Draws a circle in the dirt with his sword. Places a large and overly cumbersome stone in the center of the circle. Sets a mutton pie and a large tankard of ale on the stone.
Begins casting Summon Connor.
Hi. Why am I here?.. Seems you got the summoning circle wrong.
There are.... so many things... that I would like to see in the new forums. I think the community has done a great job expressing their desires, and I'm sure all the ones on my list have been covered at some point... so I'm not even going to bother listing them. I'm not saying you guys shouldn't list them - I'm just saying that I am feeling rather lazy. ;)
Thanks to everyone. I gave seen a couple that seem right up.my alley. Though I am going to say magistry seems like the best fit for now, who knows in the months before we get in. But in the mean time, hope to see you all around.
And to answer, small =~ 10, medium up to 50. Not to say that would stop me from joining a larger group, but I prefer the tight knit, togetherness from smaller groups.
Just a random thought... who here has played shadowbane?
Also.. anyone used roll20.net? I will ask this else where as well, but I am about to introduce some friends to roleplaying, pathfinder, but I need a good module or some tricks for first time rpers
Our small guild (shameless plug: Deathwatch) consists of about 10 definite players, 7 of which being in Early Enrollment. All 7 of us currently play either local Pathfinder tabletop campaigns with each other, or specifically use roll20.net. (two campaigns going at the moment)
We looked around for different free and/or paid software, and roll20 is by far the best we've come across. And the free version has everything we need, too!
Edit: We have about 3-4 more friends on-the-fence about purchasing the game - I think they are just going to wait until Open Enrollment.
To further expound on this, if I remember correctly, "Crowdforger Guild" buddies (all 6) were told NOT to vote in the original LR1 - their 6 votes were assumed. Whether all of the guilds in LR1 obeyed this or not, who knows.
In any event, this might also slightly skew your figures (by up to 6 in either direction), in addition to the EE vs OE problem.
I'm aware that the following things need to be worked on:
- Events calendar is empty (might be replacing it with another App - we'll see)
- Forums are practically empty
- Links page needs some work (and more useful links)
- No news on the front page yet
It seems to me that this whole debate stemmed from the fact that Golgotha put 'PAX' in front of their settlement name on the land rush. Now, I have no knowledge on them joining the PAX gaming group or anything said on their forums like others obviously do.
<snip>
Therefore, in closing, I think Golgotha can keep the settlement in the land rush.
I'm thinking along the same lines, but I would still recommend that they perhaps disband, reform it without "pax" in front, and then maybe perhaps add a note in their description that describes their affiliation/relation/whatever with the other Pax settlement, etc.
I am going to be recording video for the blog this afternoon at 4pm our time and I won't be leaving work until it's been finalized. Due to the way we're running the web site it may not be published live until tomorrow. That will depend on when I get done editing.
This news is exceptional. Thank you. (It also implies I can stop hitting refresh for the next several hours!)
Amigad, I've never done this until today, but I'm now finding myself clicking refresh on the blog at least once per hour today.
I think the largest problem they are facing is that Ryan is currently graciously answering every email that is sent in - which might lead to less time allotted to things like writing carefully-worded blog entries.
Just a thought here... The groups with less then 10 members, and even the groups with less then 20 members, will not own their settlements once siege warfare has begun.
If they do not own a settlement at all, it is more likely that they will stay in the game longer. If they are removed from a settlement they are more likely to quit.
I wouldn't be so sure. My prediction is that smaller "guilds" that find themselves in control of an early-game settlement would have a prime opportunity to recruit some of the other 70+ "guilds" that failed to achieve the same. If they played their cards right, they could end up being larger than some of the "top 10" "guilds" in the LR2. Just a thought - because Deathwatch was considering trying to do the same (it was our "Plan A").
T7V Avari wrote:
... Separate websites, separate private forums, separate voting structures, separate meta game guilds. No common military, no common diplomacy, not even a promise to form in game nations. ...
