understand where you are coming from, I like customer service.
For a mythic feat or path ability, I’d like to see a feature similar to the Eclectic Training/Esoteric Training found in the Magic School’s chapter of the Inner Sea Magic supplement. (page 22)
The ability to increase your full caster level with spells known and spells cast per day is strong (and potentially overpowered) in a regular game.
For a mythic game, this ability might be appropriately powered and good fun. This feature might add additional support in the mythic rules for running campaigns with less than four PCs.
Perhaps making the Dual Path feat a prerequisite for this new ability would make sense.
Just a thought, Cheers
Jim Rudnick wrote:
Would it be possible for the Paizo staff to confirm Hobburn’s remark? Is the Ultimate Campaign the correct sourcebook referenced in Sean's original post for this thread? Thank you
Jim Rudnick wrote:
Would it be possible for us to have an update on this FAQ? Thank you
Design, Alignment, Player Factions
I’m glad to see thoughtful and proactive design being done to manage and minimize grief while preserving meaningful pvp. Player conflict will fuel and drive the great stories played out in the sandbox.
I’d like to share a preference to see alignment play a minimal role in the mechanics that shape player organizations – chartered companies, settlements, kingdoms.
Here’s why -> I don’t want to find that I have limited my game play choices by initial character creation. For example, I create a lawful character only to find that the players that I have most fun working with have established chaotic communities thus limiting my interaction with them.
At the outset of the game, I don’t know who I’m going to want to group with and perhaps overtime my choices for player communities may change. Furthermore, I may very well want to try different approaches to the game that best fit a variety of alignments (perhaps operating as bounty hunter one season and a bandit another).
I’d rather not be forced into using multiple characters when the time-based skill system provides incentive for growing skills on a small number of toons over a long time instead of encouraging a plethora of alts for every occassion. In EVE, I’ve used several different toons for different purposes but still find the concept of a “main” character important. In essence, I don’t want my PO main(s) to be hamstrung from exploring all aspects of the gameplay with whomever I want to group up with by alignment restrictions.
I do like the concept of seeing Pathfinder alignment an element of flavorful game design but I hope it doesn’t provide substantial mechanical restrictions on my gameplay.
In any case, the design team should keep up the great work and thanks for the opportunity to participate in the crowdforging process.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
In an upcoming sourcebook, we're going to write additional material for the magic item crafting rules, further explaining and clarifying the nuances of how this works.
Hi Sean, would you please let us know which sourcebook product to look for this content? I want to make sure that I pick this one up. Thanks
Thank you to the Paizo staff for your active and professional moderation of the messageboards. The work that you do to keep these forums civil and grief free is very much appreciated. It is one of the reasons that I feel like a welcome guest each time I visit these boards. Well Done!
Jim Rudnick wrote:
I've gone ahead and submitted a lead to this outlet, but I don't know if they'll pick up the story.
If Goblinworks is interested, I recommend they follow up with the site directly and perhaps send them a fully formed press release or better yet send them a fully written story.
That site tends to have its articles written by player-writers who are paid in ISK (in-game currency), but if one of their freelance authors doesn't come forward their staff writers may not take the time to write something up for themselves.
Yes, I've done some of that with the colleagues in my old but still active EVE corp and their current alliance and coalition. The response has been limited but positive. Loosely paraphrased responses were along the lines of "Hey, that looks cool, but the game's release looks pretty far off. So, Jim,... can you make the fleet op tonight?"
The best place to broadcast the word in EVE at the moment is this non-official news site run by Goonswarm's leadership. This site is part of their well orchestrated meta-game propaganda machine http://themittani.com/. Despite that fact that the Goons run this news site for their own purposes, it is a site followed daily by EVE's most active players. Seriously, an article there will be read by thirty to forty thousand hardcore MMO players within a day or two.
I have mixed feelings about using that site as an outlet. The grief-master Goons are the last players in EVE that I would like to see moving into Pathfinder Online, but on the other hand if it means success for the Kickstarter than it would be worth catching their attention.
I think Eve caps the population at 2500 per system.
Most EVE zones run on virtual hosts enabling one server to host many zones. Zones with commonly heavy loads and zones expecting heavy loads temporarily are put on dedicated servers.
It may no longer be true, but my understanding was that EVE's legacy server software and database design made it difficult for CCP Games to deploy a single zone across multiple servers that would enable scaling for much higher zone density.
Hopefully, Goblinworks will not have this same limitation.
Nicely done, Dakcenturi!
@All - The Kickstarter is going well. Let's keep it up. Please continue to market Pathfinder Online to your contacts. Crowdforging is all about us - the community.
