Darnell's page

Stehlen of UnNamed Company; I play games that are actually out while I wait for this game to be finished. Also, tabletop Pathfinder.

Heretek wrote:

Darnell wrote:

Also, while I admit I didn't look too deep into it, I am fairly sure you can stack the Kensai and Bladebound archetypes. In the APG it says you can stack them as long as they don't have conflicting levels and I believe they do not.

Correct, you can play as a Bladebound Kensai Magus.

You can from the looks of it, but the character has always been armoured. Remember, he was a paladin back in the day! I'm much more interested in a functional than an optimal translation :).

Mmkay.

Also, while I admit I didn't look too deep into it, I am fairly sure you can stack the Kensai and Bladebound archetypes. In the APG it says you can stack them as long as they don't have conflicting levels and I believe they do not.

It may be best to just talk to your GM and say 'This is the type of character I would like to play and this is a solution. Is there anything else you would like to change so as to help make this work?' If he is a reasonable GM he more than likely will work with you to make a character you find fun that wont be over powered. Be sure to go to him with some solutions though, like your switching out for divine spells.

Look up the Kensai Magus, might be worth looking into.

I would say go Elf Kensai Magus. At first level grab the Weapon Finesse feat and work to qualify for the Dervish Dance feat (just takes two ranks of the Dance skill). At third level also grab the Spell Blending (Mage Armor) magus arcana and you will have a pretty decent AC without even having to buy armor. For your stats I would go

STR 7
DEX 20
CON 12
INT 18
WIS 8
CHA 7

At level three you should have an AC of 26 with just Shield, Mage Armor, and a Scimitar wielded. Even higher with magic items. Also, DEX will be providing your damage instead of STR so get a handy haversack ASAP.

@darnell

steal mechanics are easy to take care of. Just have marking.

You cannot equal bounty with griefing. In order to have a bounty placed against you you must have done something against another player. A merchant just cant place bounties on other players just because.

If you cannot accept the consequences of your actions dont do them.

I will fully accept getting a bounty on my head for killing someone, but I refuse to accept an infinite one.

Also, by the same logic the guy who stole my kill should be able to accept the consequences for his actions with me killing him every time I meet him.

Darnell wrote:

I can see the bounty system more or less as stated but with a limit on how many times it can be reinstated. If a bandit raided a merchant and killed him I can see him putting a bounty on his head and would let him do that one or two times. After three in a row specifically for one incident would be griefing. It is ruining someone else enjoyment of the game to have to find some way to try and reconcile with a random person who could be some loon that can never let go of a grudge.

If the bandit's already killed the merchant once, why does the merchant have to wait to become a victim for a second time before posting the second bounty? He already KNOWS the bandit is perfectly willing to attack him, given the chance and opportunity. Furthermore, immediately after losing a valuable cargo is probably the worst point in time financially for the merchant to shell out for a bounty, so a single bounty really favours the bandit in terms of how much of his own financial muscle the merchant can apply in return.

Yes, but if the bandit was turned into a griefer and the merchant was turned into some new guy, then you would say killing the new guy once? Okay, perhaps the new guy stumbled into the wrong area. Twice, the guy is a slow learner. Three times? The guy is hunting that poor kid down and must be dealt with. The same logic should apply to how many times a bounty can be issued.

@leperkhaun okay change it to where instead of him getting to the spawn you saw before you can, let us make it where you just engaged a rare super awesome dragon guy and he steals your kill. Everything else is the same.

@leperkhaun I think that is way overboard for a random killing.

I can see the bounty system more or less as stated but with a limit on how many times it can be reinstated. If a bandit raided a merchant and killed him I can see him putting a bounty on his head and would let him do that one or two times. After three in a row specifically for one incident would be griefing. It is ruining someone else enjoyment of the game to have to find some way to try and reconcile with a random person who could be some loon that can never let go of a grudge. Say for instance you are walking through the woods and you come upon a rare item/spawn/whathaveyou. Some other person runs out of nowhere and ninjas it. You decide to kill him. Then you say 'you know what? This guy hasn't suffered nearly enough' so you go out and kill him a second time. Then a third. You keep doing this for a week. Are you griefing? How is an infinite bounty system any different?