^ This. All of this. As being one of the more recent companies to join the Accord, I can clearly see that while there is very, very open communication between members of the Accord, we each have our own priorities and all the things Avari mentioned. I think that this thread should show great evidence of that, as it appears to me (I may be wrong?), each company from the Accord has their own opinion on the situation at hand. Even some members of these companies are speaking on their own behalf.
Cyclops Face wrote:
... Can Nihimon come in an unequivocally say that Veil has not given any votes to any other settlement in the Accord? ...
I'm not saying that I disagree nor agree with Nihimon's stance in this argument by stating the following:
On behalf of Deathwatch, I admittedly approached Nihimon about doing something similar to what Pax is [perceived to be] doing with Golgotha. I spouted out some random plan that would involve soliciting T7V's assistance gaining extra votes for Deathwatch's settlement (which, to be fair, was to involve those who voted for us to actually reside within). There were to be benefits for T7V as well, according to the proposed plan.
Nihimon and other leaders of T7V were against the idea, solely based on the idea that no matter how fair or rule-abiding the plan could become with tweaking or otherwise, it would still look dishonest and would make us look like we're doing the same thing as Pax - even if we weren't.
The plan was quickly destroyed, and we investigated other options to how me might work with T7V, the Accord, and other supporters. We found a few options, and ultimately found the best for everyone's interest.
Now, speaking on my own accord, I believe that what Pax is doing is very much perceived as unfair - but only because there are no technical restrictions keeping people who vote for a guild in LR2 to actually play/live within that settlement.
Perhaps the best solution to please all parties involved would be a simple plan as such:
- "Pax Golgotha" should disband
- A new "Golgotha" should be re-formed, preferably by the original leaders of Golgotha (before it was directly associated with Pax)
- The description should clearly state its intent (to play closely with Pax Aeternum and to eventually form a Kingdom with them).
- It should also state that only members planning to stay within this settlement should vote for it, and further play/live within it later.
- Members of the original Golgotha and any recruits since should join it.
- Pax members that had not voted for Aternum in the original land rush and who cannot (for alignment reasons) live/play within the walls of Aternum should perhaps be considered as new recruits.
I believe a plan like this would help Pax's image, perhaps make Nihimon a little bit less angry, still abide by the rules set forth by Goblinworks for LR2, still keep PFO looking like a fun game to play.
Perhaps I'm being too idealistic.
EDIT: And, perhaps I've opened myself up for a whole lot of flaming?
Well, that works greatly in our favor over at Deathwatch. We snagged the domain name "deathwatchcompany.com" - it's a good thing we didn't specify venture/chartered/sponsored/waffle.
Although, I could really use a waffle company right now.
Nay, I was at first, but not anymore. Andius actually has great ideas, about the fact that too much PvP is toxic for the community, and that PvP shouldn't be the main objective of the game.
Even though we will obviously be in antagonised communitys, which is fine because the game would be boring otherwise, he still is cool.
What ? Wait, wait a minute... Do you mean that real PvP fighters shouldn't all group together to have easy victories
Join Aragon today, a settlement with so much concentrated PvP power and such efficient leadership that even members of an alliance with over 7 times our membership fear the ease which with we can overcome our opponents.
Do you want to be a part of a group that inspires that kind of fear? Do you want to be forged into a warrior that powerful? Join Aragon today and run with the wolves!
Andius, stop quoting me please, we shouldn't argue before Xeen, you know it always upset him.
I would like to formally announce that we will be joining the Phaeros settlement. As such, we have officially disbanded our Land Rush "guild" - but our chartered company will remain intact. We will be working very closely with The Seventh Veil in this venture, with more exact details regarding our partnership to come at a later date.
In the meantime, all of our members will be placing our "votes" in the Land Rush to Phaeros (currently named "The Seventh Veil"). Although there are several other options available to us, including throwing all our votes into another affiliated (Roseblood Accord) settlement, we (both T7V and Deathwatch) felt that this was against the spirit of the contest. After all, we are planning to live within the walls of Phaeros, and we should represent this with our numbers as well.
