Disconnecting in enemy Territory


Pathfinder Online

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Being wrote:
Cynge wrote:
It's not really strategy when it has no counter.
The definition of a thing seldom depends on characteristics of other things but on the characteristics of that thing itself. Strategy is strategy regardless whether there is or isn't any counter.

Paying 5000 dollars someone to betray his guild is strategic too, it doesn't mean that it has any place in the game.

If someone can log-off and wait for days, your only option is to stay connected for days, waiting for him to come back. That's not strategic, that's just exploit.

Actually Cynge said the part about 'it isn't strategy if there's no counter'. I said the next line. You said the paying 5000 dollars part. And actually paying the 5000 would be a tactic: why you paid 5000 dollars would be part of your strategy.

Goblin Squad Member

The easiest way to deal with the "Trojan Horse" stuff is to allow settlements to set permissions on who can login/bind within territory that they control and to have a block on attacking other characters for say 5 minutes when logging into territory where you are flagged.

The reality is, you shouldn't make a practice of logging out in dangerous/hostile places...and if you do, you should be willing to accept the risk of what happens by doing so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
Audoucet wrote:
Being wrote:
Cynge wrote:
It's not really strategy when it has no counter.
The definition of a thing seldom depends on characteristics of other things but on the characteristics of that thing itself. Strategy is strategy regardless whether there is or isn't any counter.

Paying 5000 dollars someone to betray his guild is strategic too, it doesn't mean that it has any place in the game.

If someone can log-off and wait for days, your only option is to stay connected for days, waiting for him to come back. That's not strategic, that's just exploit.

Actually Cynge said the part about 'it isn't strategy if there's no counter'. I said the next line. You said the paying 5000 dollars part. And actually paying the 5000 would be a tactic: why you paid 5000 dollars would be part of your strategy.

No offense, but arguing semantics over a few words is really detracting from the talking points of the conversation.

Audoucet's point, as does mine, still remains. The validity of the tactic or strategy in regards to game mechanics is less relevant than whether the ability to do so should exist within the game in the first place. Whether it falls within the definition of tactic or strategy isn't relevant at all.

Goblin Squad Member

Cynge wrote:
Audoucet's point, as does mine, still remains. The validity of the tactic or strategy in regards to game mechanics is less relevant than whether the ability to do so should exist within the game in the first place. Whether it falls within the definition of tactic or strategy isn't relevant at all.

An untrue thing is untrue and should not stand. I'm certain Audocet didn't intentionally misattribute who said what but it is significant to me that I say what I say and did not say what you said. If you have a problem with being corrected when you speak an untruth then that is absolutely your problem.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Being, I didn't answer your last comment because I didn't want to start a very useless argument, but I reject your premises that everything is a strategy, so I stand on what I said. And I do not think that I misattributed What you said, I just think that your affirmation was maybe without context.

Yes, in a game, a tactic without any possibility of counter isn't a tactic, it's an exploit. That's my opinion, you can differ if you wish, no problem with that.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in favor of logging back into the same spot that you left (with some logical exceptions)

The reason is travel can be a meaningful investment of time and we are actually people who often have to do things other than play games on the computer. Very often someone will be at a spot not for exploitative reasons when they find a sudden need to log out.

There can be tweaks and timers or whatever to sort out things that seem unfair (not logging into territory of a group you're at war/feud/factional conflict? with but getting bounced to the closest spot outside their area makes a strong case, etc.).

But to charge players (who don't play 6 hours straight) their free time to do much of anything more than a few hexes from some central nodes puts us in a much smaller universe than what the developers created and doesn't seem like fun to play.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin of Brighthaven wrote:
I'm in favor of logging back into the same spot that you left (with some logical exceptions)

Is me too. OK?

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:

Being, I didn't answer your last comment because I didn't want to start a very useless argument, but I reject your premises that everything is a strategy, so I stand on what I said. And I do not think that I misattributed What you said, I just think that your affirmation was maybe without context.

Yes, in a game, a tactic without any possibility of counter isn't a tactic, it's an exploit. That's my opinion, you can differ if you wish, no problem with that.

