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

randomwalker's page

Goblin Squad Member. 748 posts (951 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 748 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

nice interview with Tork. Nice to have a face to the voice too :-)

any idea when/if this will resume?

Goblin Squad Member

Nightdrifter wrote:
Similar problem cropping up for wizards. Eg. to get level 8 wizard requires Mage 6 which requires Clothing Armor Proficiency 2 which requires Dex 14.

Dex for wizards and Wis for rogues is much easier to train by taking cheap levels of adventuring and trading skills. Con is harder based on the current data.

(Ironically, I expected Rogues to be the most MAD class, but it turns out they may be the least).

Goblin Squad Member

Congratz! Nothing like getting a new alt!

Kitsune Aou wrote:
..except the [thing], which is resolved by using caffeine

yeah.. caffeine is one of your closest friends the next 1-2 years. (but don't give anymore to the baby).

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:


...
Keywords on your role feature/expendables don't have anything to do with keywords on your attacks/weapons or armor feat/worn armor.

so.. to sum up & dumb down (feel free to correct):

There are 3 independent keyword systems here, each linking something you trained (and slotted) with something you have equipped.
attacks (including cantrips & orisons) <-> weapon (sword, staff, wand etc)
armor feat <-> armor (cloth to heavy)
role feature <-> expendables (trophy charms, rogue kits, spellbooks, holy symbols)

It feels weird to think of spellbooks, holy symbols and thieves tools as 'expendables', but this is how I understand Stephens response.
Role features are weapon specializations, sneak attacks, wizard schools and cleric domains.

Goblin Squad Member

on the topic of keywords, can someone confirm how the keyword system works?

details:

ATTACK
Ex: Say I'm doing a basic dagger strike:
-i have the attack at lvl3, giving me keywords: Piercing/Precise/Light
-i have one-handed melee specialization at lvl2, giving me keywords Slashing/Piercing
-i have light blades specialization at lvl1, giving me keywords Piercing

Does the attack and fighting style independently look for equipment keywords?

ie: Assuming my dagger is piercing, precise and light, does that mean I get:
* basic hit chance/damage based on weapon and attack
* 3 bonuses (extra hot chance? damage?) from my attack skill matching keywords
* 1 bonus (+5 precision) from 1h melee spec matching keyword
* 1 bonus (+5 precision) from light blades spec matching keyword

(btw.. can I slot both specializations or only one?)

DEFENSE
Do you simply get the feat bonus added once per keyword that matches between the armor and your armor feat?

Ex: if a unbreakable14 fighter wore an armor with all 8 keywords matching, would he gain 8x35 bonus hp, 8x2 fortitude bonus, etc ?

Goblin Squad Member

Reading the latest 'Alpha testing week' blog notes, I see the Achievement system is being fleshed out in a way I like very much. Thanks.

Consider my worries dropped until further notice ;-)

(ps: does subterfuge replace martial for rogues? ).

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
...you may find that you rarely pay attention to Achievements until you're very close to earning one and then maybe you adjust your play a bit to close it out.

Thanks, good to see the same message reinforced. But: I would definitely pay attention to achievements if I can't advance to the next level because I lack points.

Now, I don't expect that to be the case until lvl 16 or so. Then the question is "what % of total achievements to i need to max the role"? If there are 1000 martial achievements in the game, it isn't a problem. If there are only 500, getting 400 of those likely means blademasters must go out and get the "kill 1000 mobs using a greatclub" achievement.

Ryan's comment suggests (but isn't crisply clear to me) there will be enough achievements laying around that achievements won't be the bottleneck.

The corner case is gathering skills: if I want to gather materials but not craft, the bottleneck for advancing my skill is definitely the craft achievements.

Goblin Squad Member

Dear GW,
You promised me something like "xp over time means no grind, only meaningful stuff".
But the currently available info about Categories and Achievements has me worried.
It is a simple matter of scaling, really, but still... (if lvl 20 is supposed to be 2 years away, then the number 6250 means 'several per day')

1) Craft achievements.
So far, the only thing we know(?) we get craft achievements for is crafting stuff. Fine. But if lvl12 achievements require you to craft 6250 items (that seems to be the pattern) of said type and you need a total of 400 craft achievements to reach lvl20 skills (and 250 for the gathering/refining skills), then even if we can craft 40 different types of materials, it still seems we must craft thousands and thousands of items (and hours!!) just to qualify for increasing our skill. And many of these will be in crafts we don't even care about - low-lvl stuff made just for the 'cheap' achievements.

