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

Nihimon's page

Goblin Squad Member. 9,261 posts (9,264 including aliases). No reviews. 14 lists. 1 wishlist. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Most excellent! Very much appreciated, I'm sure that took a lot of work :)

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I am having trouble classifying Darkfall in the murder simulator realm.

I'm sure we all have our own definitions of "murder simulator". My problem with Darkfall, as I've said before, is that there was no reason not to kill a stranger just to see if he dropped something. The fact that PFO will have meaningful Reputation, so the question of "is it worth it to me to kill this stranger" isn't always an obvious yes.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I went out into the danger zones (in DFUW) often, as did many of the Goblin Squad. I went alone a great majority of the time. I made it back to "bank" my goodies 80 - 90% of the time.

Just in case it's not clear by my saying "most of the people try to kill you most of the time", I'm really not talking about the rate of "outings without being killed". I'm talking about, if you see 10 non-allies while you're away from the safe zones, do 7 of them try to kill you?

And yeah, I've gotten for a very long time that there will be lots of PvP in PFO. Please don't let the way some folks like to talk about my motives lull you into thinking I don't want a PvP game.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Good answer. That is pretty much how I see a very difficult and possibly painful (for GW as well as the player base) problem. :)

If my answer is significantly out of line with Ryan's expectations, I'd like to know that sooner rather than later.

[Edit] And if my obsession with the fact that PFO will have less random/meaningless PvP than a game like Darkfall is fine, but Ryan would prefer that not be construed by new folks as an indication that there won't be any random/meaningless PvP, or that they will be free from unwanted PvP in PFO, so he would prefer not to highlight that, I'm fine with that, too.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
What is random/meaningless killing and how can you tell?

I don't think you can "tell" if any particular instance of a killing is random/meaningless. I think the proof will be in the way the game feels over time. When you first begin leaving the protection of the starter towns, if "most" of the people you meet kill you "most" of the time, it's a pretty safe bet they're doing it randomly/meaninglessly.

Bringslite wrote:
n Darkfall they had no reason (with us) except probably the loot we had on us.

In Darkfall, there was no reason not to kill.

Goblin Squad Member

Harad Navar wrote:
Did anyone else notice the different movement speeds between plains and mountains?

Is it the terrain? Or is it gear/equipment?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
I'm increasingly worried that the messages coming out of the community don't match what will actually happen in game, and the disconnect between what people hear, and what they experience, will cause blowback.

For me, anything that causes other players to ask themselves "is it worth it to me to kill this guy" is going to make PFO significantly different than a game like Darkfall, and your commitment to break the pattern of random and meaningless killing is the critical feature of PFO that I think will make it appealing to a larger audience. That makes me want to share that viewpoint.

Is that viewpoint itself wrong? Or is there a perception - perhaps heavily influenced by consistent mischaracterization - that my viewpoint is something other than what I described above?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand that Ryan has a lot more experience than I do in crafting messages for mass audiences, and I wasn't trying to call him out. I was hoping he would simply expound on the matter a little bit more and help me reconcile what I recognized as my own failure to understand.

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps I read too much into the "early and often" part, which is so inextricably linked in my mind to the "early and often" in that other quote.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
You have to spend the "Millions for Defense" or prepare to be killed because you refused to pay the "One Copper in Tribute". I know that sounded like a witty comment when you first made it, but now that you see you might actually have to pay for that defense, you seem to be concerned and falling back on the "where is the game mechanic to help me?"

Do you seriously not get that "Millions for Defense, Not One Copper in Tribute" is a challenge directly to folks like you? I want you to come and try to take my stuff. I relish the opportunity to fight you for it. It's the same reason I keep advocating for game systems to protect you when you try to live the life of a Bandit. Hypocrite.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
The part Nihimon seems to be struggling with is that he is attributing "indiscriminate" to an attack that is motivated based on the harvester's actions of mining high value resources.

No! It should be obvious to you and everyone else by now that you do not have an accurate sense of the things that motivate me. You're dead wrong in this case, and it's near-contemptible of you to suggest that given what I've already said in direct conversations with you.