It is a fact that I was the one who said "The definition of a thing seldom depends on characteristics of other things but on the characteristics of that thing itself. Strategy is strategy regardless whether there is or isn't any counter.", which your quote asserts was said by Cynge. Look up the thread and see for yourself. You can proudly claim a lie as your heartfelt belief but it is still a lie that you clutch to your breast.

A misattribution is posing a quote as the words of one person when they were said by another, or the attribution of a quote to someone who didn't say it at all.

Secondly and less important, it wasn't and isn't my premise that everything is a strategy. That is complete rubbish. A few posts later in this thread I was pointing out to you a distinction between strategy and tactic.

Goblin Squad Member

Quote:
Audoucet wrote:
Being wrote:
It's not really strategy when it has no counter.
The definition of a thing seldom depends on characteristics of other things but on the characteristics of that thing itself. Strategy is strategy regardless whether there is or isn't any counter.

Paying 5000 dollars someone to betray his guild is strategic too, it doesn't mean that it has any place in the game.

If someone can log-off and wait for days, your only option is to stay connected for days, waiting for him to come back. That's not strategic, that's just exploit.

This is another instance of misattribution, Audocet. It was Cynge, and not me, who said "It's not really strategy when it has no counter." I was the one who said "The definition of a thing seldom depends on characteristics of other things but on the characteristics of that thing itself. Strategy is strategy regardless whether there is or isn't any counter."

Look at the original posts and see for yourself. You apparently edited your quotes and, I assume accidentally, mixed up who said what. Your first misattribution mixed those up. Your second misattribution compounded the problem, misattributing your own words.

Goblin Squad Member

It is not meaningless to me that you disagree with what cynge said but imagine that I was the one who said what he said. I was arguing with him, and you should have been arguing with him and not me. I was arguing with you about your point that paying someone $5000 was strategy. I said it was a tactic, but why you used that tactic may have been a strategy.

Scarab Sages

Guys, it's humanly impossible to script every single "bad behavior" or "exploitive behavior" of the game.

There will always be a way to take advantage from game system, like dislogin in a good position to next day attack or using death to travel faster. Some of these things generate more problem to fix than to let it go and let players deal with it. The need or harm of it's been done is a consequence of the focus PvP of the game, where players actions will affect directly to others players in a agressive way.

While dislogging in enemy territory could be tagged as exploitive to some, to others is just strategy (a meta-game one, but still). We had those flag-system (does we still?) to flag enemies tresspasser, so what is the deal here?

Per exemple some days ago I saw someone (can't remember who) compaining about PvP window in a settlement with people that only log on diverse hour. Other complained about strangers gather resources of their territory (really?). Others compain about how distant is from start areas.

Guys. Please don't take me bad for saying this. But...

Isn't this a PvP game? A game where we all fight for our own settlement/company disputing influence, territory, resources with anothers? Let's grow some balls and deal with the difficults instead trying to modify the game to fits our ingame needs. That's, imho, a way to exploit how open devs are in a beneficial way to your own game.

---

Proxima Sin of Brighthaven wrote:
I'm in favor of logging back into the same spot that you left (with some logical exceptions)

I think everything it's not flagged in exploit is strategy, and it's been used by long time in wars. Sun Tzu was a master of it.

---

Ps: It was not driven to anyone special, just my overall idea from some kinds of, imho, disruptive complains.

Goblin Squad Member

The problem with resurrecting at a predictable shrine is shrine camping. By relogging into one of several nearby shrines should partly mitigate shrine camping.

Scarab Sages

Is Shrine Camping not a griefing behavior even outside the "non-consensual" PVP rule of PFO?

Goblin Squad Member

Depends, doesn't it? If I am besieging your town and your ally identifies where my troops are spawning I don't think it would be griefing for your ally to interdict my returning soldiers.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
If someone can log-off and wait for days, your only option is to stay connected for days, waiting for him to come back. That's not strategic, that's just exploit.

In Wurm I once saw two guys patiently wait 12 hours to catch a raider as he resurfaced at his log out point. I can't imagine doing that, but it worked.

DeciusBrutus wrote:
I think the offline logistics issue isn't a big problem if only the closest shrine is used and the timer is on the order of an hour; it would take longer and not be safer, because of the need to repeatedly log in at locations known to your opponents.

