The Fifth Archdaemon

Duffy's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 389 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My first DMing experience was Star Wars Saga. I was hesitant to DM anything in the traditional D&D family line as I didn't feel familiar enough with the base setting material, but luckily I had plenty of Star Wars knowledge from years of reading EU books and what not. Soooo I semi winged an alternate original trilogy timeline campaign that then branched into another more related campaign, technically still have the notes for a closing 3rd chapter.

I now do the same thing in Pathfinder but fake the setting too! I pick a theme and build a couple villians/major plots around them then wing everything in between. Sometimes jam it right into Golarion somewhere or just use most of the trapping but make a quick one off world. I'll do a quick major events/ecounters outline and then thumb through the MMs to bookmark monsters that fit appropriately for random events or w/e the PCs get stuck. After that it's just a matter of tricking errr I mean letting the players help flesh out all the details of getting from A to B by playing.

Goblin Squad Member

Kevin Mack wrote:

Seems Newcorp have announced there presance still not giving a company name and the fact there still doing a capital raise after all this time indicates (Admitadly to just me at least) they are most likely not a major game development company

Newcorp announcement

No one besides the biggest publishers (because that's what they really are giant funding sources) uses their own money and even they arrange for influxes of outside funding when they can. If the development budget isn't some minor fraction of your profits you get outside funding.

The line has gotten blurred as publishers started buying up studios years back.

Goblin Squad Member

DTs have been around since the start as they were only available if you backed the Kickstarter at a certain level or higher. It would be on your rewards page if you had them.

Goblin Squad Member

Opiate wrote:

I have 2 accounts I'd like to sell. I bought these accounts early on when the game was just starting. I see some people are advertising DT accounts. I don't know what DT means, so I don't know how to tell you whether on not either of these accounts are DT accounts.

1st account (was made to be a crafter, but never even got her out of starting area)

Dwarf level 0 with 806,351 xp (account is still active until next month)

2nd account (I think this was a kickstarter account)

Dwarf lvl 6 fighter with 811,609 xp (account is also still active until next month)

I have no idea how much these accounts are worth, so please offer me a fair price for one or both. If you have any other questions, please feel free to email me and I'll try my best to answer your questions satisfactorily.

To get the details you can go to, login, go to My Account, then go to View All Rewards On My Account. That screen will list all the perks your accounts have.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BitterClinger wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
BitterClinger wrote:
My hope is the real Pathfinder multiplayer game will include at least a subset of the actual Pathfinder game mechanics.
That can't happen. The pathfinder mechanics are OGL, and can not be used in an electronic game. That particular ship sank before it got in the water.
I keep hearing this, but there must be more to it. The OGL clearly allows for "computer software", and WotC further clarifies that "computer games" are permitted in their FAQ.

Ironically Ryan Dancey was one of the people that helped make the OGL and it ended up blocking what they could do for PFO. I think there is a thread somewhere in this subforum where they talked about it.

To my knowledge and reading of the OGL (I Am Not A Lawyer) the main problem is that they would need to code the game and then release a plain text version of the code outlining all the rules and mechanics they used that are then available to anyone else for use. Literally everything the code does to govern the game, and they would need to update it with every change. A dump of the source code is not good enough (plus the whole giving away your code thing).

This is probably why the few commercial d20 games out there were all directly licensed instead of trying to use the OGL.

I could be wrong but that's what my reading gets.

Goblin Squad Member

Kryzbyn wrote:

Where do you get the info say that? I'm curious.

I want Paizo in all things to be successful, even if I don't like the direction PFO is going.

If you're referencing me the majority of it is from things Lisa and Bob have said either in the public chats or offhandedly, combined with my personal experience dealing with software contracts of this level (mostly ancillary, I don't write them I just have to occasionally deal with them or produce things for them) and asking around the few folks I know in the gaming industry. The things we learned about the company's money issues explains a lot of the early issues and the recent details we have been given are enough to point to decent odds for good things for PFO in the near future.

