Player Gating


Pathfinder Online

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

I understood this to be a game about settlement or even nation conflict. But getting there will be a long development. POI, siege equipment, formation combat, settlement damage and destruction.

And new settlement creation will be in there some where, probably after POI but before formation fighting.

New players will join a settlement establish their skills and then go on to establish a new community.

That is the vision and Ryan has been saying that since the second kickstarter. Twins seems to want something else. Fine.

Goblin Squad Member

PFO is about meaningful human interaction. Reaching the end-game requires a certain amount of social investment.

Gaskon wrote:
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
I didn't get to vote on anything. I had no say or influence.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps it is a problem with your current settlement's structure?

I voted in the landrush, I am very happy with my settlement, and I am content with the amount of influence I currently have over my settlement's policies.

In a year or so, there will be an opportunity for dissatisfied players to create new settlements of their own, or attempt to burn down the ones that rejected them.

This. In PFO it's a lot easier to 'vote with your feet' (move to someplace better) than in the real world.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One issue that does arise with the current state of Settlements and Companies in game and the WoT is it currently makes way more sense for a Settlement to consist of a single massive company.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Gale Windswept has found an interesting voting technique....

Goblin Squad Member

<Tavernhold> Locke wrote:

That is the vision and Ryan has been saying that since the second kickstarter. Twins seems to want something else. Fine.

Although I was considering some type of NPC faction grinding exercise, that would be totally independent of the Settlement mechanic, I have since revised my opinion. As long as it is possible for new players to either gain, or even usurp, settlement leadership then that would mostly satisfy my concern.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:


I didn't get to vote on anything. I had no say or influence.

Where have you been during the landrush? It wasn't that hard to get a settlement - 8 votes was all that was needed.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:

I think the plan is that Settlements can install all sorts of Government, a democratic vote being one of them. So I think it will certainly be possible for members of a Settlement to vote a leader out.

I guess this would mean that a Settlement has to "lock" itself in for a certain type of Government, effectuated by GW, so that the person or persons who control the Settlement-UI can not change the Government type on a whim.

Benevolent dictators of Golarion - UNITE !!

They are threatening us.

Goblin Squad Member

The peasants! They're revolting!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemkii Twins wrote:
My advancement should not be limited to the will and whim of other players.

Welcome to a player-driven MMO? :P

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Lemkii Twins wrote:
My advancement should not be limited to the will and whim of other players.
Welcome to a player-driven MMO? :P

Advancement limited by the will and whim of other players is almost in the definition of a sandbox.

You can build fantasy sandcastles in a sandbox MMO but other players may decide to just kick them over.

Or they may move in and reinforce the battlements and make you King.

Sandbox MMOs definitely do NOT provide a Hollywood "one heroic hero takes on the world against the odds and defeats the Mongol Hordes single handed and gets the girl" play experience.


Guurzak wrote:
The peasants! They're revolting!

You can say that again.


Hey, it's hard to find time to bathe when the only Profession skill available is Profession (have no money).

Goblin Squad Member

Thod wrote:
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:


I didn't get to vote on anything. I had no say or influence.
Where have you been during the landrush? It wasn't that hard to get a settlement - 8 votes was all that was needed.

And if you came to the game after the Landrush? "S.O.L. bro wait 2 years and maybe you can get one." isn't really a good answer.

I still agree that being locked out of your skills if not tied to a settlement is crap. There are plenty of reasons to want to not join a settlement and I agree that being not only being stopped from advancement but knocked out skills you do have is not what I had in mind.

There are play styles other than "murder-hobo" that are mostly solo. I don't think they should be effectively locked out of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jakaal wrote:
Thod wrote:
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:


I didn't get to vote on anything. I had no say or influence.
Where have you been during the landrush? It wasn't that hard to get a settlement - 8 votes was all that was needed.

And if you came to the game after the Landrush? "S.O.L. bro wait 2 years and maybe you can get one." isn't really a good answer.

I still agree that being locked out of your skills if not tied to a settlement is crap. There are plenty of reasons to want to not join a settlement and I agree that being not only being stopped from advancement but knocked out skills you do have is not what I had in mind.

There are play styles other than "murder-hobo" that are mostly solo. I don't think they should be effectively locked out of the game.

What are those "plenty of reasons not to join a settlement"? Do you not want to be forced to listen to some stuck up ego maniac telling you what to do or what to train? Do you not want to feel beholden to a group of people. Do you want to keep all your hard earned resources for yourself?

