Pax Rafkin wrote:
That does not look like a Crowdforger level pack. Maybe the Music Lovers add-on or something. Not sure but I would say you probably do not have access to Early Enrollment.
No, my goblinworks account specifically says that I *do* have access to early enrollment. My paizo account does not. That is why I posted and wonder if there needs to be some sort of correction/link for my paizo account or if I can just not worry about whether or not my paizo account accurately reflects things.
I'd love more info on caravans. How frequently will active merchants or gatherers need to use caravans? When exactly will they be necessary, in the context of gathering, refining, and in transporting final products? How expensive will they be? How much is at risk if it gets attacked, both in combat or through SAD? Are there any built-in protections? How fast are they? What skills might merchants get to mitigate or prevent losses? Anything and everything.
I'd also support getting information about the economy and the markets. Will there be a global "auction house" of sorts, will each settlement have its own, or will you have to visit actual merchant PC/NPC shops, or what?
Pax Rafkin wrote:
The only ones listed there:
Pathfinder Online: Behind the Scenes PDF
Plus these actually downloadable ones:
Pathfinder Chronicles: Guide to the River Kingdoms (PFRPG)
I received my guild buddy invite via email, and I clicked it and the account on goblinworks.com seems fine. I cannot, however, link that account with this paizo account still. Is this ok, or does that need to work?
My paizo account still has no indication that I'll be playing PFO; it doesn't list me as a Goblin Squad Member or anything.
I've always hated when games don't give you group credit for quests/achievements or whatever. It makes grouping and playing with friends feel so tedious. There's no faster way to make people say "Ugh, lets play something else" than when the 10 boar tongues you need to collect suddenly turn into 20, or 50, because you have friends who need it too.
Well my point was the XP system puts a natural check on "achievement" powerleveling to where I doubt it'll be much of a concern. Even if you race someone through a bunch of achievements they still need the XP (and vice versa).
Well the term "alpha" certainly carries a strong assumption of wipe, at the very least. Heck even most betas don't carry over into release.
That is way, way too expensive. You'd be willing to spend a sizable hunk of change just to go "ha ha! fooled you!" That's barely above flushing money down the toilet in my eyes.
Winning is playing an MMO for many years, and still finding something new to do in it.
This is pretty close for me, but I'd replace "new" with "worthwhile". I want to feel like after a play session, my character has progressed in some fashion. I need to have something to do that's actually worth my time, while also not feeling like needless tedium.I LOVE the AA system in Everquest, for example. Always some way to make your character better.
Seems more like you have a persecution complex to me. If they don't want you to participate in this, who cares. Actually claiming that you are being "griefed" is asinine.
Oh, and FWIW, I'm for allowing UNC to sign on if they like. Although I'm not convinced they do in fact care about the gameplay experience of others (Bluddwolf and Xeen, at least), I'm happy to give them the chance to prove me wrong. And down the road if they do act in ways that skirt the line of griefing, they can at least be reminded of what they signed on for via this accord.
And in that very quote you provided, Ryan does in fact define griefing. "The definition of griefing is to intentionally cause distress to another person with the primary intent of making that person feel bad."
It's a bad idea to define griefing because, beyond what Ryan said, people are far more creative than can be accounted for in some neat and tidy definition. Whatever list of do's and don't you come up with, players will find ways to grief that don't violate your little list. It's an exercise in futility to try and define it.
Saiph the Fallen wrote:
If an individual, after reading this thread, still does not comprehend its general vision then it probably isn't a good fit for them; I'm sorry but it's not that complicated
This exactly. It's not rocket science and insistence to "define" things better is, imo, missing the point.
I agree that there will probably be no expansion west, as the river marks the border of the River Kingdoms.
I don't play Pathfinder so correct me if I'm wrong...but there's still something across the river right? Why does there seem to be this assumption that an expansion can't be across the river? It's a river, not the ocean, correct?The release setting being the "River Kingdoms" doesn't mean that they can't expand beyond that down the road, does it?
Why are details important in what is essentially a "don't be a dick" agreement? Just don't be a dick.
Yup! Both times I post :P
It certainly happens, depending on your definition of "army". I've seen multiple examples of 6-boxing on Everquest, for example. I was watching a guy on twitch a couple weeks ago 10-boxing rogues in WoW. These are anomalies though, and if a couple guys like this show up in PFO...who really cares? They're more sideshow than problem.The most common box is obviously just going to be a basic 2 box, most of which just provide convenience.
I couldn't care less how many people box.
I was thinking about this general problem earlier, and will probably make some changes to the Guild Recruitment list soon. For example, I've been reluctant in the past to remove "inactive" guild listings, but I'm starting to feel that there inclusion is causing more problems for new posters than their removal would likely cause the guilds in question.