The one thing I have nothing for is the specifics about Ryan, however I'm pretty sure he's gone for good and don't think it's worth dredging up or speculating at this point, can't change the past and it doesn't matter going forward.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.


See my above post, a lot of it had to do with loss of a funding source, but the future is looking brighter.

Goblin Squad Member

A lot of the early choices in development order seemed to be heavily based around various dependencies for other things they wanted to do and trying to provide content 'quickly' hence the PvP related features.

Unfortunately some of that was because of the reality behind the scenes that we were not privy to until much later: they had a secondary funding source lined up that pulled out on them about 6+ months ago and they were scrambling to try and make up some revenue with subs and look for new backing. Most of the problems, slow downs, and decisions were really closely tied to this particular issue.

Yes, the game was always gonna be rough for awhile it's an early access title, but the cascading 'failures' really seem to have stemmed from the money issues. None of what happened once that was revealed is particularly surprising given the constraints they were working under.

That all said they are finalizing a deal for an established studio to take over the project with a butt load more money than was ever thought of for this project and a desire to build out something closely resembling the original design from what currently exists. Could still fall through technically but last we heard they were pretty close.

So keep an eye out, some good things are probably coming soonish.

Goblin Squad Member

ryric wrote:
As another point, I really couldn't figure out what made this game "Pathfinder." To me, Pathfinder is the game system and the adventure paths, and this game had neither of them. It just happened to be set in a particular region of Golarion, but with no connection to either the mechanics of Pathfinder or the themes of what is a fundamentally PvE tabletop experience, what am I supposed to connect to?

This is one of my favorite things to discuss, I'm always fascinated by other folks interpretations and the reasons behind it. A lot of it I think comes from how you view, play, or were introduced to tabletop games. (Different is okay! Nothing can be everything to everyone.)

For me personally the intended design of PFO encapsulates Pathfinder and most tabletop RPGs pretty well. To me they're group storytelling systems with rules to resolve conflict. That conflict can be between players or with the GM via NPCs. The specific rules aren't that important and the setting is flavor and suggestive, not a hard fact.

Now that seems very heavily based on how I play TT: we always homebrew our adventures and regularly mess with the systems even if we love them. Pathfinder is our default d20 fantasy system right now, but we will play other game systems or even sometimes mix things (we recently did a Pathfinder + d20 BESM, Pathfinder Gestalt + Mythic, currently doing a d20 BESM + Pathfinder Feats). We never use the modules or adventure paths unless we're pulling a bit of content to pad an adventure. We usually treat the Golarion setting as an amorphous grab bag of ideas we can borrow or ignore as we desire. So to us Pathfinder is really just a vague collection of systems and ideas.

Ultimately this seems to translate to PFO being right up my ally: there will be a good amount of variety between PvE and PvP, there's supposed to be a lot of systems to interact with and play off one another, and it's got that flavor of a coherent setting without being too exact. It fits perfectly in my way of playing TT.

As an MMO player I personally just can't play Themepark MMOs anymore and if that's what PFO was, I wouldn't bother. Hell, I originally ignored the Kickstarter because I assumed it was!

So that's my interpretation and reasons for playing, hope it offers some insight.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that my reading comprehension failed me. I've even asked some Very Smart People that I know to read some of the same posts I read that gave me the expectations I had. They didn't tell me "you read it wrong". Instead, they told me "that won't work". Given how adamantly Some Folks were insisting it wouldn't work three years ago, and how adamantly Ryan told them "you're wrong, this is what we're going to do", I really expected Ryan to at least try.

But to completely abandon the idea without so much as talking to us about why, and then to turn around and blame the folks who supported this game in its infancy for not wanting to put up with the things those systems were meant to discourage... well, it rubs me the wrong way.

And I should probably stop harping on it for a while...

