Being's page

We could best tell if a real solution was discovered by playing it.

It is possible that the opportunity is now. If there is nobody there but us we could play as we prefer.

What would be missing, were we to try it, is the means of story-telling.

Now,storytellers have been gathering ears for millennia with nothing but a campfire. But what we are seeking is rather different. A story lived, virtually, varies from a story told.

The nut of a story is a conflict. We have a setting. We need characters. We need a conflict and a way to resolve it.

I don't think beating down a hex filled with whatevers quite fits that bill.

Is this the trail we seek, or a dagger I see before me?

(Ostentatious Shakespearean allusion provided gratis)

We lost the Pathfinders with the PvP focus. Should have identified that as a clue. Making it possible to PvP was, I think, a right move. Making the game all PvP was a mistake, no matter how cost effective it looks on paper for paying players to be the content.

...

Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:

While I enjoy the "sense of risk vs reward" that the pvp aspect brings in, bottom-line there are not enough pvp'rs out there to make this type of game a profitable venture, if the primary focus is pvp.

The whole EoX was pro-pvp and they added a spice to the game, and as much as I dislike it even Zycor added a spice to the day to day of the game while he was more active.

I believe it went south when PvP essentially became the game and adventuring together receded to something that would be nice to have somewhere out beyond the horizon.

War between economic cooperatives is interesting more at a strategic level, and to me a strategic game doesn't fulfill the promise of pathfinder.

I believe that for this game to work there must be opportunities for adventuring at the party level. Clearing an area of Pinatas is not an adventure.

Unless the player is actively guiding the community, the strategic game is like backstory.

The tools for settlement warfare aren't ready for us yet. Chill a bit. You'll get your PvP.

Interested, yes.

My thoughts: I would approach it like an opportunity for real business analysis.

Begin with a design overview including the scope of the 'problem' at that point in the project lifecycle, then conduct a multi-session brainstorming effort. Lots of whiteboard and a way to record the proceedings which can be screened for gold.

Refine the whole of the 'problem', and break it down into digestible chunks. Then have us break out into subgroups led or at least monitored by a reality-checking dev for further brainstorming.

Then the groups come back together to present the results, whether they think a solution was found, or how has our understanding of sub-problems evolved. The elements unresolved might be subsequently worked by groups of a different composition if there is any time left.

Then, with all practical participant presentations given, reassemble the whole for us and see if it is recognizably coherent with the original design documents.

Perhaps a better solution would be a dynamic GW site page similar to what we used to see on Camelot Herald showing the map displaying (among other things like political hex ownership) a colorful little icon registering PVP kill count. Accessible to everyone, non-judgmental, impersonal, and objective.

I'm a bit disappointed Andius left, if only because I was looking forward to getting my ass kicked by him.

The more likely case seems to me that Andius holds at least one more account than he has sold.

Happy birthday :) Fewer times than I've checked this thread...

mumble, mumble, tansy leaves mumble

I suspect lawful characters will work more effectively together, but chaotic characters may prove more numerous. If chaotics are sufficiently more numerous they should be able to attrite the efficiency afforded by formation, but in the near term the lawful have the advantage. If it turns out that chaotics also suffer ADD, then the short term condition may prove chronic for a very long time.

Neutrals... depends on how they choose to express that neutrality. Life isn't monolithic but integral. I'd recommend Neutrals focus their lawful element upon the cooperative martial arts.

No magic wand is needed to give value to in-game coin.

Coins already have value we just don't have a scale by which to measure value. I think identifying what that scale should be was the objective of this thread. The relationship between the value of a coin and what it can buy hasn't been established but it will evolve, and it hasn't much to do with the agency of the developer except insofar as resource availability, drop rates, and possible rates of manufacture dictate. There is a difference between what is called economics in the real world and what will be the economics in the game world.

That coin has value is actual, whatever it turns out to be, because it is something that exists in the game. It will likely be tied to the value of xp training time once that becomes auctionable.

There are significant differences between artificial economics and real economics.

There is a valid tactical use for characters who simply will not maintain formation discipline. They are skirmishers.

@Being,

In you analysis above, where do you feel that the settlements and companies officially declared and actual as demonstrated by action alignments come in to play?

Players and their parties that are well organized, with good communications, practice together and show good discipline might leans towards LAWFUL style of play, while those that show poor or none of the above might lean towards the CHAOTIC style of play; neutral's of course can go either way. :)

I apologise for my density but I don't get what you are trying to ask me, Giorgio. Do you want to talk about the relationship between alignment and formation combat?

I'll take a stab at what I can imagine you are asking. You want to know how chaotic-aligned characters can conscience formation combat?

