Iatronas's page

Kromac, I'm in the alpha and enjoyed it quite a bit this weekend. Look me up during the next alpha session; I'd love for you and your friend to join my wife and I so we can compare notes and try harder stuff (like those Razmirans)!

I have been using the moniker Kohn, a heavy armor slaughter-things-with-my-bow-until-it-is-nerfed fighter); my RL wife plays the Sarenrae priestess Bannis who is 'teaching' me that heals only work in melee range in PFO and to stop moving around spastically (canon to PF but unlike every other MMO out there).

We are primarily planning to be PvE players committed to improving the Settlement and the Talonguard local environment. I have not committed what my DT will be, probably a wizard / crafter for our Settlement/Company.

Clex, welcome to Talonguard, I hope you enjoy the game and our Settlement!

We need any and all types of players to manage the needed roles in Talonguard. Additionally, it looks like the crafting mechanism will be pretty varied as well requiring multiple characters working together to achieve success in all areas of refining and crafting. And of course, we'll need more PvP-aligned characters to protect our interests!

If I was a GW developer, I'd never make an open-world FFA PvP area. One of the major design concepts of the game revolves around meaningful PvP not meaningless PvP.

There are a few scenarios where I could see allowable FFA PvP and have it make sense:

An event-specific area within a NPC Settlement that contains a FFA PvP tournament area that could periodically have tournaments where the FFA victor (via some point system) could acquire some reward or title.

A dungeon / instanced area that had a "last-person standing" PvP area that allowed completion of the instance or spawning of the boss to fight mano-a-mano.

I think most players who are eager for open-world PvP will use a second account or DT to create the dastardly-evil-bandit-who-kills-everyone-I-see if they desire. I don't think the game designers can completely eliminate that from happening.

I agree that instead of just "poof more dudes have spawned" to "reinforcements are moving into the area" would be way cooler.

One thing to note: if you queue up a recipe, then click the destroy button you lose the components even if you've not started on it yet.

After playing three evenings thus far in the Alpha, I enjoy the escalations scattered across the realm. I found the hex-based quest concept to be a good one (especially after someone told me to click the arrow in the upper right corner of the screen). I would prefer to see more than two at a time (maybe different ones based on the escalation percentage). However, it feels like there should be some level of reward for completion of an escalation quest.

Some are vastly harder than others. We found some areas obviously meant for higher-than-level-3/4 - the Razmiran Archpriest was nigh invincible to reach due to the Razmiran Adepts even with kite-pulling.

For those who haven't seen them: the whole hex participates in the completion of the quest, but unless you 'zone' in and out of the hex, you can only contribute a small amount (say 5 out of a thirty kill X). After finishing a few minor quests in the hex, Archanjel, Bannis and I killed the Fallen Paladin - a single target for a specific quest (probably meant to be a boss). It wasn't clear if that did anything to the escalation and felt pretty anticlimactic after at least a five minute slugfest. Someone mentioned that each completed quest would give a ~2% drop to the hex's escalation percentage.

I propose that some minor positive impact or feedback loop reward be developed to occur as quests are completed. It could be as simple as:

1. a local banner message to the hex "The Fallen Paladin has been slain, the [faction group] is in disarray!"
2. part of an achievement/requirement for a rareish skill related to the main class type involved in the escalation
3. a temporary buff versus the escalation (e.g. Bandit's Scourge - that gives +5% damage to all skills targeting bandits for thirty minutes)
4. even a temporary debuff of increased agro range for a period of time (e.g. "There they are! They killed Lord Kobuki! Get them!").
5. characters remaining online who contributed to a particular quest when it is completed receives a message / crafting material / mail (good for the kill x and take x supplies type quests).

Nearly any effect would be a positive one and incentivize people to work on them. Randomness and variety to them would be even better.

Thoughts?

PS: Having characters with more than one name makes you unable to be invited to a group which drove my healer nuts (since both Archanjel and I both had two names).

I think Xaer brings up a reasonable intrinsic argument that could be used to add meaning to some less-than useful skills. I'm not in agreement with all of them, but I'm happy to see them brought up.

Just like those mentioned above, I don't want characters/players to be able to use cheats and mods above what GW chooses to release - so these may not be reasonable ideas.

Global chat is an ongoing issue, but I suspect we'll have it anyway (I just hope I can opt out).

The damage numbers issue will need to be fixed from current state to be more clear which attacks are player and which are mob. There are times when the last mob dies and then the auto-switch will start smacking a party-member (friendly fire concept seems to be active - just look at these mace-like bruises I have).

For the original intent, maybe a tiered method - such as a combination of perception and a mapping skill to add stealthed characters to appear on your minimap.

