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. 1,865 posts (1,958 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,865 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

TEO Pino wrote:
... the free invincible fortress of 'offline'

I've always thought of it as the Ether. The idea of an immobile fortress might be a better fit.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
If someone can log-off and wait for days, your only option is to stay connected for days, waiting for him to come back. That's not strategic, that's just exploit.

In Wurm I once saw two guys patiently wait 12 hours to catch a raider as he resurfaced at his log out point. I can't imagine doing that, but it worked.

DeciusBrutus wrote:
I think the offline logistics issue isn't a big problem if only the closest shrine is used and the timer is on the order of an hour; it would take longer and not be safer, because of the need to repeatedly log in at locations known to your opponents.

From Cheney's remarks, I think one of their concerns is people moving into a settlement's spaces when the PvP vulnerability window is closed, then resurfacing when the vulnerability window is open. It could also be used to get combatants in striking distance of a target before a feud or war was declared.

If feuds and wars require some advanced warning (that is, announcing a feud starts a timer before targets are hostile), then the timer might/could closely match the timer on when we respawn at a shrine rather than at our log-out point. For the other case, I wonder if non-citizens logged-out inside a settlement's space when the vulnerability window was closed should always be bumped to a shrine if they log-in when the vulnerability window is open. So the 1 hour (or whatever) timer would be superseded by the vulnerability window changing state.

Goblin Squad Member

I'd think that the XP costs wouldn't scale with Reputation. Reputation will serve as a gate - if you don't have sufficient Rep, you can't get town to train. iirc, a town's Rep requirements will also limit what training will be offered there; like Merkaile says, a master trainer NPC doesn't stoop to train the unbeknighted residents in some low-Rep town.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:

"dealing with crappy reputation; this is the life you choose."

There it is right there. Some bandits will strive to maintain positive reputation and that will limit their targets a bit. Some will go all out or something in between. Those bamdits will struggle with reputation maintenance.

What I wouldn't like to see is a system with no equal recourse for other roles to match a bandit's rep free killing ability (if one arrives).

I wonder if the big problem with an easy-to-use rep-free killing ability is that it likely erases the point about bandits being careful and picking their targets well.

A lot of things are abbreviated in the PFO mechanics: a settlement doesn't need a casus belli to declare war - they just need sufficient DI. The DI stands in for the casus belli. Maybe SAD could work where each bandit has a long (like 24-hour) cool down to represent the time they'd spend to carefully case the target and plan their ambush. Careful bandits get one rep-free SAD attack each day. Rash bandits take rep losses for each additional attack.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
EoX Hobs wrote:
...there is no way to practice PvP without running the risk of damaging your reputation.
Once feuding is in, we currently believe we'll be able to establish "friendly feuding" between Companies for practice, correct?

I think people have also bounced around the idea of joining competing factions and flagging "for the cause" in order to fight. That has the advantage of costing no Influence. My guess is that it might also allow the practicing combatants to complete faction missions and achievements.

Of course, that's certainly not possible before factions are in.

Goblin Squad Member

@KarlBob - I think you've found an interesting point; escalations might be of secondary importance during the WoT. I have a mental picture of an escalation spreading to a tower hex, and the various sides competing for the tower having to work around the mobs.

edit to add: A serious impact during WoT could be that if the escalation spreads into a tower hex, the owner loses the tower and the accruing benefit of that tower until the escalation is removed.

Goblin Squad Member

A neglected escalation might spread to adjacent hexes as well. My guess is that escalations and NPC common folk won't mix well, and as escalations spread into PoI hexes that might affect the output from PoI and Outposts, maybe even affect the DI from holding the hex, reduced output from nodes - especially gushers (if harvesting kits imply some number of common folk laborers)... There's plenty of bad things that could happen if an escalation spreads into claimed territory.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:
... when I kill someone in a battle, and they don't have someone nearby with the magic to bring them back it would be nice to make it so that continually throwing themselves back into the fray within a short period of time isn't a super viable tactic.

There will be injury points, which stack onto that guy with each crit you inflict. Do they get erased at death or do they carry through? If they carry through, eventually he's going to need to take a time out in a tavern or temple.