From Cheney's remarks, I think one of their concerns is people moving into a settlement's spaces when the PvP vulnerability window is closed, then resurfacing when the vulnerability window is open. It could also be used to get combatants in striking distance of a target before a feud or war was declared.

If feuds and wars require some advanced warning (that is, announcing a feud starts a timer before targets are hostile), then the timer might/could closely match the timer on when we respawn at a shrine rather than at our log-out point. For the other case, I wonder if non-citizens logged-out inside a settlement's space when the vulnerability window was closed should always be bumped to a shrine if they log-in when the vulnerability window is open. So the 1 hour (or whatever) timer would be superseded by the vulnerability window changing state.

Goblin Squad Member

I'll take a naive approach.

What about if your body stays where you left it, but is still visible in the world?

If it gets killed, you end up in a shrine of Pharasma and your body disappears from the world.

If you log out at a tavern/inn/equivalent/(camp?), (certain parts of) town or Shrine of Pharasma your character disappears from the world.

If it doesn't get killed, good for you.

Of course, these slumbering entities should be reputationless kills after a certain time TBD (to prevent griefing by blocking or whatever, but not so that if you disconnect everyone can kill you without penalty).

Please poke all the holes you want in this. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin of Brighthaven wrote:

I'm in favor of logging back into the same spot that you left (with some logical exceptions)

The reason is travel can be a meaningful investment of time and we are actually people who often have to do things other than play games on the computer. Very often someone will be at a spot not for exploitative reasons when they find a sudden need to log out.

There can be tweaks and timers or whatever to sort out things that seem unfair (not logging into territory of a group you're at war/feud/factional conflict? with but getting bounced to the closest spot outside their area makes a strong case, etc.).

But to charge players (who don't play 6 hours straight) their free time to do much of anything more than a few hexes from some central nodes puts us in a much smaller universe than what the developers created and doesn't seem like fun to play.

I seductively approve of this message!

(Will Ferrell movie reference for those who didn't get it)

Goblin Squad Member

I agree wholeheartedly with the 'don't rewind my travel time' argument.
Not all logouts are voluntary. But we need a balance between that time investment, and the tactic of logging out an army in the free invincible fortress of 'offline' , right where they want to be when the fighting starts next tuesday.

That is why I advocate using 'random nearby shrine' on logins away from freindly structures made for logging in and out of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Pino wrote:
... the free invincible fortress of 'offline'

I've always thought of it as the Ether. The idea of an immobile fortress might be a better fit.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Being wrote:
Look at the original posts and see for yourself. You apparently edited your quotes and, I assume accidentally, mixed up who said what. Your first misattribution mixed those up. Your second misattribution compounded the problem, misattributing your own words.

Er yes, there is a problem with my quote, and I can't edit because of forum rules, but it doesn't change anything, I was still responding to "The definition of a thing seldom depends on characteristics of other things but on the characteristics of that thing itself. Strategy is strategy regardless whether there is or isn't any counter.", which is what you said.

I know what you said. I don't agree anyway. That's relativism, and I don't care about relativism.

And yes I know the difference between tactic and strategy, but I don't agree with you anyway : no, cheating as a tactic isn't a strategy.

Being wrote:
It is not meaningless to me that you disagree with what cynge said but imagine that I was the one who said what he said. I was arguing with him, and you should have been arguing with him and not me. I was arguing with you about your point that paying someone $5000 was strategy. I said it was a tactic, but why you used that tactic may have been a strategy.

Nop, I was arguing with you indeed.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Urman wrote:
In Wurm I once saw two guys patiently wait 12 hours to catch a raider as he resurfaced at his log out point. I can't imagine doing that, but it worked.

On the other hand, in EvE, I once exchanged a character, just to find out that my new character with 4 billions worth implants was in Paragon Soul.

Well, it took me 48 hours, but my pod made it back to Providence without a scratch, by logging in at random hours to do one or two jumps, before logging off again.

Obviously, if I know where my worst enemy logged-off, I will probably wait 12 hours to screw him. But it's on the premises that I know exactly where he logged-off, and that he doesn't just come back three days later.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Nop, I was arguing with you indeed.

That's fine then, you can be wrong but then if you wish to argue with me, argue with what I said rather than what someone else said while pointing at me, k? thx.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Audoucet wrote:
...if I know where my worst enemy logged-off, I will probably wait 12 hours to screw him.

