|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I believe that there won't be a secondary implement slot once consumables go live. At that time, switching weapon sets will still be a one-click fast action, but switching implements will be an out-of-combat-only action that requires opening the paperdoll screen.
What makes you believe that?
You switch Weapon Sets by hitting ` (back-quote, often referred to as tilde for the other symbol on that key). Right now, switching Weapon Sets also switches Implements, but that wasn't the designers' intention. Instead, they've talked about using Alt-` to switch Implements entirely separately from switching Weapon Sets. It seems that they definitely intend for us to be able to switch Implements, even in combat.
Saiph the Fallen wrote:
Yes, that's right.
The Cleric Armor Feats are:
The Cleric Feature Feats are:
Once they get the "or" tech working, the Cleric level Achievements will require particular levels of any Armor and any Feature, rather than the specific ones currently required.
I expect this is a misunderstanding based on another failure to capitalize proper nouns.
Daredevil is a Rogue Feature. Bow Specialization is a Fighter Feature. It's not possible to have them both slotted at the same time. However, I expect Scarlette was talking about running with Daredevil slotted while specializing in using bows (as opposed to slotting Bow Specialization).
3) Get 4 or 8 GB of memory. Anything beyond 4 GB offers improvements in performance, but the improvements are marginal, with diminishing returns.
Extra RAM is really good for when you're multi-tasking. I'm liable to have a couple of PFO sessions running, along with Visual Studio (a bit of a hog) and a dozen web pages.
KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:
Yeah, I'm talking about when the general public will accept and use a universal standard time.
Read this from Ryan:
And actually, I think we'll eventually have a universally accepted standard "time" when we have enough folks living in space that need to coordinate their activities, and don't have the strong incentive of having the earth's rotation and the sun's corresponding position in the sky heavily influence their preferences.
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
... local time is far, far older than the railroads
I believe Decius was specifically referring to Time Zones.
I don't expect much change any time soon. Folks like the units they're accustomed to because they're useful. Very few folks spend more time talking to other folks outside of their Time Zone than in it, so any solution wouldn't really improve the lives of the vast majority of folks.
Daylight Saving Time just throws another wrench into the whole thing, and makes it cumbersome, especially if you only need to convert to some kind of Universal Time infrequently.
$15/month I can afford, I just think it's too much to retain the population PFO needs to make the game work.
And again, it's worth reminding everyone that PFO isn't looking for 200,000 subscribers on the first weekend of Early Enrollment. They might be looking to accelerate towards that by the time Open Enrollment comes around in 2016, but "slow and steady, and avoid the spike and crash" has been one of Ryan's mantras from the beginning.
$15/mo may well turn off a large number of folks who would otherwise play. But that's not the only consideration.
... it's a cruel pill to charge triple-A prices just because the game is offering a niche where there is a currently a void in the market... I look at this pricing as a type of price gouging.
I hate bringing real-world topics into these forums, but...
In the real world, the reason that things like generators make it into disaster areas in the first place is because someone got in their car and drove it there. The inflated price is very often entirely reasonable. The alternative isn't really cheap generators, it's no generators.
Likewise with PFO, allowing the players to subsidize the cost of development might be the only way to get a game like this made. From one of my very first posts on these forums:
So, if Mr. Dancey is reading this, and is wondering if he can get people to actually pay to beta test PFO, please understand the answer is a resounding "YES!" and that's even if the sub is $15/mo...
I have some concerns about doing something like that, actually.
1. The files are being actively updated. I hope to get through most of the PFO Wiki Data spreadsheet tonight, but I expect I'll be working through the weekend on it. I certainly won't want to go through a manually intensive process frequently enough to keep those .csv files reasonably up-to-date, which means that if I did upload them statically like that, I'd likely wait until I was done, and frankly I might never feel like I'm really done.
2. Statically uploaded files means you won't be immediately aware of new changes from the devs. This seems very likely to result in using severely out-of-date information. In fact, this has happened a couple of times already with folks using direct links to the older spreadsheets themselves rather than linking to the folder and looking for the spreadsheet there.