2) other achievements.
Essentially the same. Requiring players to play around with different possible weapon/spell combination is good. Requiring them to kill thousands of mobs with weapons/combos they don't like just so they can reach the next level with the those they do like... sounds awfully grindy.

What is the crucial piece of info I'm missing here?

-Is it that i can get 75% of the achievement with 1% of the work, so that the grind doesn't start until the endgame, and the powercurve there is so flat I shouldn't worry if don't like it?
-Is it that there will be so many more crafting/mob/weapon/spell/escalation categories added that I'll never need a lvl 10+ achievement to make it to 400?
-something else?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Don't worry about it. I read all the ideas and if I think that something is too close to a feature that will be in the game I usually take action.

so.. is Ideascale then only for new and original ideas?

I thought the crowdforging was also (more!) about priorities ("I want this before that") and not just brainstorming.

Three quick points from the devil's advocate:
-If I believe the community would prioritize a "known idea" way higher than GW thinks, isn't Ideascale exactly the right tool for that?
-If the community absolutely loves an idea you were going to put in anyway, isn't that just good?
-If the community hates an idea you were planning... isn't it better to know?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

Passive, Attack, and Expendable Feats

Options!

ooh.. shiny!!

Finally starting to get a real grip on the keyword system with this.

Goblin Squad Member

grrr-eat stuff!

possible errata: while looking at how xp/requirements scale for different skills, i notice that xp cost for adventuring skills seem to decrease from 18th to 19th level.

(i might have been ninjaed - the version i'm using is already more than an hour old..)

interesting to see that while gathering/refining skills initially are much cheaper to train than craft skills, the total cost to lvl 20 is very nearly identical. The cost to master an adventuring skill (presuming an errata) also seems to come in not too much below, despite them starting extremely cheap.

Goblin Squad Member

looking a bit closer at the gather/craft and skills requirements:

1) craft achievements requirements are 0 for everything until high levels. I expect that will be fixed.

2) the stat requirement increases at lvl 4,6,7,8, and then every second. Ie levels 7-8 seems will be the point where you -have- to broaden your focus simply to build stats. I see it is the same progression for skills.

Is it the same also for Role achievements? (ie Ftr6 requires str12, Ftr8 str14)?

3) the "pure crafting alt" seems not very practical on mid-levels. An alchemist/artificer/spellcrafter/engineer/jeweler combo could meet all stats and achievements requirements from purely crafting, but anyone else needs stats and/or achievements from somewhere else.

Goblin Squad Member

Dakcenturi wrote:


For example for Cleric 4 you need an 11 Con. You could probably bump up a bunch of skills (perception) or harvesting (miner) to boost your con for cheaper XP or you could boost HP which is needed for later levels of character, still boosts your con, but costs a LOT more XP.

I find it very significant that gather/refine/craft/profession skills (and to some extent, multiclassin) can help you qualify for class levels.

(i would suspect that the -cheapest- way to build stats is to pick up level 1 of lots of skills, but that this is a silly strategy in the longer run).

Goblin Squad Member

Fannis, it's not a list of crafting structures, it's a list of trainers.

The obvious fit for forge is the weaponsmithy. Making horseshoes, tools, nails, barrel hoops and chains there should not be any problem. Most armorers would also have a forge.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
While declaring yourself has an advantage until GW decide how much not being lawful good is going to suck then an early declaration may leave you at a disadvantage.

That is a very good example of "lawful evil" reasoning!

(disclaimer: not a personal attack, just pointing out that the archetypical LE would consider potential advantages of declaring a different alignement, where the archetypical LG and CG would not).

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

remember: Government is evil, business is evil, military conquest is evil and money is the root of all evil.
= If you are playing to win, Lawful Evil is the way to go!

..and for many of us on the other side, we much prefer the "bad guys" to be in organized, properly labeled evil empires that can be occasionally negotiated with.

You should not be ashamed of the label. It's basically a fair warning to the world saying "We play to win, even if it means you lose".

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:


Based on their comments Decius, Being and Randomwalker all seem ok with it. I don't think they really understand what they are asking for though.