Yea it's tough call. Implementing something that probably won't work as a test or proof of concept can end up being a huge waste of time, resources, and player goodwill; especially with a small team. Aside from the actual coding work itself you got the overhead to support any bugs with it, discuss any conceptual or mechanical issues that come up internally and externally, and deal with any ramifications of the feature on your static world/data if you need to change it (not always applicable).

It makes a lot of sense to start with small bits of each system and build upon them as you puzzle out how well they work or don't work. This is particularly true for a game based on mechanical player to player interactions and competitive conflict.

The other major problem in my eyes is the nature of public discussion, the public half of the conversation may not always be trying to reach a mutual resolution which delays and drags the conversation in different directions. That can happen internally too, but a good team can disagree or have different ideas and still work through a problem cohesively, that rarely happens among strangers on a forum debating a contentious mechanic. When you start adding so many voices and opinions from the outside lots of messages get mixed and the intention of them is not always easy to track which starts to reduce the value of the public conversation very quickly.

By engaging the public in open debate about a topic you open yourself up to a lot of perception issues that will come back to bite you; fairly or unfairly. Feedback is good, but directly engaging too much has it's problems too.

Much like some of the Ryan quotes we're discussing :-P

Goblin Squad Member

There is always that possible disconnect in expectations which is just all around unfortunate when it occurs. Current in development mechanics versus final is always a fickle and tricky thing with these sort of early access projects. Even when you don't learn new things that make you want to change your implementation the trickle of features and demand for content can cause problems.

My mentality when gauging something like a snowball effect is why it's happening and how I would react or affect my playing if I was on the negative end of the equation. In a straight competitive sense I don't like it very much, one of the reasons I don't like competitive RTS play or even Chess that much, especially when you might not just be able to concede cleanly.

But as a behavior modifier or punishment I'm much more tolerant of such ideas.

Goblin Squad Member

I always hated snowball systems and was very happy they never implemented them for competitive mechanics. They always end up creating feedback loops that cause issues in competitive games or sometimes even worse, they force reliance on 'dumb' or 'cheese' tactics. A negative feedback loop is fine if your punishing toxic behavior, it's another thing if it's part of what's supposed to be a balanced competitive mechanic.

Clear win/loss conditions and mechanical limitations can achieve the same effect without the hopeless feeling that comes from snowballing. They definitely need to add a bunch of restrictions (they were slowly moving that way) and fine tune PvP mechanics no doubt.

Goblin Squad Member

The quantity and quality of patches they were pushing out for an indie MMO was rather good. I expected complete and utter brokeness for most of EE; I'm talking unplayable or completely non-functional aspects for significant periods of time. That never really happened aside from the short Monstergeddon incident.

You aren't going to see $50 million and a team of 60+ developers work on this sort of game over 2-3 years. There's not enough money in a startup Sandbox like this, there's no massive hype train to ride to guaranteed sales.

PFO could be a very unique and fun $10 million game made by a dozen or so developers over 5 or so years. That's pretty possible if they can secure the funding. This was always a boostrap effort for the long haul. Unless they secure funding from some source that really doesn't care about throwing $50mil their way for the lolz of it, I would not expect very much to change in terms of development pacing, unless of course they stripped the scope down to a shadow of their original intentions.

Goblin Squad Member

This thread is about mechanics for the Pathfinder Online MMO and not tabletop.

Goblin Squad Member


On this point I actually agree with you, not every game can be for everyone. But this cuts both ways and I think that's the point that gets lost alot. I usually avoid the dedicated PvP MMOs, not cause I dislike PvP but I dislike how those games do it, the result is not an interesting or fun environment for me. I would rather go play some ranked matches in a MOBA or a few rounds of a team FPS.

When it comes to MMOs I am that middle player who likes PvP but is adverse to it in what is traditionally considered the 'hardcore' PvP MMOs. The way this game has been sold to me makes it seem to me that either of the extreme sides are not gonna like this game. Those who want hardcore PvP MMO sandbox are not gonna like it, those that want a themepark co-op Golarion game are not gonna like it. This is the first MMO PvP Sandbox to appeal to me personally and that is why I defend it in the way I do and hope that it gets a chance to do it's own thing. That thing might not be for you or for others, but it might be for me (or maybe not!).