If you're going into an area with valuable resources, you should expect that others will want to secure those resources for themselves and might be willing to kill you for them.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:
If Brighthaven/TEO has a group harvesting nodes in a skymetal hex, those harvesters might be getting some good wealth. A competing settlement or company might enter into PvP legitimately, and the two groups might kill each other early and often. This is fine, working as intended.

I don't see that as the likely scenario Zandari was concerned about.

Zandari wrote:
The first time my level 4 self gets murdered by a level 12 jerkwad in this game...

This sounds to me more like the concern of a "New Player trying to learn the game" being killed by a character at the "Heroic Adventurer" power level who gains nothing from it but the joy of tears and rage. To respond to that concern with "you will be killed early and often, get used to it" seems out of place to me. I would have expected something more along the lines of "the more risk you take, the more reward you'll receive, but if you deliberately play to minimize your risk, you should experience significantly less random player killing in PFO than you should expect in most other Open PvP games".

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
@Nihimon, both of these statements can certainly be true if: getting killed early and often will happen, and the people (players? characters?) who succeed long-term won't be those who killed others early and often and without discrimination.

This is the part I'm struggling with.

If Ryan intends to "repeatedly and powerfully shock the system" in order to "break this pattern", wouldn't you expect that pattern to, you know, be broken?

Goblin Squad Member

Sadurian wrote:
I would be happier if units of measurement had archaic names. It doesn't really matter what they represent as everything in the game is abstracted anyhow.

This. I wouldn't even mind if you simply renamed "meters" to "feet" or "yards" and "kilometers" to "miles" or "leagues". It wouldn't make the slightest difference to me that those distances didn't correspond to their real-world namesakes, and it doesn't matter to me in the slightest whether you decide to make a league equal to 1,000 feet, or a mile equal to 1,000 yards, or any other combination.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
These should hopefully make the choice of a location more interesting than just what resources are nearby and where your friends are.

Indeed :)

We spent a couple of hours last night talking about it amongst ourselves, and I'm sure we'll spend many more hours talking about it with our allies and partners.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Feydred wrote:
I'll make the map tonight unless someone else wanna do it.

I'm fairly certain Harad Navar is already working on it. You might send him a PM and see if y'all can coordinate.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Interplayer conflict is at the heart of our game design. Getting killed by another player is going to happen early, and often.

Ryan, I'm a little confused about the message you're trying to send.

My thesis is that a bright, simple, clear guideline is needed to help people make good choices ("good" defined as "generating results that are generally in-line with my expectations and desires")

A second thesis is that a lot of people will come to Pathfinder Online with two incorrect preconceptions about the way the game is played. Those two preconceptions are:

1: Open World PvP implies a murder simulator

2: Killing early, often, and without discrimination is the route to long-term success

These two preconceptions mutually reinforce each other. If #2 is true, #1 is inevitable. This is the trap that game after game after game fell into. (Sometimes they didn't "fall" into it as much as they embraced it as a design paradigm on purpose.)

We are going to break this pattern and we are going to redefine those preconceptions. In order to do that we must repeatedly and powerfully shock the system. One of those shocks is a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development.

Can you help me try to reconcile these?

Goblin Squad Member

@Djoc, after reading your analysis and studying the map a bit more, I think I get what you're saying and I think you're probably right. Looking at it as one "cliff line" that runs from the northwest of the map southeast along the Hills and around the Hilly Forests in the south before turning northeast, and a second "cliff line" that surrounds each of the mountain areas, the maps and the X passes make much more sense. Thanks :)

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I have to agree that this is about the same as it is in most other FFA PVP sandbox games out there. It is at least. when you break it down. It seems that there will be MANY ways to be a legit target. Something that we would do better to face and embrace, than to deny.

I agree that there will be many ways to be a legitimate target, that we will be "often at risk", and that we should embrace that. I disagree that we should expect PFO to be "about the same as it is in most FFA PVP sandbox games out there". You referenced the reason for this in your first sentence, and it's something Ryan has made abundantly clear time after time.

We are going to break this pattern and we are going to redefine those preconceptions. In order to do that we must repeatedly and powerfully shock the system. One of those shocks is a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development.