I can't imagine having an enemy I disliked so much.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Obviously, if I know where my worst enemy logged-off, I will probably wait 12 hours to screw him. But it's on the premises that I know exactly where he logged-off, and that he doesn't just come back three days later.

And that he isn't planning on playing his other character for the next month while waiting for his favourite to gain enough XP to get BAB 5


Being wrote:
Audoucet wrote:
Nop, I was arguing with you indeed.
That's fine then, you can be wrong but then if you wish to argue with me, argue with what I said rather than what someone else said while pointing at me, k? thx.

He is. The fact that he got his quote tags messed up in his original post is confusing you. He has since pointed out statements of yours that he disagrees with, so he's arguing with you about what you said. I'm under the impression he agrees with my stance and therefore has no reason to argue with me.

Regardless...moving on.

TEO Pino wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly with the 'don't rewind my travel time' argument.

Not all logouts are voluntary.

Handling the logout feature is indeed a balancing act. If they move you from the logout location, they remove the Invincible Fortress but create the issue of losing travel time. If in addition, you are moved to a predictable log on point, there is a potential to create points of PvP griefing.

Possible ways to handle (can be any combination):
1) Logging off a minimum time moves you to the aforementioned Shrines. (Fixes: Invincible Fortress)
2) Minimum time required before you are moved; time required may vary based on log off or disconnect (Fixes: Involuntary Disconnects)
3) Logging in grants a period of invincibility (Fixes: Getting killed before loading at the Shrine)
4) Guardians of Pharasma (sp?) located at the Shrines to protect against unprovoked attacks. (Fixes: PvP Griefing)
5) Logging in at nearest Shrine (Minimizes: Travel Rewind)

It seems from the dev posts that an approach similar to this is what they are taking.

Goblin Squad Member

Cynge wrote:
He is. The fact that he got his quote tags messed up in his original post is confusing you.

I'm not confused. I'm defending against misattribution. There has been no apology for that affront. Saying I said something I didn't say is offensive, especially when it is something with which I disagree.

Scarab Sages

Being wrote:
Cynge wrote:
He is. The fact that he got his quote tags messed up in his original post is confusing you.
I'm confused. I'm defending again misattribution. There has been apology for that affront. Saying I said something I say is not offensive, especially when it isn't something with which I agree.

Like this?

PS: Not photoshoped!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kemedo wrote:
Being wrote:
Cynge wrote:
He is. The fact that he got his quote tags messed up in his original post is confusing you.
I'm confused. I'm defending again misattribution. There has been apology for that affront. Saying I said something I say is not offensive, especially when it isn't something with which I agree.

Like this?

PS: Not photoshoped!

>Thermonuclear explosion<

Alas! Poor Being. I knew him well.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Being wrote:
I'm not confused. I'm defending against misattribution. There has been no apology for that affront. Saying I said something I didn't say is offensive, especially when it is something with which I disagree.

Apologies about what affront ? You want an apology because I screwed up my quote ? Well if you want :

I give you my apology.

But it doesn't change the fact that I know what you said, and I knew what you said. I didn't read your comment after quoting it Being, you can understand that, that would be stupid. I don't randomly quote things to read it afterward.

Read the entire argument, and imagine that there isn't any misquote, and you will see that I was arguing over your actual comment, not on the misquote.

Just to be clear, here is my original quote, taking out the misquote :

Audoucet wrote:
Being wrote:
Crynge wrote:
It's not really strategy when it has no counter.
The definition of a thing seldom depends on characteristics of other things but on the characteristics of that thing itself. Strategy is strategy regardless whether there is or isn't any counter.

Paying 5000 dollars someone to betray his guild is strategic too, it doesn't mean that it has any place in the game.

If someone can log-off and wait for days, your only option is to stay connected for days, waiting for him to come back. That's not strategic, that's just exploit.

I didn't change anything on the original post, because I can not : it is impossible after 10 minutes.

It is just a text format problem. As you can see, I was indeed responding to you, otherwise, my response wouldn't make any sense.

So yeah, I apologise for the misquote, but I was responding to you anyway.


