First0f0ne's page

@Ryan

I get why you put up these gates and I understand the reasons behind it.

But if a player can pass the gates on a 1 year xp character in 2 weeks of heavy play, AND you know high xp accounts are going to be sold, AND you are ok with them being sold, AND at one point you'll have a way to facilitate trading them (for a cut to GW I hope). Why on Earth are they even there? to drive down the value?

You are cutting your own throat here for no real gain. You lose the people that want to pay but have a higher idea of MVP than GW does. You lose (some) of the speculators that want to pay your bills while you develop the game. If you do succeed in driving down the the value of the 1 year old accounts you just lost your cut of that sale(if the account transfer infrastructure is in at that point).

Really Ryan this make no business sense, and you gain almost nothing from an in game mechanical sense. If there are other reasons for gates I would live to hear them. It seems to me there has to be other reasons than you state because the ones I have been hearing don't really hold water.

Yeah over a year in and this is the most entertaining thread I have read in this forum. +1s all around to fanbois and ragers alike(mostly ragers tho)

Honestly I may be raging a bit too, if I feel the way I currently feel about the state of the game and the direction it seems to be heading, had I spent 1600 dollars.

As is I spent $100 and at this point I still follow the forums and the game(sometimes I think it may just be habit at this point) to see if the game improves into a title that I'm looking for(READ: thought that is was from blog info and forum posts).

Andius, thanks for turning me on the Life is Feudal, it looks BA.

It has many of the things I wished PFO to have.

Deep real time combat. no targeting, IE swing your sword and what it hits gets hit.

What looks like finished(?) formation combat(in all honesty it works exactly how I envisioned PFOs formations to work).

The world detail, animations(smoothness), buildings, characters are graphically 2 or 3 steps ahead of PFO at this point.

Buildings can be built anywhere, not at predefined locations.

The advancement system is like ultima online which is a very solid choice but I do like the time based system of EvE and PFO. However I dislike achievement gating.

interactivity, if there is a tree you can harvest wood. dont like that hill? take it down. dig holes? yup.

Here is my list of things PFO does better, or has that I (now) wish LiF had.

PFO is an MMO, or at least an MO at this point, I'm sure LiF will get there but they are not yet.

HUGE world, even the EE map is very grand in scope. Depending on the player base I think it may turn out to be too much, but time will tell.

Economy that is player driven, able to easily be tweaked by the devs.

local AHs and transport of goods. (more economy)

I am of the mind that you should take the money of players that would pay for training time but play very little. The issue with (MVP) achievement gating is that the number whom what to give you that money to develop the game while they wait in the wings will go dow significantly.

I am currently in this group. MVP is not currently at a point where I want to spend all of my "gaming" time. I have money. I would like to give that money to you to develop the game as talked about in the blogs. During this time I would log in 1 to 4 times per week spend xp, develop my guys, play a little, and check out new features and see if you (GW) are "there" yet.

I will probably still do as I planned but I will tell you that if Im unable to spend the xp that I have paid for I wont be happy about it.

Personal motives aside, I feel double gating (time AND achievements) are twice as much gating at the same or greater price or any MMO I have played.

I agree for the most part. For me solid gameplay far outweighs visuals in a game I want to play.

However we must understand that there are those for whom that is not the case, and visuals are at or near the top of their list.

I have a few friends I generally play MMOs with who deem "graphics" a high priority, while I have talked up PFO to them, I will not encourage them to play it yet as I know the outcome.

My point is that some people will be disappointed in the visuals and leave as a result, this is ok. Hopefully they get to know the game well enough and have enough fun that they return in a few years. The most you can do is explain the facts you stated in your post in game to them, but there is no reason to enter a flame war or be offended if they dislike or are disappointed in the visual aspect of this game.

Bluddwolf wrote:

That was a quote from FirstofOne, in this thread.

Oops! Thanks, Bluddwolf.

Forgive my ignorance and inexperience, but are groups with this sort of notification-capability actually activated with such seemingly-flimsy motivation?

I'm sorry that example was just a smart-ass, tongue in cheek, social commentary on how I see many in this community's actions and posts. That being, the hyper-positive nature comes off (to me at least) as Idelistic, overly sensitive, or hypocritical. Especially when opposed by those whom do not follow that methodology. Hence the "passive aggressive things about meanness" comment.