It is true that barbarians met and fought Romans. Barbarians are thought to have been more chaotic and the Romans were disciplined. Initially the Romans had the advantage because of their formations. Then the barbarians gained the upper hand because the disciplined roman formations were inflexible and couldn't easily pivot to refuse the flank. Then the Romans again gained the upper hand as they articulated the line into smaller units so that if flanked the formations on the end could pivot to refuse flanking.

Order and Chaos affect one another. If your chaotics do not learn to adapt they will lose. Chaotic alignments are not stupid. They can serve self-interest and it is in the interest of the chaotic to adapt. It is in the interest of the lawful to adapt as well. Adaptability and resilience are chaotic strengths equivalent to lawful discipline and control.

If only Phaeros had an AH.

We will likely end up dying armors and/or using banners to identify, but that won't help all that much until players use a little common sense and curb their tendency to run and hop wildly across the field.

The complaint is that you cannot tell who is on your side and who is an enemy. Healers cannot find their people all the way across the battlefield that need healing. Well it isn't for the developers to force you back into formation. The serious advantage of a formation is that if someone is where they are supposed to be you don't have to check their name to see who they are you KNOW who they are and where they are. If they aren't where they are supposed to be it is on them (but your reputation and military success will remind you to encourage them to stay in formation).

PFO is going to have formation combat. We've been wondering what that is going to look like. Well look around you. This is what it looks like. If you cast an aoe you cast it onto the other side. Don't cast it on this side. So each group is a formation. You know where your groupmates are because you are in formation. You don't have to check because they are where they are supposed to be. You don't have to check because the people on your side are either behind you or adjacent to you. They are the group to your right and your left. It is the guys across from you who are the enemy. See how that works?

So organize yourself with a smidgen of intelligence rather than whining for color-coded friends.

Maybe it is better to identify your target before pulling the trigger. All this trash talk about milk and cookies but you want things color coded.

Fill some of that initial wait, wait, wait, with longbow and you'll replicate my alpha methodology.

I think the shortbow also has less delay than longbow when swapping weapons to melee.

Being wrote:

It worked <happy dance!>

Essentially I clicked <set training>
Selected DT Character
Toggled from not training to training xp
Clicked set training again (step #10)
Logged DT char in
XP backdated correctly (given I didn't log in at all until just the other day).

Well done, good news.

Ok so to clarify ... your main backdated XP all the way back to the start of EE and the DT also backdated XP but only to the time you first logged in to the account ?

That is what it looks like... but I haven't done the math. So let me think... Character 1 began with 6000 xp. Character 2, created the same night, began with 1000 xp. I trained character 2 to where he had between 250-300 xp unspent, ran him down to Phaeros, then let him lie fallow until I might figure out what I did wrongly. When this evening, with the help of the community (thank you Ravenlute your response was the key) I succeeded in establishing him as the twin he suddenly had in excess of 17000 xp. I think that may calculate out to equal what I have put into character 1.

That is close enough for the Navy.

Does that have not have implications on 'the needs of the many -vice- the needs of the one' argument?

It worked <happy dance!>

Essentially I clicked <set training>
Selected DT Character
Toggled from not training to training xp
Clicked set training again (step #10)
Logged DT char in
XP backdated correctly (given I didn't log in at all until just the other day).

Thinking about it, if I have lost DT I cannot lose it more. Therefore I should assume my recollection is correct and I skipped step #10. If I'm right then going it to set training on character 2. I will hope the DT box confirmation box pops up, as Ravenlute suggests.

I'll let you know if this works.

Already done Giorgio, both by email and in-game. My thinking is that somehow I wasn't set up as a Destiny's Twin account somehow.

In the instructions I believe I missed step 10:
"1.Create your first character
2.Enter the game world
3.Close the game client
4.Start the game client again and log in
5.Create your second character and enter the game world
6.Close the game client
7.Start the game client again and log in
8.On the character selection screen, click "Set Training"
9.Click the training selector button next to your second character so that it and your first character both say "Training"
10.Click the "Set Training" button a 2nd time to lock in your changes
11.Select a character to play and click "Enter World""

Other hand, I am reluctant to try it again until I hear back from customer service.

It may be that my account was never set up for destiny's twin because there was never any kind of warning box I could cancel whatsoever.

I set training for my one character, entered game and logged out. I then created and set training for my second character, entered the game and logged out. I re-entered the game and only my first character had training set. So I attempted to set his training again.

So I am given to understand that I have eliminated my DT?

Allow me to express a bit of dismay. Politely. Quietly.

Rechecking the blog.

You mean this line, Giorgio: "•Once you set two characters to train XP on an account with Destiny's Twin you can't make any XP changes without losing the Destiny's Twin perk." ?

I did set two characters to train. The second one never 'took'.

There was a fairly consistent element of the developers' conversations (and consequently ours) that rare resources/etc. would be most difficult to gain. My sense of that was that there would be geographical differences, but there was also something of a suggestion that advanced escalations might be key. Whether any of that was more durably framed than speculative is questionable I feel certain none of it was carved in stone.

