Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Urman's page

Goblin Squad Member. 1,822 posts (1,915 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,822 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

I think I tend to agree, Wurner. It's good to have some resources unevenly distributed. Traders/caravan can fill that niche, moving goods to places they are needed. If there's no ability to for the trader to sell in Randomtown, though, then every character in Randomtown has to become his own trader and make the trip to Marketown and back to get required goods.

I would like there to be a way for some towns to be trade hubs, with some ability greater than towns that don't specialize in trade. But I'd think having no market at all will likely cripple a town.

Having markets with limited opening hours/days might be one way to provide some trading to most towns. Another might be to have a local market (medium building) which only allows trade between town citizens or a small market (small building) which only allows trade between company members. That small market might encourage players to have some characters join a trade cooperatives with their secondary or tertiary company slots, building a network of trade connections.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
How many small plots should it take to fully support resident-only trading of daily needs? If we put ammo in one shop, combat consumables in another, and crafting materials in a third, is that a reasonable amount of plot tax for this convenience, in light of losing craft halls for 6(ish) trade skills in return?

I think that plot tax is a bit high, frankly. I think most medium-largish towns would bite the bullet and go with the full market, in order to use those small plots to fill in training gaps.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:

... Relying on face-to-face trades or long distance shopping trips for daily consumption items seems impractical to the point of punishment, so I'm thinking maybe we should propose a smaller, limited marketplace option for non-commerce settlements.

Maybe a trading post could not have durable goods, only consumables and components. Another possible limitation could be that only residents could use it, unlike large markets which could be open to the public. There could also be a cap on the total volume of goods available for trade, although I'm not sure exactly how that would work.

Should such a post be medium or small? Or should there be both, with the small shop even more limited than the medium one?

As a possible alternative, maybe towns without a market could have fairs (or market days).

The large market facility is a market (or local auction house?) that operates continuously, 24/7. Maybe the medium equivalent is a 2-day market, set to operate for two 24-hour periods each week. The small market could be a 1-day market, set to operate one 24-hour period each week.

Merchants might be able to add/remove goods from their market stocks all through the week, but buyers could only purchase items on the market days.

Goblin Squad Member

I also wonder how impractical it will be to not have some kind of a market.

In most MMOs I've played, characters often base themselves out of a capital hub, with easy access to banking, crafting, and auction house. (Having bank, crafting, and trading in close proximity makes a town easy to work in. Having long runs between these facilities is like building a house with the refrigerator in the basement, the stove on the ground floor, and the sink upstairs.)

In Wurm, things were a bit different. Players established various settlements to serve as trading hubs, where there were a large number of vendors for customers to buy from. Going to a trading hub was more efficient than going to all of the scattered settlements. (There were merchant NPCs that sold goods stock by players). However, in Wurm most settlements can be (mostly) self-sufficent.

Not speaking for TEO and Brighthaven, but they've said they will have fighter-training. They're surrounded by mountain hexes, so there will be mining going on. I would expect that such a settlement would have a lot of fighter-related crafting going on as well, armorers and smiths outfitting the warriors. Those crafters need access to a range of supplies, which they can't necessarily get on their own because the game design (terrain layout and skill system) encourages specialization, not self-sufficiency. So how do goods like leather and cloth get to those crafters? Or is each crafter expected to periodically make a trip to other settlements, and work out of the stuff they have banked in town?

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Lone_Wolf wrote:
... I think @Guurzak's point about NPCs being existent in the settlement is a good one in support of this notification, even if delayed somewhat as some have suggested or perhaps not incredibly specific (e.g., "there is node poaching in hex xx,yy"; type of node, exact location, and extent of poaching is non descript). This gives the settlement an option to address it but also gives the poachers some leeway.

It could even be more vague than that. "Commonfolk are worried about criminals in hex xx.yy". Maybe with Aristos with advanced settlement management skills you get more details.

Goblin Squad Member

KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:
Harvesting Rights and Mining Rights are something the settlement should have to enforce themselves rather than rely on the game to ensure compliance.

That's fair. I think it might also imply that harvesting without permission might/could trigger a Criminal flag (like Bluddwolf says), allowing the settlement to enforce their claims. Of course, if they don't enforce their claims (ie, they don't kill the law-breaking gatherers), then they suffer Corruption.

