Aeioun Plainsweed's page

I also think the mmo genre isn't growing that much in terms of player-base. So people try different games, but if they have an older game they like better they'll probably return to it.

I also think when it comes to grinding the reason to grind is a factor. If your grinding to help your settlement or kingdom to wage war or defend against an attacker it might make the grind more meaningful than just grinding to get something for your own character.

Aeioun wrote:

adding temporary features to fill holes in their code

There weren't holes in their code. They never promised to deliver anything that engaged meaningful PvP at the beginning of EE until now, with the WotT. Without an in game mechanic for a PvP outlet you would be getting random PvP at anytime, anywhere, if you wanted it or not.

As Tork stated (oh yeah, I am totally using what you said to make a point, muhaha)

Tork wrote:

Believe me I have a gazillion sketches of how we could make this more comprehensive and a thousand additional features we could add. We discussed many of them and their technical implications and decided that the minimal subset workable areas described in the blog. Each additional feature we add to WotT is time taken away from completing the final product and while some of these may seem super-trivial they tend to bring with them a rabbit hole of cornercases and UI requirements that make them unfeasible as part of a temporary system. Them's the breaks :/

They are doing what they can with limited time and resources. Not everyone is going to get what they want, but the game will still be enjoyable.

If you don't like the Towers, rest assured that they will only be in PFO for a short time. The only bonus anyone gets from them is some Civic Assets in their Settlement.

Maybe I don't understand this completely, but a simple system, where you kill npcs, gather resources and craft accumulates influence for your company and you use that influence to feud other companies and get the unthreaded stuff of their corpse, would have sufficed much more in my estimation.

My two cents on the war of towers.

The good thing. GW is adding features.
The neutral thing. GW is adding temporary features.
The bad thing imo. GW is adding temporary features to fill holes in their code, which shows their code is not that evolved yet. I would have much rather seen a quasi-influence system between companies, so that we could have created conflict or abstained from creating conflict on our own.

It is really sad to see people blaming others and driving them away from these forums for the confusion in their own minds about things that were clear to most of the community from the start.

I think this is the wrong way to go.

If you stand back and let Pax do whatever they want, there will be no game left for you guys after awhile.

The only sensible thing you can do, is use the same methods as Pax.
Get those votes and back up smaller guilds.
Unite and make it clear to everyone that you are a force that stands together.

Principles are all good, but not when you are the only one living by them.
If you stick to your guns on this, you will end up sticking to them without being able to play PFO.

I think it's a little premature to predict the future like this. I feel The Roseblood Accord is a bunch of people that want to play with each other and not throw fingers at each other on the forums.

I'd be fine with the encounter list showing all characters at a certain radius/box all around the character even behind minus stealthed etc and the select next/nearest enemy function could function in a suitable shaped part of that area corresponding the facing of the character.

There is no need to limit the settlement organization to one piece of territory other then to try to control expansion.

There is no reason to use the one step alignment rule other then to try to control numbers in a settlement.

I think these are absolute necessities for PFO.

I'm sure GW will implement mechanics, some of that we have allready seen, that don't encourage metagaming. An example: Only one character can manage a one aspect of a settlement, same can be done for kingdoms. So companies, settlements and kingdoms all have aspects or slots and only one character fits into any one slot at any one time. If you want the most out of that slot, that character must be trained. So metagaming works in making alliances(, which is not really metagaming because the game only supports three social entities: companies, settelements and kingdoms,) but not in managing a company, settlement or kingdom. Simple. And why would anyone be at war with someone and outside of the game at peace? Doesn't make sense.

Drakhan Valane wrote:

This would be an easy solution to the jet-can exploit: If you add to a can you didn't create you forfeit rights to the ore and get a pop=up stating so. The creator of the can can always remove from it without going hostile. If you want to steal, steal. Don't "taint" a can and pretend you're helping them by making it so they can't draw their own ore out without you getting to shoot them down.

But EVE won't change that and PFO won't have jet-cans, so I guess it's pointless to talk about.

Stop with the exploit... Its not an exploit, it is in fact working as the designers made it. It has been part of the game from day 1... It will remain part of the game till it dies.

THAT IS NOT AN EXPLOIT

Funny game mechanic creates a lot of toxicity among players. What a drag!