Cynge wrote:

Possible ways to handle (can be any combination):

1) Logging off a minimum time moves you to the aforementioned Shrines. (Fixes: Invincible Fortress)
2) Minimum time required before you are moved; time required may vary based on log off or disconnect (Fixes: Involuntary Disconnects)
3) Logging in grants a period of invincibility (Fixes: Getting killed before loading at the Shrine)
4) Guardians of Pharasma (sp?) located at the Shrines to protect against unprovoked attacks. (Fixes: PvP Griefing)
5) Logging in at nearest Shrine (Minimizes: Travel Rewind)

Adding to this...what if there was an item that could be made, such as the camps, that allowed the player to log off and later log back into that location. Restrictions on the use of the camp could be put into place so that it can't be used inside of a Settlement (presumably you would have an Inn that would function like this in the settlement), but could be used in wilderness hexes. This would allow those who are traveling great distances, but in short online spurts, to have a mechanic to save their travel. It would cost resources to do so and it's use to create an invincible fortress is minimized.

Goblin Squad Member

Dorgan Berkham wrote:

I'll take a naive approach.

What about if your body stays where you left it, but is still visible in the world?

If it gets killed, you end up in a shrine of Pharasma and your body disappears from the world.

If you log out at a tavern/inn/equivalent/(camp?), (certain parts of) town or Shrine of Pharasma your character disappears from the world.

If it doesn't get killed, good for you.

Of course, these slumbering entities should be reputationless kills after a certain time TBD (to prevent griefing by blocking or whatever, but not so that if you disconnect everyone can kill you without penalty).

I think we may have been thinking something similar Cynge, though I think things got buried in the discussion.


Dorgan Berkham wrote:
Dorgan Berkham wrote:

I'll take a naive approach.

What about if your body stays where you left it, but is still visible in the world?

If it gets killed, you end up in a shrine of Pharasma and your body disappears from the world.

If you log out at a tavern/inn/equivalent/(camp?), (certain parts of) town or Shrine of Pharasma your character disappears from the world.

If it doesn't get killed, good for you.

Of course, these slumbering entities should be reputationless kills after a certain time TBD (to prevent griefing by blocking or whatever, but not so that if you disconnect everyone can kill you without penalty).

I think we may have been thinking something similar Cynge, though I think things got buried in the discussion.

I did read that post. To address the specifics of what you said, I'm not a fan of leaving the character in the world for similar reasons as to why I'm not a fan of being able to log off in enemy territory. The camp idea from my post is simply a way to create a safe log out, you still log out.

Although...choosing to log out in an area for an extended period of time knowing your character is vulnerable is a choice you are making that impacts only you, so I could see how it could work. It creates a risk (death) vs reward (location) scenario. I believe some of the zombie survival games (Rust?) use this type of mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

Yes, what I meant was similar was the idea of having certain places where you actually log out be it a shrine of Pharasma, inn/tavern, camp, etc.

Goblin Squad Member

I've never seen anyone offline an entire army so it can pop out right before a battle. For one thing it's a terrible tactic. All it takes is 1 spy or a single enemy scout spotting them and you can expect the enemy there slaughtering your members as the diverse load times put them in a scattered pattern, before they have time to organize themselves. Great way to set yourself up for an extremely 1-sided / humiliating defeat.

They closest tactic I've ever used was logging a small raid force out near a VAMP hamlet in Darkfall right before server down and then destroying their portal exit and draining their mine right after server up, when the mine reset to full.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Apologies about what affront ? You want an apology because I screwed up my quote ?

No, Audoucet. You misquoted me, yes, but in doing so attributed to me someone else' argument, and also attributed my words to yourself. Whether you agree or disagree it isn't right to take someone else's words, thoughts, and ideas as if they were your own. There are laws against it. Yet you see no problem with it, I suppose because you do not value your own words and thoughts enough to care.

In point of fact I tend to claim copyright on those things that I write. It is not a small thing to me.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet? Being? What the heck is going on here? It's my job to attack Seventh Veil members and make them look back. I don't remember seeing any of you apply to The Sentinels and I sure as hell didn't approve any applications from either of you so why the hell are you doing my job for me?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Andius the Afflicted wrote:
Audoucet? Being? What the heck is going on here? It's my job to attack Seventh Veil members and make them look back. I don't remember seeing any of you apply to The Sentinels and I sure as hell didn't approve any applications from either of you so why the hell are you doing my job for me?