It was a difficult decision to come to, but in the end it is quite relieving. Here are the basics of our reasons:
- Without making a massive push for recruitment, we would simply not "win" (be within the top 30 "Guilds") the land rush. Although this might have been possible with the assistance of the Roseblood Accord (e.g. if they were to encourage new members to join our settlement versus others), it would still be quite a challenge.
- As it stands right now, we simply do not have the sheer numbers required to effectively run a settlement. I'm sure that if we did establish one via the land rush, we'd probably gain the membership needed later - but it wouldn't make much sense in the meantime.
- After trying to come up with some plans with Nihimon and the rest of T7V that would include us keeping our Land Rush entry, it was clear that this is a group of people that we would be happy to associate ourselves with.
- T7V is glad to take us in, and we're happy to have a assured place that we can call "home." And for the record: we'll do our best to be sure that we keep up our part and make their decision to take us in worth their time and effort.
Again, to summarize:
- The Deathwatch Company is dropping out of the Land Rush 2.
- Deathwatch will be joining T7V in their settlement Phaeros.
- All of Deathwatch's "votes" in the Land Rush 2 will be counted towards the Phaeros settlement.
- Deathwatch will remain its own separate entity, living within Phaeros.
One "final" note:
We are definitely still open for recruitment! However, if you do join us, we ask that you place your votes with Phaeros to indicate that you will be joining their settlement. It certainly won't help them "win" (after all, they already have a settlement established via the first land rush), but this would ethically be the correct course of action.
Before making any wild assumptions about any of this, please just ask me questions. You can post here, or private-message me.
Good feedback Thod. Did you get this info into CBDunkerson's list of landrush guilds?
I added Thod's Friends when they joined, but wasn't sure how to describe them (a common problem). I'll update the lists to stress UK & PFS origins.
It also looks like some guilds have dropped out. I'll go through and remove the inactive entries.
Deathwatch has indeed "dropped out" of the the Land Rush 2, but only to join Phaeros directly (with all of our votes).
Even though we remain a separate company and we will be working directly with The Seventh Veil, we choose to take all of our votes and place them into their settlement. Some of the things we could have done would include placing our votes with other affiliated (Roseblood Accord) guilds, we felt that this was against the spirit of the contest, as we do intend to live within the confines of Phaeros.
I will be updating our forum thread shortly with details as to why we came to this decision.
As the official diplomatic representative of Deathwatch, I hereby pledge our affiliation to the Roseblood Accord. Most of our details can be found on our original Chartered Company introduction thread, however we are shying a bit away from the necromancy theme slightly (in light of the heinous flag mechanics that were announced sometime after that - we shall see how actual game mechanics will work in regards to how heavily involved we will be with necromancy at some future date).
Otherwise, we are simply a humble group of adventurers that wish to take part in a larger scheme of things. Alone, we are weak. As part of a larger group, we can not only benefit from the strength of numbers, but we also seek to offer our skills to benefit a greater cause. We believe we have found such a cause.
We are a True Neutral company - open minded to all sorts of adventurers, even if their tendencies may take them down one path or another. (Mechanically, it gives us five options for compatible alignments, versus four, or three.)
Our adventures may take us deep into dungeons, or perhaps onto the battlefield as wars between kingdoms ravage the land. With such a varied bunch, it is difficult to say exactly where we will end up from one month to the next, but I can assure you that we will do our best to make it a fun experience for those that join our sides.
I guess you could sum us up with this:
"Deathwatch: True Neutral - A group of adventurers of varied types."
I know a big focus right now is to migrate everyone's account over to goblinworks.com, among other tasks (e.g. Alpha readiness), but the guild/company/settlement confusion REALLY needs to be summed up.
I would even say to go as far as explaining it in a kickstarter email... Or something equivalent. Like an FAQ.