(I seem to be responding to you on forums today, I swear I am not stalking you!)

Not really being argumentative with the following, just adding some context you guys had nice posts.

One thing to keep in mind, what was launched and what we have today is a work in progress. That has always been touted from the beginning and that means early adopters are gonna have a mess of a time. It's gonna take effort to figure things out and their are gonna be bugs. Maybe the 'finished' product could be for you, but the early access aspect today might not be. Now if some of that stuff never gets improved or ironed out by 'OE' then yea they got a problem.

Then again EVE still has a university setup and I think any sufficiently complex game needs someone who knows the rules. Plenty of TT games have taught me that.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure why you highlighted that aspect or how you think it would be the candidate to draw in players that aren't super fond of PvP. A big snow-bally punishment stick is not going to be a very good PvP incentive for those that are iffy about it in the first place. Personally as a competitive gamer it's my opinion that building that sort of effect into your game is really difficult to balance and I am leery of any game that takes more than an hour or two (so match based games only pretty much) putting that sorta mechanic in to even begin with.

That works in your RTS games or hell even Chess, but tends to create very specific failure scenarios that are just not fun in an MMO setting.

Personally the strength of PFO to me was the myriad of overlapping systems. I haven't really seen a good sandbox game build as many systems as they proposed in the blogs. I would love to see a game with all of them and more. I'm of the mind that in this sort of game more rules and systems is better than less, you just need to cover a lot of options to balance it all out and make it fun for the long run.

Goblin Squad Member

The ideas behind PFO very much encapsulate the basics of what TT is, a system of rules to resolve conflict. That's a simple definition really and you can claim almost any game does that and your right, but they all do it differently and those differences that appeal to our particular sensibilities are the key to why we tend to enjoy certain games more than others.

Maybe it's because I always pretty much play homebrew setting games, and they may or may not include aspects of a particular game's setting, but the default setting has never been that integral to a TT game for me. In the case of PFO all the monkier of Pathfinder means to me is that you'll have sandbox full of tools and aspects of the Golarion setting. Just like the core books.

The thing that excites me about PFO is that they plan to take these rules to extremes I haven't seen in other MMO games before. To make rules and systems I haven't really seen attempted or mixed to such a degree while reigning in some aspects of the traditional sandbox that they didn't like. Go read the flagging blogs, the assassination blogs, settlement warfare blogs, banditry blogs, faction blogs, etc...

They plan to put layers and layers of systems in place, something I haven't seen too many other games do in a long while much less to this sort of scale. Lot of folks say less rules make things interesting, I disagree, that might work for TT where the whole group is always working together even the DM, but in an MMO where head to head is just as likely as cooperative you need lots of rules to cover all the cases and make actual gameplay interesting.

The game we got today is not what they have planned, it's a prototype on the way, to claim it reflects their 'true' intention or the long term goals is intellectually dishonest. Even before the cutbacks they couldn't do everything at once, no company could, we just saw things a lot earlier than anyone normally would; the product was always going to be very iterative for early adopters, more so than even a release MMO usually is. I only hope that they do find financial backing and we can one day see something actually resembling their intentions with all these systems that do not even exist today working together to create something unique and interesting.

Goblin Squad Member

Got it fixed, turns out my account got locked from password fails but doesn't indicate it, try emailing Nihimon to get their attention they can reset it for you.

Goblin Squad Member

As of last night I can no longer login or reset my password, worked fine the night before, not sure if you're aware of anything.

Goblin Squad Member


I'll disagree a bit, while some of that is inherent to those traditional phases of development, by no means does 'release' mean an end to crowdforging for this game. Nor is it just a matter of "bugs". We've had an opportunity to influence systems and their design. It's very much a mixed bag.