I am not attacking Being, and I do not care about someone's affiliation in an argument.

Goblin Squad Member

When people cannot disagree, they cannot be friends. When they cannot talk out the disagreement there grows antipathy. This is true in international relations, it is true in politics, it is true in marriage, and it is true now.

There is a Japanese saying: 'Even the seed must in agony burst'.

To grow we must do the hard things just as certainly as the easy.

Goblin Squad Member

I suggest you take this discussion to PMs, so we can talk about disconnecting in enemy territory.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Dorgan Berkham wrote:
I suggest you take this discussion to PMs, so we can talk about disconnecting in enemy territory.

That's a work in progress.

Goblin Squad Member

So having read through most of this thread, I see a lot of really interesting ideas, a lot of complicated mechanics and some concepts that I find would be incredibly disruptive to regular game play and immersion as well as breaking some fundamental concepts of the games design.

I think timing logouts depending on your flags a good idea.

I think that transporting a logged out character to be a terrible one. Essentially this will cause extra and constant server load for every character whether or not they are logged in. It will be very disruptive to people who are for what ever reason, traveling over long distances. Finally it seems only to be proposed to prevent an army from appearing on someone's doorstep, which would only take 15 minutes to march across a couple of hexes. Further any settlement who's PvP window is active is likely to be prepared to defend their land anyway.

It seems like a lot of effort for no real gain, creating a system that would more likely be gamed for other advantages like not having time to run home so logging out knowing you'll be home when you log back in for example.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I don't have any worries about big armies poping out of nowhere. Andius perfectly already explained how that would be a stupid strategy.

No, my problem is more with the lonely hit & runner, who will exist for no other reason that using the safety of logging-off just to be completely invincible in enemy territory while the defenders are there, get back when the heat is down a little, kill someone and log-off again.

In a meaningful environment, the aggressing party must choose some objective, and achieve these objectives without dying, and once it is done, you must find a way to go back to HQ. To do or that, he will have to permanently counteract the defenders' efforts at eliminating the threat.

But if one of the two parties can use not playing as a tactic while the only possible response is to permanently play until the threat stop -not playing-, well I think that the defendant is a little getting screwed, as a player, not the character.

So I think that the advantage of being able to appear in the world at the moment of your choosing should be counterbalanced by a few disadvantages.

From all the ideas that I saw here, my personal opinion would be a 15 minutes vulnerability when you're flagged, 1 when you're not, AND, appearing at the nearest shrine, if you are disconnected for more than 1 hour.

Goblin Squad Member

This certainly falls into the category of being reasonable, though I still think teleporting a character to a shrine at log off or any time after means that it should happen to every character in the game. There are plenty of anti-griefing mechanics in play already and one persons play style should not cause their body to be transported when logged off any more than anyone else's.

The timers and other penalties should be sufficient.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Wyspr wrote:
This certainly falls into the category of being reasonable, though I still think teleporting a character to a shrine at log off or any time after means that it should happen to every character in the game.

Why not.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Wyspr wrote:
This certainly falls into the category of being reasonable, though I still think teleporting a character to a shrine at log off or any time after means that it should happen to every character in the game.
Why not.

Isn't the time delay before the character is shunted to a shrine, mostly a convenience for people who have lost their connection or did a quick afk logout? If they reappear in 2 or 5 or 10 minutes, their buddies are still operating in the area. If someone drops out for an hour or more, the chance that their buddies are still on line in that same locale really has dropped.

Edit to add: I'd like to see the character have more choice in where they log back in.

- The character who's been out for a short while can choose between the log-out point or the closest shrine (maybe the two closest shrines). (2d edit: that's probably a really bad idea - it allows a 'disconnect' port away to the close shrine.)

- A character who has been out for an extended time can choose between a few close shrines.

- A character who has been out for a seriously extended period (>1 week?) can choose between a close shrine, a close PC settlement, or the closest NPC settlement. A lot can change in a week or more, and I think the use of week-long log to shift goods is possible, but mostly a waste of subscription time.

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Disconnecting in enemy Territory All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online