When we first created our guild on the LR2, we were confused a bit about how everything will come into play (e.g. multiple companies to a settlement, etc.).
Which, by the way, can anyone pinpoint a quote or a blog post somewhere that describes the mechanics in which two or more companies within a settlement will interact with eachother? Such as... will we have separate buildings (like guildhouses)? Will the founder of the settlement be in full control over all of it?
We're one of those smaller guilds that are on the fence about trying to recruit more people (individuals or companies), or to abandon ship and filter-in with the "big guys" and just join their settlement(s). So really, any functional information right now would be nice.
Honestly, I didn't read every post in this thread - mostly the ones that seemed important (ofc including Ryan's).
I'm the leader of a small guild (shameless plug: Deathwatch) - mostly consisting of a small group of friends from the same small town who have been through several MMOs and in most, had our own small guild (frequently taking in many outsiders/acquaintances to make it a medium-sized guild each time).
Seeing these "giants" (e.g. Pax) come in and sweep the leaderboard seems unfair and frustrating... at first. Ryan's post/PM really did remind me of several other posts, articles, and other texts made by Ryan and Goblinworks, where they've clearly stated that they want giant metaguilds to come into their game and make things interesting. It's hard to be frustrated at something like this, when it's sort-of the whole point all along.
Nonetheless, it really does give the smaller guilds/groups a run for their money. It sounds like the best thing that the smaller guilds can do is to band together and attempt to get a settlement this way. Only problem with this is: at the end of the day, who gets control of the settlement? If you have two groups of 20 members each attempting to join together for a shot at the top30, who's going to concede to the other, granting them [what I am assuming is] full control over the new settlement?
Back to the large-guild thing. When I first saw that Pax (and the other two winners of Phase I) had not just added themselves to the Phase II contest, but had ALSO added a 2nd guild... I was quite upset. But now seeing that they could have done MUCH worse (e.g. the idea of creating 40 "guilds" with 100 members each... or maybe not so extreme...), I'm sort of happy that they are only creating these two guilds (and the other two winners only creating one each, it appears).
tl;dr:
I'm a bit unhappy to see that the winners of Phase I are creating guilds in Phase II to gobble up more land, but:
a) They have the right to do so - it's the sort of game that Goblinworks aims to see (e.g. giant guild warfare, creating their "meaningful player interactions"), and
b) They could be total ***hats about it and be far, far more aggressive with this strategy.
Had a "minor issue" myself over the weekend. Sent an email to that email address (not knowing it was going to Ryan himself), and received a response and a fix this morning. Excellent customer service, it seems. ;)
I'm assuming some of the outstanding Guild issues would include the Pioneer Buddies? I had my Buddies check their pledges, and they seem "gone" at the moment.
Regardless, we'll wait until the next update/announcement before breaking anything else. :P
...IMO raising undead should have a different flag than heinous. I'd suggest a "profane" flag, with advantages and disadvantages as well.
I like profane, would go good with someone who summons evil outsiders too. Maybe the bonus for being flagged for a long period of time could be the ability to summon/create more or a boost to the stats of either the undead or the outsider.
Indeed, that is the way I see that could work too.
I think I might be able to get behind something like that. Would like to see some detailed thoughts on the idea first.
There are "NO consequences" for an Evil character attacking a Champion...
Why wouldn't there be? There would be reputation loss for the attacker? Am I mistaken?
From the blog:
Quote:
These flags work like other PvP flags: A person targeting the character unprovoked gains the Involved flag and does not lose any reputation or alignment upon fighting/killing the target.
Oh, I was thinking something else - my mistake. But to address the original point: Champion flag is optional. It's essentially "looking for trouble." I would argue against the idea of raising/controlling undead being "looking for trouble." To me, gaining Heinous/Villain over a matter of PvE, only to suffer unprovoked PvP consequences in which there are no benefits whatsoever for the defender... seems a bit unfair. But to throw a "Champion" flag up and tell people, "Bring it on!" seems a deserving target.
