Calis's page

I have bought the game, 3 copies for myself, wife and eldest child, with the intent to play from the get go. However with the bugs in the game as mention by Cheatle I will not be playing, till they are fixed. The MVP as it currently stands is lack luster, but I would be willing to play at least for the three months I have, however the bugs are a deal breaker. For alpha I understand to a point, however if it gets to the point of paying to play this, I can not understand how anyone would play it, as it stand even for free it is not even vaguely worth the frustration. As an aside is anyone else disappointed with the complete lack of pathfinderness in PFO? I know you can not translate it as it is in the books ect. However to me it feels in no way related to Pathfinder. Mostly thinking about that since I will probable just run a real pathfinder game, while GW trys to get their act together.

Great post Xeen, I agree with 90% of it, and find nothing particularly objectionable. Nice to see a clearly thought out critique. I hope for a bit more out of the pvp, was hoping to be a caravan guard, gatherer protector "for the big node's". I don't see that making it into the mvp but I hope to see it before EO. I feel with what i have have seen, and what has been said the pvp of PFO will make or break the game. To make it clear, I in general don't deal with pvp and only occasionaly play pvp games, in most game I have never found it meaningful enough to participate in. However with the idea's that have been floated about in PFO I see that as a fun possibility. Defending your settlement, or other peoples creations/resources, is something I could develop a character around.

Been playing a Wizard with my wife's heavy fighter, this has worked surprisingly well, though honestly she puts out more damage and has more kills while we group, in addition to being much much tougher.Though she is not as effective at soloing as a I am. I have the ability to do better targeted dps and more mobility. Now that all ranged is about to be nerfed with the rooting the ranged user in place, I will no longer have the ability to maneuver, and being about twice as squishy as she is that means I will either die due to standing still while mob deal out 50 to 100 damage, or not deal much in the way of dps, because I will have to run about and be at best limit crowd control. Instead I will drop the spell book and pick up a sword put on some heavy armor, a two-hander and a bow and deal dps that way till the complaints about over powered whatever has the Nerf bat swing somewhere else. Honestly barring pure solo play I think close up heavy fighters and ranged char are fairly close in the ability to deal out mayhem and survive. My issue here is not so much this particular nerf (though I find it irritating) I more am disappointed in the nerfing by popular complaint/demand, to address larger issues. If I have learned anything in mmo's: is people are always going to complain about some class/ability being over powered, occasionally they are right most of the time they are not. However, thoughtless broad spectrum nerfing is never a good answer to the real issue.

First off I have seen the idea gm intervention work well, in the first semi massive player game I ever played, a mud called Legends of Terris. The GM's were gods, they enforced the rules that were not possible to hard wire into the game, added alot to roleplay, and and some of the plots going on in the game. They also mediated disputes that got out of hand. While that mud was not pvp, it however had alot of nasty things you could do to people. The "gods" were in general a positive influence, though at times biased force in the game. They allowed for the rules to be loose and yet could step in if things got to out of hand. I would love to see PF online try something along those lines. Their will always be ways to bend/break the rules intent while still keeping with in the letter of them. From reading the boards their seems to be groups of people intent on doing just that, and consider it just part of the game. While with in limits that is fine, when it gets out of hand I think there should be someone to step in. Trying to make rules that have no exploits is not possible and will just end up making the game to restricting while not actually succeeding at their intent. Anyway it likely not a workable idea but one can hope.

PS I was one of the people who used exploits, nasty tactics, ect, and was call before the gods various times, 95% of the time it was justified, I had various in game punishments, and only once was banded for a short while. So it not like i do not understand people wishing to find ways to work around the system intent, it just if it goes to far it make the game no fun for anyone.

I really like this idea. I think the a Colosseum should be in a PC Settlement, and that betting should be incorporated into said build. Also that there should be rewards for the winner put up by the owners of the settlement. Also that the owners of the settlement get a certain percentage of the top of all the betting, this will allow first off that the settlement gets a return on the cost of building said Colosseum, and seconded of to pay for the rewards that will draw in the best players. One of the reasons I think the Colosseum should be in a pc settlement, is simply that i think most of this game should be driven by the community, and that it give the settlements more of a distinction having various important reasons for a pc to travel to them. Other than just purely economical or quest driven reasons.