Speaking only for myself, the issue isn't that I disagree with your description of the problem, but that I think the problem is a small one. Maybe I just expect stealth (and thus perception) to be a lot less powerful than you do.

If stealth becomes a key pvp skill and active/equipment bonuses are not a key part for stealth/perception you are obviously right.

Goblin Squad Member

This is fun ;-)
(disclaimer: this post was left unsubmitted for a day, i may have been ninjaed by an army of posters)

I ask myself: Why does Pharasma not want us to go to afterlifes?
Possible answers I've come up with for myself, and that I see already in the thread:

1) Doing so would disrupt something
2) She made promises to the other gods
3) It's all part of the "grand secret plan"

in more detail:

1) Doing so would disrupt something

Andius wrote:
Crash_00 wrote:
Pharasma was wounded in a battle with Urgathoa over control of the boneyard. Though she pushed the forces back, her lifeblood mixed with the storms raging across the river lands, and those drenched in the Fate Storms wrath have been marked by the experience.

I like the premise of unintentionally spilled blood.

That is a very good way to have it happen "accidentally". I think adding something about the blood being attracted to those with a spark of greatness in them or inspiring a spark of greatness in those it touches could help explain why our characters are so much more rich and powerful than the average commoner.

My expansion: Pharasma fears that sending the marked ones through to the afterlives might dilute her power (kill a little bit or herself), or that the lords of the respective planes could use the marked ones to somehow tap into her portfolio and tamper with the balance (or simply bypass her judgement).

2) She made promises to the other gods

Kemedo wrote:

Would it better if called "Marked of the Gods" and mean that gods are blessing us to fight for our objectives endless? Or "Marked of XXX" where XXX is the name of our assigned God (as Neverwinter did).

Maybe Cayden Cailean freeing us from shackles of death. Calistria and Asmodeus trickering the death of their cult. Erastil need champion to fight against immortal Asmodeus worshipers

My Twist: It's a bet/game/research experiment between the other Gods where they want to see who has most influence, or simply want to see what (if anything) humans can achieve if left alone. We are the playing pieces (this is much how i run alignment/religion in PnP games...). Pharasma has promised to lay off the champions until the game is over.

3) the grand secret plan:

keovar wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I really liked the theory that this is some sort of grand plan Pharasma hatched with Aroden relating to the false prophecies and Groetus. Sure, it's nuts, but it's nuts in an awesome way.

I've been proposing that idea as it has come up, so I'll expand on it...

My twist: Combine with (1) above. Aroden's 'essence' is somehow distributed among a selection of mortals (for safekeeping, as a result of a failed last-ditch rescue attempt, or whatever secret reasons). As long as they are kept among the living, there is still hope of bringing Aroden back. In the meantime, the essence drives the marked ones towards every greater achievements.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
You can joke, but ...

..and so can you.

+1 to Lee's coolness factor increase.

(is that the source of the overpowered bow attacks: Lee can kill 12 mobs in a minute with a bow but sucks at fencing?)

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

A small boost in power could be VERY much worth the investment if there is no limit on how many utility skills you can have actively benefiting you at once.

Absolutely!

The keyword here (except 'limit') is 'actively benefiting' (or passively benefiting). Are you assuming (based on alpha play?) that utility skills don't need to be slotted?

A priori I would also expect that Perception is always-on, and that stealth doesn't -need- a slotted item to work (although stealth bonus items will exist).

I expect that eventually everyone will max out their hitpoints, power, perception, stealth and knowledge skills. But if the sum of all those takes years, and they are "balanced" to the point where none are obviously far superior to the others (so that different builds prioritize them differently), then it won't be a matter of everyone having the same skills for a very long time.

(Perhaps if the highest levels of utility skills required support buildings??)

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
Remember back in the day when the Kickstarter said this was going to be a classless game? Golgothan Farms remembers.

Right now it does seem like more of a class-based system that supports multiclass characters than a truly classless system.

I'm not really clear on what you lose after a month away from a well-developed settlement...

KarlBob's question is good:

* what fraction of our abilities will be "role-specific abilities"?
* do we need support for "general" abilities (skirmisher/dreadnaught feats and spells)?

If I keep use of 95% of my abilities it is very different from keeping 60% of them.

example:
For my rogue role I train light armor, stealth, light weapons, power, hitpoints, swashbuckler, cutt-throat and rogue kit proficiency.