1st: We don't know what the upside of reward is to counter the risk (known) of heinous flags
2nd: Necromancy does sound like you are interested in getting your hands bloody sacrificing souls and animating rotting corpses?
1) Rather true. And, in light of Ryan's post, it may not even occur that often. But if they already have a section of the flag system that's dedicated to "these sorts of acts", then I'm sure it's weighing heavily on the Devs' minds. I'm just hoping that the rewards for opening myself up to PvP situation where there's no consequences for the attacker - the rewards had better be d*** well worth it.
2) It wouldn't be great roleplaying without playing roles that are different in character from oneself, in my opinion. ;)
Nihimon wrote:
There are "NO consequences" for an Evil character attacking a Champion...
Why wouldn't there be? There would be reputation loss for the attacker? Am I mistaken?
It doesn't directly change the reputation, no. But if other players suffer no reputation loss for killing a heinous/villainous [wizard], then there is no penalty for (what I would view as) murder in cold-blood.
Of course the necromancers don't feel their being treated fairly. "Oh, I should be left in peace to defile the dead, pervert the flow of nature, spit in the face of the Lady of Graves, and create an army of unholy minions! Why won't these adventurers leave me alone?"
The gods and the people of Golarion, represented through the alignment and reputation system, think that's totally a legitimate reason to kill someone. Heck, killing necromancers is a Good act for Crusaders.
But that doesn't mean you won't be able to find anywhere to practice your vile arts in peace, it just means nobody is expected to let you do it around them. If you find some like-minded people, I'm sure you'll be able to take care of yourselves.
Cheers!
Landon
Goblin Works has said time and time again they want meaningful pvp. This is about crowdforging, being able to create a world with a working economy.
How does that work if you take one play style and basically say it is open season for them. Anyone can attack them without worrying about any consequences.
I agree that certain acts SHOULD have concequences but I feel that GW has gone WAY too far. They have basically painted big targets on every player who wants to use undead. Does not matter that I do not go out and attack random people. Does not matter that all I may want to do is PvE. If I have undead anyone can just come up and attack you with no consequences. That is NOT meaningful PvP!
^ This. All of this. Much better way of saying what I was pointing at.
EDIT:
To expand on this a bit further: I can totally accept the idea that a good-aligned character should see an undead-wielder as being a target, to some small degree. But only because said wielder is evil. But having NO consequences to this good character for attacking the undead-wielder... that is (as Banecrow said) NOT meaningful PvP.
It really doesn't. Walk into Pitax or Daggermark with a bunch of undead and you're still gonna get ganked.
Let me clarify: By "town" I'm not exclusively speaking of NPC settlements or cities pre-established by Pathfinder lore.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Only if you do ten things which give you the heinous flag without waiting a minute between them. I'm not sure whether controlling ten skeletons at the same time is ten heinous actions or just one, but either way it still seems like you'd have to work at it to get the 'villain' flag.
"Characters using undead for example will have the Heinous flag the entire time they are using undead." In this scenario, the [wizard] summons undead that fights alongside for a while. The entire time, the [wizard] is heinous. Undead minion dies. [Wizard] summons a new one within one minute. Stack another TEN minutes on the timer. Sounds like he'll have "villain" in no time.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Um, it already is. The 'Heinous' flag has no impact on the reputation of... anyone. It doesn't change the reputation of the person who has it or anyone they interact with.
It doesn't directly change the reputation, no. But if other players suffer no reputation loss for killing a heinous/villainous [wizard], then there is no penalty for (what I would view as) murder in cold-blood.
I'm in the 'what are the necromancers freaking out about' camp. I don't see anything at all out of line or unexpected with the way heinous works and undead.
Look at it from a tabletop RPG perspective... you stroll into a town in the River Kingdoms of Golarion with a small pack of zombies in tow. Do the town guards;
A: Say, 'Hey how you folks doing?'