Edit: I fully recognize that I am rather jaded and hold a low opinion of humans in general and those humans on the internet specifically. I just wanted to explain the comment because some were taking it literally.

On topic, I just looked on Wiggio, and I do not see anything to allow you to set times in which to receive messages.

As far as communication with those who joined you but now are AWOL, I would recommend in the future requiring a valid email with the application to join so that you may reach out to them if necessary. The company leader or personnel officer would keep a database of members and reach out to those needed.

A GW provided tool? Highly doubtful and probably unnecessary.

However there are many other third party tools.

Wiggio is one I have used in the past. You make an account and give Wiggio, your phone number or email, and the site will send a text message or an email when a clan/guild wide message is sent. (you can also send messages to individuals I think as well, though I have not done this.)

Most often used in a call to arms.

Examples for Current PFO meta:

"UNC is burning our POI! need all members ASAP!"
"PAX Golgotha has violated the holy sanctity of our 6 towers! HOW dare they, Get em!
"Someone said something mean on the forums, everyone go post passive aggressive things about meanness"

A purpose of locking posts after an hour, apparently, is to remove the ability of folks to say "nope, I never said that"...and all its variants. There are no rules about creating another post in a thread to make corrections or to add new or additional information.

Yes, and I am saying that reasoning is ridiculous when compared to the benifit of being able to change the OP when attempting to disseminate current data to the community.

Want to look at the spreadsheets that were posted? Dont read the ones in the OP they are outdated, you had better go to page 4.

Want to alter your planned buildings in your settlement thread? Nope, make a new post.

Want to add current allies, change settlements, or tweak the mission statment, to your long standing company recruitment thread? Sorry Charlie, new thread for you.

To me its forum warrioring, finger pointing, "No, but you said" nonsense, VS. Having more useful community tools. That choice seems very clear to me.

First0f0ne wrote:

These forums lack very important features(editing?!?!), but the new ones are barren of them.(OP name, Last poster name,etc. not to mention high amounts of down time.)

These forums have editing, but you can only edit your post for the first hour after it is placed.

The button is in between the reply and delete buttons above the post.

I know you can edit AT FIRST, but the problem is people cannot update their own posts when they are attempting to keep track of somthing, collect data, or correct outdated information that was in the OP.

I have never participated in a forum community that you couldn't update you thread posts.

The devs are busy making a game and only have time to read one forum, which isn't here anymore.

I understand we're all used to coming to Paizo forums to talk about the game but GW has gone to the trouble to make their own forums, that's where the devs are reading, and that's where all of these comments and discussions about alpha and EE should be happening from now on.

Also for the sake of the devs, give hard data and measurable information. "Finding starter weapons is stupid!" doesn't help where "According to achievements I've killed 637 things and only one starter weapon has dropped" might clue them in to a problem with loot tables, etc.

Thanks Mom, Please link the blog post asking everyone to migrate to the new forums.

These forums lack very important features(editing?!?!), but the new ones are barren of them.(OP name, Last poster name,etc. not to mention high amounts of down time.)

First0f0ne wrote:

Personally I am fine with any delays that raise the Minimum in MVP.

I'm excited to get going but I was hoping for more VP and less M than the current Alpha provides. Here is hoping A8 will change my tune!

Agreed. I'm waiting to see Alpha 8, but I do think there's a lot more M needed to make VP. I'd be fine with a full month delay until mid-late October.

I'd like to see encumbrance, stamina usage when running, consumables, full tool-tips, and companies in before EE.

These plus player looting, UI status effect icons, and at least Place holder spell effects for each type of AoE(hard to tell what the cantrip effect is when you just wave your wand and guys take damage). Then I would deem this pig fully lipsticked and ready for MVP. :)

Personally I am fine with any delays that raise the Minimum in MVP.

I'm excited to get going but I was hoping for more VP and less M than the current Alpha provides. Here is hoping A8 will change my tune!

I'm surprised no one had said that the D20 system is not granular enough and is broken at high levels of play. Not to mention the way Armor class works is goofy at best, and completely unrepairable and illogical at worst.

*ducks flung rulebooks*

Honestly they need to remove the whole 1 company per tower anyways. It will just be a logistical PITA for players.

IF TEO has to break up into 8 companies to hold the towers they want to hold they will. It will be gamed no matter how they set it up. Just let companies take what they can hold.