Goblin Squad Member

echoing Guurzak,

If the authority and force to be reckoned with in the sandbox is the player characters, then that's who will give or withhold permission to build a house or a farm. There is no NPC King who will sell us land and protect our rights to the land.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

... The same theory applied to reputation (from what I understand)..... however from what I'm hearing from you guys in Alpha that the system scales such that there is no point at which it's worthwhile for a bandit to take a reputation hit in order to gain an economic reward. That needs to be addressed on a more general level, IMO, rather then simply make an exception for 1 terrain type.

There should be some point at which it's worth it for a bandit to say "It's worth it to take a rep hit to obtain the goods that player has, even if I'm not specificaly hostile to thier organization".

I'd offer that perhaps Alpha hasn't really put it to the test, yet.

1) In the beginning stages of Alpha, people were mostly getting low grade resources. At the same time, people were at lowish rep. It might not have been worth it to take the rep hit for the bits and pieces their target had collected.

2) Bandits need support structures, too, but Alpha has a small population. Taking a rep hit takes time to recover and any loot you take is only useful if you can use it or pass it to someone who can. Bandits in EE will have more supporting players to feed them equipment and consumables, and to take loot off their hands.

3) In the very early stages of the game (a character's first 2-4 weeks), training needs to be bought early and often to advance the character. It might actually be more critical that a character avoid Rep hits in the early character development period. I wonder if that is deliberate on GW's part or just a happenstance that will limit some playstyles.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Pino wrote:

If you want more danger:

Join companies with active feuds,
Join an NPC faction and raise it above 2,
Gather on lands with trespassing laws,
Gather near POI's, they should attract monsters IIRC
Shout about how quickly you filled your bags and how surprised you are at the slowness of your travel back to town.

Encourage the creation of 'Bottomton' a town for bottomed out reputation players who can zerg lone crafters until they get banned.

Re-reading Pino's post, I think he's merely providing a (snarky) list of things the OP might do to increase the danger in his game. I don't think he's implying (or inferring) all low rep people will be banned; I think he's suggesting that establishing a half-way house for people on the road to being banned would be one way to increase the danger levels in your area. But I might be reading him too charitably.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Actually Outposts were described as cheap, easy to replace and designed to be not too costly if they were destroyed.

They were also described as leading to the most common form of PvP being generated by looting and establishing a hostile state / criminal flag and potentially a reciprocal hostile state once the defenders hit the looters twice.

Indeed, Outposts are likely cheap and easy to replace, especially in comparison to PoIs and other structures. Outposts are semi-permanent in that they will continue to exist as long as upkeep is paid and someone doesn't destroy them through PvP.

Harvesting kits, on the other hand, will be used for a relatively short period of time (less than 1 day) before the gusher ends.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

"Serious Harvesters" are going to be focused on Hard Mode because that is where the real "money" will be. Easy Mode harvesting will be something you do as you train up to be able to engage in serious Hard Mode harvesting, or something you do as a distraction to something else - a convenient way to add value to being in the wild pursuing some other goal.

What you are seeing in Alpha right now is all Easy Mode.

When will these harvesting kits find their way into use?

These kits sound like outposts, are they the prototype of outposts?

Can their storage capacity be looted?

Will there be a thief flag for looting?

Will there be player storage in the towns, during alpha?

Hopefully these will come on line in some form, in order to test them out.

In a recent Gobbocast, Cheney spoke to the bolded part. Outposts are used to gather bulk resources for settlement construction and upkeep. The harvesting kits are used for gushers/mother lodes, which are large quantities of normal resources for individual gear. I think we've been generally told that Outposts are semi-permanent; harvesting kits are more temporary.

Goblin Squad Member

Gaskon wrote:

Most high level athletes rely heavily on their support structures.

Coaches, trainers, medical staff, nutritionists, equipment, etc...

Remove all of those social supports, and their level of performance will drop dramatically.

No, they won't suddenly forget all of their skills, but they will certainly drop from tier 3 (the best in the world) down to tier 2, or even the top of tier 1.

