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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Looting, and Salvaging, Intelligent and Yes, size should matter.


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

Yeah, I read the policy as "You respawn in a condition where you can immediately play, but not always just as effectively."

If there are shield-based builds, then they need to respawn with their shield. I certainly see a case for someone's 'main hand weapon' BEING a shield, and only the 'main hand weapon' being conserved, but that makes any two-weapon-based build crippled.

And by 'crippled', I mean "If I respawn at a significant disadvantage compared to other characters.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Your character will re-enter play at the soulbinding point holding and wearing whatever gear they had equipped when they died...
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, boots, potions, scrolls, wondrous items, etc... None of that is armor and you don't have those things in your hand when you die.

It really bothered me that you said this was "No change". I'm sorry if I offended you, but I don't think I did anything wrong by asking you to clarify this. A lot of people would consider everything in that list "equipped gear". It's clear now that only a subset of our "equipped gear" will stay with us on death. Seeing that, I thought it would be valuable to point it out clearly so that other people who might have had the wrong impression could clear that up as well.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon: I think you're right about the ambiguity. I think maybe it's a case of soulbinding preserving operative phrase "the bare essentials" Interesting to see head/feet don't make the grade above^! But 2 hands, legs and trunk are "in"?

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:


Ryan: I do have one added question off that line of reasoning. I really like the idea of the consumable portions for weapons, assuming I am even interpreting it correctly. I do have to ask in that line, is armor also going to work similarly?

Too soon to say anything with certainty but I think it likely.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the end, the place where the game design has to balance is between making death meaningful and making it so painful that too many people quit in frustration when they die.

EVE moderates this problem a bit with ship insurance, but that works because a HUGE portion of what you invest in when you leave port is your ship. Insuring the hull allows you to recoup a good bit of that investment if the ship is destroyed.

In a fantasy game there's nothing that really approximates the relative value of a ship hull in EVE. We could use armor but then we'd have to come up with all sorts of equally expensive armor-slot stuff for everyone to wear. In EVE, you fly a ship to mine, you fly a ship to explore, you fly a ship to transport, and you fly a ship to fight. So everyone is flying a hull and those hulls get more expensive as you advance your pilot in skills.

In a fantasy game that strikes me as being too much arbitrary manipulation of the world for the sake of a game mechanic. People who fight spend a lot of money on arms and armor and they need some protection against loss so when they round-trip through the grave they're not crippled. But people who cast spells could conceivably operate with little more than a robe and some slippers, relying almost entirely on their own spellcasting for protection and potency.

Likewise there could be characters that rely on a vehicle and some pack animals as their primary means of functioning and their garments would be meaningless. Or characters that focus on tools for things like tracking, orienteering, lock opening, trap removal, etc. The contents of their pockets are really what makes them function not what those pockets are sewn too.

The system we've described is basically designed to address the easiest PR problem with regard to widespread PvP: I hate getting killed and not being able to get back to my friends / recover my possessions.

Beyond that it's very much an area that requires extensive development and community input.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Beyond that it's very much an area that requires extensive development and community input.

I really like the idea, and I have a lot of confidence that you'll find the right balance. I haven't yet been disappointed with any of your plans in this regard.

If the problem really is PvP-centric, then it's probably right to focus on preserving the gear that you need in order to fight. I can easily see merchant-players being completely understanding of losing everything - as long as they have an insurance contract.

If you foresee the problem in other areas of play as well, it gets a lot trickier. The easy (at first glance) answer would be to allow the players to choose which items they want to return with. But that opens up a can of worms when you start placing arbitrary limits on how many items, which slots, etc. can be preserved.

Lantern Lodge

Nihimon wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Your character will re-enter play at the soulbinding point holding and wearing whatever gear they had equipped when they died...
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, boots, potions, scrolls, wondrous items, etc... None of that is armor and you don't have those things in your hand when you die.
It really bothered me that you said this was "No change". I'm sorry if I offended you, but I don't think I did anything wrong by asking you to clarify this. A lot of people would consider everything in that list "equipped gear". It's clear now that only a subset of our "equipped gear" will stay with us on death. Seeing that, I thought it would be valuable to point it out clearly so that other people who might have had the wrong impression could clear that up as well.