How exactly do you define an "inactive" guild? The game isn't even in ALPHA yet. Lack of visibility on this forum certainly does not indicate that a guild is inactive. The only guilds that could fairly be considered inactive are ones that have explicitly dissolved.
I personally will render no aid to the groups in the south east until the time comes for them to rebuild elsewhere. I believe good will be stronger when it is united in the proper location so the faster they fall, the better for our cause, and it would be difficult to reach them anyway.
Some groups aren't going to have tons of options when it comes to picking landrush spots, and others have almost no idea about these concerns you're bringing up. I for example haven't played Pathfinder, I don't know crap about these places you're talking about. Some people don't visit these boards. It just doesn't seem very "good" to me to say "Well you're too far south, so screw you"
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Will have wording similar to "Should either party no longer benefit from this contract, either part may void this contract."
That's a doozy of a contract clause. Few real contract would ever include something like that without far more precise language because it's basically a catch-all that lets you void at whim. Now it might be fine to give the non-UNC member power to void at will but if i'm hiring UNC for a job, I'm not agreeing up front to let them void it THAT easily.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Well, the OP indicates that Golgotha is interested in conquest. When Golgotha marches its armies and starts to attack other settlements in overt acts of aggression, it probably won't take a detect alignment spell to realize that Golgatha is evil. I don't think that every good aligned settlement will necessarily rally to the defense of every settlement every time its attacked (but maybe they will, I don't know). But I'm more curious if good-aligned Pax groups will have a blind spot when evil-aligned Pax groups act in obviously evil ways.In other words, if good Pax would normally act against an evil group in some given situation, would they still take action if the offender is evil Pax...or will they look the other way?
Question goes the other way, too. Will good/neutral Pax be off limits to evil Pax when it comes to their evil acts? What about good Pax's allies? If evil Pax attacks an ally of good Pax, will good Pax help their ally against evil Pax? If not, what does it mean to be "allied" to any Pax group at all?
Pax Deacon wrote:
I'm not sure I know what this means. That the good aligned Pax are going to "RP" that they don't know Golgotha is evil despite it being common knowledge?
Pax Bringslite wrote:
See, standing on a rooftop is an example of one I'd probably feel comfortable using without thinking too much about it. That would be a significant oversight if it never occurred to the devs that people might be on different elevations in combat, to the point where I'd assume it's intended that people might use rooftops to their advantage in that manner. At the very least it's not unreasonable for a player to view the situation as I do.Now, if I found a spot I could lead an NPC to, to get him stuck in the terrain and where I could then safely kill it while it's stuck, that'd be something I'd consider an obvious exploit that I'd report.
Lord Zodd wrote:
It doesn't matter if you pass judgement. What matters is if GW finds that if these "pushing boundaries" aren't in the spirit of a mechanic or the game than they will pass judgement, hopefully harsh judgement.
It's kind of hard to pass harsh judgment on a player if they're doing something allowed by game mechanics. The very fact that game mechanics allow something to happen is at least some evidence that the player's actions are permissible and it usually won't be unreasonable for a player to think some questionable action is permissible. There may be some clear examples where actions are obviously not acceptable but I think it's often not so clear.
I have fond memories of WoW PvP before battlegrounds and arena were introduced. Alliance gathered near Southshore, Horde gathered nearby in Tarren Mills. Massive pvp battles happened between the 2 cities and one side then another gained the advantage back and forth and eventually one side would push the other back into their city, destroying both them and the NPCs in the city. At that point the pvp would dwindle, then a bit later start back up all over again.
I actually really like this idea. If some particular group of bandits made a big show of it and used fancy period language, how can you not have some soft spot for that kind of performance? Of course, if I ran into that same group 4 times a day and they were bleeding me dry the novelty might wear pretty thin :P
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
I don't think you are trying to be a smart a$$ at all, in this or any other thread.It's hard to answer your question because I'm not the devs, this isn't my game, and we only know a very small amount of information about the game. So it's hard to say "I'd do this THIS way" without knowing the other pieces of the puzzle.
However in general terms, I'd make the costs of banditry relatively high. Allow SADs, allow random PK, but make the resulting penalties in terms of reputation and alignment significant. I'd ERR on the side of "too harsh" to banditry because I'd rather the game feel a little too comfortable than a little too harsh at first. Then as people settle in, if it turns out that the life of a bandit is too rough I'd adjust things accordingly until the desired levels of banditry are reached.
I think that's better than having banditry be too easy and too consequence free, and as a result there being bandits everywhere you look and taking the game in the "murder-fest" direction that causes people to quit.
I think too much banditry/random pvp is more destructive to a game than too little.
Come on. In most theme park MMOs there's nothing really at stake in pvp. The winning team gets a better pvp rating, or more warzone tokens or whatever. Here, you lose your settlement. Kind of a big difference. You can't just log out and hide or your settlement is gone.