If there are a few keys left yet to be passed out I would love to get in for some testing this weekend. Thanks.

Having used both vent and TS3 extensively, and admittedly mumble just a few times,

I'm a huge fan of Team speak, and prefer it over the others for a very good balance of usability, customization, and quality.

I hope something is done about the combat delay,I will spend more money on keyboards than on the game. (bad for both me and GW)

Even a correctly functioning 300ms delay is bad.

It's HAPPENING!

Great Blog GW, I'm stocked for EE and hope builds 7 and 8 roll out smooth!

But I can hear the music !!! That's just torture.

Agreed!

RSD, hows about a copy/paste for us buddy?

FREE ICECREAM !!!!!!!!!

Hold on, its not made yet.

Its made, just the truck broke down and the Mechanic is sick today.

I'm ok with tab targeting if facing is implemented. Running away while you shoot through your own body is pretty dumb and makes kiting in PvP the number 1 tactic.

If circle strafing is a concern with melee (as it should be), melee attack arc could be 230 degrees, ranged attacks should be much more narrow. In a perfect world I would say 130 degrees, but allowing for latency may have to be bumped to 180. That is if latency and facing becomes an issue as it has in a few other games.

I do agree with Andius that ESO's system was a great mix of tab + twitch.

Also what Bludd said holds true, Pointing your character in a vague direction that your target is in is not twitch targeting. Twitch is pointing your aim reticle ON the hitbox of your opponent.

Training time sold in the shop will be tradeable like PLEX, correct?

Other than that I would only put in cosmetics/bank space/char slots. If you sell a months training at a busy market and you'll have enough cash to buy whatever else you want (sans things only available for cash)

I feel there really needs to be a medium sized option for consumables/materials(both refined and raw)/ammo.

Or have medium sized crafting buildings also have a market option for the type items produced. The forge would be able to market swords and heavy armor. The Alchemist could market potions, The wood shop buy market wands, staves, and bows. etc.

This would need to be peer to peer trading. Getting the NPCs involved in a sandbox is a bad idea that would need constant tweaking, and will always lead to exploits no matter how carefully watched.

TL:DR, There should be some other option besides; use a large slot for a market or shout in local repeatedly for PtP trades. Thats a pretty large all or nothing gap that really should be bridged by some other structure.

Not once did you mention the name of your settlement/company/guild in your post.

Many people don't like clicking links to find out said information.

First0f0ne wrote:

No way!, heavy armor is heavy armor is heavy armor. Shortcuts and synergies are what make multiclassing desirable.

Are you sure this is intended? If so I'm rather unhappy about it. Arbitrary hoops to jump through are arbitrary.

Heavy Armor Proficiency is a prerequisite for both Crusader and Unbreakable. So yes, Heavy Armor is Heavy Armor, but Crusader is not Unbreakable.

Three questions:

1. Does Crusader apply a buff that is only functional with a Cleric focus?

2. Is Crusader/unbreakable always functional when wearing heavy armor?

3. Or is it heavy armor prof 2.0 that is just an xp sink to level up the cleric class levels more slowly and provide a touch of con/wis?

If its 1 or 2 then I'm fine with it. If its 3 then they need to trim some fat, I would much rather gain xp slower to spend on meaningful feats than gain it faster and have spend it on pointless prereqs that do almost nothing except to slow power progression. If slower progression is desired change the rate at which xp is gained and or spent.

No way!, heavy armor is heavy armor is heavy armor. Shortcuts and synergies are what make multiclassing desirable.

Are you sure this is intended? If so I'm rather unhappy about it. Arbitrary hoops to jump through are arbitrary.

The plan is, indeed, to have trainers "run out" of training and have to get more over time. And to let settlements assign a coin cost to training at their building that they receive when someone trains. But that's not super high priority to get in right now.

Such as a tier 1/2/3 trainer has 20,000/50,000/80,000xp pool? With a 500/1000/2000 xp per hour regen?

If so then I think training will have enough value to the owners of a settlement to actually have to make a choice on whether or not to sell training as it takes away their own resource. This is good, Thanks Steve.

First0f0ne wrote:

The solution as I see it is to make training take a scaling amount of time. But players would be able to start the training at zero xp. Training time would equal the time to accrue the xp requirement.

