|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ryan Dancey wrote:
But... that only works if the company actually listens to the players, and everybody knows tha... oh, right. This is Goblinworks - talking to them is actually very likely to work.
To paraphrase (with great artistic liberty): We don't believe this will be an actual problem. If so happens, we'll deal with it.
I have vague memories (or not given my age), but Nihimon for the actual reference! Or sometimes KC.
I find the problem isn't so much remembering stuff that was stated by devs, as forgetting all that was speculated by forumites and avoiding mixing them up.
so.. why did Buurz marry that fish again?
Black Silver of The Veiled, T7V wrote:
ugh... someone in Alpha has already started 'Griefing' activity. Shame on you. Hope you get it out of your system before EE starts if not, I hope the 'Ban Hammer' hits you repeatedly.
From a different angle: GW prioritized these changes to the game in this extremely hectic period because of one single griefer.
Whether the griefing was an "experiment" or not, the response from GW is encouraging.
Democracy doesn't have to be absolute democracy nor direct democracy. Bascially (according to Popper and myself) it simply means that leadership is accountable to the people and can be controlled/replaced by them without needing to change the system (as opposed to a dictatorship/tyranny, where revolution is needed).
Democracy by representation is good enough for reality, and the government/administration/board/council can be fully accountable without everyone meddling in day-to-day affairs.
One feasible way of organizing a functional 'democracy' is by means of electing representatives for various committes and/or a centralized government. In practice, settlements and guilds will be divided into subgroups anyway which make logical units.
Mechanically, it is not possible to enforce unless GW give mechanisms that allow transfer of power (formal guild/settlement leadership) without the consent of the current holder. This was previously discussed in the context of settlement leaders going AWOL and crippling the settlement, so I'm sure there have been some thinking around the issue. On the other hand, if you need to enforce democracy it isn't a very good democracy in the first place.
My best solution: find a leader you trust, and talk to him/her as needed. (If large organization: make a hierarcy of such leaders).
remember: Government is evil, business is evil, military conquest is evil and money is the root of all evil.
..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".
Why not just put a hit% penalty for moving/running? Let people choose Miss-and-run tactics if they want.
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.
It's not even about the whole community, it's about
(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).
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.
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).
Mounts, roads, move buffs: yes!!
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
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.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.
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).
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.
...but have absolutely no time to play a sandbox MMO competitively within a company/settlement.
but you don't have to!
Think of it this way: you will want to live somewhere, and there will be a lot of settlements (so far: all of them) that want you to choose them. Many will not require a single thing in return except maintaining a minimum reputation (they still benefit if you work in a building, trade in the market, do stuff that generates influence, etc), most will expect you to help defend your home when you are online, some will demand more.
The clear indication from GW is that filling up your settlement (and army) with basically anyone you can get, will be a good strategy. Much like a tug-of-war with no limit on team size. So expect to stay in demand unless you are known to be a bad egg. Even if your settlement is burned down, there will surely be other settlements welcoming the refugees with open arms (especially characters who have clocked xp since the beggining).
Bottom line: don't expect to not be able to 'play the game' or not be in demand because you have a life (lots of us do!) The game is still for you.
Simple forum rules that I occasionally adhere to. (Also possibly applicable in politics).
- A bad idea is a bad idea because of reasons, not because of who presents them. A good idea is a good idea because of reasons, not because of who presents them.
- People want different things. What is a good idea to me may be a bad idea to you, even if we agree on what the consequences will be.
- presenting ideas you think are bad does not imply that posters are evil, trying to undermine the community or 'ruining' the game we are all so excited about.
I suspect in reality, what matters after a year is "Us vs Them", not nominal alignment. Two LG settlement could easily wage war for control of an important PoI, or a CN settlement could ally with a LN one.
However, there is a very interesting element of self-selection: Would you rather be on the side of those saying "screw alignment, it's meaningless, let's just game the system and build the best settlement" or those saying "we want to be labeled as a shining beacon(*) of good, even if we have to jump some extra hoops".