I don't think a settlement and its companies should have to open feuds and wars with every single harvester that jumps over the line to grab something.

Goblin Squad Member

Fruben wrote:

Based on theory alone light armored warriors should make pretty mean mage killers. Loin cloth for the win!

Ranged heavy/medium armored "turret" fighters might also be pretty effective machines of destruction (though obviously would struggle finishing anything and even to keep up with a fast moving group).

How to make heavy / medium armor work for melee in general without an abundance of gap closers / roots remains to be seen. It is very hard to try to come up with any solution which would work outside formations without swinging the balance too much the other way.

Armor / encumbrance affecting movement speed is really going to a tough thing to make work both in and outside combat.

There a couple of ways, combined, that might make kiting less dominant. One way was discussed in an archery thread; require archers (and mages) to be still for some time while they fire. It might be that they just can't fire on the move or they have fire-on-the-move feats that are less accurate. The other part of it depends on how opportunity attacks are handled; if light fighters can close with the shooters and do damage when/if the shooters try to disengage, then the heavy death-dealers have time to close. (So the light fighters and rogues are tacklers, surviving long enough for the heavies to close.)

I think the reality is that our tactics will evolve over time, based on the rule set. As PFO changes from PF for game-play reasons (say, giving Wizards a large number of shots), then the rest of the game is also altered. Maybe in the end light fighters are much more common in PFO than in PF, just like in our world where armor was slowly modified or discarded to respond to more prevalent effective missile fire.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the TT games I played, heavy fighters were useful because they could survive close combat. The terrain often had fights play out in close and confined quarters where fighters had an edge - or at least minimized their disadvantages. Fighters might lose some of that edge in an open world, where they often don't get to pick their terrain. But with lots of hits points and damage resistance, they might do well in War of the Towers, or when contesting specific ground in raids or war.

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Urman wrote:
A week into the game, you might not be willing to commit to any settlement for the rest of your character's life in Pathfinder Online. That's pretty reasonable.

@The bold part, This struck me while I am reading this. It is funny for a few reasons. 1) Training can be given to ANYONE that the settlement allows into their towns, weather they are a member of that settlement or not. and 2) It is said somewhere <Cast summon Nihimon> that one can freely switch settlements as long as they are accepted into the new one, or something like that. Point is that your not "bound for the rest of your PFO life" once you join a settlement. Point is that your not "bound for the rest of your PFO life" once you join a settlement.

As to the bolded part - there are plenty of characters that are uncommitted at this point. I think that is inarguable if one looks at the land rush numbers. So if people are still uncommitted, for whatever reason, they can find a space with us without having to make a commitment at this point. They don't need to join TEO; they aren't obligated to permanently join Brighthaven. While many forum readers understand that companies and individuals will be able to switch companies and settlements relatively easily, I do not think all forum readers 'get that'. It's an offer for people to take advantage of our position and placement as they figure the game out.

Goblin Squad Member

The land rush is almost over. There are a lot of you that haven't joined a company yet. There's still time, of course.

Here's a likely scenario: You and your friends are in the starter NPC town a week into the game. War of the Towers is starting, so you know there will be PvP going on. You've either already bumped into the level limit, or you can see that you'll hit it shortly. Frankly, you know you'll need to join some settlement to keep advancing your skills.

A week into the game, you might not be willing to commit to any settlement for the rest of your character's life in Pathfinder Online. That's pretty reasonable.

So our offer, we think, is also reasonable. Join Brighthaven during EE, hold a tower for us, get some PvP experience and achievements. At the end of the War of the Towers, you can make your decision - do you stay, or do you move on to another chapter of your character's story. You'll have a place to bank your loot until then. You'll be away from the starter town, so won't be competing for mobs and nodes with a thousand people.

We're going to be focused on fighter training. We'll see how heavily armed and armored fighters, with more hit points and damage resistance than the average bear, end up working. We're hoping that in the close quarters of the tower "claim area", that fighters' survivability outweighs any reduction in mobility. And if you (or some of your buddies) are looking to run wizards or rogues or crafters, we have allies close by that will be training those skills.