Now is the time to encourage your friends, family, guild mates, corp/alliance mates, or other colleagues to back the Kickstarter.
Please consider working your contacts and doing what you can for the kickstarter.
Please consider increasing your pledge level or acquiring addons to your pledge.
Over 5000 of us have already pledged. We can do this. Let’s get this Kickstarter fully funded!
Question for Mark:
First off, I understand this Goblinworks message from the Kickstarter comments:
I was wondering if you expect that the demo PO client to run on MacOS in a Windows emulator tool such as CrossOver?
Does the middleware vendor have other clients using utilities like this with any success?
I'm only asking with the hopes of seeing a barrier removed for some of the prospective Kickstarter supporters that may be holding back due to OS issues.
I hope this feature isn't delivered in PO. I think the character bazaar has contributed to the less positive aspects of the EVE community.
Anonymity is bad for the game culture. WoW's deployment of cross-realm features and dungeon/raid finder functions delivered a similarly detrimental effect. They allowed people to be anonymous jerks and not suffer the consequences of a bad reputation. These features damaged the particular communities that had developed in each realm in Classic WoW.
The time-based skill training system and role of plex-like transactions in PO are all good with me. It's the ability to buy and sell characters that I object to bringing into PO.
Respectfully, No. I'm quite clear on the distinction between Kickstarter support and financial investment in GW.
GW has indicated that they recently received investment of "sufficient resources to continue to operate the team in its current configuration, plus a few more staff members, for as long as necessary to achieve our development goals and to release the game."
This was an obtuse announcement of start-up funding.
In the period 1995-2000, I was directly involved in raising investment capital for several start-up companies from both angel investors and venture capital firms in the Northwest. I can't imagine that it is an easy task for GW in this investment climate.
The way in which GW has framed the Kickstarter to speed up development has already drawn a connection between the support they receive from Kickstarter with their support from investors. My suggestion was to more overtly market their success with financiers as a means to help motivate the broader community to get involved in the Kickstarter.
With start-ups, it is not uncommon to market success with one layer of funding to help secure additional layers of funding but crowdsourcing is new phenomenon.
The recent press is all about the Kickstarter. The GW and Paizo principals know their business. Perhaps they have chosen not to encourage a greater focus on the investment backing cognitively. That's all cool. My original post was just a suggestion. In hindsight, it may not have been helpful.
Let's do what we can to help encourage our friends and social networks to support the Kickstarter.
AvenaOats, your post and link to that massively article make the point far better than I did. Well done!
I (sorta) know the EVE PVP model but I personally don't believe it will translate that well for a game that's selling point is trying to let us "be the Storyteller".
My long-time experience with the EVE sandbox is the opposite of your observation. Player conquest of the outer (null sec) regions drives the player generated content and produces strong story lines by the players.
Rivalries are intense and conflict breeds story. Writers will tell you that without conflict a story is empty.
This is why PvP is critical to a sandbox game's success. Players create more robust and dynamic conflict than the developers would given their limited resources. Mindcraft is a good sandbox without PvP but remains storyless - a virtual lego environment (although still great low budget game software).
I've linked to a thread I drafted from an EVE PvP encounter that was just one story among many others during my time in EVE's player wars.
I'm not particularly fond of of PvP just for the sake of it, or for dominating other players with my twitch skills, but I really appreciate the creative intensity found in EVE's player wars. When you PvP in EVE's nullsec for the purpose of conquest or defending one's own territory, it carries some weight and meaning.
I think some folks envision the Pathfinder Online PvP to be as empty as the WoW battlegrounds. I believe it will an engaging, story-driven, story-generating activity that will capture our hearts.
Yes, thanks for linking this. I've also seen publication of the Kickstarter at other sites such as massively. It's good to see the coverage and a pleasure to watch the Kickstarter numbers climb.
Enclosed here is a link to a page with numerous examples of funding announcement press releases similar to what I am suggesting. Although the the information that you've noted is good, my recommendation is for a more formal announcement (not a blog or Kickstarter update) including the identity of the investors and the amount they have committed. If I've failed to adequately convey my suggestion at this point, I think I'll refrain from further attempts. :)
All the best,
Hi Nihimon, those are good communications with a core message to announce the second Kickstarter.
My suggestion is that a separate press release be published specifically dedicated to sharing the great news regarding the investment they have received and some additional details on the nature of the investment. Their success regarding the investment has been underplayed. Highlighting this win may make the transition from Kickstarter #1 to Kickstarter #2 easier for some.