The other big thing is that we are playing the game, what we do matters and will carry on into the future. There are no wipes. While it may be incomplete and early, it's still persistent progress, not for the fun of it testing.

Besides, every MMO is an ongoing effort that will continuously do the things we've both mentioned throughout their entire lifetime. So they let us in a little earlier for business reasons, that's an acceptable option.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PFU is a good place to start, they have a good number of people around, will give you some lower level items to get you started, and can help you learn the ropes. As Cal said their Mumble channel on Golarion is a good place to hang out, their tends to always be at least one person hanging around to help out.

The big key is don't be afraid to interact with the community, the game is at it's best when your working with others.

Goblin Squad Member

Yes and no, settlements are hard now cause you can't make them or destroy them. They are essentially a character for all intents and purposes, but that'll be changing soon enough. And honestly I wouldn't have been surprised if they banned such sales, but in the interest of keeping the game world alive they let it go. Someone selling a settlement when there was no current way to create a new one or knockdown the one taking up a spot is an acceptable for now in my opinion. Once we can actually make them in game? I would say you should not be selling them for real money.

Goblin Squad Member

Probably, selling accounts to keep it active and paying a subscription is a bit different then selling an easily renewable in game resource (it's essentially a currency).

Goblin Squad Member

Also generally frowned upon by most companies that own such games...and you're advertising on their forums...

Goblin Squad Member

Pfft your telling me, and I'm not even directly playing half the time!

Goblin Squad Member

One of the EVE dev blogs has an amazing write up about the problem and how they came up with and adjusted their time dilation issue to solve it. Pretty interesting, they also had a blog about their database server architecture that I thought was really neat. I mostly work with business applications that are pretty localized (geographically) so reading about how they use the same technology but in a drastically different configuration is pretty cool.

Anyways I agree in principle, smaller sizes in the 20-30 range are more interesting that giant blobs. Just take a look at a modern round based shooters, 36 players is about the current max for smooth gameplay and tends to avoid too much blob play. Unfortunately in an open world MMO you need to either artificially limit things or come up with a architecture that makes players want to split up, but even then someone will always try to play a numbers advantage if they can.

As to tech getting better yea it does but it's a huge complex problem for multiplayer stuff, it's not really about your computer (which progresses the fastest) or the server, it's about the network infrastructure between you, the server, and everyone else involved in that particular game. The numbers have surprisingly not changed as much as I would have expected over time. They will change, I just don't expect 1000 person shooters to just start happening it will probably be pretty gradual. Someone figures out some tricks once in awhile but it's usually via sacrificing something else (see typical MMO combat).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Skill based combat has a ton of inherent issues with large numbers of players and processing the instructions they generate quickly. There's a reason most twitch based games have the player limits they do. Just look at Star Citizen's and Elite Dangerous instancing mechanics despite being MMOs with respectable budgets. 'Traditional' MMO combat is the way it is for a very good reason.

Options are limited if you aren't willing to severely limit the number of players in a particular 'area'. While it might not be true right now, the goal is to have larger amounts of players involved in a given fight, part of the reason they have a plan for formation combat is to get around this very problem by reducing the amount of commands they would have to process for large battles.


Your description of the combat is a bit incorrect. Timing, interrupts, movement, and resource management are very intricate to winning an evenly matched fight in PFO. It's not super complex once you get the hang of it, but it still requires you to do more than just slam a rotation as fast as you can.

Goblin Squad Member

We need more recruits! Aside from our PvP aspirations we do need PvE oriented players, escalations aren't gonna clear themselves! Additionally more people means more holdings! Join today!

Goblin Squad Member

Norgorber be praised holdings have gone up. Join the contractual side of evil! Help grow our little hive of scum and villainy today!

Goblin Squad Member

We're very close to being able contract out without any issues, just gotta hammer out a few more things...soon.

Goblin Squad Member

"The time has come," the assassin said,
"to talk of stabbing things:
Of knives—and bows—and deadly acts—
Of settlements—and kings—
And why the blood is boiling hot—
And whether Norgorber has wings."