Contact Lifedragn for more information or to join us.

Goblin Squad Member

As far as raids go, I'd prefer that raids be handled two different ways. Either the raiders are feuding an enemy, in which case the feud rules and costs apply, or the raid is a globally-criminal act and the raiders pick up stacks of the Criminal flag based on the amount of time they spend (and the amount of loot they get). So the criminal-flagged raiders can't just duck back into NPC-controlled lands without risking being attacked by guards. Raiders coming back from a feud can run to NPC territory and not be attacked by guards, but they can be pursued and engaged (and by definition they belong to a company that can be feuded in return).

Goblin Squad Member

@Guurzak, when that was discussed back in February, Ryan said:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I don't think being a member of an NPC Settlement and walking outside the Settlement's security zone should flag you as killable on sight by all everywhere.

I do think maybe there's a worthwhile idea to examine that a PC Settlement can define NPC Settlement members as hostile within the territory the Settlement controls so they can be killed on sight as a policy of the PC Settlement.

That ties back into the question of how and if we can enable Settlements to have security policies as a mechanic and not a social compact, and if they can how players are informed of them.

My bolding for emphasis. If that were applied, my company could attack NPC settlement members in hexes where we controlled the POIs if the settlement laws were set up that way. We couldn't kill NPC settlement members in hexes we didn't control.

Goblin Squad Member

Could someone just have a spare character kill them and have the same effect?

If we want to limit cross-map death-travel then perhaps more distant bind points cost more threads, or perhaps are simply impossible beyond some range.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:

The option to terminate a character's training at will and move the hose over to another character creates programming work and potential for abuse which doesn't exist with a scheduled XP system.

The ability to start and stop XP credit freely would mean that the systems which process bonuses to buildings, completion of job queues, etc would constantly have to query the character database to verify that credit was still in place, rather than just once when the job or bonus was initiated.

Perhaps part of the routines that run when a character starts to shift the hose are checks on queues, building bonuses, etc.:

"You are 23 hours into a 36 hour long job making mincemeat pies. If you shift the hose, the job will be canceled and some materials may be lost. Do you want to shift the hose? (Y/N)"

"Your skills are currently providing big bonuses to your settlement. If you shift the hose, the settlement will be notified and will lose the bonuses until you have been replaced. Do you want to shift the hose? (Y/N)"

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guurzak wrote:
Perhaps something along the lines of "your character is playable this month as long as you buy him at least one week of XP".

I'd think there should be something like this, just to control the number of characters used for off-line tasks like construction, crafting, or bulk-harvesting queues.

Also, if multiple characters on an account are sharing a month's XP, the XP might trickle in to each character, based on that character's share. An account with multiple characters would have sliders for each character ranging from 0 and 1.0; to use a character in off-line tasks could require the character is receiving (for example) at least 0.25 of max XP.

Goblin Squad Member

Maybe it helps to think of it as Destiny's Twin Character = Twin A + Twin B, not Main + Twin.

Goblin Squad Member

formatting pm set (so he doesn't get deluged).

Goblin Squad Member

Agreed, Edam. Players can set their characters up to either craft, bulk harvest, or build settlement structures with their crafting queue. I figure most settlements will expect every character to be set up for one of those three queues. Getting a few cross-trained skills will be expected and not unusual at all.

Goblin Squad Member

In before "I knew that was a parody, I was just testing you all."

Goblin Squad Member

For clarification: by "neutral and good-aligned" companies, we mean not only companies within one alignment step of Brighthaven's NG (LG, NG, CG, and NN), but also those companies that are LN and CN.

Tork states in the Gobbocast that alignment won't be implemented during the War of the Towers, so we have flexibility in sponsoring companies in the early stages of EE. We expect that companies with medium to high-level skills and a good combat record from WoT will be able to find a home. (Within the Everbloom alliance, we have allies that can take almost any alignment, so companies that don't fit into Brighthaven after WoT might likely find homes within the alliance, though Brighthaven can't make guarantees.)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my view, the exploit is simply that one can get PK achievements for suicide. That shouldn't be possible in EE, imo. It appears that that wasn't Nihimon's goal - he was looking for a method to engage in rep-loss free PvP for testing.