Ultimately, getting the data into the PFO Pathfinder Wiki is my highest priority, but I need to do that in a way that makes it possible to update the data in bulk without losing user edits. It took me quite a while to figure out how to do that in principle, but I have a functional prototype now. Once the wiki is ready for prime time, I'll probably get rid of the folder completely and just process the spreadsheets from the devs privately, without creating public versions to tide folks over.
Nothing is 'free' in this world, Nihimon. You should know that. People have to make a living. People will do anything to make a living.
By "free", I meant neither you nor I have to give them money to use it.
If there is a more suitable "free" online storage service you would prefer me to use to host the files, I'd be happy to copy them over there. I can probably even make them available on T7V's website, but it won't be anywhere near as convenient to use them from there.
In that case however, why even make Bulk Goods carry-able by players? I guess I am confused by the fact that we even can, because what is the point?
It's not certain that we can. I was careful to say "I think" we'll be able to, and you even said we "may" be able to in your reply, so I didn't belabor the point, but it's far from certain.
Thanks Nihimon. Is a Gathering Camp the same as the gushers that Ryan is talking about? Where you need a good Kit for?
You're welcome :)
And yes, I said "Gathering Camp" but it could have been "Gathering Kit" or "Gusher Camp" or "Gusher Kit". Since it doesn't exist yet, I don't think we've really settled on the terminology.
I am a little worried about your remark that we may be able to move small amounts of Bulk Resources on a single person; I agree with Edam here that this could for instance easily lead to more risk-free "transporting-zergs" where a Settlement fields a whole bunch of members that each carry 1 or 2 Bulk resources, then spread out across the land and each person takes their own route to the final destination.
Frankly, if a Settlement wants to send 500 people each carrying 2 Bulk Resources on a trip, when a Caravan could conceivably carry many times that amount... well, I don't see the problem. That's 500 people not being productive in other ways. And the frequency with which we'll likely need those Bulk Resources means they'll likely never really be productive. Seems likely to be a self-correcting problem, to me.
@Tyncale, I think it applies to both Bulk and Crafting Resources. The alternative to "Easy Mode" Harvesting is the use of Gathering Camps that extract large amounts of Crafting Resources from the hex. We've been told that we'll have to farm that way in order to get enough Crafting Resources to "run" a Settlement that has any plans of supporting Crafting Characters.
(2) I don't think we've ever been told that bulk goods are too heavy to transport by single characters (porters, if you will).
I think we'll be able to move small amounts of Bulk Resources with individual Characters, but there's also this:
The transport of a large amount of goods from a strip-mined outpost will be a serious concern for raiders. Bulk goods are HEAVY and that amount will certainly require a caravan.
KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:
We've been told that "Easy Mode" Harvesting simply won't supply enough resources to run a Settlement. Because of that, it seems to me that there will have to be some form of frequent long-distance transport of large quantities of resources. Whether those resources are picked up direct from nodes, or bought at a nearby Settlement seems somewhat irrelevant. If the only way to transport them is using wagons, it seems that Caravans are an inevitability, at which point the experiences of the players running them will determine not whether Caravans will be used, but whether those players will continue to play the game.
1. I absolutely agree that most Caravans will want to avoid "hauling air", and will do their best to ensure their return trip is as profitable as the outgoing leg. I think this will be true whether or not Coin can be converted at any Settlement, or just at "Home Settlements".
2. Thank you for saying "boatload". It's a personal pet peeve of mine when people say "buttload" :)
New data from the devs has been shared with us and I want to let everyone know about it.
The raw spreadsheets directly from the devs are in the "Raw from the Devs" subfolder.
In the main folder:
I have done a first pass on the Feat Advancements to simply convert it to a Google Docs Spreadsheet so it'll be easier to view. This should have the updated XP Costs and Requirements mentioned in the latest blog.