(I'm posting re-visioned poetry for Norgorber's sake, you should join me just to stop my recruitment messages!)

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Doom and Gloom! Doom and Gloom!"

Let's not pretend a single audience is the end all and be all. PFO is it's own thing that mixes a bunch of different concepts. Trying to say it's geared towards stealing a specific audience is the wrong way to think about it. It will build it's own audience or it won't. Crying it doesn't do the thing you want to fill your needs is just silly. It does or it doesn't, they are gonna follow their intended design, if it doesn't work for you just walk away. If it doesn't work at all then it closes down so be it, that's the way of things.

For example I love competitive games. I played high level amateur sports most of my life. I will play hours of a MOBA with rage and hate in my heart without ever saying a toxic word while I slam my head against a ladder I can't quite climb. I've play team based FPS games on and off for years. I love a good RTS match despite getting curb stomped by 2000 APM players. Hell, I won't even step foot in a match for one of those games if it uses bots; to me that's a waste of time.

MMOs tho? I've stuck to games like WoW, FFXI, GW2, TEO, DCUO, CO, CoH, and even a bit of EQ.

But I hated EVE, Darkfall, and even Ultima way back; turns out I hated most sandbox MMOs I tried. They don't scratch the competitive itch for me or make building things interesting enough. But I like PFO and I like the intent of where the Devs want to go with it. I think it's different and unique (eventually) that pulls at my gaming inclinations both for MMOs and competitive gaming. I hope they succeed. But if they changed their intent to try and pull the general audiences of those sandboxes I mentioned above? Then I would leave and I assume many like me would leave, because that's not the type of game we want to play, and that's specifically why we are here. Because we don't fall into the existing games filling this genre.

By the way, I backed Crowfall specifically because it was taking the PvP competitive aspect of a Sandbox and moving it into a more match like campaign system. In that setup the rougher aspects of those other PvP sandboxes I disliked get sanded off somewhat. Which is still a huge difference compared to what PFO is trying to do. If you think PFO and Crowfall are competing games (or should be), one of them is probably not really for you.

Goblin Squad Member

I think the big problem for me personally is that cleaning up some of the T1 stuff that got out of hand is just not that rewarding and really time consuming. If I can spend my 4-6 gaming hours a day farming Usties instead of Bonedancers...I'm gonna do the Usties right now, I get more bang for my buck. Unfortunately when the patch drops next week Lion Hexes are gonna be even more ideal targets due to the crafting item we need from the bosses for holdings. We're gonna be farming those hard before we even need to go clean out the normal hexes for our eventual holdings.

Personally I think escalations are too annoying to kill off right now for some of the daily maintenance stuff. But that could just be a side effect of us letting them go too long and not being able to handle the more difficult ones early on or having a lower population in some parts of the map that are heavily infested.

I guess the question is should it take 5-6 hours to wipe out the source hex for bonedancers or should it be faster with a concentrated effort? I'm of the mind that a Tier 1 home escalation at 100% shouldn't take more than an hour or two to kill off, making it an easy nightly task. But a Tier 2 should take longer but not regenerate as fast, and so on. It's also weird because while it's faster to kill a escalation with a few groups going hard, only 1 group can actually claim the rewards from each engagement and finally the boss. That seems kinda at odds with the idea of a team effort to wipe out hexes. It requires larger concentrated groups doing a careful rotation as they clean hexes. Not sure how I feel about that.

If they are worried about there being no source hexes for people to clear if they are 'too easy', how is that different from my group working on one for a day only for some other group to come clean it out before I can log back in again tomorrow? The effect is the same, I didn't finish the escalation and didn't reap the ultimate reward. Seems to encourage us to 'tend' the better escalations and keep them around to be farmed.

...Well that got ranty quick.

Goblin Squad Member

In an immediate sense I would agree Tink, but as a caveat I would say none of the solutions are currently acceptable at half measure. Which makes it an annoying all or nothing endeavor. It won't really matter until you can attack structures anyways, so I wouldn't be surprised if those features came hand in hand.