Harad Navar wrote:

..I might even become Kawasaki.

I meant kamikaze. Darn autocorrect, and my own lack of review.

From the previous post I thought you were talking about making your own settlement, then you go and say you wanted to become a suicide pilot? I'm lost. Is flight going to be in this game? It would be awesome if it is.

Okay, I finally have to chime in here. Maybe I'm a bit late on the draw, maybe it's already been covered, but I have to speak my mind.

Bluddwolf wrote:

EvE has survived griefing by getting the game's player culture to accept it as a reality of life in EVE.

Forgive me if I seem ignorant or naive, but that's a terrible way to play.

Just accept griefers, whose sole mission is to make you as miserable as possible, and do nothing? Never try and make a stand against them or even believe that things could be better? Obviously griefers will come, obviously they will do whatever they can to make playing as terrible an experience as they can for people, but that doesn't mean we should just bend over and take it. To me, the treaty is more of a sign of the fact that we, the players, are willing to do something, anything we can, to counteract these people; it doesn't matter what you do in game because griefers aren't happy until you aren't happy.

Fighting and failing is way better than to do nothing at all.

I don't think he means that the EVE community just started to bend over and take it, just that it is a matter of fact. You go to the shady side of the universe you will get killed... habitually. So, you just steer clear of that system/group of systems. Most of the kills in highsec that could be considered griefing was more of holidays that show how great a game EVE is. I know that seems odd but Hulkagedon was some of the most fun I had in that game. It proved what the game stood for and continues to stand for: a vast, uncaring universe that you have to stand up for yourself in if you want to succeed. PFO doesn't have to follow that exact model but the community as a whole may suffer from it. If there is no risk to traveling outside of a town with all of your goods to the next town over, then when you get there you will find that all the tradesmen had the same ease of getting there. If they had no risk then you will over saturate the market with commodities lowering your profit margin. If you allow for the occasional griefer so that the regular bandit may keep his job then you add risk. With that risk you may get attacked, or the guy before you got attacked allowing you to sell your items to a market that is in need of what you have because no one else was able to get there. Heck, you could just higher a bunch of dudes to be bandits on a road and kill every caravan but yours that passes through, eliminating your competition. That is the true beauty of a sandbox.

Ganking isn't really something that can be avoided. Just don't run around in what you cant afford to replace. Then again I guess that is the pod pilot in me speaking. As for griefing it seems that many of their ideas will just encourage more sanctioned griefing e.g. the bounty system.

I would expect most companies will be self policing. Those that are not or are made specifically to grief will probably be policed by the ones that have made it a goal to ride the world of their ilk. If EVE is an example to be cited then we can all see that a little bit of griefing here and there will not kill the game and when a company or corporation is founded upon that type of gameplay ultimately their own discontent will lead to their downfall. Also, personally I am very much against a meta-game super-government.

The ability to use discretion in defining what exactly constitutes griefers rather than hard black and white policies is what makes player enforced anti-griefing superior to GM/Admin enforced anti-griefing policies.

My question was mostly aimed at that. However, thank you Blaeringr, Tony is a continuing inspiration to me.

Here is a question, if someone keeps killing the player with an ∞ bounty on them would that be considered griefing? Say, for example, player A is killed by player B. Player A happens to be very wealthy and influential. Player B was a hired assassin sent by who knows who. Player A wants player B to suffer for the inconvenience that player B inflicted upon his person. So he puts a bounty on his head and states that Group C may be one who can collect because they are very good at that sort of thing. Now Group C is really good and kills Player B in about an hour, player A does not think that it is good enough. So, player A keeps putting bounties on player B's head and group C keeps collecting often within a few hours or perhaps a day or so later. Would you, in respect to the proposed treaty, consider that griefing and lay down the mighty hand of all who withhold the treaty? If so, upon whom?

Andius, I think we are in agreement to an extent. I think it should either be attributes doing more than just saves and skill learning time or have it do just skill learning times.