One of those comments that make me wish I could click favorite more than once.

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
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 .

I'm not sure, but I wonder if thinking that solo gathering and harvesting are safe is just setting someone up for disappointment.

I'm not a pro-bandit type, but I think that even if SAD is never implemented, there will still be those who prey on those solo gatherers. If a gatherer is carrying more than 30 minutes worth of work, he starts to be at risk for someone willing to take the Rep hit to get rich quick.

I don't think we'll see a lot of banditry early on (I might be wrong), but once people get up some reserve Rep, they'll be able to take a one-time hit to their Rep to kill a solo gatherer foolish enough to farm for a hour or two without banking.

Goblin Squad Member

Summersnow wrote:
Urman wrote:
If the gatherer is willing to stay poor to avoid 'excitement', *I* think he's not getting the full value of his subscription fee, but he's welcome to the lesser game.


Why do some people always assume that they and only they know the right and best way to play a game?

Why do some people assume that what they value in a game is the only thing to value in a game?

Such narrow mindedness means YOU sir will not get the full value because you will blind yourself to possibilities and alternatives you consider beneath you.

FYI - not everyone in this world considers pvp, ganking and griefing (sorry, argue as you might but you can NOT have the first without some of the other two) an actual enhancement to a game, many people consider it a detriment.

I was trying to be subtle, but apparently that failed, since you have no clue as to my actual view. My bad, I'll try to write more clearly.

I read the OP as an appeal to implement SAD. That would mean the player who is avoiding conflict by intentionally not joining a company is still very much at risk. In my view, someone who is poorer and likely weaker than average should not be a primary target. I think SAD paints a big target on those who choose to play the game in very small groups or solo, and I am not a big fan of SAD for that reason.

Goblin Squad Member

I think it was Stephen Cheney who recently said that they expect that gushers/mother lodes will provide a significant fraction of all raw resources - so gatherers will *need* to group up to exploit those gushers. So a gatherer will likely belong to a settlement and/or company to take advantage of those gushers. Once they group up, they are subject to being attacked with feuds and war decs.*

On the other hand, if some gatherers don't want to group up, and want to avoid company ties, then they won't fully exploit the gushers they find. They'll be poor grubbers - and may not be worth attacking in that case.

If the gatherer is willing to stay poor to avoid 'excitement', *I* think he's not getting the full value of his subscription fee, but he's welcome to the lesser game.

* And frankly, the bandits might want to wait to declare feud/attack until after the gusher is found - the pickings will be richer and the gatherers are more likely to stick around when they have something to lose.

Goblin Squad Member

@Lifedragn, Yeah, I'd think that time to log-out wouldn't/shouldn't be more than the time to move 1/2 hex (in friendly /neutral territory) or 1 hex (in enemy territory). Maybe it should be even less.

(I'd define friendly territory as settlement and POI hexes held by your settlement or company, or officially allied settlements and companies. Enemy territory is settlement and POI hexes held by groups that have war decs or feuds against your groups. Neutral is all other.)

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon - might "legitimate" work?

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Corner cases... Implies rarity, when the opposite is more then likely true.

That may, indeed, be true. We're dealing with hypotheticals here.

It remains hypothetical until some group of NPC settlement-based alts encounter some seemingly arbitrary and capricious fate. If they don't encounter such a fate, and there's no mechanical block to their activity, then such activity will likely become commonplace. If the use of NPC-settlement alts for clever purposes just seems a fast way to destroy an alt, people might curtail the triggering behavior and it would be rare.

edit to add: destruction doesn't even have to be complete and final. Having a group of alts suddenly finding themselves at -2500 or -5000 Rep might be a wake-up that the players can recover from, in time.

Goblin Squad Member

I think maybe part of the entire crowd-forging/MVP process is separating the wheat from the chaff; the problems that need mechanical fixes from the corner cases that can be solved without a mechanical fix. I don't think that Ryan should tell us a mechanical fix is on its way - because in the end, there might not really be a need for such a fix.

Goblin Squad Member

Blazfemy wrote:

Make it so you can't leave a company that is currently feuding.