If I lose rogue support, do I lose ability to use *any* of these?
Do I lose ability to slot Rogue kits (big deal)?
Do I lose access to all abilities that have "Rogue N" as prerequisite?
Do I lose access to all feats trained at the rogue trainer, but not those trained at the skirmisher?

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:


In other words, there is no downside to taking them, and everyone can take them, so why shouldn't everyone take them? Sure it takes time to train them but I know that:

A. The moment I capstone the first thing I do will be to start filling in gaps in the character sheet.
B. I'll train the early levels that can be gained quickly of any gaps in the character sheet as soon as progression in my primary role is slow enough to make it worthwhile.

Your point A sounds to me very much like "I won't do it until I've maxed a role", which is 1-2 years into the game. If everyone "will" take the skills but don't, the concern is at least not urgent.

Point B is extremely valid though, but the large variables are "quickly", "slowly" and "worthwhile". As Ryan said, there are two extremes and the 'strategic choice' middle ground, and you seem to be exactly where Ryan wants you.

Strictly speaking, spending even 10xp on a feat you never need (never use or use only in situations where it doesn't make a meaningful difference) is a waste of xp. Xp is a finite resource in any given time period, much like income (except you cannot spend xp before you earn it), so the downside of wasting it should be obvious. Since everyone is on the same budget, the differences in 'xp management' will show.

EDIT: the above is a general comment. Stealth and Perception is hardly a skill "you'll never need", and the "worthwhile" point for these skills come much earlier than for any random skill. Still, the cost of maxing perception comes at the clear cost of not spending that same xp on something else. (and 'max' is a very long way to go when you start as a new character).

@Decius: If you ever get to the point of having trained every skill in the game, they will add more. If not, that is the point where you stop paying for training and just enjoy the free game.

Goblin Squad Member

nice nice nice!

good data gathering, clear organization and highly commendable attitude to sharing!

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:


5. Distinguishing environments overall: Making monsters unique to different types of hexes, like owlbears in forests and gargoyles in mountains

-Harvestable resources and bulk resources will differ with terrain (including types of wood, types of gems, types of herbs, types of ore)

-Escalations will differ with lots of variables, but 'permanent' escalations means many monsters will be unique to small regions (though expect them to recycle the art).
-forests will have more trees than mountains, mountains more peaks than swamps. I'm pretty sure you will be able to tell the difference.

Quote:


2. Improving waterways: Adding bridges/adding swimming

Are there any waterways in the map? It's called River Kingdoms, but the EE map doesn't come with kingdoms, so I thought it didn't come with rivers either...

Quote:
stuff

yeah.

in most MMOs you do stuff, fight stuff, craft stuff, etc. So stuff is most definately a key ingredient in any game.

Goblin Squad Member

Pryde wrote:
...but noone wants to play a game in the year 2014 (or 2016/17 when the game is supposedly going to be more open to the public), and have it look like something that was dragged out of the EQ-era.

I think you meant "not everyone wants to play a game...". I do.

Pretty graphics makes a good first impression, but for games that really held my interest for a long time, the reason was never the graphics.

Also, mind-blowing graphics are for mind-blowing budgets and big art departments, and can even be a bad thing in an MMO (more stuff -> more bandwith and processing -> slower), especially for players without dedicated gaming rigs.

There are reasons Unity is the engine of choice, find the old blog post if you want to know more.

Alpha... unless you are participating in the alpha, it doesn't affect you, but since Early enrollment is defined at the Minimum Viable Product, then by definition Alpha is not a viable product. Many of us are actually more intrigued about seeing (and helping shape) the evolution of the game instead of being served a polished product.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Did somebody say "socialist"? Do you want to get Comrade Anklebiter on our case?!

rant:

I don't think that word means what you and Andius seem to think it does.
Maybe you meant the trickier word "Consociationalist"?

Minority dictatorships is exactly the problem socialism was invented to solve. (While consociationalism was invented to prevent majority dictatorships).

As for how to design a game, old Karl Marx would probably argue that Goblinwork should work on making durable quality entertainment (high 'use value') and not on producing hype to increase share values or on expensive marketing of worthless products.

PS:
If Anklebiter is a socialist, why would he refer to himself as 'comrade'? That only makes people think he's some variety of communist instead.
----

PvP success, isn't that measured by the colours on the world map?