I agree with Nihimon on this, a cloak might not be armor but if I am wearing it or gaining a benefit from it (such as a ioun stone) then it is equipped.

Therefore if only armor and whatever is in hand is kept then it's not "whatever gear they had equipped" because there is more to equip then just armor and weapons.

--------
As for losing things from your corpse I like the concept, but I don't like your implementation of it.

You already have durability to remove things from gameplay, so why make everything lost on death? Yeah I need to go back to retrieve it but of all the things on the body, everything should be lootable at some point even if not all at once.

If someone loots my body to get my bow (cause I switched to sword) then they should be able to at least grab my bow, and if I go kill them I should be able to get it back by looting it from their body. The whole "random thing gets looted and everything else goes poof" thing is what doesn't jive with me.

Get rid of that and allow for closer spawning to where you died and I wouldn't have a problem with respawning in underwear.

The idea is they get to select 1 item plus an amount of gp worth of stuff based on their search check. The next person gets the same thing from whatever is left. And when I get back to my body I get everything that wasn't taken.

Theoretically my buddies could take turns looting my body get most of the more desired things from my body so they can push forward instead of waiting around to guard my body while taking a long hike to get there. Then I loot what's left of my body and when I meet up with them they give me back what they could save.

Goblin Squad Member

Kard Warstein wrote:
The point of death is that it's crippling, I guess I don't see that as a down side.

The whole point of this discussion is that if death is crippling then it will be no fun to play, and the designers will have screwed the pooch.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What do you consider crippling though? The fact fact that you have to run somewhere to get back to group? The fact that you need to get stuff again?

I am sorry but I don't think the game should be see death as a common enough thing to believe that you should reduce the penalties.

Stick with the old style neg levels or con decrease.

I know it's an mmo but still if all I lose is resources and/or time from being dead, then I don't feel like I got crippled.

Of course I would never ever play a game of optimizing my character raid style either, so that may bias me a bit.

Goblin Squad Member

DarkLightHitomi wrote:


I am sorry but I don't think the game should be see death as a common enough thing to believe that you should reduce the penalties.

Look, this is Y2K+12. You'll die constantly. It's just how the genre has evolved.

Lantern Lodge

Guess I'll have to break the genre then, or make a new one.

edit with awesome only halfway sarcastic comment,
Oh! I know I can make a game so diffcult at high levels that merely reaching level 20 would make you a hall of famer! Low levels would still have to be fun enough to enjoy playing though, Hmm "Spike, get me my clipboard"

The challenge! just think of the challenge, no true gamer could resist.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm happy with the decisions made in relation to player death in relation to respawning with 'armour' and an equiped weapon. My only real major concern regarding this systems is in relation to how this can be easily used to 'grief' someone.

If my character gets killed by another PC, there is very little chance of returning to the husk and retreiving my gear. Most likely what will happen is the player who killed my PC will loot the husk straight away, either out of malice or greed. Either way by the time my PC makes the return trip he will have lots everything.

I doubt there will be many situations where a player who was keen enough to kill my PC will hesitate to loot my husk. The death rule works fine against PvE encounters, its PvP encounters that it quickly falls down, as there is little to no chance of recovering my characters inventory.

Obviously I can mitigate the risks by only carry what I can afford to lose and to always go in a group. I guess I'll have to wait and see how this system actually works in-game.

As I've already stated I'm not conplaining about the system as I thinks its a good compromise to some of the systems I've played under, just airing a concern for its in-game application.

Why were on the subject of salvage. I think that instead of all storage items being destroyed when a hide-out/building/settlement is razed, it would be fairer for the attacks to be able to partially recover some of the stored items (obviously gold will remain untouched), so there is some reward/payoff for managing to destroy these kinds of structures.

Lantern Lodge

+1 that, not everything would survive but a lot would.

Edit +1ing the last paragraph specifically, not that the other isn't good though.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How about allowing the player to 'lock in' a certain number of items that are deemed too valuable to lose. At low levels you get only 2 or 3 locks, but as you level up you can gain more locks. This way each player can determine what is important for them and it is balanced for all classes/occupations.

Goblin Squad Member

Ravening wrote:


If my character gets killed by another PC, there is very little chance of returning to the husk and retreiving my gear.