This effectively makes it twice as long to utilize the experience. Someone (Nihimon, I remember, but I have weak memory) quoted time to gain exp for some higher sills and training as 10s of thousands of minutes. after accumulating for more than a week, the character has to wait another week to learn the skill/feat. This is just not feasible.

No it would take exactly as long as currently. You would be able to train starting at zero xp, instead of the full xp amount.

Currently training is instantaneous upon spending gained xp at a trainer. How will training be sold as a commodity if there is an unlimited supply? I do understand that every settlement will not be able to train every role. But once built that doesn't limit the number of people training.

If there is a scaling training time for each feat and a number of "slots" at each trainer this would make training a commodity. However players would be double taxed with time. Once to gain the xp, and once to train the skill. IMO this is undesirable.

The solution as I see it is to make training take a scaling amount of time. But players would be able to start the training at zero xp. Training time would equal the time to accrue the xp requirement.

"But we want players to be able to keep ALL the xp that they paid for." A fine and noble goal and one that I agree with. That is why you would still be able to bank xp as before if you were not online to start a training. In this case you would be able to use more than one trainer at a time until said banked xp was gone, at which point the skills would queue in the order they were started.

You could even one up the whole commodity theory, by putting a second valve on the training system. You could adjust training slots available based on the number of players gaining xp.

players x 1.33 = training slots / number of trainers in game

Each trainer would have X slots available adjusted by in game population.

This would need be adjusted on a regular time frame ( daily or weekly).

This second idea is more of a thought experiment and has MANY flaws. Please dont dismiss the first idea because the second one is bad!

Don't know if we have solid plans on the difficulty of deleting items while out of combat. Keeping them around in the database and as a potential for a little while may be useful, but may be more database work than the benefit is worth. Especially since our plan is to not let you interact with your inventory directly at all while you're in combat, so you wouldn't be able to delete items any more than you could use unslotted consumables. The only time you can destroy gear is when you might still have a chance to get away (and I am pretty sure we want you to be able to drop heavy stuff to run faster if you have enough warning).

Scorched earth at the cost of threads is clearly something we've already talked about doing for Assassins, but more as a "leave no evidence" option than a "my killers get nothing!" option. So I'm interested to hear the overall opinions on some version of it as explicit item denial.

While I understand and agree with the design decision to lock out inventory in combat. EVERY MMO I have played for more than a few months had "still in combat" bugs.

The system of locking out inventory would quite literally break the game should a bug arise where people remain in combat when thay are not.

I've always like the ever cliche "Dew Drop Inn".

In rural America you are never more than 150 miles* from one.

*87% of statistics are made up on the spot

WOW, this is the single most informative post/thread I have seen since reading these forums(Including Dev and Blog posts). Thanks so much for all the hard work.

Ryan clearly has the Two Weapon Fighting feat for dual wielding his Ban Hammer and Nerf Bat.

I heard he has improved two weapon fighting trained, but Goblinworks doesn't have the support structures to support it. So only the tier 1 for poor ol' RSD.

You can keep armor/weapons forever.

You can if they are threaded AND if you pay some one to repair them. They still take damage from durability loss on each death even if they are threaded.

Many of you talk about breaking immersion.

I can't think of a better to break immersion(as far as combat is concerned) than NOT having Line of sight mechanics. I can understand the goals of not having it in melee range, so that the game doesn't devolve into circle strafing combat, but ranged combat should make you at least point in a 180 arc towards someone.

Kiting is a skill that can be learned and trained by the player(not the character).

If I were in Group A, Group B's corpses are my spoils of war. If Group C started looting them I would attack them immediately with out hesitation. If we happpened to be out numbered it would not be forgotten.

That said I see No reason why Group C couldnt just come in a kill group A in the situation described in the OP and loot all the bodys. You would make enemies with either action IMO. I just think the idea will not be funtional if the intention is for group C to not piss off Group A.

From the streams it looks like non-direct damage cantrips(and spells?)

I dont want this whole adventures in crowdforging thing to turn in to "perfect MMO wishlisting exercise zeta".

Please keep in mind if the ideas you present are intended as a long term, post-OE thing that you say so in the description.

Also if you like an idea for EE remember that it will have to take priority from core elements that need to be in before OE. IMO an EE idea had better be damned good(or simple yet beneficial) before I would prioritize it above most things in the blog posts, core classes, settlement funtions, etc.