B: Pay no attention
C: Kill you on sight
If you didn't pick 'C' then you are playing in some very unusual tabletop games. Do the guards get a bad reputation and drift towards evil for killing you and/or the zombies? Again, not in any gaming group I've ever played with.
Raise and control undead as canon fodder in dungeons or when you are already planning to be in a fight to the death... just as a necromancer would in a tabletop RPG. Just don't wander around the countryside with them. Problem solved.
The heinous / undead rules are fully in keeping with the setting of the game. Now, if PFO were set in Geb it might be a different story.
Depends on the town. In a lawful evil town, why would the guards even turn and look at a player strolling into town with a small pack of zombies? My concern is: it sounds like settlements will suffer greatly without high reputation. A lawful-evil settlement should not suffer terribly because of the raising and controlling of undead.
With things like the "villain" flag, your suggestion to using undead strictly in dungeons is invalid. The effects of what you do deep inside the dungeon would persist with you, even when headed back to town. Again, a player that is villainous should not have a problem strolling into a lawful evil settlement.
Another evil player should suffer consequences for randomly killing another evil player. Just because a wizard was using "ten" undead inside a dungeon, and then comes back to his/her evil settlement, another evil character should not be allowed to freely kill the wizard without any penalty.
What I'm really saying is: Reputation should be left out of it.
The heinous flag business here is really making me upset. The flagging system in general seems pretty nice and well thought-out, but I feel that the heinous flag needs some serious re-thinking.
Neadenil Edam wrote:
I am not clear why people are so upset about heinous.
You raise undead and get flagged for a few minutes while they are out collecting goods for you. Nobody sees.
I would EXPECT this to be the case. Of course if you are witnessing someone raise the dead, I could see it as being similar to witnessing someone commit a criminal act. You could deal with that person's actions without consequences. However, this appears NOT to be the case:
Goblinworks Blog wrote:
... such as raising and controlling undead ... Characters using undead for example will have the Heinous flag the entire time they are using undead....
.
.
And just as Murael posted about earlier:
Goblinworks Blog wrote:
... Anyone may kill a Heinous character without fearing reputation or alignment loss....
^ This is a terrible, terrible mechanic. This is certainly treating necromancers as though they were griefers, and I frankly think this is bogus. I can completely understand an alignment hit for summoning and controlling undead. Of course - it's an evil act! But to suffer reputation loss from players freely killing the necromancer, seems rather silly. It is practically the same as punishing a character's reputation for their evil acts. In this particular case, it seems that the Reputation axis is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the Good-vs-Evil axis. I don't think these should directly correlate at all. I feel that a powerful, evil necromancer for example, could easily have a great reputation. "Infamous" if you will.
In short, I would like to play as a necromancer. This would probably result in a Lawful Evil character. However, I don't want to become a complete social outcast or to have a s***ty character, just because I want to have some undead minions. I think this completely goes against the spirit of the Pathfinder tabletop game, and I'm deeply saddened by this. I feel like if I were to play as a necromancer character, I would be treated like a random-murderer.
Proposed corrections:
In regards to the Heinous flag, leave reputation out of it completely. Heinous should be strictly a "good vs. evil" subject, and should have nothing to do with a person's reputation.
The heinous flag should not be persistent while controlling undead. If the undead minions die off, let the necromancer summon new ones, causing another shift towards evil, and flagging him/her for a short period again.
Then, instead of a time limit, perhaps an item limit? e.g. limit of 100 items in a settlement. Player drops item# 101. Gremlins come and cleanup the oldest 20 items from the ground and take off with them. 81 items remain.
Among other things persistent loot allows players to exchange gear between different characters on the one account.
I would add this to the list, if I were able to edit the original post. Curse these messageboards and these limitations...
But I agree, this was a clever, albeit risky way to get items from one character to another, when the system did not otherwise allow it (or the player did not have a house or something to store it securely in).
Another thing to add to the list: Getting loot you can't carry. If adventuring far away from town in the middle of the wilderness where few players travel, it would be possible to drop a less-valuable item on the ground and run back to a settlement, unload, and come back to hopefully retrieve your extra load of loot.