Goblin Squad Member

Samllholdings and basecamps should be allowed spawns and thus become a focal point for removing a hostile force. Much like the often alluded to siege camps will eventually function.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure, whatever, the spy is doing something spyish, pick your favorite activity. The point still stands the victim can only tell the difference if the spy is godawful at it and theirs only a few basic things they can do to slow it down. Most of which boils down to keeping sensitive things need to know and not relying on individuals too much. Still ain't foolproof, still easy as all hell to do.

Goblin Squad Member

My point is it's irrelevant from the 'infiltrated' group's point of view. Your lying on the internet, not exactly a difficult task, it's nothing special, people do it all the time. There is no way to distinguish between a spy and actual legit player, if the spy was detectable they're a really bad spy. But since there is no real risk it's kinda irrelevant, either they get to a point where they can betray you or they don't.

So you have two options, delegate and break it up enough that hopefully no one person can sink you (tho a really organized team could still get you) or delegate nothing and keep a firm enough grip that the worse they're gonna do is spill some info. Practicality of either depends entirely on the mechanics of the game. But if you get all excited over it ya done got issues, your not doing much except lying, whoopee.

This spy bragging was boring back in EVE, and I wasn't even part of the big alliance stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

Words are wind, the only true measure of a person is what they actually do when they come into power. You can trust someone until you can't, fairly straightforward.

People can scheme all they want, if they are halfway decent at it no one can tell the difference anyways, so why worry about it much? Basic intel security is ridiculously easy with only a minor amount of effort. Even then your always subject to a random betrayal if you ever delegate anything.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.


According to this:

TEO Cheatle wrote:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The EBA has established our borders, shown on the following map, for resource, escalation, and holding claims. We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership. Any non-hostile individuals are free to travel our land, trade, buy/sell at auction houses, as well as bank.

Territory Map Border

...farming an escalation in claimed EBA territory without permission is clearly a violation of their stated 'laws'. You don't have to like them or follow them, but some form of response to something they clearly stated they weren't gonna allow in a clearly stated area seems like expected behavior.

That all said there is probably a debate to be had about proportional responses, but I'm leaning towards lack of game mechanics making that kinda tough.

I have no personal stake in this, just trying to establish a timeline and some cause/effect so I can figure how I should deal with all these random entities when it's my turn. I'm really trying to stick my meta politics to a firm interpretation of Lawful Evil, as hand tying as it can be sometimes.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.


Out of curiosity cause I seriously don't know: is them farming the northern escalation in question in any way, shape, or form a violation of any territory claims or agreements? The status of any escalations in their own claimed territory is kinda irrelevant to the conversation in my Lawful Evil opinion.


I would just like to state that I have managed to keep to all 273 backroom deals I have made despite my nagging inclination to stab omni from time to time. The struggle is real.

Goblin Squad Member


As long as your still equipped then I'm less offended :-)

Goblin Squad Member


I was working on a point by point rebuttal and then I got to your trade comment, and I realized we aren't playing the same game. I think that's the root of our differing views, what I see and what I'm doing are radically different from what you see and what you are doing.

Just on your trade comment: I literally hang out in a town filled with crafters who will trade with anyone and has access to almost everything (some of which I help with via my DT) but some of the final items from higher rank crafting and has a staunch policy at keeping markup around 10%, far from price gouging. They aren't exactly quiet about their business and they're allied with me, a Lawful Evil settlement, gonna say they probably aren't discriminating.

We might be on the same server with the same people, but we aren't playing the same game and I didn't realize it until now.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kinda curious how we crowdforged WoT into non-relevance. Seemed pretty meh from the beginning. The last change wasn't gonna make it any better and just cause some meta stuff to work around it. Let's not pretend there was some glorious PvP system hiding in WoT, cause their ain't. It was ill conceived from the start.