Also, you could hire a merc company to do something about them possibly.

I like the idea that you can't leave a company that is currently in a feud. I'd offer the caveat: as long as someone from the opposing company is online and accessible.

If a company declares a feud and then all of its members log off for the weekend, the members of the targeted company should be able to leave if they wish. Likewise, no declaring feud and then escaping into inaccessible spaces like buildings where your target can't get at you. (In fact, maybe a feud should just end if no members of the declaring company are online and accessible).

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon I think Outcast might be a bit too derogatory. I like Safeholders (I don't know who coined it, maybe Guurzak?) as more neutral, but maybe that applies to the new members of the starter NPC towns.

I think it's an interesting twist, though, to separate the citizens of the starter towns into new/low skill characters and higher skilled characters that seem to be avoiding the settlement game. Though I think that if a character want's to avoid the settlement game, maybe that's just a choice.

I think those high-skilled characters should only suffer flagging, though, in someone else's official territory, only by that settlement's citizens, and only if the settlement chooses to declare Outcasts personas non grata.

Goblin Squad Member


1a) If everyone abandons the company, then all Influence it has gained is lost. It's a technique, but means that those characters aren't getting full use of their Influence. If most leave the company, but some just log out, then the company only keeps a certain amount of Influence based on its population.

1b) I frankly could see a weak company recruiting some tough guys during a feud as being a legitimate move. I think we've been told that it will take some time (24 hours?) to join a new company, so the weak company will have to take its lumps until the ringers are brought in. Note also that the company that declared the feud (Benevolence) can drop the feud once the ringers have joined. Yes, they lost some Influence, but the company where the ringers came from might have lost some as well, due to Influence caps.

I think that feuds will likely be most useful when the targeted company has something they'll lose if they log off or switch companies.

One example: A company of loggers from Beneviolence are harvesting in an area. A martial company from DemonLocusts declares a feud and the Beneviolencers log off or otherwise leave the area. A logging company from DemonLocusts strip mines (strip logs?) the area.

Another example: A company from Beneviolence declares feud against the DemonLocust loggers. The loggers log off. The Beneviolencers chuckle and raze the loggers' sawmill.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:

This doesn't help vs a horde of safehold-affiliated locust alts. I appreciate the suggestion of customer service, but it would be preferable to have a mechanical system in place rather than having to appeal for human intervention.

Perhaps safehold citizens simply cannot harvest in settlement-claimed hexes, or perhaps they become attackable whenever they do.

I'm not sure I like that fix. I frankly see myself and others from my settlement encouraging new players in the safeholds to step out of the NPC protected areas and join us or others in mass gathering or escalation events. We'd do it in unclaimed spaces or in our own territory, but that latter case isn't possible with your suggestion.

edit to add: giving the settlement citizens the ability to challenge outsiders or maybe just safeholders, to force them to stop harvesting (or else!), might be a workable compromise.

Goblin Squad Member

randomwalker wrote:

But: In tabletop, barbarians and monks typically use their speed to get into melee, not for kiting. There would have to be a way to prevent evoker monks from dominating pvp and pve.

Maybe they could make the monk's speed buff part of her dedication bonus. So a monk that is using only monk feats gets the special speed buff, but a monk that's mixing in other feats doesn't.

Goblin Squad Member

My first gut feeling was that a character shouldn't be able to log out (the character stays on the server even if the player logs out or loses connection) as long as he has an active flag like Criminal. But that doesn't really work for some flags that are up until some activity is stopped (Heinous) or those 24-hour flags like Murderer.

A number of log-out timers might be one answer. So a normal unflagged character could logout/leave the server in one minute; 30 seconds (or instantly?) in a "safe" place like a friendly or neutral settlement, or a tavern. Logging out in hostile territory (you have an active feud or war dec against the owning company or settlement) might take 2 minutes if you are unflagged. All these times would need to be set/balanced against movement times and hex size.

A short term flag like Criminal could double those numbers; a long term/permanent flag like Heinous or Murderer could take even longer, 3x or 5x.

Goblin Squad Member

Leithlen wrote:
Guurzak wrote:
the word you're looking for is "formation".
Is that what PFO has decided to call "groups of groups"?

