|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Direct-to-inventory drops from defeated creatures is working as designed (except for not having notifications). It serves several purposes including assuring a fair and personal distribution of loot, simplifying the PvE process, and preventing a bunch of half-looted corpses from tying resources up.
Glad to hear it!
Our opportunity to fight without reputation penalties lasted only as long as it took for all the Towers to be captured.
Very minor quibble...
Our opportunity to fight other Characters during the War of Towers was predicated on those other Characters being in the same unclaimed Tower Hex. That's practically consensual PvP.
Right now, we can engage in consensual PvP without Reputation Loss. All you have to do is attack yourself once to get the Aggressor Flag, then attack any Character with a white name to get the Attacker Flag. If your opponent does the same (which would require a 3rd party with a white name to be present), then you and your opponent can fight without either of you losing Reputation.
I believe there was a mechanism for matching Shieldmates in the Pledge Manager. The part that I believe is a mistake is the statement that "Shieldmate assignments are closed. They had to be done in the Pledge Manager. Right now there is no plan to re-open that process..."
@Keovar - You can wait forever to make an invitation
My wife and I both pledged in the Kickstarter the very first day. There was no point in linking to each other, and there was strong assurance that we'd be able to link Shieldmates at any time in the future.
From February of this year, a very clear indication that there would still be a way to link Shieldmates in the future:
If you're worried about how this rule ultimately works out, don't offer the Shieldmate relationship to another account until the rule is finalized.
To be clear, I mean I think Ryan is mistaken.
So, I understand Bringslite's confusion earlier. I completely mangled the quote tags in this post.
What it should have looked like:
From Xeen's link:
I can't promise that we can find all the bugs (we never will in a project this size).
There's another quote I'd like to highlight:
I'd love to get this sort of information from day one, but it's not really useful data until players are enjoying themselves. That means we need all the basic systems in place and a reasonably bug-free, fun experience.
Yes, the words "bug-free" are right there. But if you read the context, it's pretty clear to me that Ryan is saying he doesn't expect that to be the case from day one.
<Kabal> Pexx wrote:
Haagen will be rewarded for his efforts =)
It's worth pointing out that, when Haagen and I tested his strategy of using Minor Cure while disengaging, he was not subject to any Basic <something> Exploit Attacks. If I had been using a Longbow instead of a Staff, he likely would not have fared as well.
You Provoke Opportunity whenever you move faster than a Walk while in Combat. Many Attacks also Provoke Opportunity when you use them. Some Attacks apply Opportunity to you regardless of what you do.
Some Attacks do a lot of increased damage when you have the Opportunity condition. Basic Longbow Exploit is one such Attack that is especially dangerous because of its range.
There are a number of conditions that allow your enemy's Attacks to do something special. Opportunity is the one to be most aware of because it's so easy to put it on yourself simply by moving normally.
Bringslite, I'm at a loss to understand why you think I'm trying to catch you in a contradiction, or that I'm even contradicting anything you've said, and I'm hesitant to get into a back-and-forth trying to "clarify" the finer nuances of what each person really meant.
It's unreasonable to expect Early Enrollment to be bug free. If you don't have that expectation, then I'm not talking about you.
It's unreasonable to think that ceasing development of new content will make it easier to fix bugs. If you don't think that, then I'm not talking about you.
If you think that nobody expects the game should be bug free, and that nobody thinks Goblinworks should hold off on new content until all the existing bugs are fixed, perhaps you should go back and read some of the prior posts in this thread again.
I was partially being snarky in response to a snarky "thank you" from Cal.
I don't know if I've written about Provoking Opportunity before, but it's something I've talked about a lot with other players, and was quite genuine in my desire to inform new players that they need to pay attention to it.
Right now, if you're up against someone using a Longbow and you try to run - either towards them or away from them - you're likely to take lots of damage from Longbow Exploit.