All bugs and exploits will end up on a priority list. And those near the bottom almost never get fixed. They do not become "working as expected". They stay bugs. But they may not provide enough Return on Investment to spend developer resources on them when compared against other bugs and new features on the backlog.

A prime example of this imo is SWTOR. All those small glitches that never get hammered down. They don't make playing unbearable, but just a little less more unattractive. I think it's just a great shame and gives the industry in general just a bit of a bad taste on the side.

I think that there are aspects of PFO that makes it differ from other similar titles. The fact that players can, will and want to build buildings on predetermined spots and choose what buildings they want to build and the fact that someone can come and kick that building down or even a whole settlement that players have built is kind of exciting. And if all these things can be done in fairly multigraded multifaceted ways, then it'll definitely set PFO a part from other titles.

We are pretty happy with this three-tiered hierarchy of social venues... .

It sounds awesome!

On the internet, no one knows you're Blaeringr.

Does it really matter if that group of 5 characters is 5 players or 3 players or 1 player? Can you really tell?

Yeah, you can use 5 different voices on voice chat. :P

If you refuse sad I think you should have the opportunity to defend yourself without at least rep losses.

@jdnyc

Here's a handy tool for these forums.

I like what I see because those systems are weapons to be used in war. The more complex the system the more loopholes we can use to subvert them to our own ends

I'm sure if any loopholes appear they'll be patched up.

Example if our group comes in we will pick the most mechanically advantageous alignment for us,set up a settlement and then we will start declaring wars...no rep loss no alignment loss. We will then continue to declare wars and sack settlements.

Working as intended. Have you revealed your cards? I'm sure many will want to spend their extra DI points towards you. :)

Of course, the more soldiers the more powerful a kingdom is.

Hear, hear! Bludd, you have almost become the voice of the pathfinder forums. Your delirious posts have made me see a different view. Thanks :)

Aeioun

@andius

That's big. It just shows how GW wants to make a really robust game with real meaningful choices on different kinds of playstyles that reflect characters and settlements alignment.

I've taken a pretty nice poll among many of the groups and everyone seems to agree that the Reputation v.s Alignment system is not going the way we want it.

I don't think nice is good enough, so I'll disagree with you. You do realize that the reputation is there to quell excessive "non-sanctioned" ganging(or just ganging if you like) and the alignment system has to be tied to the reputation system in someway because they both measure character behavior, partly similarly and partly differently, and this is what gives it nice shades of gray what most people don't seem to understand. It segregates players into groups and gives those groups a motivation and a chance to pursue a chosen role.

edit. to make my point more clear

I don't see the problem with alignment. I think it just brings more dynamic, meaningful choices, fantasy realism, excitement and mystery into the game. It brings so much more into the table that we couldn't have without it. Characters are going to be different according to it, settlements are going to be different, settlements will have different kinds of advantages, there will be different consequences for different actions. The hardest choice will be whether to play with certain friends or with a certain alignment.

The newb bomb issue could be solved with some kind of a warzone or a feudzone flag. "Entering a warzone. Proceed at your own risk." What kind of character actions could be deemed to trigger a warzone? When at least 2 characters that are at war approach each other. They would not get the warzone flag but any third parties would... killing someone with a warzone flag would not yield reputation losses.

edit. or something like that :)

I feel vindicated...

Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins

Vindicator Nihimon, I salute you. :)

I have to admit I didn't get the explanation about the why spellbooks can't use weaponslots in the blog. :P That's quite a brainstorm for me. And I'm a bit turned off by the fact of mundane items causing effects that normally are reserved only for spells. It's a mix I wouldn't have wanted to see. Especially if there are exact same effect from mundane and magic with just different names.

I hope people who just want to be crafters are allowed to do just that. I understand if there are some companies or settlements that don't want such people in their ranks, but I also hope there are a lot others that do. Well, it all comes down to what kind of atmosphere the leaders of the settlement want, but I hope the game mechanics are flexible enough not to force those crafters into combat.

It might seem legitimate that some companies will require their crafters to get some combat training before they start crafting. This might be a way to min/max certain situations.

This feels like some min/max discussion where roleplaying doesn't exist. Yack!

Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:

Qallz wrote:

Crafting is of secondary importance, that doesn't mean it's not important.

This is an opinion. If someone is a crafter, does he think it's secondary. I don't think so.

No, you're right, he'd probably like to think he's more important than he actually is, but that would be purely for egoic reasons.

Maybe I'm just saying that I don't think crafting weapons and armor for warriors to defend or expand the settlement or it's territory is secondary. I must be very egoistic. :P

Crafting is of secondary importance, that doesn't mean it's not important.

This is an opinion. If someone is a crafter, does he think it's secondary. I don't think so. Why would someone be a crafter if he thinks it's secondary? If you craft for your settlement but think it's secondary and play a main that is soldier, what's up with that? So what is that time spent on crafting, if there is always something other more relevant things to do to help the settlement than crafting? That's just hocus pocus or bad design...

This means that a fully loaded character now has access to twenty actions at one time (thirty-two counting weapon and implement swapping), accessed via ten keys (plus a modifier key and a weapon swap key):

I think this is reasonable. Some pretty cool stuff on the post.

The critique: An Aristocrat's Banner/Warhorn, which contains party-buffing maneuvers and A Fighter's Trophy Charm, which contains self-buffing maneuvers aren't very Pathfinderish. I'm used to the fact that there is magic and then there is not and many games overlook this fact and make an unlimited amount of effects that resemble magic(have the same effect as some spells) for characters that don't traditionally use magic(like the fighter in pathfinder). That's a huge turn off for me. Magic is explained in Pathfinder with Gods and not by looking at some old picture of a deceased person in the middle of combat and getting an adrenaline rush... Such a rush is reserved for a barbarian... I'm sure games can be balanced in other ways...

And party buffs, don't get me started on those... I'm old school...

Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:

Merry ride to low rep CE to those celebrating "The Green Hat Tuesday". :)

There will be no rep loss for Green Hat Tuesday.

That's outrageous!

To give Rogues Stealth and apply concealment both mechanically and visually would be more accurate, and what I am lobbying for.

I disagree, that in PFO, if stealth would apply concealment both mechanically and visually, that such a mechanic would actually represent more accurately the spirit of the TT.

Both perception and stealth are fixed numbers that denote the distance at which a character in the stealth stance can be seen and the distance at which a character in the stealth stance can be targeted. I think this depicts the spirit of the TT in a more meaningful way.

Separating these two aspects, the visual(seeing) and the mechanical(targeting) will be more fruitful and more robust of a system imo.

Merry ride to low rep CE to those celebrating "The Green Hat Tuesday". :)

I'm giving my thumbs up for this kind of stealth mechanic. I've never liked that complete invisibility-stealth in other games. I think what the devs are planning will be so much more fun than just jumping out of nowhere. You need more planning and more strategy and cunning to be a rogue, which is the way it should be. Every situation is new and you have to carefully balance your options. I think it feels right.

The stealth mechanic seems to have gray areas and will bring much more variety and fluctuation to combat than a simple "invisibility-stealth". That's why I'm giving it my support.

Let's say engaging in meaningful player to player interaction increases reputation: Completing contracts, taking part in wars, feuds, faction warfare, raids, building settlements, harvesting, gathering, SAD, etc, etc all the mechanics GW builds for player to player interaction. But the reputation increase from those activities should be so slow that compared to engaging in a one random "unsanctioned" killing should have a devastating effect on a characters reputation.

Lets say reputation is a five star scale. Engaging in one random "unsanctioned" killing of a group or of an individual would decrease the reputation of a character by one star or even more.

Edit: To contrast, playing PFO two weeks in a "sanctioned" way 5 days a week 8 hours a day might bring a reputation increase of a half a star.

If there would be hexes without consequences, I'd like there to be an rp reason for that. I don't think alignment is just something you turn off in the world of Golarion once installed.

Maybe some magical object that makes everybody "grazy" so that the gods turn a blind eye towards them. That object could then instill more events in the hex for players to combat over at intervals. Maybe something that spawns irregularly that settlements send scouts to scour the lands and when the stuff pops up the scouts rally a big raid to take home the stuff etc...

Lifedragn wrote:

I am seriously confused about the direction of the game now.