For the world map idea, there could be auto-updated areas near your affiliated Settlement and hidden areas that become uncovered as the character explores using a Fog of War concept, but then expires and becomes rehidden over time (say 24 hours). Maybe PoIs/resource nodes, etc stay on your World Map until you discover that they've been overtaken or destroyed. It could be a use of Knowledge: Local - functions as a knowledge mapping associated skill that influences the level of detail and rate of decay.

PF TT always struggles to make knowledge skills valuable without truly being required; it'll be even worse in a MMO setting where max/min is more important to remain viable. I think there should be some gain or reason to spend XP on them even within a MMO setting.

Ok, renaming the file to PFO_Installer.exe instead of PFO_Installer_2.9 worked to allow me to install it again...

I was hoping they had fixed the XP resetting (which would address your issue above). I saw the new version on the GoblinWorks site this AM.

Just now, I downloaded the new client PFO_Installer_2.9 from the Goblinworks website (after uninstalling/deleting yesterday's version), but I'm unable to open it. =( I use Windows 7 64-bit.

Might be something to do with putting 2.9 in the name of the file; my windows sees it as a ".9 file" and refuses to try to open it. Any suggestions on what program to use to open it? I was hoping put in some PFO hours today exploring.

Changing out of windowed mode caused icon displacement and overlap problems.

Changing chat channels didn't seem to work, especially while in a group. Clicking directly on the channel tabs did not work. The in-game command only worked until entering a new hex.

Seeing the icons for conditions is very difficult.

Group UI dropped automatically when changing hexes (but the group did not disband). We had to /leave then /invite again to reform the group to allow the group-member health bars to appear.

Difficult to discern the cool-down of attack buttons (of course customization here would be nice).

Difficult to tell if clicking the switch-to-a-different-weapon-set actually worked; sometimes in my impatience I clicked it multiple times too many.

Of course being able to scale and move individual components will be wonderful!

Combat text can be challenging to tell if damage to you or damage to a mob.

In the inventory window, the filtering system will take time to get used to - but I had many auto-dropped items that were unknown if useful or not. I know itemization and encumbrance factors will improve this issue.

I'm hopeful that GW will develop a method for in-game feedback as well. Remembering specifics while not the game are not my forte! =)

I also dislike the question poster to place a priority in the name of the idea presented. That should occur via the votes. I bet the team looks at the percentage of yes/no votes in addition to the total votes cast on an item.

Also, I find that merging will need to be done with very similar topics (otherwise the voters will miss nuances - such as the multiple road-building topics).

I need a filter-out-items-I've-already-voted-on as part of the Filter dropdown.

I like Civic Assets over Structures (my #2 choice). The term Assets could be shared across multiple concepts as well: Kingdom Assets, Exploration Assets, Dungeon Assets, etc. In addition, I can see Assets that don't truly have to be a physical building, but could also represent income, gained prestige, or other varieties of boosting to a Settlement.

I think that this EE addition is a great interim step to introduce PvP into the game. As has been mentioned, I'm a little concerned about the free-for-all aspect brought up during the video blog throughout a Settlement's PvP window.

I'm fully in agreement that the more Towers a Settlement controls, the wider its PvP window should be wedged open (will that time be continuous or broken up?). Also, I wonder if we'll see the Towers as a threshold to allow creation of different structures (or add-ons to existing buildings, e.g. you need to hold 9 Towers to support a grade III temple of XYZ). Also, those systems should degrade or increase in upkeep cost as Towers are lost. That means that the most effect will be whether the "base-model Settlement" and owned Towers use a threshold requirement to allow access, additional Towers simply provide a boosting effect to skill acquisition, or incremental increases to building rates.

However, I'd prefer that the Towers (and potentially the Settlements) remain "meaningful PvP" during said window; the alignment / reputation consequences should be maintained at least to some degree. It is mentioned over and over that one of this game's main goals is to provide opportunities for meaningful PvP. I guess in some way, the Tower control mechanism itself is considered meaningful to some, but the alignment / reputation system is the method (albeit not perfect - but those players flaunting it will be flagged) to prevent outright griefing that may dissuade some players from joining. It appears that a large percentage of terrain hexes (looks like about 30%) will have open, no-consequence PvP that might persist for many hours a day. I worry this change may push each player to have to be active in the PvP side of the game in order to be able to continue to move forward in the game. I really hadn't planned to be overly involved in PvP except when forced (just not the most exciting part of a MMO game for me). Yet, I do want this game to have multiple pathways to fun - and hope this adds a dimension to the early game that draws more than it detracts and encourages player excitement.

I like the concept of Bludd's solution, but I think that we would need to clearly define exactly what infractions would trigger the pass-key code deactivation and how much reactivation would cost. One problem with the concept of griefing, as we've seen on these forums, is the variation in definition depending on your personal past experiences.

