Guurzak's page

To the question: "Why should I make the move to PF2?", the answer is: You shouldn't. The game isn't even out yet.

That's an answer in search of a question. Nobody is asking "why should I switch my gaming to a playtest"; people who playtest know why they playtest.

The important question is "why should someone switch to the eventual released version of the game", in other words what gamer niche or market is PF2 being designed to attract? Because a) that strongly informs the kind of feedback we give, and b) it's not clear that the game we've seen so far successfully appeals to *any* market.

This is where I'm stuck too. What is PF2's value proposition to players who might otherwise be playing PF1, or 5e, or 4e, or 13th Age, or Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark, or Gloomhaven? What kind of player is PF2 looking to attract who is underserved by the current library of games? What will PF2 do better than any of the other options?

I've played a lot of different kinds of games with a lot of different kinds of gamers, and after reading the rulebook, I can't think of a single person I've played with who would say "yes, I'd rather play this than my current favorite game." If Paizo could state a specific design goal that we're trying to make a game that does X better than any other game does or that appeals specifically to Y kind of players, that would help greatly in the community's ability to provide feedback on reaching that goal.

If I were you I wouldn't trust myself farther any farther than I could throw myself.

And we all know you throw like a girl. A girl gnome. Who can't throw. I'm saying that wouldn't be very far.

Lemme know if you need an unfrozen caveman uncivil orcish lawyer...

I don't think there's any sort of consequence to looting a husk other than your own.

I wouldn't want to see a rep hit, but an "attacker" flag wouldn't be unreasonable.

The range is actually pretty big for a "small" distance >8-]

If a monster is even one step away from the node you can harvest in stealth without aggroing the monster, although you can't if he's literally right on top of it. IOW harvesting range is identical to the range at which mobs can see through stealth.

Me cant smash rockpiles into pritty shinies wif me bare paws no more?

I've never been a fan of cliques.

My allegiance is with AGC, regardless where that takes us.

I don't think I could irony that hard with a 20' running start. I tip my halfling-hide skullcap to you, Ronyel.

Mouseover the token in inventory. Con 11 is still typical.

Our ogres freeze you in place with their breath.

Uphill, in the snow, both ways.

Make sure you bug this in game or on the GW forums; don't count on GW to be following this board reliably.

if you are Golgothan, your towers are not safe!

Ronyel/Leynor, AGC

Might want to check with Aragon leadership and see whether they value the Northern Coalition more than they value your membership before you take any hasty action.

The peasants! They're revolting!

Me luvs dat kobold. Him gits et last.

it's not like the illuminati get together and talk about who is going to ragequit PFO.

That's exactly what a member of the Illuminati ragequit council would say.

The easier it is to change companies, the less valuable the feud system is and the less important company reputation becomes.

Buy level 1 of any other defensive feat, from any trainer. Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, or Iron Will can all do it; I think Strong Back should as well.

With the drama going on with the NAP violation, *nobody* was killed. Not one. And yet, threats of blacklisting were floated.

There's an inherent assumption in this statement that a character kill is of greater objective significance than a tower claim.

I don't think that's a safe assumption about everyone's priorities.

Uh...so, is it just me, or is the War of Towers kinda failing?

- There is no scarcity of towers. A settlement who wants more towers can just go get some.

- It's not possible to defend towers. If someone takes away your towers, you just go get different ones. See above.

In the current state of the game, towers are just a way to flag some hexes FFA for some or all of the day.

Nobody is being told that. People are being told "if you don't like the agreement of the NAP then find a way to deal with those who disagree with you." This is a social game; play it on the social level.

You have lots of options. Each of those options has different benefits and also has different costs. If you can't find ANY option that gives you the benefits you need at a cost you're willing to pay, that may be a shortfall of the game or it may simply be a shortfall of your imagination.

If you can't find any better option, then you should consider postponing your participation in the game until it's more nearly feature complete- but I suspect that you'll find a better option if you look for it hard enough.

Everyone actually playing who wants a settlement has one, and if they don't it's either due to lack of trying or hugely antisocial behavior. If you're worried that playing this game like a murder sim might have social consequences which impact your game experience, you're right, and that's by design, so don't do that.