I like the Public Groups in Rift. That way if I come upon someone getting fighting bandits I can join in and group with them with the click of a button.
In this model you speak of, how is party loot handled, then? Is loot even important? In PFO, looting a corpse that you do not have rights to can flag you; therefore it might be important to keep the looting rights to only those you trust in your party. Mr. Random Joe that walks up shouldn't be able to join the party without permission, gaining looting rights. Just a thought.
It's true that an excess of items in a confined area would likely cause unnecessary performance issues.
I'm kinda liking the idea of NPC street cleaners. Would keep the trash from piling up in the more dense areas, but allow items to still fall to the ground in the rest of the world.
Better to have 'donation boxes' at strategic places where spare equipment could be put for the young without evaporating like they would on the street.
I would rather see something like this than dropping things on the ground, especially if dropping were restricted to high traffic areas like banks.. Trash bins you can sift through if you really want to go dumpster diving. Make them like an add-on you can add to any/most buildings.
While the exclusive "trashcan" (or "donation box") idea would certainly solve the problems of having garbage lying around, it also takes away the immersion a bit, in my opinion. I find it interesting in some MMOs where the most populated cities are always pristine, and never-changing. It's a static world that can't be affected. Personally, I don't like this.
One more thing to add in regards to the idea of restricting this to certain areas: An example would be exploring an overworld area that a previous player had gone through, and finding some medium-grade axe lying on the ground. It probably came from an orc that was killed by a player who uses bows, but it might be an upgrade for you as a new player that uses axes. Awesome.
Question to the Devs:Will we be able to drop inventory items, including consumables, weapons, armor, etc. on the ground, such that these could be picked up by other players?
Background: One aspect I liked about Ultima Online was the garbage all over the ground in certain populated areas (e.g. West Britain Bank). When one player decided he/she did not want something, it was easy enough to drop it on the ground. Another player (usually new players) could pick up the item and use it if they needed it. If it was something that was truly trash, many players would simply use the nearby trash cans, which would delete the items from the game after a timer expires. If I remember correctly, upon server restarts the garbage on the ground was deleted from the game.
... I'm an ADULT! ...
Pros:
"One man's trash is another's treasure."
Somewhat immersive/realistic. Look at all the trash you see in the busy parts of a big city, for example. Generally speaking, where there are lots of people, there is lots of garbage. Maybe that's just an American thing, though. ;)
Cons:
If left unchecked, garbage can become overwhelming and obstructive.
Some players might argue that this might take away from the aesthetics of the game.
Depending wholly on game mechanics for transparency and collision, larger things dropped on the ground could cause functional problems for players (i.e. can't access something because there's trash piled in the way).
Possible latency/lag/storage issues. This depends greatly on the programming of both the client and the server. With today's storage capabilities, I don't see storage an issue. However, if the server and the client both have to track a lot of items lying around, it could potentially cause some issues.
I'm curious to see what the PFO community has to say on this subject, but I'm also really curious to see what the Devs would prefer. Obviously it's too soon to know what the capabilities of the system & software are (and whether implementing this would have negative effects on these), but I really would like to know if the Devs have any interest in implementing this in PFO. As usual with my threads: if this has been answered elsewhere on the messageboards, please simply point me in the correct direction with a link (thanks).
I think a major point here might be being overlooked: this will be an MMO. For example, the idea of preparing spells from a spellbook, or having a certain number of spell slots before resting, etc. ... All these things will likely have no application in an MMO.
Hmm, an update on the subject of Sorcerers vs Wizards (and whether there will be a distinction if there are no individual reagents, etc.):
From Ryan's post here...
Ryan Dancey wrote:
... We have a very good idea of what kinds of things need to be put on the priority list at the outset:
* All the races in the core rulebook
* All the roles from the core rulebook
...
