|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
I downloaded the free version of FRAPS to see what my frame rate was in Skyrim . It should work with any game.
It would not be unreasonable to have certain kinds of encounters cause greater or even complete equipment damage on death.
Well if it is a PVP death ,the winner will loot you and you lose it all, so as it is now the PVE death is less of a loss than a PVP death . Your non-threaded gear could be put on a timer and it is gone if you don't get back to it , simulating the mobs taking it.Or for hard core the boss mob could have a spell that breaks threads ,so if you die you lose more gear. I'm not against the idea of some PVE being higher risk encounters, its a good idea but it does have to make sense .
Its the peasants and craftsmen, they don't want to work for bandits and build you a city that is the equal of what they could do in place you don't get robbed of all your hard earned coin. Bandits just don't understand how to be good politicians for honest workers who make the city function at a level that supports the best that humans can achieve.
Still you have a point, at some time maybe the balancing could shift from the individual having lower skill to making low rep bandit settlements easier to destroy, again because those peasants will be all for it.
edit. And two guys swinging swords next to a fire in the wilds and becoming expert only works in the movies.
I guess my point is that permadeath would scrap some core game features so it wont work. I understand the idea that loss makes for a greater challenge , the devs could make PVE hard core areas that have great risk vs reward but that is way in the future. Like the Gobbies eat your toes and you are permanently slowed down after you rez ,errgh. Just kidding ,that is too hard core.
There will be large scale mining operations that involve a claim and take a long time to harvest. The exciting gathering related PVP will be there .Making the PVP worth it as far as gain vs loss because it involves control of territory seems good to me. A company should have a way to claim jump with just spending influence to declare a feud on the claim owner, unless I got how that works wrong. We don't need to make it viable for people to role play the worst sort of evil human behavior, killing people because you find it enjoyable. That type of behavior should get you removed , just like real life.
Why even think of solo gathering and harvesting as dangerous PVP activities, those are supposed to be the safest things you can do. People that want PVP don't want to go search the woods and chase after solo runners who are just harvesting, if a gatherer wanted PVP they would be doing it. This is a straw dog considering that this is the MVP and we are a long way from real settlement warfare and the territory control that goes with it, the territory control will make solo gathering dangerous .
Do you think it would be better for Goblins to have their characters home remain anonymous, some low life types might hunt them for fun and you get the opposite of what you are trying for. But it is a great idea inviting them to a neutral settlement to have a home. I suppose most people won't figure out who is who anyway.
The OP was more about "I don't have time for PVP wars ,so what am I going to do in PFO?" I don't think a neutral city is addressing what is needed, maybe a settlement that trades and supports others who make war would be better for a casual player. I think crafting and trading can be done as a casual player and it will be a very needed activity. As long as PFO does not have roving gangs of gankers that exist to ruin your day it will rise above the bad PVP reputation mmo's have.
<GLiberators> Qyck Majere wrote:
I agree it is not pay to win, we also need to consider that some people have less time to play the game. They can purchase what they could have gained if they had more time in-game to construct it, so there is the huge advantage of having lots of game time to get ahead that people don't seem to see. To be fair we need to look beyond just the game mechanics and consider how the players live their lives too.
People who buy a base camp can store items in it ,and at some point we will be able to craft the same instead of buying it, but what is the big advantage in storing items. You stash your loot at the base camp but it still needs to be taken to a settlement so why not run to the settlement instead of a base camp? It will take the same number of trips to haul it all from a base camp or straight to a settlement.
How are people planning on using base camps, you still will spend the same amount of time running loot to a settlement with or without one, won't you?
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to let me know I was being a pain in the arse ,that wasn't how I meant it and I appreciate knowing how it looked to you. GW does a great job answering questions and I shouldn't have asked in a way that doesn't rate a response.
I wasn't hoping to cure mankind's sickness, the desire to play at being God, I was hoping for some new and interesting gameplay. I think the ability to have armed revolts to remove the government in PFO would be a first in an mmo. My idea is based on a Thomas Jefferson quote,"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
No way to make that work with just voting.
I meant are you going to have purges at Aragon if some members are viewed as undesirable because they don't do what you want? Being willing to drive out or kick out half your members is a major flaw to me .
IT can't work out if leadership is willing to purge the settlement , that is the opposite of it working out.
What is the Aragon position on this...
b. To get rid of (people considered undesirable). See Synonyms at eliminate.
A new government ? UHH... maybe I missed something here, you started out with one person who had all authority and could do whatever they want and nobody can stop them, that is what you still have!
Unlike a traditional mmo guild there needs to be a way to remove the leader of a settlement or it will just be their toy to play with as they want , not a good idea for PFO. I understand the MVP wont have government types but due to the limited number of settlements (guilds) a way to vote out the leader is needed , I think. Settlements need stability to be fun, not a new government because one person 'feels' like it.
<Magistry> Clexarews wrote:
So as someone who did not fund the game on kickstarter but purchased the EE access from the store prior to the change in date, I'd be looking at EE access in month 2?
Yeah , they are selling month 2 of EE in the store now.
edit . the store was always month 2 ,the date may have been wrong if it use to say September.
1 and 2 would be month 1 and month 2 of EE, original kickstarter backers get in at month 1 and anyone who buys from the store now can enter at month 2 of EE. EE is early enrollment, like a beta launch of the game but PFO is called crowdforging and you are more involved in the progress of game content.
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.