|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
stealth to hide your icon from the minimap,
Bluff would be countered by sense motive though, so that it would be a huge risk to try to bluff your way through any large group...
As for when the chaos of melee erupts: I will probably regret this, but so far I like the idea of no names unless you target them. If you want to identify your team, color coordinate. If the foes don same color to confuse you, that's a legit tactic - you can still use the minimap or target them and read their name.
Company tag. Yes I absolutely like that too, but adding a "right click to see all my (public) company tags and titles"-function would cover all noncombat needs without removing fog-of-war and subterfuge aspects.
There should eventually be a map showing who lives in the monster home hexes (the ones with a lion icon on the map). But someone has to get around to making it first. Expect most settlements to know their ownneighbourhood monsters but not what lives 12 hexes away.
Nightdrifter's calculators are teh best. For best value, you should have some kind of plan first and use the calculator to check prerequisites and costs. The list of available feats at any given time is huge.
Of course, the trainers in-game give you a list of available and unavailable feats that they can train. I find that the unavailable feats tab is great for planning the next step.
hmm... would it be a good idea to make a graphical "tech tree"? Sort feats by type, achievements and stats... any volunteers?
Not exactly what you ask for, but there is certainly a point where the same population would be (economically) better off by founding (or capturing) a second settlement and having twice as many building slots.
Also, the costs of building upgrades may scale exponentially, but that may favour big settlement populations more than small ones.
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
Well, I disagree. i certainly do not see the ability for a fighter to tank as contradicting the ability to dps melee or ranged. Nor the ability to use one weapon as contradicting the ability to use others. I don't quite see why you rate Archer as particularly useless when longbows was one of his two main weapons. (well, except that he didnt use any armors at all).
Do you see the game currently as having 12 separate classes? Do you plan to just use a single weapon and armor type for all your time in the game and see versatility as useless?
The point Ryan proves is that is you make a well-rounded character (similar to tabletop classes), then you don't need to spend xp on cross-class or crafting skills.
To me, the beauty of the current system is that it doesn't allow you to get ahead by narrowly specializing (and ignoring a big part of your role), yet allows to to meet the gating criteria with whatever combination you want. (I would not describe it as fully classless, but more like having 'fluid' classes instead or rigid ones).
The 'default' for rogues would be to get their wisdom from library skills, but they can replace some of that with scavenging or cleric feats.
This! (as was first pointed out before Nightdrifter made his first graph).
T1 attack vs 50 is more likely to miss by a low margin, but occasionally exceeds by a large amount. This is good for T1 vs T3, but unless crits have meaningful effects it slightly favours the defender in T1 vs T1
T2 attack vs 100 (well, 100.5) is symmetric, but compared to a straight d200 is less likely to have extreme high or low numbers.
T3 attack vs 150 is the reverse of T1: more likely to exceed but will occasionally fumble badly.
1) IMO it would make more sense to:
Monte carlo is just one way of doing it. I'd probably prefer the brute force in this case - anyway you already have the probabilities, so moot point.
2) Never overestimate the audience (except when posturing at conferences). Imagine we are all journalists and politicians.
FMS Quietus wrote:
Your prize is (rolls d20)...a frag grenade. Since you are not authorized to remove the pin, that has already been done for you. Have a nice day!
(it was actually one of the first rpgs i played. The GM never explained any rules, just told me stuff like "melee is kinda weak so i'll give you a nuclear warhead grenade too. That's probably the highest damage personal weapon in the whole game". Good, crazy times!)
TEO Cheatle wrote:
I doubt anything in the world could hold 15877 galleons laden with coffee, if only because there were not that many galleons in the 17th century!
Assuming you meant US gallons, that seems to be about 60m^3 cargo hold and 60 tons of espresso only.
A Galleon like the Padre Eterno was 53m long with a displacement weight of 2000 tons. Ok, so that is the biggest one ever and maybe not your "average galleon". But I still think any serious coffe maniac would chuck out the cannons, water, and food to make room for much more than 60m^3 of espresso!
The ceffeine/espresso ratio seems spot on for the americas, but a recent australian study on espresso caffeine shows that their espresso has lots more caffeine than US espresso. Taking their average number of 2500mg/l would mean 1.5 tons of caffeine per 60m^3 cargo hold.
Next, let's consider a supertanker. Here we.. oh, oops, time to go home from work now.
Summary: I don't really see it as a problem, at least not in the next 1-2 years. But I tend to interpret 'crafting' as 'anything that involves T2 and T3 materials'.
-The argument potentially extends to 'free alts' working every building.
-'Real' crafters will have to spend xp. 'Free alts' (with say 1 day of xp each) can still crank out low-tier items, but so can any non-crafter who picks up lvl2 in a craft. Tier1 crafting has so low entry barriers that every player can (and should) dabble. No crafting alts needed.
-The value of a 2nd or 3rd crafting queue is great when you are making goods nobody else can (and takes days). It's not competitive against hordes of 'free alts', but doesn't have to be. The real money will be in T3 and T2 resources. To play the T2 game you need to pay more than a month of xp per character, for T3 lots more.
-"every serious guild will have 17 maxed alts". I suspect a lot of them will be mains, though some crafters may well want to invest a bit of xp in non-crafting alts (fighting, gathering and trading across the world while the main minds the store at home) and should not be punished for that.
Crafters 2nd class? If a high-level dedicated crafter and a high-level dedicated pvp'er want to leave the game after 12 months, which account do you think the guild would consider buying out?
Posting and settlements aside, Kadere is a hot beefcake. Those dreamy eyes, that smile that gives butterflies in my stomach - and beyond. The shirt is a little scruffy, so there's another reason to take it off, hmm?
Wait, what do you mean judged by the collective... umm.. gotta go!
My main takes no reponsibility for what this alt does in her spare time. Also, I already have an invite.
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.