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:
You mentioned a banjo?

This has gone too far! Trees are ok, but banjos are ...not trees.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:


In other words, is there any one step in any production process that requires more than one feat to complete?

wild speculation 3: I believe not. The intent is to make players cooperate, not build jack-of-all characters. It makes more sense to have complex items require 10 different types of materials gone through 5 different refining steps.

wild speculation 1: it would likely be relevant for high-end recipes anyway, not for anything added in alpha/EE. So even if the answer is currently no it could become yes.

wild speculation 2: There might be rare salvage items that have a very low chance of spawning unless you have more than one (knowledge) skill.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why not just put a hit% penalty for moving/running? Let people choose Miss-and-run tactics if they want.

Cirolle wrote:
Am I the only one that gets a mental picture of the whole UNC popping up in their underwear, with bows, renaming themselves the UDC?

until you mentioned it, yes. But not any longer.

Goblin Squad Member

Archetype wrote:

Well, the Zergies gonna Zerg, if it's 18 months from now with a Russian accent, or immediately. Only time will tell how much, and if the structure of PFO can funnel that horde into something more interesting than it has turned out to be in most games of this type.

No matter what is *said* in these Forums there will be hundreds and hundreds of players who have never even heard of these discusssions, not being active Forum readers/participants. They will log onto the game when available and do what they feel like doing, according to whatever game mechanics are available. It will be THEN that some kind of actions can be taken to curb excesses or at least educate them as to why a different kind of game is intended here.

Those hundreds of players cannot build or conquer their own settlement while the tower wars are on. All settlements will be owned by groups with at least some forum activity. All new players wanting to join a settlement in this period can be educated by the respective settlement leaderships about acceptable and undesirable behaviour.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
Kadere wrote:

Co-operation at an entire community scale is infeasible.

Cooperation at the community scale is what a community IS.

It's not even about the whole community, it's about only 33 settlement leaderships only the handful of settlements who are actually in a position to dominate their neighbours early on.

(politically totally uncorrect comparison: it's like the european great powers in 1600-1700s competing for colonies overseas instead of trying to conquer others homelands).

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

the gist of Proxima's post is:

-capturing Beta/Gamma/Omega towers is playing the tower war. Your motivation is interpreted as simply seeking legitimate benefit for yourself.
-capturing Alpha towers is/feels personal. Your motivation is interpreted as aiming to inflict harm on that specific group.

Hamstringing a smaller settlement simply because they have fewer EE members online than you is ...ungentlemanly. Doing so when there are Beta towers ripe for plucking is a clear sign that you don't care and respect them enough to make even a small sacrifice. Doing it when you already have enough towers for all your training needs is a neutral-lose scenario which seems motivated by the joy of making others suffer (aka sadism).

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Gilthy wrote:
...the colour palette of mainly browns and greys got boring after a while...

I agree with you on that point; realism isn't always entertaining. You made me realise I'd not thought about PFO needing an extensive palette of earth-and-vegetation tones, in a variety of patterns, to deal with PFO's hide-in-a-wallow-or-over-there-in-that-shrubbery stealth system.

Nothing says we can't dress like WOW in town, but I can imagine Crowdforging will run the camouflage-stuff up the desired-ladder pretty fast.

Forces of Brightness vs Earthtone Coalition...

(Btw getting money to dye my clothing in cleaner colours was my main driver for farming in Fallen Earth. Only plebs went around in default dirty grey and brown).

oops.. I seem to be completely off topic. /blame the other guys (or Cosmo).

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Brutus Bellator wrote:


Daaang!
I want a War of the Taverns so badly now!

..and that's how threads turn into tavern brawls.

marketing PFO as a Tavern Defense MMO might be better than Tower Defense MMO though.

Goblin Squad Member

Bard: rogue+wizard+fighter+aristocrat? If you make 'inspire courage' and similar into Aristocrat skills, Bard becomes lower priority. If not, Bard is top priority for me. But really I want a support role, not necessarily the lute-playing bard. Making it into essentially a prestige class is fine by me, as long as it can actually be played as a single jack-of-all class instead of changing gear and roles back and forth.

Barbarian: what exactly will be the defining difference between fighter and barb? Adding Rage almost seems to be enough. There's a whole lot of smart balancing needed but seemingly very little new mechanics or art needed to start it off.

