|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Except that when someone attacks a flagged (or hostile?) character; a Criminal, a Heinous necromancer, etc., they *don't* gain an attacker flag themselves. They are now hostile from their target's viewpoint, naturally. But they aren't suddenly an open target for everyone.
Once the criminal is attacked, the 3rd party becomes a hostile target for the criminal, AND ALL of those in his player grouping.
Has GW said that hostility will work that way? Does it work the same way for characters flagged in feuds or wars? Flagged for faction PvP? Flagged as a raider attacking a outpost?
I don't think we know what 'SAD is now a skill-based special ability' really means. It used to be that I had to be chaotic *and* already flagged for PvP before I could make a SAD demand. I wouldn't assume that either of those restrictions still applies; I also wouldn't assume that there aren't some restrictions on SADs.
@Kobold Cleaver Sep 25, 2013 blog entry - The Man in the Back Said "Everyone Attack!":
The alignment-based flags have been removed in favor of the "for the cause" flags of factional combat. Benefits associated with the Enforcer and Champion flags are now tied to alignment score and to factional membership, and the Assassin and Stand and Deliver special abilities have been moved to skill-based functionality, rather than flag-based functionality. The Criminal and Heinous flags remain, however, so that individuals who wish to police the game-world and punish evil or lawless characters can do so...
At the time, and still to date, a good aligned character carries the highest penalty to kill in terms of drift toward evil, and a high reputation carries the highest penalty to kill in terms of drift toward low reputation.
I do not think that is true, if you mean that killing a high-good character will reduce Good/Evil more than killing a low-good will.
From the Blog: Alignment and Reputation, Dec 18, 2013.
Bolding added in both quotes for emphasis. I believe Reputation loss for killing a high-Rep character works the original way, and as you describe it.
SADs were created to provide "good aligned" characters the ability to interdict without always having to kill.
The SAD mechanic as originally stated allowed chaotic-aligned Outlaw characters to steal from others without reputation penalties, whether their victims surrendered goods or the Outlaw killed the victim. It's in the PFO blog, "I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die," Feb 6, 2013. It says nothing whatsoever about giving "good aligned" characters the ability to interdict without always having to kill.
editted to remove comment about UNC credibility. Second edit to change paragraph order.
Lee Hammock (post #240ish in this thread) wrote:
I don't think they've specifically disallowed Keovar's examples of John 'Smith and John Smith-. Yet.
What is your reasoning of including a cash shop in a game so focused on economy?
I think it was covered here (from thread: "Goblinworks Basing Cash Shop on Turbine's")
Ryan Dancey - Nov 1, 2013 wrote:
Your sarcasm is lost on me as I don't know how this will work. What kind of potions? Potions that could be player made, like healing potions? Oh jeez I'm scared indeed... I can't believe I had no idea this game was going to include a cash shop. I'm so heartbroken.
Nevy, this is good. It's like some unholy combination of snark and sarcasm. Snarkhasm, that's the word. If you're serious, it's still funny.
I'm not sure, but didn't the information on factions (Sep 25, 2013) supersede that old post (Nov 21, 2012) that discussed alliances? Things like: Any player who meets the requirements may join a faction such as the Eagle Knights, the Pathfinders, or the Church of Iomedae. Each faction has a number of allies and enemies. You may be a member of multiple factions if you wish, but you must meet the requirements for each, including not already being a member of an opposing faction.
The devs have suggested that getting training outside of ones settlement wouldn't happen. It might or might not be able to train within a nation; you did point out that that was an assumption on your part, but thought it made common sense. Up to that point I thought your post was solid. Yes it had assumptions, but you were open and up-front.
I chimed in only because you moved the goal posts: shifting the question from 'does New York admit foreign students' to 'does it cost foreign student more'.
Personally, I think nations will have a large disparity between key settlements and lesser settlements. Either people will be able to train in national allies (edit: allied settlements within the same nation), like you assume, or the nation will post people from the key cities out to the lesser cities, but their official 'residence' for purpose of training will be the big city.
One that leaps immediately to mind: really reduce long-term FTP.
I can't speak to others' experiences, but in WoW - I had a full load of alts, each with crafting skills that didn't overlap the others. So when I had a craft-based quest, like deliver 3 potions, I made them on my alt. Why - because I mostly avoided interaction with others. So don't let us do that for starters.
If GW decides to allow some level of FTP... Then if there is a limit to number of players in a zone, kick the FTP first. If there's really not a limit, GW shouldn't tell us that. Instead, they could have some system that limits the FTP in a zone (maybe to 20% of the paying customers) and periodically/semi-randomly kicks those that are logged on so others get a turn.
That doesn't prevent someone from paying for 8 accounts; we can't totally escape PTW. But it might reduce cheap multi-boxing.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Maybe my opinion is unrealistic and reactionary, but I hate this and everything about it. I hate being pressured to make my own botmobs just to stay in the running--I have trouble handling just one character! I hate the danger of this rendering healer PCs--and, arguably, adventuring parties period--borderline obsolete. I hate how it makes PFO into a completely different game.