In EE we'll likely be able to get the PK achievements from defending ourselves or engaging others during WoT. And for those that need exploits, there will always be the possibility of letting another character pick up a criminal flag (say, by kill-stealing), and grinding out PK achievements that way.

Goblin Squad Member

FMS Quietus wrote:

Medieval suits of armour were so exhausting to wear that they could have affected the outcomes of famous battles, a study suggests.

I am amused that the researchers also tested the case of armor worn vs. armor carried, and found that carrying the armor was less fatiguing than wearing it. Pointy-headed scientists! Everyone on the internet knows that it's easier to wear armor than carry it. /s

(Agincourt was fought in 1415. The article specifically states that they used replica sets of 15th century armor.)

Goblin Squad Member

On first pass I'd be leery of someone being able to get the Player-Killer flagachievements through suicide. But you (Nihimon) say that it's the easiest way to get PK achievements without Rep loss - does that mean there are ways to get PK achievements without Rep loss, other than suicide?

Goblin Squad Member

@Bringslight, iirc they've said elsewhere that in one month a character is expected to be able to get to level 8, and in six months, level 14(?). But that might be the expectations with systems in place after WoT.

Goblin Squad Member

Lam wrote:

Given that some will want/need to spend more than they have, there will be a lending "system" established. Call it what you want. This alone will drive the team (more ops than devs) crazy, but has an inflationary effect that can not controlled, maybe adjusted for.

This may be even more interesting than s MERE merchant.

Maybe I don't understand the economics of it, but how is player to player lending inflationary? A player gets a 10k loan to buy an item and pays back 15k in a month. That means at the end of the month, the player has 5k less than he would have had and the banker has 5k more. Where's the inflation?

Goblin Squad Member

Dario wrote:
I sincerely hope that "PVP window" for POIs doesn't mean "Hex-wide FFA".

I think hex-wide FFA PvP, after war of towers, sort of makes feuds and war decs of limited use. If we can make excursions into our neighbor's territory and engage in a few hour's PvP every day, why should we need to burn Influence to get stuck into fights?

Goblin Squad Member

Another wrinkle is that it isn't necessarily easy to change a settlement's or even a character's alignment. Early settlements (6 or fewer months into EE) will choose an alignment based on perceived benefits. Later settlements may decide those perceived benefits never materialized, and choose differently.

As GW does any tweaking later to balance (or just adjust) things, the perceived benefits of different alignments may change. The older settlements and characters will have already chosen alignments and must deal with a lot of inertia to change.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
The playing field should not be balanced so that every alignment is equally attractive.

I would have said that the playing field doesn't need to be balanced, as long as there's distinctions between alignments. It's sort of like the thread regarding Paladins- oh, LG gets a high-Personality fighter type, that's terribly unfair to all of us that aren't LG. Well, they don't have Assassins. There are no CE monks.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
$15/mo gets you better than a DT, since you can have both characters logged in at once, whereas only one twin can be awake at a time.

Yup. I don't have a DT and don't think I'll miss it.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:

Sorcerers are squishy. Bards aren't frontline troops either. So an LG settlement can field very tanky paladin officers and hard-to-assassinate building managers, while everyone else is left with choosing between robes or frolicking to protect their leadership assets.

Nothing will prevent Fighters who aim to become leaders from developing their Personality. They might do it at the expense of other traits that the ranker-types focus on (foraging, first aid, butchering some peasant's cow), but a military company will have a lot of people with specialized skills - out of 40 characters, only a few have to do the cooking. Only a few have to specialize in high Personality stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

If I were the type of player that would skip a cure and accept the curse of lycanthropy, I'd probably either being totally accepting of being CE, or I'd think (wrong!) that I could control my beast forever.

So I'd log on on those full moon nights and get as many rep free kills in my enemies' territory as I could before I lost control. (My suggestion has no rep loss, just evil and chaos hits). Whoever takes my beast after I lose control will find himself in my enemies' lands and hopefully continues to kill people there.