Lots of bad assumptions here.

This is not a game where you want to be playing solo especially in a PvP encounter. You should have a group of buddies nearby to kill your killers. Depending on the situation, the battle could be raging all around and nobody will have time to loot anything, so getting back to your husk is meaningful.

If you get ganked (killed by an opponent who knows he will also die due to the response of the NPC Marshals) you may not have to do anything but get back to your husk quickly to recover your stuff.

You may be facing PvE content, not PvP content. The monsters won't loot your body. So if you can fight your way to where you died and hold off whatever killed you (avoid, distract, etc.) you could recover your stuff.

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

D'Syndri wrote:
How about allowing the player to 'lock in' a certain number of items that are deemed too valuable to lose.

A great idea for an MTX purchase, I agree!

Goblin Squad Member

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
... why make everything lost on death?

It's important to be clear that you don't lose anything on death. You only lose stuff when someone loots your husk.

Ryan Dancey wrote:
D'Syndri wrote:
How about allowing the player to 'lock in' a certain number of items that are deemed too valuable to lose.
A great idea for an MTX purchase, I agree!

I agree too!

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:
D'Syndri wrote:
How about allowing the player to 'lock in' a certain number of items that are deemed too valuable to lose.
A great idea for an MTX purchase, I agree!

That's getting too close to pay-to-win for me to be cautiously optimistic about.

However, I would be optimistic about a similar idea of a MTX purchase of a 'skill book' which allowed someone to train a skill which allowed for that same effect. I'm not sure that distinguishing between the two is rational, but it's still how I feel.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
However, I would be optimistic about a similar idea of a MTX purchase of a 'skill book' which allowed someone to train a skill which allowed for that same effect.

One possible distinguishing characteristic of the skill would be guaranteed reuse. I could see the MTX potentially being a one-time use for a specific item, so that you would always keep that item on you when you were looted, but if you replaced that item you'd have to make another MTX purchase to preserve the next item.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
D'Syndri wrote:
How about allowing the player to 'lock in' a certain number of items that are deemed too valuable to lose.
A great idea for an MTX purchase, I agree!

That feels like too much for a micro-transaction. That would directly affect the powercurve and ingame wealth, and I really don't want to see PFO become segregated by those who have extra money to spend and those who don't. Vanities etc? Sure, knock yourself out. The ability to have a purple and pink settlement made out of sugar and the dreams of children? Why not. But when micro-transactions affect how strong your character is, I think the line has been crossed.

Spending gold as insurance on an item, where the item returns to you (or the gold value of the item is returned to you) upon death seems like a valid idea. Especially if the insurance on the item is time limited. For example, paying 20gp for the day so that if you die, your ring comes back with you when you die, and then the insurance is used up. You could have that be an NPC service (drains cash out of the economy, rates can be flexible to allow you to encourage or slow down adventuring as you see fit) or could even be turned over to players as agreements.


Ryan Dancey wrote:

Depending on the situation, the battle could be raging all around and nobody will have time to loot anything, so getting back to your husk is meaningful.

If you get ganked (killed by an opponent who knows he will also die due to the response of the NPC Marshals) you may not have to do anything but get back to your husk quickly to recover your stuff.

All of this is dependent then on how long it takes to loot a PC's body. The standard for MMOs is that this is very quick - near instant.

Also, if you are ganked by someone who knows he is going to get killed by marshalls, then wouldn't it be in his best interest to loot your body to grief you before they arrive, rather than trying to flee with little chance of success?

In fact, in a large scale battle, it would be a high priority to loot the corpses of your enemies so that they cannot return to the battle at full strength momentarily. I could see a battlefront where a group roams and pushes to kill/loot, systematically griefing the opposition into submission.

Edit: Just how fast and difficult to evade marshals are combined with how long it takes to loot really determines a lot of how this works out. Some examples: If the PKer doesn't have time to run, but has time to loot you, he is highly encouraged to grief. If the PKer has no time to run, and no time to loot, he is highly discouraged from killing. If the PKer has time to run and not time to loot, the kill/run scenario envisioned is most likely. If the PKer has time to loot and THEN run, PKing galore.

Clearly how much time a player has after PKing before marshals arrive is relative to distance from safety. My point is that if you're going to kill a character and then die, there's no reason not to grief if you've got time, even if the PC you killed gets back to the corpses before you do.