If you can present an actual case of someone being excluded from all settlements solely due to groupthink rather than him actually being a total jerk, we can reopen this conversation then.

Indeed, and yet we can be negatively affected by those circumstances, right. now. is that OK?

It's up to you to decide if it's OK for you. If not, feel free to postpone your participation until the game reaches a more personally-suitable state of readiness.

I note in passing that you had the same opportunity everyone else did to participate in the Land Rush and win a settlement of your own.

Power system is incomplete. YOU MUST CONSTRUCT MORE PYLONS.

The eventual design will be that power does not regenerate in the field, but does regenerate in structures like taverns, inns, base camps, and smallholdings, or at deployable campsites crafted by engineers. Those systems aren't built yet so for right now it's just "comes back slowly over time".

If we're going to handle this all legal-like:

Ladies and gentleman of the community, I'm just an orc. I was raised eating the weakest of my own littermates and later got conscripted into your army. Your world frightens and confuses me. Sometimes the flashing lights of your wizards make me want to strip off my Soldier's Chain +2 and run off into the hills or whatever. Sometimes when I get a whisper in game, did little demons get inside my screen and type it? I don't know. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.

But here's what I do know: this is what the NAP says.

The Tribunal will be made up of an Advocate for the Petitioner, an Advocate for the Accused, and a Neutral Party. The Petitioner and Accused may select any Signatory that is not a member of their Power Bloc as their Advocate. If the Accused fails to select an Advocate, then there will only be an Advocate for the Petitioner and the Neutral Party. The Neutral Party will be Emerald Lodge unless they are the Petitioner or Accused, in which case the Advocates will select another Neutral Party.

...

The Tribunal will then convene for deliberations, and may make suggestions for alternate resolutions rather than always making a simple yes/no decision on revoking the protections of this agreement from the Accused. If the parties agree to the Tribunal’s alternate resolution, the matter will be considered settled without prejudice.

Points of interest:

• Advocates are Signatories.
  
• Signatories are Settlements.
  
• Caldeathe cannot be an advocate, only Ozem's Vigil can be an advocate.
  
• The pact text does not indicate how a settlement selected as advocate must or should represent itself with real persons.
  
• The pact text neither forbids nor considers the possibility that the same settlement might be chosen to advocate for both parties.
  

With those points in mind, the text of the document has no language which would prevent Ozem's Vigil, selected to advocate for both the petitioner and accused, from choosing to represent itself at this hearing with multiple real persons and assign them different responsibilities.

The pact text also does not specify what form the Tribunal's "deliberations" should take nor how to resolve any intractable differences among the Tribunal's membership. It seems to assume that the Tribunal will reach a unanimous consensus. It nowhere indicates that two of the Tribunes could make a ruling in the face of the third's dissent. If we trust that a 3-settlement tribunal can reach an equitable and unanimous decision, we should feel equally confident that a 2-settlement tribunal, with one of those settlements represented by multiple real persons with different responsibilities, can do the same.

Those people are not necessarily antisocial. They just want to be self sufficient.... But I do not want to depend on a company to provide me something that I could not provide myself.

Support for self-sufficient philosophies of gaming is not a design goal of this particular game. PFO is specifically and deliberately being designed to make successful human interaction a necessary part of gameplay. You cannot solo PFO and no effort will be made to support you in trying; the design intention is that you must find a group of fellow players you can get along with in order to play the game successfully.

A player who can successfully alienate the leadership of every active settlement is not someone I need to share my gaming space with anyway.

Why do you think that "build up reputation with Thornkeep" is an OK grind to qualify for advanced training, but "build up reputation with Callambea" isn't?

If you find you like the effects of the Striking token, consider adding the True Strike wizard utility to your hotbar.

Nothing is finalized at that level of detail yet, Tyncale. We'll get more complete info when the system is ready to start testing.

What Pino said, but also: PFO is not a soloable game and is not intended to be one. If you can't find a group of players you get along with, make your own. If you can't do either, yeah, you're gonna have a hard time.

If i am right in that is the fight you refer to.

Apparently we're not talking about the same fight at all; I'm no longer confident we're even talking about the same game.