Sorcerer: similar question, what is the defining difference between sorc and wiz? Assuming tabletop differences of spells known and spells/day are irrelevant, I end up with bloodlines more or less as variant specialist schools (some possibly requiring specific art). I could easily see sorcerer being implemented 'softly' as more and more sorcerer skills entering the arcane skill tree as the art becomes ready.

Paladin: in PFO, i'd love to have stereotypical knights in shining armor (and iomedae holy symbols?) around. But they could easily start as fighter/clerics farming faction points with the church. Smiting evil should be a fairly simple thing to implement in the cleric tree. Maybe make some domains more paladin-friendly by having str-based requirement rather than wisdom. Mounts... well, I think palas should be willing to live without combat mounts until mounted combat is implemented (if ever)

Goblin Squad Member

re: teleport/word of recall and sieges.

[spontaneous random idea]
How about implementing a 'dimensional barrier' type spell? (which should be considered an act of war to cast). When you besiege a settlement your mages cast a spell preventing teleportation into (and out of) the area. Defenders cannot port their foreign legion home until they manage to kill the casting mages or dispel the spell. Not sure if it should affect respawn, but it would take care of 'insta-defenders' part of the teleportation problem.

Goblin Squad Member

Cal B wrote:


Any "nice" settlement that uses their forces to help others instead of accumulating towers will also be putting themselves at a starting disadvantage.

Only if you think extra buildings are worth more than extra allies. This game is more about player interaction than number crunching.

Is the dark side stronger?
master Yoda wrote:
No, no, no! Quicker, easier, more seductive.

[disclaimer: purely personal opinion, not discussed anywhere yet]:

Since every settlement will focus on only 2 of 5+ classes, I would very much prefer two allied settlements with different training. Also in the OE game, having good allies and trading partners may be more important than a short head start on settlement upgrading.

also, once pvp windows of the largest groups go past 10 hours or so, then we can always form Aussie or EU based partisan groups to steal land while you sleep/work (and we'll obviously not ally with a settlement so we can set the 1hr pvp window to our lunchbreak). I don't think anyone is interested in having 2-3 megaguilds control most of the map.


Electric Wizard wrote:


I'm putting this "1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12" in the same category as Global Warming.

as in: "it's not a solution, just a label we assign to help us understand and deal with a divergent system" ?

deep! very deep!


Scott Betts wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
Watch it and you realize nobody can understand what they are saying.

Except mathematicians.

hey! Don't forget theoretical physicists!

Ramanujan summation is not about adding numbers. It's about evaluating what I think of as 'different grades of infinity', so you can do further calculations using the Ramanujan sums instead of hauling around the divergent expressions.

Kinda like Feynman diagrams: you hide all the scary maths (the kind that is scary even for theroetical physicists) behind a deceptively simple interface so you can get on with solving the actual physics problem.

Goblin Squad Member

so.. you already implemented siege system on the first day of alpha? Wow, that's even faster than I hoped.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mounts, roads, move buffs: yes!!
Teleport: only is costs/limitations match the benefits (for settlements, not just privates).

The point against is that meeting RL friends in-game becomes cumbersome. But since this isn't a theme park there is no driving force for players to change regions as they level up, so once you get those friends down to Brighth your settlement, there's little reason why they shouldn't use that as home base too. (And if best friends just have to play pala and necro, well, I'm sure you can find a nice workaround if you look.

Pirates of the Burning Sea (disclaimer: last played 5 years ago) had no teleport and crossing the map was maybe a 15 minute affair. Add in (player and npc) pirates, 3-way faction warfare and sieges (ports changing allegiance) and the economy became interesting - and not unlike what i expect PFO to be. I could make money hauling cheap bulk goods across the map (at least when the pvp fleets were elsewhere), or I could make piles of money from outfitting warships just before (or after) a critical port battle. Fast (or even safe) travels would have completely ruined that game, and I think PFO might be similar.
Hearing the Devs input here gives cause for continued optimism.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
randomwalker wrote:

..Just because you can't spell doesn't make it a separate language.

Said the guys who got the "Imperial Measurement System" going. We kicked you Europeans out of our country twice, we can do it again!

sorry to further derail by feeding the Kobold, but I'm fond of it

Cleaver, I'm only a (part time) end user of the English language, not representing the inventors or assignees. My concern for the quality of processed language products is purely selfish and not to be confused with national pride.