I think that "formation" and "group of groups" might be two different things.

A formation might be a group of groups, but with a specific set of advantages (like defense buffs) and disadvantages (such as, all characters must remain within some close proximity to the formation). A basic group of groups doesn't need to have those have those limitations (or advantages), but is a multi-party organization so might share one chat, hostility flagging, etc.

Goblin Squad Member

Giorgo wrote:

Settlements Plots & Structures:

- What slots does the Keep and Auction House cover?

I don't know about the auction house, but every settlement will have a keep. In the blog entry Player Created Buildings and Structures it is explained that a fortress is built in a hex, then upgraded/advanced to a settlement - that's the keep. Because it isn't optional, the keep likely doesn't fill a slot.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shaibes wrote:
What kind of temple/alchemist/mad scientist's lair do you go to to change from a half-orc to a dwarf or a human to a halfling? It sounds terribly painful.

Maybe you just put in a request ticket with the priesthood of Pharasma and the change takes place the next time you die. If the change takes place in the moments between when you die and when you find yourself alive again, any pain from the transformation would just be drowned out by the pain of death and new life.

Goblin Squad Member

Fleksnes wrote:

I’m currently in a PvP focused guild playing Elder Scrolls Online. Unfortunately ESO PvP has turned out to be a huge disappointment. I’m hoping to convince my guild members to have a go at PFO, and that we can form a company and join a settlement later in EE.

I have some concerns when it comes to alignments, and which settlement to join.


I guess I find the whole alignment system and its possible restrictions the most confusing part of PFO at this stage. I’ve never played the tabletop, and have no preference on alignment to begin with, but I’m reluctant to be Good if there might be any extra hinders for Good players who like to PvP and expand through warfare.

Since the Land Rush is over and the next stage is the War of the Towers, you might be in a great position to try the game and figure out if good is too much of a hindrance. You can try the game, maybe starting as good (or maybe not), and see if it cramps your style too much. Pick a settlement to join, at least through the war of the towers, and play. Your actions will guide your alignment - see what's fine for you. After the war of the towers, like 6 months in, you can join a settlement that closely matches your play style.

You could use the same method later on, of course. Join a company; if your alignment shifts too much from your actions, join a different company more in line with your alignment. Same with settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rules that have been explained so far is that the evil shift *only* comes in if you attack someone who is not hostile to you. So if your target is an enemy because of a feud, a war, or a faction war, then it's not an evil kill. Likewise, if your target is a hostile because he's a criminal, or a heinous slave-trader or necromancer, then there's no evil shift. I think that good settlements/nations will be able to be expansionist and aggressive.

The advantage that evil has is that they can - within limits - get a few kills against non-hostiles without using Influence or DI for feuds and wars. So if there's some guy you're pretty sure is a spy, you can kill him and take the rep hit, instead of making it all formal with a feud. It remains to be seen if that advantage is significant.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:

You miss my point that time savings and resource savings are a mechanical benefit.

Even if every mechanical effect that can be gained from a smallholding can also be created with a combination of campfires, buried chests, and [craftable bind points], the fact that I have to spend (arbitrary number) 5% of my productive time generating the resources to acquire an ongoing supply of those items means that the smallholding purchaser has put me at a permanent 5% logistical disadvantage, which will never go away unless I pull out my wallet too.

At $200, the smallhold costs about what it would cost to get a new $100 EE character, with 3 months subscription time, and buy time for another 6 months at $15/mo. My internal calculation might be: will a second character that I use for 9 months provide more benefit than a smallhold? Or should I get one of those EE Month 2 characters at $50 and add 10 months to it?

As long as people can have multiple characters, they will be able to buy some advantage (if they choose to run their characters that way). GW has pretty much told us that they won't limit multiple characters. In my mind, there's not a lot of difference between the advantages from a second character or something like the base camp. The exact benefits may vary, but they both provide advantages.

(I likely won't buy a second character or the smallhold for quite some time, but I'm fine with the option being there for others).