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
As a programmer, perhaps you've heard the saying "Good, Fast, or Cheap - pick any two". We need to accept that Goblinworks has chosen "Fast and Cheap" for Early Enrollment, with a likely move to "Fast and Good" once they have an income stream able to support that.
[Edit] Understand that "Good" in this context means polished and iterated on enough to be released with a very small number of low impact bugs.
It's a fallacy to assume that bugs will get fixed faster if everyone else stops working on content.
Expecting the game to be "bug free" (whether you're talking about new content being released bug free, or talking about all development on new content being stopped while every last bug gets fixed) is unreasonable.
As Andius has said multiple times, EE was meant to be feature incomplete, but WORKING.
Might I suggest you pay more attention to what Ryan says?
During Early Enrollment, the only thing we're going to consider sacrosanct is XP. Everything else is subject to rollback, removal, and alteration as necessary to protect the integrity of the game.
Early Enrollment is really an experiment in community building as much as it is in game building. We will clearly make mistakes and have to roll back features and restart systems even fundamental systems like the economy. Everyone who plays in Early Enrollment will know what they're signing on for before they start, and I'm comfortable that some people will want to wait a long while for things to become more settled rather than "waste their time" playing in ways that might be rolled back.
Ryan has been making it very clear for a very long time what we should expect in Early Enrollment. Don't let the fact that some folks who haven't been paying much attention have unreasonable expectations lead you to develop unreasonable expectations yourself.
I don't think it's a good idea to set the expectation that every new content release in Early Enrollment will be free of bugs.I can't speak for Xeen but I do read that he is not suggesting that new features be bug free when they are released.
First, I didn't quote Xeen because I wasn't really responding to Xeen. This is a sentiment I've expressed a number of times recently in smaller venues, and something I wanted to say here as well.
Test the living **** out of it before adding another bit.
That seems to suggest that new bits should be fully tested in order to be as bug-free as possible.
Goblinworks has a tremendous amount of work they need to get done in the next year. Expecting them to spend time and resources polishing and testing "the living **** out of" every new content release is not reasonable.
Early Enrollment is not for the masses. It's for fans who understand it's going to be incomplete and buggy, but who want to support the development anyway.
I don't understand the expectation that Early Enrollment should be as stable as a fully released, big-budget MMO with a large staff.
PFO is being built on a budget by a very small team. Early Enrollment is when they're going to be developing - and we're going to be testing - all the features they've been telling us about for the last three years.
I don't think it's a good idea to set the expectation that every new content release in Early Enrollment will be free of bugs.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Hey, I'm not arguing that. I'm only pointing out that there is, most definitely, a net negative effect on those who wish to deliberately opt out of the NAP. How great that effect is is a question for more game-savvy minds than my own. I'm just doing the math, guys. :P
Your point is technically valid, but kind of pointless. It's equally valid to say that there is a net negative effect on everyone who didn't join the Everbloom Alliance because there are some who did. Sure, but so what?
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
I think this arrangement is less of a Non-aggression pact, as it is actually a Mutual-Defense pact. A key stipulation is that people should band together to take towers back from an aggressor that violates the core tower zone. I can't recall in history a non-aggression pact with more than two parties.
No, that's not in the text, and was never discussed, and almost certainly would not have been agreed to.
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
In World of Warcraft, a common way to cancel your spell is to move. Kiting is most often done with "Instant" spells that don't require you to stand still. Most of the really high damage spells require you to stand still.
As I will be out of my hovel this wekend it would be nice to know I I should lug my laptop around so I just can start accumulating XP at least.... Woe to lose the first weekend!
They will be back-dating XP so that you don't have to login the first day to get started. I believe they're going to set it up so that every Character that gets created in the first week or two will get the same XP.
Contesting a Protected Settlement's attempts to control one of their adjacent Towers is a violation. The Tribunal that finds the Accused credible when theey say "Hey, I was just passing through and only got like 1 Capture Point" is likely to ask the Petitioner "Why are you wasting our time?"
If you have to switch to a faster attack; switch to a different weapon; or break off and return to the fight, that sounds like a bug.