It should be clear that Lifedragn and I are talking about this kind of random killing. Obviously, if you're in a feud, or in enemy territory, or even just in someone else's territory, you're taking on significant risk. It should also be clear that occasionally being killed randomly is tolerable. It's when the game gets to the point that you'll be randomly killed "more often than not" that it becomes a problem.

For example, there are a number of Home hexes where certain monster types always spawn. Players will be going to these areas to get the achievements they need to develop their characters. If most of these areas turn into murder simulators a la Darkfall, where you should expect to be attacked by pretty much anyone you see because more often than not you will be, then I think there's a problem.

Dominance is one aspect of PFO. If that aspect comes to dominate Exploration, Adventure, and Development, then I think there's a problem.

Goblin Squad Member

@Djoc, based on your reading, would P be able to travel directly into the dark-green hexes to its east? If so, then why would the nearby X be there? If not, then it seems like P would be a horrible choice for a Settlement since fully 1/3 of the neighboring POI hexes would be unreachable.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Your definition of "low risk" is far more limited than mine...

If it wasn't obvious, this post was meant as an implicit acknowledgement that I was wrong.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

This article does very well to highlight my thoughts.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/12/20/some-assembly-required-yet-another- ffa-pvp-sandbox/

That link is broken. This should work.

Some Assembly Required: Yet another FFA PvP sandbox

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
However, if such behavior becomes expected from the game - that whenever I am out picking berries minding my own business I am more likely than not to be attacked - then the game will suffer and remain but one of many insignificant sandbox MMOs.
To me, that "more likely than not" (combined with the unspoken "in low risk areas") is the key.
I disagree. I think that for the majority of the map, someone minding their own business should not expect attack. They should be wary of it, but they should not expect it unless they are doing something to draw attention. Like harvesting incredibly rare berries, harvesting in hexes that are well-publicized to be the territory of some settlement that keeps tight grip on harvest rights, or being in a hex like the meteor hexes where chances are likely that you have picked up something notable.

It might have been better if I'd said "not in high-risk areas" rather than "in low-risk areas". Perhaps Bluddwolf and Lifedragn both might have better taken my intended meaning.

Goblin Squad Member

Lord of Elder Days wrote:
Imperial measurements fit better into fantasy for me because they are more organic. Heck most of the units of distance are based on the human body. Call be an old grognard but a journey of a thousand miles sounds more romantic to me than a journey of a thousand kilometers.

I find it a little funny that hardly anyone uses "megameter".

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
"In low risk areas" translates to the NPC Starter zones...

I understand that's your definition, but I don't think it's the definition.

I think most people recognize that "low risk areas" really means places that: aren't intentional conflict zones; don't have extremely valuable resources; and aren't claimed by your enemies or by groups that are known to be hostile to strangers.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi, Zandari. I'll try to answer some of your questions but want to make it clear these aren't official answers.

Zandari wrote:
Do I have to buy two copies of the game AND two subscriptions if I want to play with my wife, or can I buy one copy and two subscriptions?

I think you'll both be able to play on the same account, but that might turn out to be against the terms. Since Goblinworks is going to be getting a subscription for two characters, I can't imagine whey they'd need to block you from letting your wife play one of them.

Zandari wrote:
If we know that we aren't going to be able to play for a while, can we put our subscription on hold and come back to our characters in, say, two months time when we are back in country? or will our characters disappear?

PFO's payment model is almost tailor-made for this kind of scenario. The subscription is actually what gives your character(s) experience points to spend on skills and such, not just access to the game. So, if you buy a month of Training (via subscription or in the cash shop), you don't "lose" half of that if you then go out of the country after two weeks. When you come back, your character will have still earned those extra two weeks of experience.

I recommend you at read at least the first posts by Ryan Dancey in each of these threads:

Kickstarter Community Thread: Subscriptions & Microtransactions

Kickstarter Community Thread: Player vs. Player Conflict

A couple of comments about PvP / Griefing

And if you haven't seen it before, you might find this useful:

Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
However, if such behavior becomes expected from the game - that whenever I am out picking berries minding my own business I am more likely than not to be attacked - then the game will suffer and remain but one of many insignificant sandbox MMOs.