As mentioned above, we also have to realize that Goblinworks will likely be a lean machine and may not have many resources to play police when someone complains about being griefed.

Just read through some of the "Most fond MMO memory thread" to see some examples where there are pretty-funny but grey, blurred definitions. I'll admit to have fun tweaking people with my Enchanter in EQ (like 'accidentally' casting the wrong illusion on someone - which could lead to them dying - or charming a friend/guild party member during a trivial fight, especially in Kedge Keep), but I don't see that behavior as encouraged or acceptable in this day and age...

Regarding why we would want to cross the NPC road (time for some poultry levity?), if contiguous-ness can extend across the road, it'll make it less obvious where settlements like Talonguard at K must expand and need to maintain a bubble of control. I'm sure we'll have a fun enough time controlling the badlands monster hex immediately to the north - I hope!

One thought about the "solo burner" versus the "large company-siege engine" needed would be give each type of a building both a hardening level and defensive value. Both of these could be hidden or visible possibly as a trade-off for some other benefit.

Some structure fairly easy to build that has little natural defenses, such a granary, could have a hardness value of 1 and 10 defensive points (at base - skills of the construction team or settlement could boost this). The hardening level allows one player to affect it, 10 defensive points might take a certain amount of damage to destroy (say 1000 structural damage). Maybe only certain types of weapons can deal this class of damage... I enjoy the thought of an early "weaken-your-enemy" tactic would be to have small forces hit a few choice targets either as a distraction or to harass a stronger enemy.

A much more fortified object that requires many more resources/refinements, characters working together, and skill levels to develop, like a well developed advanced central keep might have a hardness value of 20 and 2000 defensive points. That would mean 20 "types" of damaging (20 different sources of damage within a time frame - a siege engine could count as multiples like x5) and the structural defensive points would be too daunting for all but a truly massive force.

Every thing else would be in-between: (temples, markets, company halls, taverns, etc etc. Of course the scaling, benefits of skills, and maximum reasonable values would have to be worked out. This type of thinking might also caused settlement leaders to agonize over where to put which susceptible structures within the settlement during construction phases (or changes that need to be made after losses and analysis) ... another fun dimension to the game!

This:

So maybe the best way to sum up Talonguard is we want it to be a settlement that maximizes fun both for its residents, and for new players.

is a good phrase and goal to strive for!

I'm honestly in the PvP-is-not-the-highlight-of-my-gaming-experience crowd, but I willing to help try to make both the PvP and the PvE components of the game meaningful and fun. The Pathfinder world can be rich and challenging if PFO is willing to take some risks.

I agree that PFO does need to quash misconceptions, but I also think that is where both the player base and the new Community Manager (Jane) can help out to help dispel those myths.

Btw ... GREAT JOB cleaning out the customer support queue!! It was evident that the team was working through the weekends trying to clean up issues. I know this dual Paizo / GW switch-over has been a strain, but I'd bet that 99%+ of the active members have at least had a disposition if not a resolution. I suspect the hard part that remains is trying to ensure capture of all those who pledged but never came to Paizo (or only did once).

I'm with Toombstone - I'd enjoy seeing some robust immersive RP in an MMO ... but it really has never been frequent or viable enough to become involved.

I'm still deciding what type of PFO character I want to play given the MVP. One day ... ?Inquisitor? ... for early exploration, probably just a Fighter pretending to be something else.

Zen Masters of Zaragoza?

So, how do I register for the Settlement Forum?

Thank you for working on the weekend to help resolve questions and anxieties! I'm eagerly anticipating PFO. And my wife's GW account just got fixed too ...!

I understand the need to use typical MMO language (e.g. guild) for people outside the community, but when we start migrating or broadening the definition beyond the original intent, it makes for confusion. For the Land Rush, where groups of Companies could in theory come together to vote on a Settlement, it feel like the intent is one-guild = one Settlement. I'm not sure the best way to convey the correct intent to the rest of the MMO world.

I'm happy to hear that the Land Rush is really just marketing and pre-organization for Settlements / larger guilds instead of a long-term commitment affecting the player' account in some way.

I've been consistently following the message boards as well as the Land Rush blog, and I'm still a little confused by the situation.

In my scenario, my RL brother signed up with the original Kickstarter funding a guild slot ~$600 (where he could define 6 buddies to receive the same benefits and access). Later, after being named "buddy"
and reading more about the game, my wife and I decided to sign up for alpha access through the Goblin Store on Paizo. Long-term, we will be in the same "guild/company" long-term, but since he signed up for the guild process, we've been hesitant to sign up for a Land-Rush guild due to concerns over losing the buddy benefits or the guild/buddy Kickstarter rewards. We aren't really interested in managing a Settlement long-term, but would enjoy training access or participating as an ally with a larger Settlement-owned group.