Edit again:

Ryan Dancey wrote:
A great idea for an MTX purchase, I agree!

-1. Spending dollars to buy power. Including griefing power (less so if it's "wears out after one death").

Lantern Lodge

Waffleyone wrote:

...

Also, if you are ganked by someone who knows he is going to get killed by marshalls, then wouldn't it be in his best interest to loot your body to grief you before they arrive, rather than trying to flee with little chance of success?
...

This is why I like my idea, if he takes something but the rest of my stuff is there then he gets killed by Marshels then I can loot what he took from me by looting his body and selecting what he took.

Thus I lose the time and nothing else, unless he has time to loot then take off, then I have lost only what he looted and time.

The big battle scenerio is another reason to go with my idea, the enemy can loot bodies to remove something but it takes more to drain me to nothing but my armor and also leads to various amounts of what's lost.

Also in both cases if they have to choose something to steal then that alone takes a moment, particularly when the best item is not always at the top of the list.

I would suggest that dieing may do damage to durability too. If you really want to speed up loss of eq.

Goblin Squad Member

I get you're point. Teamwork good solo bad :)

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Ravening wrote:

If you get ganked (killed by an opponent who knows he will also die due to the response of the NPC Marshals) you may not have to do anything but get back to your husk quickly to recover your stuff.

It would be great if that is how it worked. Saying that the Marshall would have to spawn almost instantly to prevent a PC from looting my husk. It would be cool if there was a timer (even if was only 30 seconds) on how soon a husk could be looted, to allow time for the AI scripts to kick in so a Marshal could be sent.

Naturally this only works if were near a NPC settlement, rather than a player settlement. That being said I'm happy to give GW the benefit of the doubt as to how these things will work in-game.

Regarding the insurrance on items, I guess I'd rather pay insurance on an item slot rather than a specific item, as the items will change quite a bit. Either way not a deal breaker for me.

Goblin Squad Member

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Waffleyone wrote:

...

Also, if you are ganked by someone who knows he is going to get killed by marshalls, then wouldn't it be in his best interest to loot your body to grief you before they arrive, rather than trying to flee with little chance of success?
...

This is why I like my idea, if he takes something but the rest of my stuff is there then he gets killed by Marshels then I can loot what he took from me by looting his body and selecting what he took.

Thus I lose the time and nothing else, unless he has time to loot then take off, then I have lost only what he looted and time.

The big battle scenerio is another reason to go with my idea, the enemy can loot bodies to remove something but it takes more to drain me to nothing but my armor and also leads to various amounts of what's lost.

Also in both cases if they have to choose something to steal then that alone takes a moment, particularly when the best item is not always at the top of the list.

I would suggest that dieing may do damage to durability too. If you really want to speed up loss of eq.

I too like the idea of looting the husk of my looter. Especially if I automatically get what was looted from me plus some random gear for the looter.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A permanent "never lose on death" thing would be crazy valuable and very close to an economic breaker.

A one-time charge that says an item goes into the grave with you and comes out the other side is far less economically significant.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that it should take much longer to loot a player body than a monster body.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
I think that it should take much longer to loot a player body than a monster body.

+1. Agreed

Goblin Squad Member

Quote:

No change. You'll keep your armor, and whatever you've got in hand at the moment you die.

RyanD

Can we assume a spell component pouch is considered "in hand"?

If a wizard dies what happens to his familiar? Respawns too or do you have to go through the process of getting a new one?

Sorry about getting off topic.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
@Shifty - Pathfinder Online will not make you happy, I'm sorry to report.

Neither will rooting for the Braves.

#gocardinals

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

A permanent "never lose on death" thing would be crazy valuable and very close to an economic breaker.

A one-time charge that says an item goes into the grave with you and comes out the other side is far less economically significant.

