|Nihimon Goblin Squad Member|
... a character could choose to block other characters from walking through him, but this would count as an attack on those other characters.
I would add that it probably makes the most sense if the blocking characters has to explicitly block individual characters. That makes it easier to count the blocking as an attack, and also allows the system to eventually determine how many characters he should be able to simultaneously block.
If you read the first paragraph at the link in the quote, and look at the chart there, it should be clear.
I can't include the chart in a readable format, so I didn't include it at all.
Since we are on the general topic of alignments, can anyone point me to a hard definition of or explain exactly what "one-step" alignment differences are?
Here's where I referenced the source documents when Ryan first posted about Settlements requiring their Members to be within one alignment step.
If you skim over that thread, you'll see Ryan respond to this directly.
Is there anything official on that somewhere?
This is in the context of the Shieldmate Mark, but I believe it applies to Guild and Buddy accounts as well.
You can wait forever to make an invitation
[Edit] I would also point out that I've made this assertion - that you can wait forever to finalize your Guild or Buddy invitations - a number of times in a number of different threads. And while I understand Ryan and the other "official" posters probably can't read every thread, I still expect I'd have been corrected by now if I were wrong.
Crimson Knight: Chaos DeLane wrote:
I have not noticed, but may have missed it, but it seems to me that everybody has left out the circumstance call. For the greater good a LG paladin will work with say a CE necromancer. That is why I detest alignment in games, unless it's based upon your choices like in the Fallout games. Again if I missed it I'm sorry for bringing it back up.
I generally try to avoid Alignment discussions; they tend to generate a lot of passion, and I am oftentimes impolitic.
However, I think the misunderstanding at the heart of the quote above is the same misunderstanding at the heart of the OP.
You can work together with people of opposing Alignments.
It's probably also worthwhile pointing this out again.
My advocating for player-run stores honestly comes mostly from my nostalgia for Star Wars Galaxies.
I completely agree, and would love to see something like that in PFO, but it's not a priority for me because I expect the Market to function extremely well without them.
I thought that different types of items would sell better in each of the three systems...
Ignoring player-run stalls for the moment, it sounds like you're suggesting two types of markets - one with a buyout option and one without. It's rather heavy-handed to arbitrarily decide that certain sellers would not be allowed to make use of one or the other for whatever it is they're trying to sell. If you don't do something like that, then there's no difference whatsoever between having two disparate systems and having a single system with an optional buyout.
Here's the link to the Kickstarter project where this reward was described.
And here's the complete text of the reward description.
Pathfinder Society - Pass the time until Pathfinder Online's release in the massively multiplayer OFFLINE Pathfinder Society Organized Play worldwide tabletop RPG campaign! You'll receive a special in-campaign chronicle sheet PDF detailing an unusual one-use magic item called the emerald elixir, stolen from a bizarre pool in the Emerald Spire Superdungeon. When used at an official Pathfinder Society game table, drinking the elixir grants your hero the advanced simple template for the duration of the scenario. Alternately, the elixir can be spiked with experimental agents to trigger a beneficial permanent mutation randomly determined on a huge chart included on the certificate. If more than one player activates an emerald elixir at the same table, all drinkers can choose their preferred mutation from the list rather than roll randomly.
It sounds to me like it can only be used one time, and either applies to a single character for the duration of the scenario, or with additional effort can be permanently applied to that single character.
I've never played a game where healing is underestimated. Usually it's the opposite- everybody thinks a failure is the healer's fault.
If the Tank dies, it's the Healer's fault. If the Healer dies, it's the Tank's fault. If the DPS dies, it's their own damned fault.
On a more serious note, I will be extremely grateful if healers in PFO aren't expected to heal the "tank" for his entire health every other round.
And yes, I remember this thread.
Soldack Keldonson wrote:
One obscure exploit that lets a few evil players counterfeit millions in currency then mule it around to hundreds of accounts just like gangsters laundrying counterfeiter money could kill this sandbox at its birth.
I don't think so.
For what it's worth, Bitcoin experienced a similar exploit in the very real world of very real money.
Bitcoin - Wikipedia wrote:
I expect that Neverwinter will recover at least as well as Bitcoin has. I can't imagine such an incident "killing" PFO.
Soldack Keldonson wrote:
... costing in-game resources to craft a quest would prevent a lot of junk quests from being made...
I really like that idea :)
And I'm actually extremely excited about what the Foundry portends for the future of the genre. I would love to see MMOs as a Cottage Industry, where "amateurs" can create them in their spare time. I think Foundries are a very important step in that direction.
But, from a purely self-interested perspective, I don't intend to create Foundry Quests, nor do I intend to consume them very much...
@KarlBob, it sounds like you're suggesting there be some kind of system-defined constraint on which items can be sold in each system. That means you will have people who want to sell their widget(s) in a market that does (or doesn't) include buyout offers, but won't be able to because of these arbitrary restrictions. I'm not seeing how that is a net benefit to the game.
Personally, I would prefer they focus on other systems first. The ability for the community at large to create "theme park" content is great, but I'm not really planning to play PFO for the "theme park" content. I very much want them to make the Market rock-solid, and deliver on their Escalations, Unit Combat, and Siege Warfare promises first.