Yes, my character would end up maxed out chaotic and evil, but the beast would be spreading chaos even when I wasn't running it.

edit to add: I've trampled enough on AvenaOats' thread and will leave it now.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just as Peter Parker has to balance Power and Responsibility, I think that Weredude should have to balance Power and Control.

Here's a killer app (groan) for Were-play that gets everyone involved:

1. On the full moon, the infected character transforms. He's hungry and wants a kill. Over the two hours of the moon, he has a risk of losing control and this goes up over time if he doesn't make a kill. Kills can be characters or NPCs or mobs.

2. Each time Weredude kills a character or 'friendly' NPC, he takes an Evil hit. Every time he makes a kill he makes a check to see if he goes out of control. Being high Law, high Good, and high Rep all improve the chance of maintaining control, but there's always a chance he loses it.

3. When Weredude loses control, he takes a Chaos hit and loses control. One of the mundane players online has the option to take over the character, like Monster play in LotRO. The new character running Weredude's character has no ability to open inventory or see account details, all he can do is hunt (or abstain from hunting).

4. Each kill under a new controller is checked to see if the control stays with that controller, switches back to Weredude's player, or switches to yet another character. Control checks are based on the character's current alignment (which is taking Evil and Chaos hits as this progresses). If Weredude's player is offline and control reverts to him, the beast vanishes, sated.

Expected results: players that are very careful with their powers will hunt bad NPCs and game and avoid Evil hits; they'll stop after 1 kill. Players that let the beast out will lose control and with the help of other players, quickly sink to CE (like a lot of were-creatures).

Werewolf stories are parables of balancing power and control. While it might not be fun to lose control of your powerful furry friend, that's part of lycanthropy; they lose control when they use their powers.

Goblin Squad Member

@Lam, aye, I was thinking of some leader-only thing to keep notes on. Just a small text box to record things for others in the chain of command.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Lone_Wolf wrote:

2) On full moon nights, when Lycanthropes are active as lycans, will they suffer rep loss for attacking non-flagged characters?

When in lycan form, there should be no reputation loss. But, there should be some limit to this also. Meaning, when in lycan form perhaps you can only attack x number of unflagged characters a night. Mechanically, perhaps all characters are treated as flagged when in lycan form until x are attacked, then flags go away. From a lore standpoint it could be reasoned that lycans need to feed on their prey, which takes a long time, so there is a limit to how much hunting can be done in one night?

This is the part that I'm not 'getting' with these werewolf suggestions. Why does the lycanthrope suffer no reputation loss? Is it because the affliction is successfully kept hidden, regardless of what the mundane players do? Or is it because the werewolf is out of control and can't held responsible?

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Lone_Wolf wrote:
I’d say it would be prudent in lycan form to have some sort of animalistic rage affect that makes it impossible to tell friend from foe, or something like that, but mechanically in a computer game I’m not sure that...

Maybe when the animal brain takes over the lycan just sees "Human" "Elf" where the rest of us see a character name and company/settlement details, and vision is in grey scale (background) with red scale targets (living creatures/victims). A lycan could work with his buddies through Teamspeak to verify he wasn't attacking friendlies, but only at a cost of effectiveness.

Goblin Squad Member

@Caldeathe, I can't think of any benefits the company gets for keeping an inactive member on the rolls. Influence, for example, stays with the company when a member leaves.

Switching characters to inactive seems to have potential benefits for long-term retention. It covers people for those long business trips, vacations, and deployments; they might even let their subscription lapse. (Or, gaining XP over time, they might want to keep the subscription running). If the character needs to go a week without a log-in before being switched to inactive, that might prevent whatever shenanigans we don't see now.

edit: I think there should be a text box in the guild company management window for each character, so one leader can make a note like: "Urman is out on business trip, back Sep 2014," and it's available to others.

Goblin Squad Member

As long as the character is actually inactive, I don't see much downside.

A settlement might not be advantaged by companies with inactive members that do nothing for a month or three, then show up one day and buy a lot of training, only to vanish again. It depends on how training works.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Lone_Wolf wrote:
2) On full moon nights, when Lycanthropes are active as lycans, will they suffer rep loss for attacking non-flagged characters?