I used to play A Tale in the Desert; it allowed the use of attended botting. One day I looked at the screen, realized I was spending way too much time writing bot scripts and not enough time playing. So I canceled my subscription and found another game.
I'd rather have mechanisms that discourage bots or make them superfluous.
Hoping that they require active "paid for" time to use. That they only be usable when they are on active, experience/skill point earning time.
I could also see some grace period, so a player could log on an inactive character if that was required to access (PFO's PLEX-equivalent) and spend it on the character. That grace period might be measured in minutes per month, if that was its purpose. It only has to be long enough to log-on, grab PLEX, and use PLEX.
Or the grace time could be scaled based on the character's total xp (since that's a measure of how much that character has paid into the game).
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Maybe I don't understand something, but when people said that the "goblin balls" term was vulgar, did you take that as a personal insult? edit: perhaps I missed some other exchange.
Maybe, when it's time for the less than 18-year old players to hit up their parents for funding, it might be better if they don't have to say - "Hey Mom, can you buy me some goblin balls?" Or perhaps we might consider some fraction of the player base, whether female, religious, uptight, sensitive, or whatever, might prefer a different name. Or it might just not fit with GW's vision (and Paizo's licence) - and yes, they get the deciding vote.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
The problem with "Goblin <part of anatomy>" is it doesn't stand on its own as any kind of explanation for what it does. PLEX is a Pilot's License EXtension. It makes sense for what it actually does. Your character in EVE is a spaceship pilot, and PLEX let you fly your ships longer.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Obfuscating your prime money maker from the people you want to make money from is a dumb idea.
Agreed. I do think that abbreviations are sort of anachronistic, though, even the witty "ToRK".
Barracks Pass? Academy Pass? Training Tuition? Scholarship Chit? Dungeon Oysters - wait, that's just a euphemism.
Sometimes I just wish games had a robust name generator and they'd just do forced name changes. GM: "Hey, we've just changed your name from Xxdeathof youxX to Gnorland Armbust. Have a great day gaming!"
Unfortunately, most games have pretty iffy generators; I ask for a random name, they generate a name, I accept it, and they tell me the name is already is use. Jerks.
@DB, That is true, and nations will balance the hexes they hold and the hexes they allow clients to hold based on that (and other considerations).
I think we've also been told that each POI hex the settlement control will increase the settlement DI. It may not be a linear increase, and it might be capped, or limited by other development, but to some number of hexes, more hexes probably means more DI.
I think settlements will be about 4 hexes apart. I'd expect the 'endgame' successful nations to be made up of settlements 8 hexes apart, and the settlement at the midway points will be stunted clients/pets that possibly have only 6 or fewer POIs. Client settlements could be the source of low rep forces.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Numbers are subject to change as we build out the map, but 2000 PoI hexes is slightly rounded up and number of settlement hexes is around 220, such that if every single settlement played nice and tried to distribute them as evenly as possible (hah!), each settlement would sponsor 8-9 PoIs.
So one settlement hex + 8-9 POI hexes. About 9, like DB says.
My basic expectation for MMOs is that if players can do something, then players will do it. Just because YOU as a PC take pains TO NOT ENGAGE IN SOME ACTION doesn't mean it won't occur. Any player proposal to 'improve the game' certainly should be looked at for loopholes and if it won't 'improve the game', it shouldn't be added to the design.
My intuitive reaction is that the Defender should be able to continue the War at no cost, but it's likely that's not appropriate.
I think there would be one obvious exploit if defenders were able to continue a war/feud at no cost.
- Large crafting company gets feuded for completely reasonable reason.
A lot of assumptions there, but yeah, maybe free feuds have problems.
On a side note, the costs of wars in Eve have skyrocketed. They did this years ago. I know it has been modified recently, but last I remember it cost 100million ISK to wardec an alliance. Thats a good chunk of cash.
As best as I can tell, for comparison, PLEX (1 month's training time, worth about $20) are selling for 650 million ISK. Does that mean some group can effectively wardec a target group for less than $3.50?
Regarding the OP; my concern is that the game would have to keep track of a lot of events, and every social group would need a list of every social group that has wronged them. In time, that could get pretty large.
I'd offer a greatly simplified method: when a group feuds or wars on another group, the targeted group gains a marker which allows them to do a feud or war in the future at reduced cost.
- Hatfield Company declares a feud against McCoy Company. The feud cost normal amount; McCoys gain the marker. Feud eventually ends.
The advantages are that very few events need to be counted: feuds and wars. Groups only have a list of markers against groups that they have a current grudge against.
Expected behavior: Groups that don't normally feud may be encouraged to do so with the reduced Influence cost; they may even seek out 'ringers' to bring into their company for the duration of a feud. Groups that feud a lot will have some number of outstanding grudges; other groups could decide to pay back a grudge while one feud is on-going.
:eyeroll: Whatever you suspected is probably wrong, my friend.
If companies have unlimited amounts of Influence, they can effectively feud anytime they wish (see also, EVE and the use of coin/ISK for wardecs).
