.Anyone that has tried to play a purely melee character in PvP has probably noticed an annoying little 'bug' that has been around since the Alpha; the range detection when attacking a moving target is god awful. Buff clerics have probably noticed it as well. If you are trying to attack/buff a moving target you *must* be ahead of them for the attack to actually go through. If you are the smallest bit behind the target, the attack will almost always fail.
It is my belief that this is not an intended mechanic, and is due to some disconnect in the tic time of the server checking player locations, and the range validation checking where everyone involved in an attack is. This needs to be fixed ASAP, or melee PvP will continue to be the twitch-based cluster fudge that it is.
Huge portions of the Fighter mechanics, the parts that are clearly designed to balance us against mobile characters, are effectively gated by how fast you are able to run. If I can run faster than you, then I can stay slightly ahead of you and get attacks off. If I am the same speed as you, I am screwed, because chances are I will always be behind you *but still in melee range* and my attacks won't go off.
This makes speed the most important stat for any melee PvP player, not because we need to be able to close the gap, which is an entirely valid reason, but so that we can bypass a broken system that cannot possibly be intentional. If I am literally running so close behind you that model collision detection is kicking in, I should be able to reliably hit you. Especially with a spear that has an increased range on it.
I would really love to hear from a developer whether or not this behavior is intentional, and if it is, what their reasoning behind it is.
To be clear, I am not talking about occasions where a target is fast enough to run out of melee range and avoid attacks that way. Both combatants are in melee range the entire time, both running in the same direction at the same speed. Something is not working correctly in those cases. I would be glad to demonstrate what I mean with a video if anyone thinks it might help.
I don't know what will happen in the future with new patches. But I have to say that I hate every single one of you, especially Phyllain, and because this is a competitive game, I feel the need to murder all of you.
So where do I go from here?
Post Cataclysm I expect that I will focus on:
Murder – Well above the average rate.
Until we get better PvP mechanics I will soldier on – trying to be the most murderous murderer I can be, especially of those in one of the large power blocs. I will carry on my mission to murder each and every single one of you, and add my own bit of quirky face-stabbing-goodness to the game.
Also, I didn't write any new roleplay stuff, because Tink is illiterate. My illiteracy was inspired by Guurzak.
I have an account that I am looking to sell. It comes with;
New Player Pack 1
Payment will be sent over Paypal, once payment is received I will send you the login details and you will have full ownership of the account.
I am asking for $140. Please send any offers through Paizo PM.
So one of the few issues I have with the current crafting system is that low +x recipes effectively become useless as soon as a +3 recipe is acquired, at least in Tier 1. I don't have any experience with a Tier 2/3 recipes, however at Tier 1 the increase in production time is so minimal that there really isn't any reason to ever not make something at +3.
I was mildly surprised when I found out that all of the different +x recipes require the same level of training to learn. Does anyone know if there has ever been any discussion about that not being the case? For example, right now Pine Poles require Sawyer 6 to make. Pine Poles are essential to a fair few crafting recipes (spears, staves). With the recent XP changes that means that we won't be seeing any of those items made by player hands for at least a few weeks after EE starts.
What if, instead, each refining recipe was learnt at [y] skill level. From there, each +x recipe was learnt at [y+x] skill level. This would broaden the rewards for training your refining skills up, as well as, depending on how it was balanced, potentially allow faster access to critical low level components without messing up the entire market. It would also mean that we might see a better spread of 'not +3' components, since the lower +x versions would be being made by the lower skilled refiners, probably those that do refining as an off-role side task.
TLDR; What if refining recipes were learnt at different skill levels depending on their +x component.
Tink has a question! In the email detailing the ongoing discount promotion for new EE accounts, the 100$/85$ account says that it gets in September 15th, the first month of EE. When you go to the store and try and buy it, it says that it gets in October 15th, the second month of EE.
Which one of these is correct?
So, as someone interested in making regular youtube content for Pathfinder Online, I was wondering what GoblinWorks stance on monetization was? I don't currently plan on putting ads on my video, but I might in the future. To monetize gameplay videos you basically need explicit permission from the developers to do so.
For example, the makers of Kerbal Space Program have;
on their website. Do Goblinworks plan to have anything similar?
Some people like what we just got in the latest blog, others are unhappy with it all. Some of those that are happy with the Tower Wars concept don't think that a simple “Stand here and get ticker points” is the best way to handle tower capture.
So, why don't we make suggestions on how we would rather see it handled? I honestly can't really think of better mechanics for it, but I am dosed all the hell out on cough medicine. How do you think GoblinWorks should handle tower capture?
Nihimon has accused Golgotha of intentionally cheating in the second land rush by using votes already used on Aeturnum during the first land rush to bolster our numbers. This is not true. His basis for this accusation is derived from the fact that he cannot do simple math. Previous to the clarification from Ryan Dancey that Golgotha could not use unspent (in LR1) Aeturnum votes, I made a post explaining that the controversy was over 5 votes.
We have audited our votes. We are gaining 5 votes from Aeturnum. We are losing 3 votes from Golgotha because they are locked into Aeturnum. There is a difference of 2 votes. Does anyone think that 2 votes is making us "no longer [sic] need to worry about their own land rush"?
At least in my mind, my intent is fairly clear. 5 Aeturnum votes, that had not been used in LR1, were being used on Golgotha in LR2. 3 Golgotha votes, that had been used for Aeturnum in LR1, were being (rightfully) forced to be used on Aeturnum in LR2. The difference, had those Golgothans been informed before LR1 was locked, is 2 votes.
That was twisted into something that I am not quite sure I understand. It was twisted into us cheating, when in fact it is indicative of the exact opposite. It is indicative of us playing exactly to the rules as we understood them at the time. While the clarification from Dancey changed the 5 Aeturnum votes, they had absolutely no bearing on the misspent Golgotha votes.
Nihimon made this accusation in a thread that good will would have restricted us from responding in. I do not enjoy the fact that I had to derail what is effectively a recruitment post just to get what was close to an answer. Pax Gaming has owned the fact that we wrongly used spare Aeturnum votes to support Golgotha. We fixed that. But we have never, ever misused LR1 votes.
This is a public demand that Nihimon retract his accusation that Pax Gaming misused any LR1 votes. If he can provide proof to the contrary, he is free to post it. If not, then make a public apology.
Substantiate your claim, or retract it.