I think you are using a definition of "random" that reduces it to uselessness, in the context of pvp. Obviously your targets are not going to be the result of pure randomness. Obviously you are not going to obtain a list of every character currently logged on, run it through some algorithm, and kill the character that your algorithm randomly selected. Obviously. But I'm not sure why you are dismissing other people's opinions because they use more useful definitions of "random killing" than you do.This is just my personal opinion, but assaulting a player simply because he's there, and might have valuables, is not a meaningful interaction. I understand that others may disagree with this. But I'd like the reasons for pvp to be a little deeper than that or I worry that all this talk about "meaningful pvp" won't amount to very much. I think pvp revolving around POI's, settlements, territory, all of that kind of thing IS meaningful, and generally going to be fun.
"Hey look, that guy is lower level than me. Let's see what stuff he has" isn't meaningful to me.
Seriously though, would that maybe change your views about banditry, and maybe the UNC as well, if we used the words "too much" when we talk about banditry and RPKing? As in "we will be bandits, but won't rob you TOO MUCH," or even "we won't take TOO MUCH if we get a viable and working SAD system in place". "We won't ambush you (AKA RPK) TOO MUCH". Is this a better way to understand the UNC's intentions?
I brought up the point about "too much" banditry/pvp because I think more people need to realize that this isn't a debate between 2 sides, one saying "All pvp/banditry is fine" and one saying "all pvp/banditry is bad." And mischaracterizing someone's points by using one of those extreme positions as a strawman isn't very helpful. I'm pretty sure most of us recognize that some amount of banditry & killing is appropriate in the game, the discussion is about where that line should be drawn and what balance creates the most fun experience.I don't think banditry is BAD, but I think it has to be treated very delicately and balanced very carefully because it can easily turn rotten.
Banditry has been equated to "random killing", and "random killing" has been equated to toxic behavior, and toxic behavior has been said to drive people from the game.
There is a key modifier you guys keep omitting from your strawman arguments, and that modifier is "too much." TOO MUCH banditry and TOO MUCH random killing is what is toxic. There is some amount of banditry and unprovoked pvp that is expected to be in this game and that most or all of us who find ourselves on the other side of the debate from you want in the game.What we don't want is TOO MUCH of it. Someone used the example of not being greedy while shipping stuff...don't ship it all in one shipment because that's too risky, instead ship it in 4 smaller shipments so if you lose one, the loss isn't so bad. Well, that advice is good if you live in a world where roughly 1/4 of caravans get assaulted.
If we instead live in a world where virtually every caravan is assaulted, that advice no longer applies. If you say to your friend "I hope just 1 of my caravans gets through without being robbed" and he laughs at you for being naïve, then the question of whether banditry is "toxic" is suddenly pretty appropriate.
Whether that's OK or not depends on the devs vision for the game. personally, I think the line has long been crossed if that's how common banditry is.
Being robbed should be a RISK, not a near certainty. That's how I see it.
FWIW I PM'd Mark my info and he said this:
We're going to work with Paizo tomorrow to make sure they are correctly showing the Kickstarter Pledge tool for buddy accounts. I don't think they are yet. That tool will then help you add Early Enrollment access to the Goblinworks account.
So instead of spamming customer service with emails we might want to just sit tight a couple days and let them look into this.
Yeah, when I do that I see:
I'm assuming this is because my account is part of a guild package and the email address now associated with the account is not the same as the email address of the original pledge. I guess i'll wait to see if someone comments on this before emailing customer service
The Goblinworks site has been up for at least an hour now - just a word to the wise sign up through paizo.com first. I did it the wrong way and couldn't confirm the account when I tried to link it to my paizo.com account in the kickstarter. I am sure its an easy fix ;)
I'm a little confused...where exactly are you saying to sign up before signing up at goblinworks.com? I don't see anything on paizo.com that might be it
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
You can really only speak for yourself on this point. Groups such as yours are unavoidably going to attract players who do, in fact, get lulz from screwing with other players. At best, UNC to this point demonstrates indifference. A couple posts above even your leader is basically saying hey if we make people quit, it's their fault for choosing this game.That said, we DO want bandits and "evil" characters in the game and the ultimate responsibility on making sure this kind of behavior doesn't reach toxic levels falls on the devs and the rest of the player community.
The devs have a vision in mind for how much of this kind of behavior they want in their game, and game mechanics need to be designed to discourage it enough to where the actual level is close to that desired level.
The players have a responsibility to be part of that equation, though. I will lose respect for good aligned groups (and probably some neutral ones) who tolerate groups such as UNC as long as UNC's activities aren't directed at them. In my eyes it's hypocritical to put things in your guild charter about helping the weak, fostering a positive community, stamping out evil and so on, while at the same time looking the other way at UNC's activities or even hiring them.