But again, I ask, what affects DCs? It has been explicitly stated that attributes will affect saves and skill training and nothing else. So, in that system a fireball with just a DC of 13 will be easily avoided by someone with a 16 dex and then whatever else will increase his reflex save. It just seems loaded for people to keep their saves up as high as possible then the only thing they have to worry about is that sword.

I would like it to be a simple pressing and holding of W and start jogging and then maybe a skill or a combination of buttons for sprinting along with an energy bar to keep it separate from stamina. Perhaps even a walk jog toggle. It seems pretty standard and acceptable for the feel of a game.

What affects DCs?

The idea I was trying to convey is given about a year after early enrollment Bob will change his attributes to give him the great saves, he already has a solid barbarian build going he might reach his 20th merit badge about 6 months to a year after Burt, but for the most part he will be much more survivable than Burt. Especially if skill training wont intrinsically make you better. If you add in new characters then Bob will have not only a year of training to make him more talented but never really feel much of a sting for the slower skill training, after all most of his prey is a year younger than him and that power curve will constantly be widening because new players will join every day.

My real fear is if they introduce a way to change your attributes then I can see a place where people have the ones they need to get to a decent skill level in what they do, then 'respec' their attributes to get as high of saves as possible. It seems like it will end up just being cookie cutters on the attribute end. If my attributes only count for skill training and saves then at the end of the day I am training what I need to make myself viable in as short a time then switching to give myself the best saves I can so it increases my survivability.

What does "Threaded" mean?

Each character has a certain number of "threads of fate" they can use to tie their equipment to them, thanks to the rather unusual relationship the characters have with the goddess Pharasma—the same relationship that causes them to keep coming back from the dead. These threads cause the items to which they are tied to remain with the character when the character resurrects, meaning threaded items cannot be looted. Higher-level items consume more threads to tie them. Characters earn more threads as they advance in level, but they gain threads more slowly than they gain level-appropriate gear. This means a starting character will be able to thread all of his equipment to him, while a high-level character will probably have to pick and choose what he uses his threads on if he is using all high-end gear. If a low-level character gets his hands on a high-level weapon, he will probably have to expend most of his threads to keep it, meaning the rest of his gear will be lootable.

Right there it looks like it will be everything that someone has on their person. While I don't fully agree with threading, I would like it be that when I die I lose everything. It would add a sense of excitement and a him or me mentality.

However, I would like it if during the battle some of my stuff broke upon my death and made it disappear. Possibly even making a durability system. Though unlike WoW where if your item has 0 durability it is just unusable until you get it repaired, I would like to see it just get destroyed and go bye-bye. It would also make it so that just by ganking or griefing you add a little more danger to yourself.

I look forward to serving in your company.

What it looks like it reads is that everything on your corpse is lootable except what is threaded, gear worn or carried. So if you have a nice sword and some pretty nifty armor you want to thread it but if that uses all your available threads then you will lose your bag of holding and your boots of speed.

@Daeron Binding your items would kind of defeat the point of the system, that of making dieing and killing meaningful. Either the 'bound' object would be something you thread or since only you would be able to use it the guy looking your husk would just leave it behind and thus destroyed.

I understand that, I was just trying to point out what I thought was the absurdity of it.

Pathfinder Online Attributes only do two things - they affect your "saving throws", and they affect the time required to train a skill.

Are you saying that a person with 18 STR will swing a sword as hard as someone with say 10 STR if they both have the same abilities?

In my mind the way to best handle this is to need a spell or scroll to enchant an item along with a class ability/feat such as create magic arms and armor and if it is a scroll then you would also need a skill such as use magic device all being in the PnP game and translates well enough to an MMO. It will make it so that a crafter could do the entire thing without having a dedicated caster archetype stepping on their toes. Not many would want to waste time training something specifically to create stuff if that wasn't their idea behind their character concept. Also, create scrolls is something that is iconic for a wizard to do so it doesn't seem odd if someone was able to train that and have it slotted without it disrupting their focus bonus.