Any sort of advancement mechanism needs to come from within a group, it can't be external like the Towers. Unless your willing to relegate the majority of the server to a 'losing state' by making them super scarce and letting whoever can field the most people simply dominate the game.

Once it comes from internal effort conflict over it becomes far more reasonable and mechanically sound as we can choose how to lay ourselves out and focus our ability to defend or attack something. The key is to make the time committed to a particular action proportional to the outcome. If it takes me and my buddies 10mins on any given day to cripple your training ability for a week or so, it's too easy and it becomes a frustrating chore. If it takes us a week by sieging our way through all your holdings, then it's good.

And WoT kinda matters if you're trying to like I dunno stay on the upper edge of training. If you aren't at the upper edge than neither the new, the old, or the prospective changes would have mattered to you anyways.

Goblin Squad Member

Something, something, bump in the night.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The idea that you gained nothing, the target lost nothing but you still did it anyways says all sorts of things about interpreting motivations, differing psychological reactions to events, and gauging future behavior.

Arguably no matter what the specific outcome is everything breaks down to 'wasting' someone's time. I think people generally dislike when that happens, especially if it's a surprise or unintended affect, the negative emotion of feeling helpless or annoyed will persist much longer than the light satisfaction of having a successful night doing whatever in-game activity. No one remembers 'all' the days when nothing happened, they only remember the highs and the lows.

Goblin Squad Member

That's hyperbolic talk now and as far as their mechanic descriptions have been stated, nothing has changed. I have never gotten the impression that you can simply do whatever you want. This game has never been advertised as EvE with swords and that's specifically why I'm here, they said it would be different but with competition, PvP, and the ability to build up the world still driving the core of the game.

I absolutely deplore EvE's inherent viability of shoot first ask questions later mentality. It's boring and uninteresting to me. I can go play LoL or CS to scratch that sort of itch with a lot more actual fun.

Edit: I disagree with Ryan then, EvE is a murder sim in my opinion. Step into the 'real' game areas in low and nullsec and there is no reason not to murder anyone you can mechanically speaking.

Goblin Squad Member

I can see some of that, tho the problem with bandits is their play must affect other people therefore to make it more than just targeting easy (free) targets and making smash and grab as the de facto meeting new person strategy they need to direct the efforts somehow.

It should be about competing, not simply taking. I thought the intent was no one could be self-sufficient with bulk stuff? I suppose we won't know until the numbers start being shown.

Goblin Squad Member

Surprisingly the first rule is actually 'advertise like there is no tomorrow', the second rule is remaining 'silent', which now that I think about it may be confusing. Hmmmm we might need some new rules...

Goblin Squad Member

7 people marked this as a favorite.

While I might be missing the conversation's full context, as someone who is interested in PvP I will say that I'm not interested in PvP that doesn't actually accomplish anything. There is nothing interesting or competitive in the game yet for me to engage with PvP wise so I spend my time doing other things in preparation for when there are PvP activities for me to do. Kinda sucks, but I'm keeping busy none the less, if I totally get bored I might have a problem. We'll see how long that takes.

Some practice certainly won't hurt, but I'm not gonna go randomly attack someone under the guise of 'practice' when theirs no mechanical reason to do so and it will only cost me meta political points. I'll do that with my buddies in an open PvP hex (As long as Rep isn't bugging out again...).

Goblin Squad Member


I'm trying to form a cohesive response, but I honestly am having a hard time narrowing down what you are really trying to say. Change the game to an RTS? That would be a different game with a lot of different problems. Change the graphics scale to an RTS? Doesn't solve communication throughput (the real limiter for mass combat) and just shifts graphics complaining and immersion complaints to a different area.

I really don't understand your argument, do you just want them to scale things differently for aesthetic reasons? Cause I suppose that falls into subjective prettiness, but it won't do anything for performance or play-ability unless they throw out the entire combat system for something a lot simpler. Which kinda defeats the purpose of this style of game...

1 to 50 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>