To me, that "more likely than not" (combined with the unspoken "in low risk areas") is the key.

Goblin Squad Member

For the record, this was a very early thread of mine - you can see the OP was in February of 2012, over two years ago. And, as I said elsewhere:

I think I'm one of the very few who feel "strongly" about it, and probably most of the others who feel strongly about it disagree with me. At any rate, I'll get along just fine if everything's in Metric.

Goblin Squad Member

Lee Hammock wrote:
I am working on a version of the map with the terrain tiers more clearly delineated.

Perfect, thanks! I can wait :)

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

As an example, one of the Xs that's on a hill hex means that there are passes rising up from the surrounding Hexes into the hill hex; all the surrounding hexes are relatively flat, and the hex with the X has all the elevation changes within its borders. If an X was on a lower hex, I'd imagine it would essentially have a big ramp/hill spur on the side with the higher hex, so all the changes would be within the lower hex.

Lee says there's some elevation change even between plains and regular forests, hence the Xs between those.

It's still not clear.

There's an X southeast of P. Does that mean P cannot enter the Forest through either of the Forest Hexes it borders? Is the X west of K really the only way into all of the contiguous Hills in the northwest part off the map?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lifedragn wrote:
Now this was a substantial blog! It really improves our understanding of the world and gives us settlement-minded companies something to discuss as a group again!

Indeed. We've already started a discussion on T7V's forums about attractive Land Rush spots, and will be meeting on Team Speak tonight to talk it over in preparation for getting together with TEO to discuss our plans, and how we might best complement each other. I remain hopefully optimistic that we'll actually get a Settlement in the Land Rush :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm confused about the Passes / Choke Points (marked with a big white X) on the map. There are too many transitions for every transition to be impassable unless an X is present. It might make it easier to understand if the X were situated on the border that's actually passable, or if impassable borders were bolded.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
In most MMOs... Admin Powers makes the difference

In PFO, Ryan has explicitly addressed this as a "problem" that he intends to fix. Settlements will be able to define the methods which are used to secure resources. Some probably will choose to have a single player in charge. Others will likely choose to require a vote, either of a number of trusted players, or of every member of the Settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
Modern game building tools tend to use the metric system...

I understand the reasoning, but to be honest I'd be happier with hexadecimal "units" with undefined real-world conversions. As a student of history, I find certain anachronisms jarringly immersion-breaking. Seeing an "orrery"* in ArcticMUD was one of the first and most memorable occasions. It would be kind of like a game that described certain features of magical swords as "apps".

Stephen Cheney wrote:
And I don't know how many of us saw that post and knew that people felt strongly about it.

That's probably a stretch :) I think I'm one of the very few who feel "strongly" about it, and probably most of the others who feel strongly about it disagree with me. At any rate, I'll get along just fine if everything's in Metric.

* An "orrery" is a clockwork solar-system model named after the Earl of Orrery. And yes, I know a "sandwich" is named after the Earl of Sandwich, and no, it wouldn't be jarring to me. I'm an odd egg, and I know it :)

Goblin Squad Member

Why does Lee keep saying "meters" and "kilometers"?

Distances in the Pathfinder RPG and campaign setting are in feet and miles. The developers would have to make a very compelling case to us to allow that to change for Pathfinder Online.

I'm somewhat saddened if that's the official terminology.

Goblin Squad Member

The map will forever be known as having been drawn on baby panda skins...

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
We are going to talk about the map tomorrow. I shot the video this afternoon but I have not begun editing. Expect the blog to be late by a few hours tomorrow.

I think I'm going to be antsy for the next few hours...

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Happy Birthday, Diella :)

[Edit] On a somewhat related note...

"If your child was born today, tell them they were born on the day it snowed in Spring after the Blood Moon rose, as the prophecy foretold"

Goblin Squad Member

I'd love to see the actual map :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
One interesting part was Earl Ragnar casually killing, skinning, gutting a rat for a mid day snack while he talked business. ;)

Game of Thrones - Jamie & Tywin Lannister Conversation

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
I get the impression that kind of thing isn't going to be significant in PFO.