I'm not sure of how PF lycanthropy works. Does a were-creature resumes its normal form at death? If so, then there's two points at which a lycanthrope can be discovered: shifting form in front of a witness, and when killed in PvP.

Once some characters are known to be lycanthropes, the Reputation losses from lycanthrope kills might be shared between the were-creatures that are known locally. (So sometimes they get blamed for kills they didn't do. Sometimes they get away with kills they did do. Yup.)

Goblin Squad Member


Join Together with the Band (Sep 11, 2013) wrote:
From the moment of its creation, each company begins earning influence—a measure of the ongoing deeds of its members, and a currency with which the company can claim territory, trophies, and various boons for its members. Each time a member player earns an achievement, his or her company also earns a small amount of influence. Ambitious companies are therefore encouraged to actively recruit low-level members, guiding them through their early development in order to benefit from the rapid achievement gains of new players. In addition, special company achievements and even some items and trophies provide influence boosts.

An inactive character will not gain Influence. An inactive character on a company rolls might actually decrease the cost of feuding that company a little (smaller companies cost more to feud), and the character isn't there to help at all in the feud.

Companies will probably boot their inactives pretty quick.

Edit to add: Maybe I misunderstood the OP. If the intent is to shift characters from active status to inactive status to make the company less of a target (or a more expensive one, anyway), I could see that. We probably all have left a game for months and returned; it would be good to have a company to fall back to. I'd think it could be a manual act by company leadership, and a character would have to be offline for some period before it could be invoked.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

Let's consider the other side of the question as it is written.

If a few members of Company X harass your settlement and will not stop, and the leadership of company x doesn't inform the rest of the company of what is going on, will it be kosher for the constituent companies of your settlement to issue feuds to the company whose few members are misbehaving?

First glance: I think so.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as a company is willing to spend Influence to wage a feud, it's fine. Any number of wars or feuds have been launched over imagined insults, fabricated border incidents, mistakes and other 'bad' reasons. I think GW has the right idea to let us skip all of the justification and pretense. If you have the Influence to spend you can declare a feud.

The place where the reason for the feud is most important is inside the company declaring the feud. Is leadership responsibly using the Influenced gained by members, or at least to the members' satisfaction? If the membership is fine with how their Influence is spent then there's no problem. If they don't accept the reasoning, then there's trouble in River City.

Goblin Squad Member

Brutus Bellator wrote:
We are close to the point were we need a christmas special episode.


Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:

I try to separate "character" from "personal". It seems easier in TT than MMOs.

Damnit Jim! I'm just a Spin Doctor, not a Vulcan.

I think part of the difficulty is in naming. If Bringslite is a character name and a forum name, they get merged. At the TT, the figure on the table is Bringslite the Fighter and the guy drinking the beer at the table is Al; he's a trucker.

I figure if people don't want to merge their forum persona and their in-game persona, they'll use two different names. Urman in game will have a similar personality to Urman in forum; I'm too lazy to maintain two separate personas.

The other method is to do like Guurzak does: it is very clear when he is in game persona and when he isn't. He has the discipline to keep his game persona out of discussion of game mechanics, for example. I have much less problem with separating his two personas.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
It sounds like the issue is can a leader use their organization to pursue their own personal agenda, as in drag everyone into a war because you want to 'get' someone. If you win I suppose you can get away with it.
And in theory, by winning, everyone in your association gains.

Yup. As long as they are doing well by following the leader into wars and feuds then they might stay satisfied. If all of the company Influence ends up spent on the leader's personal goals, and the rest of the company isn't seeing a lot of payout, just repair bills, 'winning' might not keep the company together.

Goblin Squad Member

I think it might be soon to tell. We might have lots of people with a lot of Commoner skills to flesh out other roles, but few that do pure- or predominately-Commoner. There might be a lot of caravan guards, some with drover skills, and few pure drovers. It doesn't make the entire group of feats useless; many Commoner feats might be very useful.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
That's the main problem with the name "Commoner"—it implies that Banesama's interpretation is fair. Clearly, gathering takes substantial skill, or it wouldn't be such a profitable playstyle.