(*) beacon, not bacon. Shining bacon of goodness is something else.
I disagree with your assumptions here, and would expect a higher (50-70+)% turnout.The turnout rate among voters who are actually members of a party are significantly higher, I would guess 90%+. IMO this should suggest that the LR2 voting rate for anyone associated with a guild should be quite high. And there is a clear incentive for guilds to recruit very actively during the LR2 period.
There are also other mechanisms that suggests higher turnout rates than in political elections: small constituency, internet voting, issue that directly affects voters/voting for yourself, and tangible benefit in moving up the ranks whether you are near top or bottom. I also think it increases last-minute turnouts that you can see (roughly) how many votes are needed to make a difference in the next count.
Finally, I predict that there are a lot of KS backers who will turn their attention back to the game once EE date in announced, so that I expect a push in the last few weeks.
EDIT: in other words, pretty much what Snorter said above
EDIT2: the Belgium thingie: well, they have both compulsory voting and the EU HQ.
I see a niche market here for 'training camp settlements':
Upon reaching the steps to T3, Paladins leave their settlements for a few months and travel to the mountain monastery of Petraathen to be initiated in the secrets of the order. Rogues and bards similarly slip away to the big city, clerics go on pilgrimages and wizards apply for a scholarship at Phaeros University. After a few months they return, smug and full of new secrets.
I'm sure we could see someone trying to run a chaotic mercenary settlement (Tortuga!) renting out training (and membership if needed) for barbarians and bandits.
Lee Hammock wrote:
So... Is my understanding correct that
1) every (active and growing) settlement will need a steady supply of bulk goods from all terrains
trade and logistics seems to be important. That's good news for traders. And bandits. And guards. And...
The only remaining question is whether a single water hex in the mountains can supply a quarter of the map with seafood (ie if a single hex of each type is enough to run a kingdom).
You don't have the right to arm bears?
EDIT: we are talking bearded axes here, no?
A high-pitched scream comes from somewhere on the 2nd floor. It is unclear if it is of terror, pain or pleasure.
Could it be connected to the comatosis epidemic? Is it the handler of goblin cutpurses discovering his loss? Is it a fan of Jordon? A would-be assassin who accidentally poisoned herself? Has the growing number of dark corners collapsed the geometry of space and shifted the tavern to the nine hells? Has Grickin, unnoticed, snuck upstairs to try to charm a lady? Or is it just a random scream for ambience (or foreshadowing)?
In any case, the barkeep doesn't even raise an eyebrow at the sound.
the quick reference there is particularly useful IMO.
For the PFO, at least for early days, we should expect one deity per alignment. This suggests that alignment (and not domains) is the main characteristic for PFO religions. It also suggests that there will be artwork (buildings, clothing) for each religion in non-trivial amounts.
The list of "starting deities" hasn't been discussed (?) in a long time, and presumably a sufficient documented interest for a particular deity might influence the list. Iomedae, Gorum and Asmodeus are pretty obvious as the game will be much about territory warfare. Norgober (assassins) is also near certain. Gozreh is likely to push out Nethys (and Pharasma). Irori vs Adabar, Saerenrae vs Shelyn and Desna vs Cayden are less obvious.
From a mechanics/coding point of view, the simplest way to deal with religious doctrine may be to code it as faction standing.
Ie. if you join a religious (or any other) faction, you get a standing. Doing 'good stuff' increases it, while 'bad stuff' decreases it.
For example the church of Adabar may reward you for making money and building settlements, but punish you for criminal acts. The church of Gorum may reward you for winning feuds and wars, but your standing may decay with time forcing you to seek battle regularly.
The nice thing about such a system is that each faction can have different rules, factions are easily added and rules/rewards can easily be tuned.