Goblin Squad Member

As each character is notionally an independent 'person' in game, with differing goals, alignment, settlement and company membership, I'd echo the question of whether the restriction could be shifted to 1 per character. However, at this time are we going to be limited to one character per account as we enter EE? If that is the case, one per account and one per character is the same, right now, and the restriction can be shifted later.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
FMS Quietus wrote:

The business objective should be to make money. The game design objective should be to make an amazing game that people will want to invest in. Therefore the business model should be to have an amazing game that people will want to spend money on.

You can make a great game that makes a crap ton of money, but doesn't milk the players like League Of Legends.

Or you can make a game that entices you to get invested and then push for that massive cash grab like every Perfect World game they've actually made themselves. They are like carney games. The sole purpose of the game isn't to make an engaging, entertaining product that people will want to spend cash on. It's to milk the player base dry for as much and for as long as they can. In the process it destroys that company's rep and the IP of the game associated with it.

Having bought my fair share of rule books, errata, version updates, monster manuals, etc, etc, I'd venture to say that AD&D and Pathfinder (and a whole lot of other TT games) are based upon providing a fun game that people want to play and selling all the various extras bits that people might be willing to spend money on. I hope it doesn't offend people, but imo, it's practically part of the IP.

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:
Also, filling all the available spaces on the current map should take a while. Just because sites can be filled, that doesn't guarantee that they will be filled quickly.

Agreed. If the world is sized/designed so that a settlement of 500 characters will use most of 8 hexes, then it's probably a good bet that settlements far under that number will have a lot of wilderness and few structures. If the settlement/companies can't fully utilize the structures they already have, it might not be worth it to build more structures. And if every structure (POI, Outpost, Smallhold, Basecamp) has an upkeep cost, then there is an additional downside to placing more structures - why place a structure that will cost resources just to exist when you don't have the people to provide the resources?

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

That certainly explains why the Western Hemisphere was settled so rapidly: The people were clearly content to be serfs.

I think that three of the larger immigration populations into the U.S. (Ireland, Italy, Germany) might correspond to the end of serf/small holders in those lands.

My father's family history goes something like this: serfdom was abolished in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (northern Germany, on the Baltic coast) in 1820. This meant that the former serfs were free to move. It also meant that the nobles no longer had to provide land to their former serfs. Many serfs became day-laborers, dependent on the nobles employing them. Others immigrated. My great-great(?)-grandfather came over as a child with his mother, after his father died. Without a husband/father who could work as a laborer, they probably faced the choice of starving in the winter or immigrating.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:


500 hexes sounds about* like the count of claimable hexes- in other words, everything but settlements, NPC safe zones, monster hexes and monster homes, badlands, and brokenlands.

There are approximately 50 spaces for Smallholdings in each Settlement. Including Settlement locations and wilderness locations there will be approximately 3,150 spaces for Smallholdings on the Early Enrollment map.

33*50=1650. 3150-1650=1500. That's 3 times the 500 wilderness hexes. So what it looks like to me is that every single claimable hex can have up to 3 smallholdings, or fewer or no smallholdings and up to 2 base camps.

On top of that, each hex can have 2 Outposts and a Holding/PoI. This "wilderness" is starting to look not very "wilder"...

I think your hex count is right with the base camps being placeable in claimable hexes.

When you say that the wilderness is not looking wilder, though, won't all of the claimable hexes start out as wilderness? Unclaimed and undeveloped hexes may have the potential for some number of structures (1 POI, 2 Outposts, 3 other structures?). The hexes start out as wilderness. Over time, as hexes are claimed and structures are built, the wilderness is pushed back by player action.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Know what I would really like, actually? "Group necromancer" mechanics. That way, you can get something like an undead army, but still encourage human interaction. For instance, necromancers could be able to combine their undead into very basic formations, or even summon large waves as something akin to the siege engines already planned.

Hmm. What if other characters in the necromancer's settlement could log in as undead as an alternative to logging in their normal character? (Sort of like monster-play). Some limitations, of course; maybe you can't go beyond some distance from the settlement or from the necromancer.