I'm not. It's been remarkably consistent. Jerks are going to suck, and if you're overly worried about whether or not the mechanics that make that happen are going to hurt you, then you probably have good reason.

Of course, "some people" might think that attacking other players without their consent is being a jerk, but I think most of us all realize that's ridiculous.

I have to say I'm with you on this one. The reputation and alignment are not too separate mechanics, but a one system. The reason for this system is probably what most people don't understand, but in my opinion the reason for this system is to allow a broad range of playstyles for a lack of better understanding. Combined with other mechanics and player dynamics PFO should thrive.

Reputation is not a pathfinder core rule book rule. So why has GW added it into the game? I think they want unsanctioned pvp in the game because many people get their thrills out of it, but they also want to control that thrill a little bit. I think it makes sense although I could see PFO thrive even without unsanctioned pvp and maybe even have more players interested in it without it...

My interpretation of sanctioned/unsanctioned is the hostile state. I see hostile PCs no different from hostile NPCs. I don't always attack a hostile NPCs if I don't need to, same with hostile PCs. Then there are nonhostile PCs and NPCs. One probably can't attack nonhostile NPCs, but whether or not to attack nonhostile PCs is everyones own business. If you go along the path of attacking nonhostile PCs, there will be some consequences, namely reputation and alignment changes. How those changes affect a persons gameplay, who knows?

It has been highlighted by GW how reputation and alignment changes affect a persons gameplay many times, but there seem to be a lot people who are not buying those talks. I wonder why that is?

I like the fact that people can play just sanctioned pvp if they want. Lawful good alignment and high reputation at least to me mean a lot of things. Mostly I want to be in a good settlement where there is no mindless slaughter. The fact that settlements can ban individual characters and characters based on their reputation/alignment(play style) are things that make PFO a better game in my opinion. And I really hope the system works so that people who want to live in a settlement where it's mostly peaceful outside "sanctioned" pvp can do so.

I don't understand why some people try to drive that aspect out of the game. The people who want unrestricted pvp should see that it exists in PFO with the mechanics we have now. So why should those people try to take the aspect I just described out of PFO? Doesn't make sense to me...

Alarox wrote:

I agree with everything you said except whether or not its the way it should be.

Yeah, I was just clarifying how it is currently, as least as far as I know it to be. Wanted to make sure we're on the same page for that.

What method do you think is better than the system GW has developed so far? Do you think there are more PvP scenarios which will be bread-and-butter for the game's core concepts, and thus should be sanctioned? Any specific ones in mind?

(Just facilitating discussion on it. Anyone should feel free to answer any or none of these questions.)

I suggested a magical plague by Pharasma. A debuff that gets worse the lower the characters reputation drops. Maybe first implication of the plague could come at -1. I know this would lead to more meta playing for those that want to balance with the plague, but otherwise it would keep a lot of players on the plus side. Of course the debuff power could easily be tweaked to suit the needs of GW and/or players, which makes it ideal in my eyes.

@Kitnyx
Hah, this is funny :)

I would like the game to keep track of everything my character does whether they are achievements or not. Of course grinding something to get a mechanical benefit isn't ideal. But it would be cool if the game could register and calculate every system feedback, kill, interaction(ie contract) etc. So that the player could see everything that can be done in the game. I know it would be big list but worth it in my opinion. At some point it would give the meaning of achievement even if you get no other system feedback or benefit from doing something other then see the list of what your character has done.

Copper longswords crafted: 4
Goblins killed: 7
Humanoids killed: 6
Elfs killed: 2
Assasination contracts made: 5
Assasination contracts finished: 3
Wildbloom harvested: 40
Grand halls captured: 4

etc

No mechanical benefits, no linking, Maybe someone wants to rp an elf killer and do unsanctioned pvp on elfs, but I wouldn't think that would be a problem

I have the most awesome idea!!!!!! How about some incurable disease that gradually becomes worse when reputation drops. Let the wretched come they can hardly lift a sword. And the more the wretched have dealings with each other the worse the disease gets. Ha ha ha hah aaa. Heh :)

When a character gains reputation he is miraculously gradually cured from the disease. Oh It's a magical plague by Pharasma!