(Though I dread the thought of ads like "crusade month: in all of april, slaying evil escalation bosses will earn double Iomedae influence")
Pretty much all the info I have ultimately comes from Stephen Cheney (a dev) in some way, so only fair he gets credit!
That's a very well formulated disclaimer!
Nightdrifter's conclusions are obviously only as good as his information (ie assumptions and hard data), and are strictly limited to the cases he models. However the underlying methods appear very sound (robust, even) and can easily accommodate new assumptions and data.
However (over)interpreting his data should be done with a bit of caution as there are plenty of explicit and implicit assumptions that affect the answers, the corner cases are often far apart, and it is not always clear if we are discussing potential outcomes, likely outcomes, the validity of model or assumptions, etc. etc.
The "10 v 1" discussion is a prime example here. If you ask Nightdrifter "in a duel, would you rather have higher tier equipment or a friend to help you?", you may get a different picture than with the current default question which is "will normally a T3 fighter beat two T2 fighters if they stand still and autoattack each other?"
The OP main argument seems to be "because i'm stupid and violent, you should expect me to behave bad and therefore it's not evil".
sorry, but no.
He was maybe brought up in a CE society and never learned right from wrong, but that doesn't make him 'neutral'. It does however mean that he doesn't care what the last letter of his alignment is. The only problem I see here is that the player for some reason doesn't want the character to be characterized as evil, and launches this discussion to absolve himself and blame the DM.
For the record, killing evil soldiers from an evil empire attacking innocents is evil. Arguably less evil than allowing them to continue, and the morally right to do. Saving the innocents is good, killing the attackers is evil, and the good act outweighs the evil one in this example - but it is still evil.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
...And we love square roots over here, so they're pretty sharply curved.
The nice thing about square roots is that once you start thinking of them as exponents, it becomes easy to fine-tune them.
ie. if [x^(0.5)] is just a little bit too steep, try [x^(0.45)]
The general mechanics sound fair: in TT the crit confirmation chance = hit chance, but you only crit on the very highest attack rolls, so linking it to margin of success is good.
QUESTION: Will there be rogue talents allowing inflicting 'injury damage' on sneak attacks? What about assassins?
...The idea that our immortality could come with a karmic learning block...
Basically you are sacrificing to the creators of the world in order to improve your fate. Proper sacrifice will let you live long and prosper, but vile transgressions will earn smiting by the banhammer.
The only disagreement we have is where the boundary between game and player lies.
I prefer to err on the 'silk glove' side as I regard all interaction between characters simultaneously as a meta-interaction between players. (In tabletop gaming this is very clear and the meta-game is always more important than the game, in MMO I still tend to regard it as the same - the objective is for the players to have fun, character achievements is just a tool to achieve that).
I suppose, though, that in reality I will treat newbs and strangers with silk gloves but assume that members of certain settlement are 'emotionally secure' enough to enjoy being sabotaged.
Bluffing in poker is not lying at all. It is making the statement "I wager this amount."
Bluffing in poker is done with the express intent to deceive and mislead others to your benefit. How is that conceptually different from lying? If your reply is to defining 'lie' as meaning strictly counter-factual statements, then you should possibly consider a career in politics or law.EDIT: or marketing...
now, I understand why Geb, Nex, Alkenstar, Numeria, Mammoth Lords, Medioganti etc. etc. are not on that list.
but.. Brevoy or Nirmathas please?
What would people think if, when you hit the door to go into a shop, if your mount was put at a hitching post until you emerged?
Two simple mechanisms that could solve the issues:
1) prevent (tall) mounts to go through doors (or tight cave entrances, into deep water, up ladders, etc)
2) have stables give the mounts some sort of 'rested' buff (scaling with time stabled and quality of stables).
Indeed, you are not cynical but sarctastic.
'Coincidence' is strictly speaking a correct mathematical term, but this is not 'merely' coincidence but correlation. There are a lot of players who simply think low-rep behaviour should be a losing tactic in the long term. And we are willing to have asymmetric rules to make that happen.