I agree that's probably the most important bit of context.
I don't believe that Ryan or the devs are going into this decision under any false impressions about the likely impact. In fact, I expect they've thought about it very thoroughly and are comfortable with it.
As I understand the current system, a lawful good settlement would never have to halt construction of a paladin training camp due to alignment drift. The settlement has an alignment, lawful good. PCs more than one step from LG will have their membership revoked, but the settlement will remain LG.
It may not be that cut-and-dried.
As I understand it, the Alignment of a Settlement is determined by the Alignment of its Members. A Lawful Good Settlement would allow Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good Members as well. If the overwhelming majority of Members of a Lawful Good Settlement are Lawful Neutral, I believe there is a possibility that the Settlement itself might actually change Alignment to Lawful Neutral.
In order to acquire new abilities, players must first buy the Skill for their character at a Training Facility, and then complete zero or more in-game Achievements. My personal hope is that "find and train with a master/mentor" can be one of those in-game Achievements.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
There is no such thing as "price gouging" in an economy with a functioning market, btw.
I wish more people understood this.
Anti-price-gouging laws simply mean that anyone willing to transport portable diesel power generators into a natural disaster area will be forced to do so at a monetary loss, which simply results in them not being transported - or at least not in sufficient numbers to actually meet the surging demand.
It would not stop the initial exploit, but it would isolate its after effects to just that local auction house.
How so? Doesn't the entire economy use the same currency? It seems to me that the effects would only be limited to the local auction house if each local auction house had its own currency.
I suspect Karl was referring to games like Rift, Guild Wars 2, and Neverwinter, that actually give rogues the ability to literally teleport. It's an atmospheric thing. A rogue dashing around behind someone is a very different feel than one blinking out of existance to nightcrawler a dagger into someone's kidneys.
That's what I thought KarlBob was talking about as well. My first exposure to it was the Dread Knight in Vanguard.
It occurs to me that it might be exceedingly difficult to appropriately animate a "Leap" that moves the Rogue through space without clipping the environment or causing some other kind of visible anomaly that causes the player base to object. It wouldn't surprise me if the devs decided it was more expedient to have the "Leap" effectively function like a teleport.
... dagger attacks don't teleport your thief...
I'm usually much further towards the Simulation end of the Video Game / Simulation spectrum, but I think that giving Rogues the ability to quickly (instantly?) get behind their targets is a good thing.
Leap/Charge: As part of the attack, the attacker leaps or runs to get closer to the target, extending the range of the attack. Doing this doesn't cause Opportunity and is very fast—an attack with this modifier is perfect for getting into melee range swiftly or intercepting a faster target.
I expect there will be Rogue attacks that include a Leap behind their target.
Hobs the Short wrote:
For instance, instead of seeing a bright red dot on a mini-map, telegraphing a node's location far before my character can perceive it's location using my camera perspective, I would rather have to become adept at looking for the node...spotting tell-tale signs of it among the other terrain features.
I have the complete opposite opinion; I want my Character to be adept at locating nodes.
[Edit] I would also point out that you can accomplish your stated goal by the simple expedient of turning off node-tracking. I suspect that would not be sufficient for your desires, though.
The only real problem I foresee with the Alignment restrictions on Settlements is that PFO wouldn't support some of the Settlements you see in some of the Adventure Paths.
For example, Pathfinder Chronicles: Guide to the River Kingdoms (PFRPG) talks about Pitax, a CN Settlement with Authority Figures that are NG, NE, and LE.
I just wanted to say that, after excitedly trying to explain this to my wife last night and my co-worker buddy this morning, I am utterly in awe of how awesome this system is.
Anyone who's been paying attention for a long time will recall that I was not at all a fan of limiting players to 6 "attack" abilities. I was really concerned about how this could possibly result in a system that wasn't reduced to a boring-tastic rotation of three or four abilities with another two or three "special use" abilities that rarely got used.
Well, brother, do I see it now!
Incredibly cool design! Top-notch blog!
Am I adequately conveying my excitement?
@SlipZone, you're probably remembering Gregg Reece's list of Chartered Companies. Gregg got busy and wasn't able to devote as much time to these forums, so I've basically taken that over for him. It evolved into the list that AvenaOats linked above - which, by the way, includes the Shield Mate thread in the Popular Player Threads section :)
What happens if we're in EE, people are paying for micro-transactions, and something big goes wrong in the economy?
That's a good question, and this is a good time to start thinking about it.
From a technical perspective, I think you can rollback; it's just going to require careful planning. The Cash Shop Servers and the World Servers will be separated. It seems to me the biggest problem will be instantaneous-use purchases that were made during the window that is being rolled back - they should probably just result in a Skymetal Bits refund to the player's account.
Somewhat related, will you be able to tell someone's alignment easily or will you have to use spells or skills to do so?
Screaming for Vengeance wrote:
Each player has three axes of personality: law vs. chaos, good vs. evil, and reputation. A player's reputation is clearly visible to others, while alignment is harder to determine at a glance.