You linked quotes say nothing to the issue of settlement leaders running off with the settlement bank contents and wallet. Nor do they say anything about colluding with a supposed war enemy to fracture their own alliance, because an internal vote did not go the alliance leader's way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping these kinds of interactions (political intrigues) can take place. I would also like for there to be suitable opportunities for retaliation as well.

Really?

The toxicity comes from tolerating harassment, sexism, racism, rampant homophobia, and communications in open channels of the worst sort of content. It flowers in an environment where scamming is rampant and unpunished. It is amplified when CCP appears to not only condone, but promote acts like breaking huge Alliances out of fits of pique, or betraying organizations from within by stealing incredibly valuable shared assets after winning the trust of the target organization...

I mean, sure, Ryan didn't use your words exactly, but then neither did I.

Goblin Squad Member

I suppose it's obvious that Goblinworks is the Pathfinder Online company right now. I also suppose it's not really the right time for Goblinworks to be looking beyond the task at hand. That said, I think I'd be happy if Goblinworks were committed to using Pathfinder Online as the medium on which they base their further development of Ryan's vision for that hundred-year industry.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Sadurian wrote:
*It is correctly poll- not pole-. The term comes from 'poll' meaning 'head' (as used in 'poll tax, for example) and not because it is on a pole.
I love learning things like this! Thanks :)

It shouldn't surprise anyone that I did some independent research on this. If you're interested, Pollaxe - Wikipedia.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

I don't think that at the party scale there's anything better than the freedom to kill the offender and boo his Reputation through the universal Reputation rules.

I wonder if there's an appropriate place for some kind of flag applied by a Settlement's leaders to an ex-member of the settlement...

I have witnessed more than a few circumstances where the corp leader, or a member of the leadership, was the betrayer / traitor.

I get the impression that kind of thing isn't going to be significant in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
A very well articulated video on the topic: http://youtu.be/l2YgGY_OBx8

FYI, that's the same video Sadurian linked in Ugly armor design the other day, and referenced in this thread several posts up.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
CCP is now the EVE company, at least for the immediate future. Unless you'd been there when that was considered a total failure condition, it's hard to express how painful that position must feel to the insiders.

What kind of company is Goblinworks? Specifically, is it a Pathfinder Online company?

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Keovar wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
I really liked one of Ryan's first statements about offloading the AI processing to a server farm that can be constantly running to determine what the NPCs are doing even while there are no players in the area.
Ultima Online originally wanted t do something like that, but it became too unwieldy to have the server playing with itself when no players were there to care. It still seems weird to me...

It's an open question how the devs might address this, but in my experience it's easier to manage software when you don't have slightly different pieces of code that do almost the same thing. I see it largely as a choice between 1) having well-defined processes for interacting with the game-world that can be used live or automated vs 2) having one section of code that's used live and another bit that's supposed to simulate everything that would have happened. I would also worry about how much "server lag" would be introduced by having the server "play through" that simulation when a player first entered a previously unoccupied hex.

In my ideal MMO, the server wouldn't know or care whether it was a scripted PC or a live PC. Likewise, other players wouldn't necessarily know if it was a scripted PC or a scripted NPC, or even if it was a live PC played by someone who had some reason to want to appear to be an NPC, etc.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really liked one of Ryan's first statements about offloading the AI processing to a server farm that can be constantly running to determine what the NPCs are doing even while there are no players in the area.

I'd really love to see that taken one step further and allow the players to provide some of that by scripting what their characters are doing even while they're not logged in. I don't expect that in PFO, but it would please me if the industry moved in that direction.

Goblin Squad Member

Sadurian wrote:
*It is correctly poll- not pole-. The term comes from 'poll' meaning 'head' (as used in 'poll tax, for example) and not because it is on a pole.

I love learning things like this! Thanks :)

Also, I found very interesting the part in the original video link where the guy described a sword as a "side arm", in essence that it was useful because it could be worn without interfering with your daily routine.

Goblin Squad Member

Very cool link, I may end up searching for others from Schola Gladiatoria :)

1 to 50 of 9,261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.