I am not trying to stifle creativity here, I just want to pass around a little dose of reality.

I actually think the lack of WASD movement could help emphasize the other foundation principles, if 3/4 of your brain isn't struggling to play a precise concerto with just four keys on the keyboard.

Get the fundamentals, then add the manual dexterity for WASD to use them in the world.

I would recommend the opposite actually, play ANY wasd games, MMO, FPS, etc. Until there is Zero thinking involved in getting from one place to another.

Settlement enhancement

or

enhancement asset

Great blog! I was worried it would be too long in EE until real warfare escalated it seems GW was too.

Will settlements keep thier progress when towers are wiped and proper settlement controls are implemented? Or will everyone start on the same footing regardless of EE success?

Can individual companies control more than one tower at a time for its settlement?

Is the PvP window liner in increase ( like 1 hour per tower controlled) or more algebraic?

Thanks for the changes guys Im really excited for EE now more than ever!

Cal B wrote:

More boring than being told if you get killed during an attack on your settlement you have to sit out of playing until the attack is over? Not exactly conducive to encouraging people to defend their settlements.

Zerg shuffles are really boring in my opinion too, even if it is a more active boring. But that is why I included something like a building that augments your respawns.

And nothing would prevent people from walking to the battle, which could be more interesting since your forces could dwindle as the battle goes on and the arrival of reinforcements would be more interesting. Instead of just increasing your Zerg amount.

The other benefit is that if you defeat the attacking force it's done, they don't just hang out and keep trying to wear you down. It should be a test of skill and tactics, not an endurance test of who can stay online and in battle the longest.

I would rather explore possible solutions or work arounds then just shutting down a mechanic that has other benefits unrelated to the fringe case.

I agree with this.

But at the same time infinate respawns at your own settlement will make defense damn easy not to mention taking the death train back to defend. Groups should be punished for overextending thier lines or rewarded for wiping out opposition in the field.

There are other games that trigger the respawn to deactivate at keeps (read settlements) oncethey are under assault. The trigger could be asjusted in many ways. Like only when seige weapons are dealing damage to walls or gates or structures. Also an NPC preist that could be assassinated by infiltrators would add a cool element for disguise and assassins. Even a magic based seige engine that projects a field that disrupts respawns in a hex sized area.

My point here is that unlimited respawns at home are bad but if the enemy has a way to shut them off I think the system would be viable.

Barbarian and Sorc would be the easiest 2 to implement. Therefore they would be fastest. So those 2 classes get my vote.

I like both classes, but to me it is obvious more people will want to play the Bard.

But it is also obvious to me the Bard will come first. The Monk will have too much programming involved to be soon. I would be surprise if the Monk is not what of the last core classes to be added.

I think you are correct. New animations( for unarmed combat) are some of the most expensive chores to do in any game.

Keeping in mind that there will be much more important game play elements that will need to be implemented before they even consider this choice.

I pick Bards.

I would love to see a vid stream of some of the devs running around in alpha actually showing us what's what, with a blooper reel at the end.

Or a 10 minute stream of a Dev going through a few UI windows, training, crafting, refining. No explanation necessary. The PFO community biologists would dissect that b@##~ in minutes giving us things to talk about until EE!!

I feel the kickstarter should have put forward the idea that PFO will not be a straight port of the PFRPG.

Many of the posts I've read that sound like the OP stem from assumptions that PFO would be an online experience similar to the off line TT experience of the PFRPG. I get that these people are disappointed that this game is not what they thought it was.

However the game as planned is EXACTLY what I have been looking for. A fantasy sandbox with elements of PF/D&D with a freedom and world persistence unseen in the genre. I think that many of the people that were thinking the game was somthing that it is not may easily find a way to play the way they want and enjoy themselves. These people will however have to change their expectations of what the game will be and may well want to wait to start until later on in EE as many there will be little for them to do at first if they are not in a PvP mindset.

A sub-forum for CC or settlement recruitment would really be great.

A Necromancer showing this level of power should live in Golgotha!

This is probably the latest word:

Ryan Dancey (So where is the combat simulator?) wrote:

We don't have a timeline yet for the combat arena. When we do, we'll share it.

Unfortunately, it looks like it's probably not going to happen, at least not before Early Enrollment.

At which time there really isnt a point. Combat will get tested in game.