If companies have limited amounts of Influence, most will likely use it on meaningful targets that further their goals in game, rather than simple harassment and bullying because they're bored. GW has always stressed their intent to have PvP be meaningful.
Me, I expect that Influence will be limited. You can go on assuming and suspecting and whatever else you do in your spare time.
Larger companies might have more Influence. It all depends on their membership, what they've obligated their Influence towards, and how fast Influence is earned/regenerated(?).
I'm not sure that companies will have effectively unlimited Influence that allows them to stay in a constant state of feud. I'm guessing/assuming the devs looked how easy it was to use money to maintain wardecs in EVE, and they might have decided to curb our behavior somewhat.
The developers have already told us that it will cost more to feud against smaller companies and less to feud against larger companies. That's the way the system is, and yes, there's no reason to change it.
Keep in mind that there's no reason for even the worst PC settlement to be a step down from the NPC settlements. That would remove the factor that drives low Rep characters to those settlements.
The Dec 18 blog stated: Having a negative Reputation will mean that certain settlements will be off limits to you. Having a Reputation below -2500 means you cannot safely enter most NPC or starter settlements.
- Characters must be a member of a settlement (fact)
Depending on how many NPC settlements are there for the really low rep characters, there might be some PC settlements with rep limits between -7500 and -2500. They might often be pets of other settlements.
I agree with Xeen's statement that PvP should never be disabled.
Since unaffiliated characters are subject to PvP attacks, then they should have the ability to initiate such attacks. Having people in companies able to attack with PvP and having people not in companies unable to attack with PvP... Sorry, it doesn't work for me.
It is also ineffectual to give them double rep losses, if they are throw away alts anyway.
I'm not sure why it would be ineffectual.
- If the unaffiliated alt is a true throw away, intended to never be used again, the player spends some amount of RL money on training time, uses the character some limited number of times, then the character is done.
- I think it is much more likely that the player spends some amount of RL money on training time, plays the alt character as an unaffiliated thug until the reputation is borderline for whatever training it needs, then that character is set aside to regain rep.
Either way, doubling rep losses for unaffiliated alts makes such characters less useful. They'll reach cheap-to-attack reputation (or no-long-have-access-to-training reputation) twice as fast, requiring players who use such alts to have more thug alts in their 'stable'. At the same time, unaffiliated 'new' characters will be less likely to initiate PvP and are thus less likely to be hit with the double losses.
Isn't it more expensive to declare a feud on a smaller group? I'm not sure if war should be cheaper based on relative population or not.
Tork said that that would be the case. To my knowledge, we haven't been told that war costs would follow suit; I'd avoid the assumptions and focus on feuds vs. company alliances.
I'd think that a mechanic designed to discourage the use of throw-away alts for combat must also take in to account 'legitimate' new characters.A new character who hasn't yet joined a sponsored company is likely indistinguishable from a combat alt that is deliberately not joining a sponsored company to avoid countermeasures.
It isn't that I want them exposed to conflict, I want them to be invested in what they do in the game.
Hm. Idea: Double rep losses for uninvested/unaffiliated characters when they attack? Double timers on attacker flags, etc.?
Proxima Sin wrote:
What's life like if we start out with absolutely zero skills? ... Perhaps a few background questions about what your character was doing right before they arrived in the River Kingdoms and why they've come here to do can help the code decide between some starter packages of general feat training that we'll definitely need to get anyway.
Not to take away from people's character concepts, but perhaps each of our characters has a pretty similar backstory. Right before we arrived in the River Kingdoms, we were, ah ...dying*.
We don't know why we came here, but when we woke in the temple of Pharasma we were told that there are other like us. And the trauma of dying has left us blank slates; no starting skills.
* For a bonus, maybe most of us were dying. Maybe the twice-marked of Pharasma came here under their own power. </Fanfic lore attempt>
Except Ryan didn't actually say "working as intended" in that exchange, so your quote marks might not be correct:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
A few posts up notice what Ryan said:
Ah. I thought Ryan's comment was about alignments and settlements in the Golarian IP. He's saying (I think) that D&D established the concept of setting alignments for towns, cities, etc, and Pathfinder followed this. For the paper and pencil sourcebooks, I think Ryan is saying, if the leader and people's alignment don't match the settlement alignment, the settlement alignment is wrong.
Me, I'd go further than Ryan. I'd say it seems like a whole bunch of source-book writers were rushed and failed to apply intellectual rigor to what they were writing. They made CN towns full of NG and LN and their editors didn't ask them why. He's in the industry; I'm not ;)
So if a lawful town is defended by the Hellknight faction but the populace drifts into chaos the Hellknights may withdraw their protection leaving the settlement unsupportably vulnerable. Such a condition would argue for a more moderate expectation of community alignment.
Based on what we've been told, can a settlement alignment shift organically? I thought it was set at founding; if citizens drift away from the settlement alignment they can still stay as long as their core alignment is within one step.
Or are you suggesting that if the (average?) active alignment of the citizens is out of wack, there could be repercussions, like guard factions reducing support?