Will it be a profitable playstyle, or is that an assumption?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been posting in these forums since March 2012. I joined the first Kickstarter, but not the second, so I didn't vote in the first land rush. I didn't join TEO until this year, about May 2014, after the second land rush was announced. I had read the concept for Brighthaven and I was impressed by Lifedragn's and other members' contributions in these forums. I offered him my support for the second land rush and joined TEO.

Part of my reasoning was that eventually all of us playing in PFO will have to join one company or another. We'll certainly have to join a player settlement. The Neutral Good alignment appealed to me. The idea of creating Brighthaven as a settlement supported by TEO rather than controlled by TEO appealed to me. I like the idea of helping others and having some goal bigger than myself and my "guild" was a big draw.

After I joined TEO was it announced that they won a settlement location based on their showing in the first land rush. While the location they picked wasn't my first choice, it works. I think Goblinworks did a good job of making sure no start location was "bad".

TEO is a large group, but the leadership is responsive and focused. The group size might seem daunting, but TEO will be partitioned into multiple companies. It pretty much has to partition, based on the design of the game, and I expect other large groups will do the same.

The obvious advantage of a large group is that there will be more people to do all of the work of bringing together a settlement. A big group and multiple companies also means more options for players, so there might be a better balance between our individual 'fun' and the settlement's needs - because at the end of the day, it's about having fun in the game.

If you're still sitting on the fence, and your character will be NG or can join a NG company and settlement, seriously consider TEO. Big group. Goals bigger than just a company. Low drama (sorry, I can't promise no drama). Lots of options and opportunities.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

... Another option might include a significant discount for others to declare Feuds upon you while you have a hex under interdiction.

Edit: I actualy like this last option the best. Declaring a blockade against a specific hex is a pretty agressive manuver, politicaly it could easly qualify as a Casus Belli.

It might also be relatively easy to implement.

I think thea key point is that as currently described, all PvP in PFO has an element of reciprocity. If a company feuds another company, all of the first company's members can also be attacked by members of the second company. A larger company pays more Influence to feud a smaller company. Citizens of a nation that declares war can be attacked by their targets.

Even the Reputation systems works with reciprocity; when a character murders people her Rep drops, making it easier/cheaper for people to kill her in return.

Allowing a company to feud an area, but remain immune to attack outside that area goes against the reciprocity GW has built into their PvP systems.

Goblin Squad Member

Colonist, Settler, or Pioneer might have more positive connotation than Commoner, but I'm not sure that's the flavor GW is going for here. If most of our characters are from outside the River Kingdoms, those names might be perfectly appropriate. Of those, I like Settler or Pioneer, rather than Colonist which implies a foreign backer.

Goblin Squad Member

KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:
A level 20 Commoner Role PC is still, even at his height of awesomeness, relegated to equate to "just some guy who picks up stuff for a living."

That is part of the reason I'm opposed to allowing craftsmen to put signatures on items they create; it says all the people at the beginning of the crafting cycle are unimportant - the only important guy is the one who did the very last step.

In the end, I think my character will have a good amount of commoner skills, maybe more than any other role. He'll likely identify himself as "a skilled miner", "a member of the militia", or "a citizen of Brighthaven". But he won't identify himself as a commoner - that's the invisible masses of NPCs.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
2. Fights between players and captured NPCs- Think how Romans brought lions and such to fight with gladiators in the Colosseum.

You understand this recreates the thing about Rome that western civilization finds most abhorrent, and reinforces the perception that gamers are just looking for a way to exercise the urges that they'd prefer to do in real life if it wouldn't get them arrested?

Killing not-like-us because they a are a threat, or have resources we need, is a large perceptual step from capturing them and killing them for sport, regardless of the risk to self.

I think it's a valid point. Killing a creature in the wild, for food or resources is one thing. To prevent damage to crops or predation of livestock - that's fair. Killing a creature in an arena for the crowd's jollies is probably inherently wrong. Killing a sentient creature in the same case is even worse; maybe even worse than slavery.

It could apply to any such blood sport: bear baiting, bull fighting, dog fighting rings, cock fighting rings. It probably could be handled with a Heinous tag for participants, or participants and spectators, or for the settlement as a whole. Or they could just skip it by not having arena combat against NPCs mobs.

1 to 50 of 1,822 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.