I suppose it could be tolerable, under one other condition, namely that there is also a very solid 1 at a time limit. I suppose it's just because I have seen too many good games go down the toilet due to a growing curve of MTX's

I've seen many games that follow this pattern
Year 1. MTX's are cosmetic
Year 1.5 MTX's are cosmetic, plus XP speed ups
Year 2. Cosmetics, greater XP boosts, Skill resets, Death protection items (items that remove death penalty)
Year 3. Cosmetics, Greater XP boosts, Skill resets, powerful pets, additional skills, Death XP loss removals, weapon improving gambling items, armor improving gambling items, special pet that heals and can co-exist with other pets.

the sad thing was I could tell the sales of the cosmetics were always insanely high. When a new $20 costume came out every month, it was pretty clear to see that no shortage of people were wearing them. In the end I know a pretty huge amount of people left as, roughly every 6 months, Eventually it got to the point where anyone spending less than 100 a month felt gimped, and most of them left, afterwards many of the high spenders started leaving because the game felt more empty.

I suppose what I'm trying to say, is just to be wary as you can of the slippery slope dangers. Adding in protection for a single slot, works fine, adding in say, items that can protect a single slot, but allowing someone to buy 1 for each slot they have items in = very dangerous. While I do agree a ritch person who wants to spend quite a bit can help cover the development costs caused by 10 freeloaders. They also can completely discourage some average spenders.

Goblin Squad Member

That really boils down to what's more important, the game or the profit. From everything I've seen so far, I think the Gobbo's got their spears pointed the right way.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

What I'm seeing with the MTX for protection from death looting is either a) few people ever use it because they can't afford $x every time they die, combined with people who become immune to the character-negative effects of death because they are willing to pay $x per death.

If anything, replace the item which was protected with a fraction of the Skymetal bits that the 'insurance' costs.

Then price the insurance and set the fraction such that people are usually happy to find that they just killed somebody with lots of insurance, rather than disappointed that they didn't get anything. If they player gets their own corpse back, they recover a fraction of their insurance expenses. I think that this would also stimulate the Skymetal-for-coin economy, by giving bits to players who probably don't have an immediate spending intention.

Goblin Squad Member

What about having the ability to insure items for in-game gold when you soul-bind and being able to do it as much as you want, but the cost increments exponentially.

Insuring one item is 'x' money
Insuring two items is 'x' squared
Insuring 3 items is 'x' to the fifth
4 items x to the 10th, etc. Have it leap up with HUGE price jumps.

People would be able to pick and choose whatever they want to insure, and those items will be magically transported upon your death to where your new body is generated by magical awesomeness.

This would completely invalidate the entire issue from what I can see, so I'm hopin' someone can educate me if I'm missin' somethin.

Goblin Squad Member

Making something (non-tivial) survive the trip to the grave has to have a real-world cost or it destoys the economy. Making that ability too cheap destoys the economy. Making it to expensive means it won't be used. Make it good but expensive and it becomes pay-to-win.

There's gong to be a lot of these kinds of issues to untangle over the long haul. It will be real interesting to do the untangling.

Goblin Squad Member

I want most players to feel that they are underachieving if they're not spending ~$15-20/mo. But I want people to not feel the game is pointless when spending less than that. And I don't want people spending more than that to be buying win.

This is another area where we're benefitting by being able to study the successes and failures of other games and not have to operate with a blindfold. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Makes sense to me, I know I plan on spending $10-15/mo to supplement the obscene amount of time I'm going to pour into this game, so having that as your 'target' works great for my situation :)

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I want most players to feel that they are underachieving if they're not spending ~$15-20/mo. But I want people to not feel the game is pointless when spending less than that. And I don't want people spending more than that to be buying win.

This is another area where we're benefitting by being able to study the successes and failures of other games and not have to operate with a blindfold. :)

Is that 15-20 including training time? If so, I like the price range. If not....youch.

Goblin Squad Member

If death has a cost (imo it definitely should), then the choice to run-away in various scenarios should be a useful and possible course of action under varying circumstances. That way the choice to go into combat can be a "double or quits" decision oft times. If there's enough time to back off and enough incentive to do so, it's sometimes a valuable choice.

Quote:
I want most players to feel that they are underachieving if they're not spending ~$15-20/mo. But I want people to not feel the game is pointless when spending less than that. And I don't want people spending more than that to be buying win.

As it should be!

Goblin Squad Member

I would think the running away part would entail encumbrance rules? Especially for armor types? This could give you the opportunity to drop your gear thus lightening your load in order to sprint away. Eventually you'll out run them unless they strip down too, at which point the odds are evened out quite a bit and your respective gear would be strewn around all over the place. Perhaps you tossed it into a hollow while running past to keep it out of sight till you could retrieve it.