Goblin Squad Member

Soon we will enter EE and see the creation of the first companies of player characters and the War of the Towers (WoT). Many of the companies that will be formed in the early days of the game will be created to compete in WoT, and after that is over the companies will go on to some other part of the game, performing a role which might not match the name chosen at the beginning of WoT. Likewise as people enter and leave the game, company leadership will change, company goals will change, and companies names should also probably change.

Proposal 1: Companies should be able to change their name as the game progresses. Name changes don't need to be free; some Influence cost might be appropriate to capture the loss of name-recognition the company has gained over time.

Proposal 2: To make it possible to track companies that change their name to hide their past, a company's lineage - the list of all of the names the company has had - should be stored and should be knowable for characters with appropriate skills (Bard/Aristocrat skills). Optionally, the lineage might go back only a certain number of names or a certain amount of time.

Proposal 3: Company naming convention could allow multiple companies to have the same name, provided the name is only used by one sponsored company in a settlement. The basic naming convention could be $Company of $Settlement. So it could be possible to have two companies named "The Housecarls", but they would formally be "The Housecarls of Bigtown" and "The Housecarls of Littleburg". Of course, when that Littleburg company goes to join Bigtown, they'll have to change their name. I think such a naming convention might reduce problems creating lore-acceptable company names. (This last proposal is probably not time-sensitive and could be implemented in OE.)

Goblin Squad Member

Slightly in character:

Well, Mr. Moonglow, looking around this mountaintop, I see a lot of stone lands. Stone for a town, iron for arms. Land for creating holdings and quarries and mines.

But that iron isn't going to mine itself. You've got a good crowd with you, but there's room for more to work here, to cut the stone and grub the iron and build a place for themselves and their neighbor. A person can do worse with their time here in the River Kingdoms than protect others or put in an honest day's work.

There's work here. Warfare, too. I don't think anyone needs to be a seer to know that there will be war though all of these lands soon enough. And when war comes it will be good to have iron in our hand, stone around us, and plenty of companions and neighbors with us.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Summersnow wrote: the resources / allies in a war.
I can't remember which, but one of the Land Rush 2 groups offered real-world hard cash, paid each week, for Companies joining them. I've no doubt we'll see at least some of that out in the open come game-time--and likely more hidden away for whatever reason--and I can't think of any way to stop it.

To some degree, I don't think we can worry about stopping it. Once training time can be sold in game and contract mechanics are solid, there will be a way to convert OOG cash into IG coin and contract services for coin.

Any subscription game has a certain number of players that will (or say they are willing) to work in game for subscription money. And there are a certain number of players that are willing (or say that they are willing) to pay for a worker. (And a huge number of players that wish they could farm out some work). I think the reason it doesn't happen more is because there's a disconnect between how much work each side expects will be done, and there's no enforcement mechanism on OOG contracts. With contracts and sale of training time, such arrangements become much more possible, perhaps even commonplace. Some people will go the extra step and have OOG arrangements of OOG cash for services rendered.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

A digression into history again. The biggest drawback of armour, particularly of the type worn in the Middle Ages, wasn't about mobility or weight but rather HEAT. Anyone that's involved with strenuos actvity outdoors, particularly in warm weather, is acutely aware of the effects heat can have on a person. Being encased in heavy materials that don't breathe well seriously amplifies that effect. Not just practical experience today but a number of historical accounts bear that out pretty well... especialy those dealing with soldiers used to European climates starting to operate in warmer climates such as the Holy Lands.

Even up into modern times, without the heavy leather and plate, fatigue from heat and heat stroke is still an important concern for soldiers fighting in long battles or engaged in other strenuous activities during hot weather. It's why so much stress is put on keeping hydrated.

Heart failure is a leading cause of death among firefighters, it kills more than smoke inhalation, and firefighters have heart failure more than many other professions. It's likely tied to heavy loads, restricted breathing, and high-stress events that the firefighters deal with daily on the job.

I imagine it was a killer among the heavily armored knights as well. There was probably some number that just collapsed in a melee and died without a wound; there were probably also some that started to collapse and got killed in the moments before the heart attack got them.

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.

1 to 50 of 1,865 << 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.