Sharing the additional details regarding the investment may help instill a sense of shared burden for the game's development. To-date, the stakeholder community has not publicly included financiers other than Paizo and the company's insiders. It would be nice to welcome the financiers to this community and be at peace knowing that our Kickstarter contributions are matched or exceeded by the burden carried by these new partners.
This suggestion is meant to be genuinely helpful and is not intended as a criticism. Personally, I like the crowdforging opportunity to participate.
Congratulations to the Goblinworks team on completion of the Pathfinder Online Technology Demo. For the work of just a few months, the video shared with the Kickstarter backers shows solid progress on development and clearly achieved the goals outlined for the project.
Congratulations again regarding the amazing news in Kickstarter Project Update #37 that “Following the successful completion of the Technology Demo we entered into long term agreements with backers to arrange financing to put the game into production.” Outstanding success! Well done.:)
With the recent announcement of the second Kickstarter, I’ve noticed some mixed reactions in the community including concern from some of the Goblin Squad members who have already demonstrated prior support for Pathfinder Online.
My observation is that the transition from “we’re waiting to see the results of the Technology Demo” to “we’re being asked to pony up additional funds in a second Kickstarter” may seem somewhat sudden.
I suspect that mixing the great news regarding the funding with the release of the demo video has downplayed the struggle and achievement of Goblinworks to win investment support. The success of securing financing in the current investment climate is an astounding achievement. Sizable early stage investments are particularly hard to win here in the Pacific Northwest.
I’m somewhat surprised that a more detailed communication or press release regarding the funding hasn’t been shared yet on the Goblinworks site. Such an announcement may help the community through this transition and the realization that we are sharing the financial burden for rapid development with investors willing to risk big money.
Who are the new investors? How much have they committed to the company? Have they acquired a controlling interest in the company? Is their investment conditional? Some angels prefer anonymity but most start-ups benefit from revealing this sort of information to their stakeholders.
I have added my pledge to the second Kickstarter. The people at Goblinworks and Paizo have earned good faith. The transparency with which they have operated thus far has been exceptional. This remains a project that I am happy to support.
One DM option is to check the PC's power for the set encounters by making the other random encounters and kingdom events particularly challenging. Force them to use consumables and sink their gold & magic into maintaining the integrity of the kingdom. This reduces the amount of gold available for their magic items to be used against the set encounters of the AP.
I also recommend minimizing the PC's ability to sell off the city generated magic items. As written, the kingdom rules make it easy for the PCs to use magic item economy to fuel the growth of their empire. It's best if PC's need to contribute some of their personal wealth into the kingdom in order to fuel growth.
Avoid letting the PCs withdraw gold from their kingdom's BP coffers. Consider using NPCs play out the consequences of unrest. The RAW mechanics for unrest are not particularly useful but the social aspects of this sort of unrest maybe be persuasive to prevent the PCs from making their embezzlement a pattern.
Make it challenging for the PC's to find all of the wealth available in the AP. Assume the NPC's used their potions, scrolls, wands. Make collecting armor and weapons off the dead to be gruesome robbery not fit for the Kings and Queens of the new kingdom. Don't provide clues to PCs that trigger their use of Perception skills to find hidden wealth.
I love the Kingmaker AP but generally found the encounters to be weak against optimized PCs. I also think it is okay to allow the PCs to be super good with their special capabilities. Mounted cavaliers and high DC witch hexes should be powerful when played to their strengths.
The sandbox nature of the AP allows the PCs to set the pace of the adventure. This allows them to avoid using consumables and makes limited use abilities particularly strong. Try forcing the pace at times so that the PCs need to fight multiple encounters in sequence depleting their resources.
In-game voice chat? So much more convenient than using a free third party system. Really loved that feature in DDO, and hating that it's not around in most other MMOs.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
In my experience with other games that feature built-in voice chat, the majority of the experienced players tend not to use the built-in voice in favor of using better out-of-game voice systems that provide more robust features.
As a player, I prefer not to encounter the human voice of other players until I've become familiar with them or their group (guild, raid, corp, alliance, fleet, charter company, etc.)
Because of both of these reasons, I tend to turn off the built-in voice chat when it comes out-of-the-box with a game.
Will a character's cohort create items at full price or cost for the character?
Will a cohort craft items for cost for other members of the leader's party?
With these questions and the others I asked previously, I'm not seeking a messageboard response but am simply posting questions that I've had to rule on as a DM, seen discussed on the forums, or just wondered about. I'm happy to wait for the product with additional item crafting clarifications. Cheers!