Similarly, the people who think low-rep behaviour should be a viable/competitive playstyle have a similarly strong correlation in their arguments.
The simplest form of black market is simply evading settlement tax by trading privately just outside the trading hall.
Smuggling will de facto be in the game, but trying to avoid bandits rather than customs officials.
The idea of goods to sabotage settlements is nice, and should be considered when they get around to implementing espionage/sabotage.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
The wording seems inaccurate. I believe his intention is that you can legally take actions against trespassers that would be crimes if done against anyone else. Murder would still raise unrest, but killing trespassers would not be murder.
The very first one I pointed out that NRDS is perfectly viable without these mechanics.
This is what I still don't see. You point out that other groups intend to go NRDS and jump to the conclusion that it therefore must be viable. Arguing that you can play NRDS regardless of mechanics is trivial, you may as well claim that pacifism is a viable choice.
Andius' implicit argumentation is that NBSI (in an isolated perspective) has intrinsic security benefit and every (rational) settlement would go NBSI unless NRDS offers rewards to balance the risks.
Another unspoken assumption is that NBSI/NRDS should be balanced because it would make the game more interesting for a wider range of players than an all-NBSI world. If meaningful interaction is the goal, making it rational to kill strangers by default seems like the poor game design.
Your argument comes across to me as wanting minimal rewards for NRDS because you already made your choice to play NBSI.
Yeah, what party would put the squishies first in the marching order and the tank last?
Wow. Our vision of hideouts certainly differ.
Then there were discussion whether hideouts should have inventory, which opened the possibility of hidden equipment caches. I still assumed these would be hidden and anonymous, so that anyone stumbling over a hidden cache could simply loot it. (The owner should have some right to defend it, but that's a different discussion).
Now people seem to be discussing upgradable secret underground complexes. Did I miss some dev information on this, or is it just speculation?
I just don't think hideouts should be the new player housing!
Magically influenced weather obviously allows for all kinds of extreme conditions.
(I would not love to see santa as the final boss of the winter escalation cycle, though).
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
Agree with this statement. While I tend not to agree with those views (at least not initially), it certainly does me good to try to understand them.
Short story: You've severely increased my expectation of being ganked, but somehow decreased my worry of being ganked.
The obvious first answer is that they want to have both CN and NE member.
On a separate note, I chuckled at the idea of stealth-necromancers sneaking into NG territory and raising dead to cause unrest. (There should have been a pun here about un-restless dead, but it fizzled).
...And while I believe chair sitting would be more favorable to my gameplay than darkland adventures or kenku characters (though less important than adding the additional core races)...
That makes two of us. Though sitting around a bonfire would rank much higher than in a chair for me.
The thing about writing is all about putting your persistent mark on the world. Not everyone expects to build a settlement or be infamous on the server, but many want to contribute to the story of PFO and put their persistent mark on -something-. Doing that on blogs and forums isn't quite the same.
Social/custom clothing, biographies and furnished homes is about feeling unique. Slightly different motivation, and I feel more in line with Ryan's comment about themepark starving us of everything else.
The thing about pointless waste of time is that the whole game could be seen as such (certainly by my mother) - unless there is meaningful interaction. For social players, having a good talk with someone is a lot more memorable and meaningful than killing or being killed. In every MMO i've played, the mechanics and setting is what gets me in, but the people are what holds me. Although this is not the adrenaline-pumping interaction GW strives for, mechanics that promote social interactions must surely be a good thing for community building?
Also, guard and sentry duty -will- often be boring and tools to help pass the time would be great. (And stealthers would use the emote density as an indication of how distracted the guards are)
Tork Shaw wrote:
The reminder/re-clarification on cantrips was also appreciated. You've persuaded me fighter won't feel like re-skinned wizard and that fighter/wizard will feel different from both of them.