I have created "PFO Wiki Data - Updated 8/27" and will be populating this with better-formatted data as quickly as possible. I already have the Active Feats converted. Eventually, I hope to have all the PFO Data reasonably well-organized in this sheet.
I have renamed the older "Passives, Attacks, etc." spreadsheet to reflect that it is out of date. I'm leaving it in the main folder until I get all the data re-formatted. Once that happens, I'll move it to Old.
I'd also like to remind everyone to please not link directly to the spreadsheets, as those links are likely to break - or worse, point to out-of-date data - as we get updates. I am hopeful that I can eventually get the PFO Wiki Data spreadsheet into a stable enough format that I can simply edit-in-place, so this reminder might not be necessary after this week's updates.
I'd also like to thank everyone who's been helping out on PFO Pathfinder Wiki. Cheatle especially has done a tremendous amount of work. I've worked out some patterns to use for doing these kinds of bulk updates, and hope to have the data from the PFO Wiki Data spreadsheet incorporated into the wiki as soon as possible. I'm reasonably confident that the next big update (and all future updates afterwards) will go very smoothly.
While most of the runs were "uneventful" in that the odds of running into enemies/hostile players when going from town to town was only about a 10-20% chance, the very real threat that we might get attacked and the few times that our guarding paid off were all that was necessary to keep each trip exciting and meaningful.
I totally get this :)
As much as I enjoy PvP, I think I'll find Caravan-guarding fun and exciting even on "uneventful" trips.
It's adventures like those that are why I lobby to ensure that we still have a decent population of low-reputation players and appreciate local banking systems (for items at a minimum, and somewhat for coin).
I'm generally dismissive of the "doom & gloom" view that the Reputation system will so hamper unsanctioned PvP (can I used that now, since it's used in the Alpha Instructions guide?) that there aren't any Bandits. One of Ryan's first comments about Bandits was to the effect that "they'll be Low Reputation, and they'll cope". I think that's probably going to be right.
Quite right. Thanks for the clarification :)
You're quite welcome :)
It actually is very gratifying to me to be able to help folks come to a better understanding of the game.
If you haven't already seen it, the Goblinworks Blogs section (under Game Information) of Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links has a list of the blogs with a short summary of what's covered in each. You might find it helpful, although it occurs to me I haven't updated it in quite a while...
Nihimon wanders off into the library with a bundle of books to put in their proper places.
You've got it right, KarlBob. Most keyword matches just add a simple +5% Base Damage. Some others have particular effects in specific circumstances. One example is that the Cold Iron keyword is required in order to bypass some resistances on Fey creatures. I'm not sure whether that just means the weapon needs that Keyword, or whether it actually requires a keyword match between the weapon and the Attack.
KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:
When you use an Attack, it looks to see if your weapon has certain keywords. For each keyword it finds, it increases your base damage by 5%. Nightdrifter can detail the final effects on your actual damage output, but basically more is beter. A very similar process applies to Armor (the stuff you wear) and Armor Feats, and then to Expendables and Feature Feats.
... some of my guild's most exciting moments in Mortal Online were splitting up HUGE sums of money and traveling in formation with scouts and guards to travel to another town to make a large deed purchase, then all acting as scouts and guards to "protect the football" all the way back. This would be akin to bringing in a valuable trade shipment in PFO, but now it's only dangerous in one direction.
As someone who's very excited about the prospect of escorting Caravans, I can relate; that sounds like a lot of fun.
I would add that there's a good chance it actually will be a two-way affair if the devs implement one of the ideas they've spitballed before, which is that you might have to get your Coin back to your Settlement before it converts from lootable, encumbering in-game inventory to the unlootable, weightless abstraction. I personally think this is a great idea, and would make escorting Caravans even more fulfilling :)
Personally I quite like the feel of the turning, none of this instantly facing which ever direction the mouse moves.
Like I said, I'd be quite satisfied if they'd just let the mini-map arrow face the way the camera is facing, rather than the way my character is currently facing while waiting to catch up to the camera.