There are groups designed with the solo player in mind. For example, the Outsiders is a Company in Tavernhold created for the purpose of allowing solo players to gain the benefits of a settlement with no strings attached.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Maybe my words have been too harsh - but I disagree that S.O.L wait for 2 years is the only option.

We already had several changes in leadership at settlements. Cheatle was not the original founder of Brighthaven. Riverbank has just been taken over. Tavernhold has a new leader.

Alpha would have been a good time to go for a moribund settlement as lay the foundation to take it over.

We are now in week 4 of this game. Some members might realize they are not happy where they are. Some might realize they have bigger ambitions. I don't think they will be S.O.L. permanently - but they missed two opportunities - landrush and alpha.

Other opportunities will come.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Where have you been during the landrush?

I was not aware of Pathfinder Online's existence until after the landrush.

Quote:
8 votes was all that was needed.

Which makes it all the more frustrating, considering how many of the people who were fortunate (privileged?) to be awarded a settlement and have now essentially abandoned it -

- with the unlucky new people having no recourse and being stuck choosing from the remainders of which none apparently are willing to provide for an alignment that accounts for at least 10% of the alignment spectrum.

Quote:
Sandbox MMOs definitely do NOT provide a Hollywood "one heroic hero takes on the world against the odds and defeats the Mongol Hordes single handed and gets the girl" play experience.

That's a strawman. I don't think anybody I know wants to play PFO solo.

Quote:
Advancement limited by the will and whim of other players is almost in the definition of a sandbox.

Depends on if by Advancement you mean "accomplishments" or merely just training skills. I just mean training skills. I'm quite happy with the concept that I can't conquer the world by my lonesome, I don't want to play solo anyway.

I find the idea that a small group of players can decide unilaterally whether or not I can activate core features of the game (skill training) to be not only abhorrent, but also a really terrible way to design a game that depends on people paying a subscription for it to survive.

Goblin Squad Member

I would put this another way - in a few months when the "free" buildings disappear and the settlements must gather and mine resources to build their own replacement structures why should any random solo survivalist type that did not contribute to any settlement anywhere have the right to march in and demand training and the use of craft facilities without either allying to the settlement or paying.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Neadenil Edam wrote:
I would put this another way - in a few months when the "free" buildings disappear and the settlements must gather and mine resources to build their own replacement structures why should any random solo survivalist type that did not contribute to any settlement anywhere have the right to march in and demand training and the use of craft facilities without either allying to the settlement or paying.

Of course he should.

Say what you will, I live free.

He isn't going to get access that way, but he can say anything he wants to.

Goblin Squad Member

I really can't really understand the problem here? It seems there are two things discussed at the same time and gets entangled in each other all the time.

Solo gaming, you can do that perfectly easy, create a company of one, attach yourself to a town that isn't demanding anything (which I guess is almost all at this stage, as "Grief Not" is probably the only demand right now and you can hardly be a griefer alone). Then do your thing and now and then give something to your town to show your good faith.

Secondly, a town of your own, that isn't so much to discuss, this is EE, not everything is in place yet, coming OE it is supposedly going to get your company together and strike out to build your own settlement in the wilderness. Until then it is either to enjoy the moment or wait until OE to play. I suggest the former.

And Brutus, I think you know what Edam meant by "saying" I guess, you are just playing dense because you like to be be seen as a big, dumb brute, don't you?


Schedim wrote:
attach yourself to a town that isn't demanding anything
Ravenlute wrote:
There are groups designed with the solo player in mind. For example, the Outsiders is a Company in Tavernhold created for the purpose of allowing solo players to gain the benefits of a settlement with no strings attached.

That's what Doc tried to do, but it's not really possible to be totally free. All settlements are limited by their loyalties and alliances, for instance, to say nothing of a certain rather popular pact.

It is not possible to attain any sort of true independence while still being a part of someone else's settlement. I don't get to pick fights with Talonguard, nor do I get to attack UNC's core towers, or stand in Aragon in a loincloth screaming Tavernhold's supremacy and challenging Xeen to take even one of our POIs once they're in the game.

Well, I'm pretty sure I don't have permission to do that. Maybe if I emphasize the "loincloth" angle...

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

nor stand in Aragon in a loincloth screaming Tavernhold's supremacy and challenging Xeen to take even one of our POIs once they're in the game.

Well, I'm pretty sure I don't have permission to do that. Maybe if I emphasize the "loincloth" angle...

Half-naked "hatchlings" must pay a fee for the permission. ;-)

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Player Gating All Messageboards

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