I don't see that.
If you're doing a slow attack over and over and getting interrupted every time, you should change something. If changing something works, that's not a bug.
Q: I'm having system issues, and I'd like to nail down what I need to upgrade on my computer to make PFO run smoother, is there a minimum system requirements list anywhere?
There isn't, but if you start a new thread with your computer's specs and a description of the problems you're experiencing, there are a lot of very helpful folks who will be glad to share their experience.
Calidor Cruciatus wrote:
So I was interrupted 5 or 6 shots in a row in 1-1 ranged combat?
Yes. The same thing was happening to me all the time, and I was convinced it was a bug, until Ryan mentioned to me that I was probably getting interrupted. After that, I made sure to always switch to faster Wand attacks after opening with the Staff's heavy hitters, and it's never been a problem since.
... which implies we'll have settlements considered inactive before the week is up.
No, it doesn't imply that.
It implies that even if there are officially declared Inactive Settlements prior to the end of the first week, those Settlements are still protected. The protection for the first week supersedes the lack of protection for Inactive Settlements.
I would oppose the notion that non signatory settlements would be encompassed by NAP. Frankly i find it disgusting that third parties try to wield their power of "democracy" over "free" people. Just the notion of it makes me want to rebell and screw it all over.
Settlements that don't sign are still protected by the NAP. They're under no obligations whatsoever, except that the protections of the NAP can be withdrawn.
That's not the only way that Settlements can be declared Inactive.
" Signatories also agree not to attempt to capture any of the Towers adjacent to a Protected Settlement for the first week of the War of Towers." Is this meant to imply that if protected settlements don't take all 6 of their core towers within one week, that signatories can attempt to capture them? I would assume not, so this needs to be rephrased.
Actually, that's exactly what it means. But they would still have to abide by the part that says they must not contest that Settlement's attempts to control those Towers.
If Settlement A doesn't capture its Core 6 Towers during the first week of the War of Towers, then those Towers are up for grabs. However, as soon as Settlement A attempts to control any of its Core 6 Towers, any Settlement that contests those attempts will be in violation of the NAP.
I asked Ryan about this in-game. He declined to make a statement about whether or not they were on schedule, but he did make a general statement, and I hope I reproduce it accurately enough not to cause any confusion.
They met late last week and determined that all of the "must fix" code changes were complete. Server stability issues are the only real concern they have right now. They'll meet early next week to go over where they are and make a "go/no-go" decision.
My sincere apologies to Ryan if I've misrepresented any of that.
The "Improved Critical +0" stuff you're seeing is there because it's easier for Stephen to write a formula in his spreadsheet that increases the Improved Critical bonus per level from a starting point. He starts it at +0 to keep it from being too large later on.
And lastly a Implenet keyword, what effect do this have? Against what is it matched? Weapon I guess ... But to what effect?
It's a bit confusing because some Keywords have a type of "Implement" but don't actually appear on Implements.
The Keywords on your Role Feature get matched to the Keywords on Expendables (Spells & Maneuvers). When there's a match, your Expendable will be more effective (better damage, longer debuffs, etc.) It really is that simple. For the most part, the Keywords themselves don't have specific effects, it only matters if they're matched (that is, if they appear on both your Role Feature and your Expendable).
<Magistry> Athansor wrote:
The most enjoyable moments in those involved dying repeatedly to find and perfect tactics that defeat the encounter. In a sandbox game I don't imagine that experience coming up, but I at least want a challenge, and again, preferably one that can't be overcome just by throwing more bodies at it.
I've said it before, but I hate combat that feels like "chopping wood". There's no real risk - unless I make a stupid mistake - but it takes a long time to grind through the mob's hit points. I had kind of assumed the Goblin Ghouls we were facing in the Escalations around us were Tier 2 mobs since they were so hard to kill.
I want my challenges to come from other players. They'll do things I never expected, and there's no guarantee at all that what I did last time will be effective this time.