It seems they will be focusing on the roles in the core rulebook, and that might imply that these two archetypes will be combined somehow. Obviously, we won't know for some time, but speculation is fun.
Greetings, nanacano! We'd love for you to join us. While we are waiting for more details about guilds and chartered companies, you're welcome to join us on our Facebook group, if you'd like to get to know us a bit better. Most of our members haven't created Paizo.com accounts yet.
And Dakcenturi, it's true that there are not many TN companies around yet. We'd like to remain a bit more "open minded" in terms of what types of characters we'd like to attract. Not to mention that some of our guild members may end up playing evil characters, while others will play good. We have a very mixed group so far, and it seems True Neutral might be the best way to cater to everyone.
Well, as to that scenario: Spell component pouches are fairly cheap, threaded gear, and it's a social game - go get a little help.
I certainly hope that's all it would take, which is one of the points I really would like to make. It shouldn't take exorbitant amounts of time to get back into playing the game.
Keign wrote:
Honestly I'm totally willing to accept change, but I'd sooner have sorcerers and wizards combined than reduced to too-similar shadows of one another.
I could see this combination as being a possible solution. Some people may not like that, but I could see that being a better option than the latter.
A guildmate of mine (who is not on these messageboards [yet]) said:
Quote:
My understanding is that people expecting something close to tabletop play are simply misinformed. The game is based on pathfinder lore and on DnD class and casting concepts, but the game will be an MMO akin to Mortal or Darkfall but hopefully with much more polish and thought put into it. Paizo has earned a lot of goodwill by keeping up the 3.5 support so I'm hopeful they'll be there directing the creation of this game.
And another said:
Quote:
I've been looking through the PFO forums and am worried about one particular aspect of this game: I'm worried people are going to expect PF Tabletop gameplay but just in virtual form. I hope not too many people will be disappointed when all the lore is there but the game essence itself has changed.
I have to agree with the common theme here in their posts. While the creators of PFO would like to keep true to the tabletop game as close as possible, I'm thinking that some people might have too high of expectations in regards to how close to the tabletop it will be.
That being said, if Goblinworks decided to make sorcerers and wizards cast nearly the same in regards to "physical components" (reagents, spellbook, etc., or the complete lack thereof) in the interest of keeping the game fun to play, then I'm thinking there's going to be some disappointed people. However, making the game tedious and unplayable is going to disappoint and frustrate people even more.
Unplayable? Check the spoiler below for this tangent...
Spoiler:
Yeah, look at Ultima Online as an example of a [albeit poorly implemented] reagent system for spellcasting. Not only was it painful, if not impossible, to start playing that game as a caster with no other means of support (friends/guildmates/alts), but if said caster were to die and lose all her possessions, she would not be able to cast spells to be able to make a recovery. Of course it wasn't impossible to make a recovery, but not at all easy. It involved saving up gold to try to buy reagents from vendors, or literally picking them up off the ground. To do the former for a pure caster without reagents... yeah you get the picture. Catch-22.
Scenario:
Imagine a modern-day player logging into PFO for the first time, saying "Oh neat, I've always wanted to be a wizard!" She rolls a wizard, and is probably granted some reagents and a basic spellbook. She ventures out and kills a few dire-monkeys and all is well. Suddenly, a band of goblins attacks her, kills her, and her corpse is looted. She loses her spellbook, or at least all of her reagents. She has no skills to even pick up a stick and beat things, so she's pretty much S.O.L. Depending on the type of person she is, she might rage-quit there on the spot.
So what I'm really trying to say is that we really should be prepared to accept change, especially in regards to how PFO archetypes are likely to drastically differ from those in the books.
While having the link back to a bank is * convenient* it would be pretty immersion breaking IMO. However, simply having crafted spell pouches of different quality eliminates hassle for the wizards and still stimulates economy. I do agree that these should have some degradation effect on them just like you would get with armor and weapons.
Well said, and I agree. Just don't forget the "threads of fate" part. ;)
Goblin Squad Member
