|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I can see it if you are able to cast a magical trap on your items ,however that would be to injure looters. The OP seems to be about not wanting anyone to get any of your loot and trying to invent a game mechanic to do that, it's a bad way to build a game world in my opinion. The whole idea seems to be divorced from lore and about how people feel about being looted and trying to feel better about your characters death, it's supposed to be painful to die and benefit the one who wins.
You seem to see content development as the end game and do not see it as a way to grow the player base over time by making the game world more interesting to a larger group who will pay to get it all.
Putting some game content in the hands of a few would take away from what would make PFO interesting to a larger player base in the long run and make the game less profitable and have less content for those that play without paying into a co-op.
GW would have to limit what a co-op can buy or they will be losing content that they would market to the entire player base. In effect a co-op could only purchase game content that GW was not planning on using or GW is giving away long term profit potential from many for a one time payment by a few people.
Suppose GW sells playable goblins to a co-op , they have now financed the development but given up future profit for themselves from new players who subscribe to play a goblin.
It's all just my opinion on what works , if GW can't market new content to everyone they will struggle to survive. We all have our hopes set on future content being added so we are willing to put up with less than we want.
What I'm thinking is ,you will have to spend a lot of training to get good at item crafting but then you won't have much to do while you wait. So , what will be a good second hat to wear ,something that doesn't need most of your training and takes up most of your time, I guess we will see how it works out.
Well I'm more interested in finding out the intent of the Devs , the details won't be worked out yet. Will gatherers supply items for crafters and help build , as well as refiners. Do item crafters have any skills used in construction? Are they going to make construction something a player would specialize in that is seperate from crafting items or is there overlap, just wondering where a crafting player will go in the future.
edit . changed finishers to refiners
I know this blog was about crafting items for players but I was wondering what GW's plans are about settlement construction. Will there be skills you need to train for building up your settlement that will be the same skills a crafter of items has? Will dedicated crafters have a head start on the construction skill tree or will it be mostly separated? I'm kind of wondering what skills a crafter in EE would train will also be good for future content.
I suppose you could count me as a company of one if you wanted just to get things started .It might help potential crafters to commit to Aragon.
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Well not everyone wants to do PVP, or even the fighting in general, monsters or other players, and for those there is crafting and harvesting. But in general, we are looking to support those that wish to craft as a primary means of income and prestige. Crafting a fine blade is just as important, and can make you just as famous and wealthy, as wielding it.
So just to be clear , Aragon wants a crafting company that would not be in the UNC? The crafting blog got me interested in doing crafting was anyone else interested yet?
@KC , unless it was changed there will be a game mechanic that makes small undeveloped settlements very hard to take. The more you grow the more vulnerable you become. This is part of settlement siege warfare , the kinds of underhanded coercion that might go on to take over before that, who can guess.
I'm pretty sure that GW plans on expanding the map fast enough (after OE) so that new people or displaced people can find a spot for a new settlement.
Having to train up a skill before you can carry a standard into battle sounds pretty good.
It is all about perception, but you have hit on something. Golgotha leaves Pax for 2 months and then rejoins , it comes out the same but it 'fits' the rules.
What is to stop another EE settlement from joining Pax (not Golgotha) , trying to hold back a metaguild by telling them you are the same as some small group of players from 1 game is not 'real'.Pax could gain more settlements in EE because people want to join, are they going to be forbidden to do that?
Like it or not ,it is Pax who are the leader here in deciding what metaguilds can do in PFO.
Pax was a guild before the landrush was invented , the other participants in the landrush were not. The term guild has a unique meaning for just the landrush and these landrush guilds will no longer exist when EE begins. They will be settlements with companies. Pax will still be a meta guild however so trying to squeeze PAX into the mold of a landrush guild is just causing problems.
If Golgotha was smart and/or sneaky they could have withdrawn and then taken control of a small settlement during EE , it comes out the same. One huge Pax settlement with 1000 members is more scary to me than spreading them around. We have 33 settlements and EE will ramp up to 20k players in 3 to 4 months , do we want mega-settlements in EE?
It is not in the spirit of the rules to force a company to join a settlement that was founded by a metaguild they belong to,and bar them from joining any settlement they want. Does every Pax member have to join a Pax company , no. Does every Pax company have to join the AET settlement ,no.
So if Golgotha is taken off the board , the company can just go join another settlement they choose and their numbers will give them control, so leave them where they are and save us all the next eruption when it becomes clear that removing them does not remove them at all, it just changes the name of the settlement they will lead. Are we going to tell Fidelis they can go where they want but you are not allowed to be leaders in that settlement?
There can be no rule that says all metaguild members must join a single settlement. The amount of control a metaguild has in more than one settlement is trying to be controlled , but it cant be. Who founds and names a settlement doesn't matter , the internal politics can change and new leadership will take over. Another metaguild dominating the board is hypothetical and how could it even happen ,we are all KS2 ,they aren't.
The land rush should not suffer from fear of what could happen, what did happen was not that bad, but then it is all opinion.
Remove Golgotha and they will just move to a new settlement and in time it will be theirs . They could have chosen to leave the board and done that and looked pretty good but it all comes out the same in the end. What happens during EE, are we going to try to control the internal politics of every settlement?
I was wondering what will happen to the balance of power when EE gets going. 30 or so settlements , Ryan said they plan to run the player base up to 20k in 3 to 4 months. So it seems unlikely that will get spread evenly. People will go for the big settlements I should think, the little guys could be in bad shape if they have 100 members and their hostile neighbor has 500.
I have to wonder if an forced kingdom building will go on, conquest by diplomacy but still you would have to surrender or get pummelled all the time. The idea that we wont be able to conquer other settlements until siege warfare may not be true.
<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
I agree with what you say but one thing I would like to add. In any effort to bring about what is 'best' for the community we should never ignore what it will do any individual . We can't view even one person as expendable in our effort to have a good community , and many individuals would be hurt by this attempt to go back and undo things.
I am talking about trying to vote one settlement into oblivion or harass them into quitting.