A HUGE down side to this of course would be the ability to 'litter' around the entire game. Things would need a decay timer or something if on the ground before they vanished to keep down the clutter. Perhaps player buildings AOE would counteract the decay timer for all items within it, thus making outfitting your towns still doable with no problem.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:
I want most players to feel that they are underachieving if they're not spending ~$15-20/mo. But I want people to not feel the game is pointless when spending less than that. And I don't want people spending more than that to be buying win, or being perceived as buying win.

fixed that. Widespread perception of imbalance has all of the negative business aspects even if the perception is wrong.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
However, I would be optimistic about a similar idea of a MTX purchase of a 'skill book' which allowed someone to train a skill which allowed for that same effect.
One possible distinguishing characteristic of the skill would be guaranteed reuse. I could see the MTX potentially being a one-time use for a specific item, so that you would always keep that item on you when you were looted, but if you replaced that item you'd have to make another MTX purchase to preserve the next item.

Or...it could be a craftable item such as an enchantment that you place upon any item. Since I assume a deity is rezzing you, the specific enchantment could be religious in nature...perhaps related to some neutral god dealing with death, like Pharasma.

The MTX item is not the enchantment itself, rather a component (a vial of red sand?) used in its crafting. I would also make it so this particular component can be found rarely in game through play...and can be used in other recipes that have to do with death...like maybe a resurrection potion.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm not very keen on the idea of armor and weapons being indestructible, I was really looking forward to being the greatest armor crafting magnet in the world... :(

On a side note, would loot make could make a character encumbered and slow her down?

Warder

Goblin Squad Member

Well, even in the case in which something from an MTX transaction leads to "binding an item beyond death"...it still incurs normal wear and tear...

In fact, you could have an interesting "cost of magic" consequence by having that "bind beyond death" increase the normal wear...so the item will inevitably last less long, but be kept on death...

...binding the item would actually be a gamble.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
I think it would be best if the loot recovered from most bodies was crafting components. That's not a hard & fast rule, but it's a good starting point. Adventurers should be a resource faucet for crafters.

I like this too.

May I add, PLEEEEEEEEEEEEASE if you're going to let us loot armor/weapons from bodies, let use loot the armor/weapons they're using. I've always hated when you loot a guy in metal armor and get a robe for spellcasters or armor that looks nothing like what they're wearing.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:


fixed that.

Please don't don't do that. It's hard enough to craft a consistent message without having to worry about challenging altered statements.


Ryan Dancey wrote:
I want most players to feel that they are underachieving if they're not spending ~$15-20/mo.

Again, is the goal for this to include training time/sub fee/etc? Or is this going to be extra on top of that sort of mandatory cost? If extra, what are the planned mandatory costs? I understand this is a difficult sort of question to answer.

Goblin Squad Member

@Waffleyone - no, that amount includes the cost of training.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:


Killing someone and taking their stuff isn't griefing, if you take their stuff because you want/need it (even if you just want to sell it) for a reasonable in-game purpose. And it's not "ok" to want or need it because you want that person to feel bad.

And who will be the judge of that? One party will claim griefing, the other will claim they're a highway robber. Some will be highway robbers, others will be there just to ruin other player's days.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

SirUrza wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:


Killing someone and taking their stuff isn't griefing, if you take their stuff because you want/need it (even if you just want to sell it) for a reasonable in-game purpose. And it's not "ok" to want or need it because you want that person to feel bad.
And who will be the judge of that? One party will claim griefing, the other will claim they're a highway robber. Some will be highway robbers, others will be there just to ruin other player's days.

If you are a 16th level equivalent character, mugging 1st level players, there might be something to the griefing argument. If a player constantly seeks out a certain enemy and kills them without a good reason (bounties, warfare, etc), might be a good argument towards griefing. Otherwise? That's the River Kingdoms, folks.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:


This is not a game where you want to be playing solo especially in a PvP encounter. You should have a group of buddies nearby to kill your killers...

Friends don't let friends play solo

101 to 150 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Looting, and Salvaging, Intelligent and Yes, size should matter. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.