The first 3 keywords on Combat Expertise are Lithe, Versatile, and Athletic. It's possible to match 2 of those simultaneously with T1 gear.

@Guurzsk lol where did you make that s@~+ up from? Just so you know we are UK time zone - have work to do - and actually go to sleep at night.

If you don't flee a 3v1 then you are a moron. Seeing as none of you fight in groups less than 10, it should not come as a surprise to you. there will be times when we will not engage. We seek a skilled pvp engagement, unlike you lot.

Make up your mind: either you didn't flee combat and log out (and I made that up), or you did flee combat and log out (but you had good reason to do so.) You can take one stance or the other but not both.

Besides providing keywords to match utiilities? No.

Golgotha uses Marchmont for recruiting and newb training. G now has people stationed there regularly. SENSOU is apparently engaging Golgotha when they canfleeing combat and logging out when Golgotha shows up.

FTFY

Dutch oven's a dutch oven, but they call it le dutch oven.

We're like cheap pinatas- one good hit and candy goes everywhere.

To the extent that the struggle for position and influence is a game, perhaps you should just accept that you played poorly and lost.

our evil evilness proved us blah de blah.

Me pretty shur dis part akshully happind.

If someone doesn't turn this into a feel good Disney song I am going to cry.

like this one?

Is it accurate to say that it matches up like this:

No.

Higher level attacks, including orisons, allow you to activate more keywords- assuming that you have a weapon (focus) which supports the same keywords.

Icicle gains these keywords as it is trained:

R1: Divine
R2: Elemental
R3: Blessed
R4: Masterwork
R5: Planar
R6: Avatar

Similarly, if you have an Elemental Focus, it will gain these keywords:

Divine (+0), Elemental (+1), Blessed (+2), Planar (+3)

...along with inherent keywords Masterwork for T2 recipes and Avatar for T3.

On the other hand, a Battle Focus has these keywords:

Divine (+0), Battle (+1), Blessed (+2), War (+3)

So: If you only have a +0 focus, there's no point in training your attack past R1. But if you have a better focus you need higher training in order to fully take advantage. A rank 3 icicle matches 3 keywords on a +2 elemental focus, and matches 2 keywords on a +2 battle focus.

Each keyword matched adds 5 base damage to your attack, and all attacks have an original base damage of 40. (Total base damage is then scaled using damage factor.) Major keywords (Masterwork and Avatar) count as 4 keywords. So, if you're fully matching your attacks with appropriate level gear, the damage progression goes like this:

T1+0 45 R1
T1+1 50 R2
T1+2 55 R3
T1+3 60 R5
T2+0 65 R4
T2+1 70 R4
T2+2 75 R4
T2+3 80 R5
T3+0 85 R6
T3+1 90 R6
T3+2 95 R6
T3+3 100 R6

In a post-NAP War of Towers

Another World...

Another Time...

In the Age of Wonder.

A thousand years ago, this land was green and good...

...until the NAP failed.

(Camera pans over a DESOLATE WASTELAND)

Correct.

Whether that means "nothing of consequence" or "you have zero towers for the next six months" is then up in the air.

Persistent sandbox != fantasy shooter

Social consequences are a thing. Players are under no obligation to play on the social plane, but those who choose not to will find that politics impinge slowly but dramatically on the tactical environment.

yeah, dem Gogoblah noobeez is always eetin kittunz an kickin puppeez! An dem is horribul at fitin! Dem all gunna git bashd flat, jus you wayt!

OK, so the clear frontrunners on our list are:

settlement chat
shared storage
improved targeting and IFF logic

I don't imagine this is a big surprise to GW or anyone who's paying attention, but there you have it.

If you ever decide the game is defiantly not for you

Defiantly not for you.

unfortunately, the existence of the potential for the exploit under discussion would have been obvious to anyone with a mind to think about such things, so I don't think that suppressing conversation will actually accomplish anything useful- but I could be wrong.

Numeneran coal-mining relies on the Bagger 288.

There's been a lot of talk about quests as part of the NPC faction system, dynamic dungeons which despawn once completed, and lots of other interesting PVE content. It's not MVP; we'll see it when it's ready.