Was there a way that you could select for destiny's twin? I never saw even a hint of it when creating either of my characters.

...possibly modified by your character's trained knowledge... it is supposed to be so modified but there are questions lurking in the underbrush whether it be so.

Might be a good idea to simply give out the most basic armor, perhaps at lowered durability, just like wands, shortbows, and the like. I foresee naked huddled masses shivering in the moonlight otherwise.

Does anyone have DT actually working at the moment? I may have bolluxed mine.

Typical. I think I personify the single most resounding clue that this is an intelligent universe with a wicked sense of humorous design.

If more experienced players are farming all solo goblins around the starter settlements and new players need to score some goblin kills, the brand new players will grow frustrated and argue with the more experienced farmers. That means the newb will probably end up attacking a farmer who will then get a consequence-free kill.

I would strongly recommend Nihimon's solution of keying the odds of a drop to starter town proximity. Let the weak mobs that spawn away from a settlement still yield loot to encourage the new player to expand their hunting area and horizons even if they haven't settled on joining a company or prefer to learn the game basics alone where they won't embarrass themselves in front of others.

Phaeros illuminates the lands.

Well, I think most of the graphics are fine for now, however I was standing next to an Elf yesterday and he scared the bajeezus out of me. He totally looked like an ugly Roswell alien, with weird, glazed-over eyes.

Now you realize why I write science fiction. It isn't fiction.

Enjoy this season of giving.

Very glad to learn that you'll be with us, Lifedragn. Best wishes to you and yours.

Conjecture: Rations. Iron rations and water skins. Each rat weighs 1.

Mac? Big Mac? Is there to be a hamburger client?

NaNoWriMo. Writing 1800 words every day and hoping I get to the target 50k before EE actually releases.

They're accepting 50k as a novel now? go for 90K, Urman. Even 90K is a very slim volume.

IMO the best thing to do is let the story dictate its length, whether short story, novella, or novel. A tale should be no longer, but no shorter, than it takes to tell.

"by the time there are old vets, there will be roles and niches for them to fill"?

Yep.

Why not change Cleric to Priest?

Clerical error, obviously.

DA-Inquisition currently.

Last I checked DDO wasn't terribly solo-friendly either. That may have changed since those days, but I doubt it has.

I disagree, Savage. The imagery is rather good, albeit they don't match even Dragon Age: Origins. They are arguably more realistic than DAoC's. They are better than the current incarnation of Everquest, but EQ II I'd say is better, if a little cartoony. WoW is totally cartoonish.

The visuals in PFO are good enough to play and have fun with.

Done. Whatever it takes, so long as everyone is honest about what it is and open to the process of a reasonable development cycle.

I think one of the best advertisements would swoop in over the land down into an active settlement from the clouds. But it would also market the fact that it is a game in development, that grows even while being played, and that the players have had and will have a hand in its creation. Let the advertisement be true, unabashed, and proud of its accomplishments but aware and vocal about how far it is from finished. Let it be seen as it is, but let it's promise shine through like the star of a rough, partly polished sapphire.

The fact remains this game goes live in a few weeks. No matter what Dancey says about being alpha if there are to be no more wipes and a fee is charged the mmo population will regard this as a launched game.

Dancey had a target of 20000 players 6 months into EE, from what I have picked up on the forums I am not convinced the game can handle 20000 even if you assume a 10% value logged on at any one time.

Capacity is expensive. A revenue stream is necessary to enable that capacity.

PfO had a lot of promise, if they made good on those promises, however much of the mmo audience has already seen the promises made by other companies fail to come to fruition. They are now sceptics and if they come and find the game not fulfilling those promises they will leave and won't be back.

PFO has a lot of promise. Those who desire a ten year old game should wait ten years. If they do not, they aren't really the players we needed. Maybe they will mature in ten years.

Is PfO dead? No it isn't but it is on life support. People have stopped talking about it which is an ominous sign.

The worst thing they can do now in my opinion is advertise because this trailer will set expectations which will soon be found to be untrue merely by looking at youtube.

If the trailer is true, then it will not be a lie. If the trailer is a lie, then you might have at last one point in your post.

Get the game right with a soft launch of EE then when you have a game you don't think will make most of the community go wtf is this, then advertise.

No, advertise what it is that is being offered. Not a complete, finished game, but a game in development. Let it be clear what is being advertised, because the process of art, of creation, has value in itself to those who value art and creativity.

The implication is not only that not all things have found expression yet, but many undiscovered things await. ;)

I have only the one account, but I haven't had the login failure you describe in several weeks (when there was a known intermittent login issue).

I am unsure of what you mean, to be honest.

I meant only that I value your contribution, your thought, your impressions and I expressed appreciation as well of the constructive and inclusive attitude of the people people building the game.