National pride though compels me to say that mentioning the silly Imperial systems was a thoughless move of you, as I happen to live in the first country to officially adopt metric.

..

Maybe that would make better factions in the game than alignment? metric vs imperial?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
This topic is so hot, even the colors can start fires.
Colours.

*Slap*

We are in the New World now, so please, for god's sake, speak! AMERICAN!

I'm with Caldeathe on this one. Just because you can't spell doesn't make it a separate language.

In other european news, how about we just rename the "doubly red" Roseblood to "Red Pact" and use a hammer and sickle to symbolize our extension from mountains to croplands (and maybe toss in a star to make TSV astrologers happy)? That should clear up any colour issue.


Ready to head out. Foxglove is wearing her "standard adventuring outfit", now also including the new bow and 12 arrows. While getting ready, she seems to be rehearsing movements for drawing the bow (and an arrow) quickly. Saddlebags and sacks are restocked with rations and feed, and waterskins are refilled. In short, she is ready and impatient to be on the road again.

If the rest of the party want a slower pace, Harad and Foxglove (and Cat?) can take turns scouting a short way ahead while Alk and Dezi lead the horse and Carrot.

Goblin Squad Member

'Fief' implies feudalism, which is maybe not so far a stretch for settlement-owned land, but just strikes me as the wrong term for land held by an independent company.

'Holding' implies You have what you Hold. Though Urman is right the term might be too wide (ie a settlement is also holding).

Kobold Cleaver: maybe you could run a UI script that changes every other company/settlement insignia to a bullseye (which would have an added bonus if we are allowed to make guild-tabards...). I'd prefer shrines, mines, farms and forts to have slightly different representations on my own map, but ownership insignia would also work.

Goblin Squad Member

"holding".
The key attribute of a PoI is that it can be owned and conquered.

Plus, I like the literal meaning of "holding company"

Goblin Squad Member

MordecaiManes wrote:

Only every 3rd Friday.

The person below me has won an epic staring contest with a parrot.

don't call my wife a parrot! And it was only once before we wowed never ever to do any kind of 'stubbornness test' again.

The person below me can speak 3 languages

EDIT: We interrupt this game to welcome all new Brighthaven settlers (TEO or otherwise) and invite everyone else to join. Ok, proceed...


Isn't it more interesting to discuss this in the context of, say, desert roads? Or anywhere else with lots of sun and minimal snow.

(The whole heating add-on is not a major design function, just a very low-hanging fruit since the module is already full of power lines. It is mostly irrelevant for the environmental discussion: any large scale implementation would start in the most suited areas - unless maybe for political reasons).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Smarnil actually knows what he's talking about. Gas stations wouldn't be crowded when you no longer need them. If you are on a long-distance road trip, you'll want to find a diner or mall with a power outlet, though, until fast-charging infrastructure becomes more common).

In Norway (my country), plug-in cars now are more than 10% of total new car sales, and growing faster than ever. Interestingly, the growth is largest in the 'oil cities', though maybe that is the Tesla being a status symbol (and politically correct too).
The first fully electric ferry is also starting up this year, since charging tech now has reached the point where it can be charged wirelessly (induction) during loading/unloading.

To the original topic: Tesla granting free patent use is a very good thing that suggests Tesla is concerned with competing against fossil cars, not against other electric cars. Getting more total plug-in cars on the road drives infrastructure and attitude changes which ultimately will help Tesla. And hopefully the environment.

Goblin Squad Member

The issue here is that settlements run by players with limited/irregular playtime are easily overrun if most players are offline (which can easily be the case also during the pvp window).

The pvp window is there already to adress this: more npc protection in exchange for limitations. Extending the lower limit slightly should not be a huge practical or philosophical problem as long as the limitations are appropriate. The settlement can still be conquered, you just need to kill npc guards instead of the absent players.

There could potentially be some mechanism for defining a tiny settlement or PoI as a satelite of a npc settlement, paying heavy DI tribute in exchange for some npc protection. Above a certain size (2-3 hexes?),

A variant extension could also be to have pvp window remain closed or only half-open if less than a certain number of members are logged on.

I doubt GW want the map to be too static, but they may well want sieges to be meaningful and non-trivial even against a much smaller settlement.

1 to 50 of 748 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.