If by my life or death I can protect Brighthaven, I will. The good peoples of River Kingdoms have my sword. :P

I don't think it matters to me if every mob drops coin, if when you loot a mob the amount is just automatically added to players coin stash without any extra clicks and maybe the loot window doesn't even show the amount of coin the mob had.

Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:

I disagree strongly. I would prefer a game where alignment is an indicator of the players actions. Those that meddle with the undead are definitely evil in my book, those that use slaves are evil, those that kill people with no reason are evil. How could good alignments have equivalents for these?

First, two of your examples (undead and slaves) are PVE content / activities and the third is PVP. There should be a separation of PVE vs. PVP as it relates to reputation.

I would argue that alignment should be separated from PVP as well. To have a system where if you are LG, it is ok to slaughter others whom are CE is unbalanced. The argument that CE has more freedom of action has not been shown to be true in the Dev's posts or Blogs yet.

I have stated in another thread, perhaps months ago, that Devs should be making this game from a Lawful Neutral perspective. The game needs to be orderly and neutral as it pertains to the various systems and for the goal of creating balance.

I would be complete fine if reputation was only used as a players pvp behaviour meter that includes contract behavior etc, all player to player intercaction behaviour. Instead I would like alignment to meter all of players actions, everything he does in the game, pvp pve and whatnot. Don't know if it's possible to do this way though.

Alignment will matter very little in the end. I like how you continue to push your emphasis by stating a low-rep CE player. In the end, reputation will reflect play-style and alignment will represent RP style. Evil does not, nor will ever, mean stupid. You're looking at the wrong side of the spectrum as far as alignment anyways. The focus should be Law vs. Chaos when it comes to upholding societal norms.

And, I may wrap up my point here in a moment.

No game should say that any "alignment" in not viable, if they present it as a playable part of the spectrum. Chaotic Evil should be just as viable as Lawful Good and Lawful Evil just as viable as Chaotic Good. Adjusting that in any way destroys the alignment system from the table-top anyway. Alignment should be the sprinkles on the finished product. They should look appetizing, but in truth, do absolutely nothing except identify your character through an RP avenue.

I disagree strongly. I would prefer a game where alignment is an indicator of the players actions. Those that meddle with the undead are definitely evil in my book, those that use slaves are evil, those that kill people with no reason are evil. How could good alignments have equivalents for these?

A good article. The difference between unsanctioned pvp and non-tolerated behavior is a good question. For now they seem to be two separate concepts. I don't mind that. But allowing companies and settlements to segregate according to alignment and reputation has more to do in my opinion with unsanctioned pvp than non-tolerated behavior allowing companies and settlements to create their own kind of pvp policy or atmosphere. Which I could say enhances meaningful interaction at least for some people, but maybe not for everyone.

K as in kill, we should be known as ruthless killers of those that oppress and prey on others. :)

I hope PFO has an option or a built-in hotkey for switching mouselook on/off cause I really like to play with it. It makes movement a lot easier for me because I only like to use the mouse to move.

For those that use the mouselook there could be also be an option so that when you bring up an UI element like an inventory window etc you automatically switch to cursor mode. And with the mouselook:on a player also needs a bindable separate interaction button outside mouse to loot and interact with objects and npcs.

I'd say these are pretty modern standars for an aaa mmo but I could be wrong...

Please please Goblinworks :) Pretty please :). It's a little extra work I guess... pretty please

holding down the right mouse button all the time is tiresome... :(

I've played a lot of pen and papers as many others here probably have but to me alignment in them has always been this kind of small curiosity that no-one keeps track of. I think it's fascinating to pick an alignment that gives certain guidelines to character behavior or not in case of some alignments in the grid.

The state of alignment in PFO is different in my opinion. The alignment system will blossom in a computer game in my opinion. Especially in the way GW is trying to implement it. I know it doesn't go hand in hand with the pen and paper, but the fact that a computer keeps track of a characters actions in the light of the gameplay rules is the middle way I think. It's not factional but it's not truly free either in terms of player interaction. Most certainly a paladin walking into a wretched hive of scum and villainy would find trouble at the door and that in my opinion is something that makes a fantasy world tick.

The good thing is that GW isn't gonna run out of stuff to add to character generation anytime soon. :P

Griefers shouldn't be allowed to play.