While there may not be too many in our specific situation, I will agree with the OP that the Land Rush has been confusing to reconcile between the move over to Goblinworks accounts from Paizo accounts and the 'controversy' over large pre-formed guilds/alliances taking multiple Settlement slots (not necessarily against this - but it makes me worry about limited access for those who are not large-settlement aligned).

So how much am I hamstringing myself in the foot by not deciding what type of character (or guild / settlement) I want to play until I see more of the game mechanics?

I've played some Pathfinder and I'm very interested in the crowd-forging aspect of the game's creation. I've not chosen a particular guild to join yet, yet I will have alpha access. I wonder how much of the game I'll be able to play without joining a specific settlement (or how hard life will be)?

I'm certainly not looking for guild recruitment messages - I've skimmed Nihimon's master guild listing - but is there some bonus I'm missing other than a landrush vote?

Welcome to the realm! I am happy to see others starting to add their names into the hat as well, especially following other paths and goals. Different tactics, loyalty drivers, and goals will make the game's environment more interesting in the long run.

I'd prefer the chat to NOT be like Local in Eve (or not any forced regional/local chat at all - goodbye gold spammers!). I would prefer the hex's list of players be hidden, and not automatically logged into unless someone chooses to display it using some toggled trigger or flag. Think of a possible bait mini-game for PvP that way (e.g. all /anon don't show). For "local", I would use emote-distance (say 100 units @ ~ 2-3x the longest range attack) to allow /say, /yell, etc without being committed to engagement. Could be another reason to consider banner / surcoats if the settlement/alliance association is not displayed easily. Most regular companies will chat using TeamSpeak/Ventrilo, etc instead of in-game chat.

As far as "greeting" someone or expecting someone to respond or you'll consider them hostile - c'mon, what are the odds of that actually happening? If the game is as PvP-focused as it sounds it will be, most people will veer off / flee if trying to avoid combat (solo or without support nearby), and move in closer if they are considering the pros and cons of engagement. The angle of their movements and actions (buffing/drawing weapons/spells) will tell me more of their intentions than a /wave will.

I could see a concept allowing a player-set flag of "mood" from 1-10 where you show your crankiness and willing to PvP everything in sight vs. "let's trade" or "can we meet and talk about XYZ event yesterday."

I suspect that the closer you are to a settlement, the faster the "response time" of the patrolling NPCs (ala Eve high-sec), unless there are actually visible NPC road patrols and trade caravans / diplomatic convoys which would be cool to have.

From my point of view it sounds like we are mostly at a consensus.

A base-10 methodology can be used to remain compatible with the software, but using a new language set would be preferred, regardless of whether it is medieval or fantastical. Remember that this is a fantasy world, and it would be fine to call meters "feet" and kilometers "miles" even though there are 1000 PFO "feet" in a PFO "mile". It could have new fantastical names. The medieval world didn't actually have true measurement standards:

From good old Wikipedia:
"Historically the foot, which was used in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, England, Scotland and many Continental European countries and which varied from country to country and in some cases from city to city, was part local systems of units. Its length was usually between 250 mm and 335 mm [length of a foot typically varied based upon cultural height] and was generally, but not always, subdivided into 12 inches or 16 digits."

"The palm (typically 200 mm to 280 mm) was used in many Mediterranean cities instead of the foot."

Nonetheless, people will learn how fast their PC travels and the ranges for their weapons regardless of the naming convention used.

Since there are plans to allow road-creation that will affect the Map(mentioned above), I would also suggest other implements higher on the "settlement creation and expansion" research tree. Such as the ability to affect the terrain - building a bridge, tunneling a path through to a hex, building barricades/walls, create a moat, move boulder/rocks, build a new cavern, etc.

Over time, I could even see over-resource cultivation changing a hex from one type to another (grassland -> rough/Badland). It does almost sound Minecraft-like, but I think it would certain encourage players/alliances to create, build and customize their settlement and manage the governed hexes around them (with an associated 'settlement point' upkeep cost as well).

There will always be some level of "corpse camping", even if it is really barricading a common thoroughfare or trade route waiting for the next mark. The bodies of your kills should be a warning to those who come next (if they are looking to avoid conflict themselves), or a potential attractant to bandit-hunters. I could see leaving the "body" of a dead PC (from PvP) in the area even after it is completely looted for an hour or so.

Personally, I definitely prefer more classical armor styles than fantasy (think of how poorly protected those scantily-clad female fighters in only brassieres are).

Many middle-ages warriors covered their battered armor with surcoats to deflect heat off the armor but would also be customized to display their allegiances. This was part of the development of heraldry across Europe. PFO could even merge the attainment of certain in-game achievements or affiliations to open up heraldric options.

Maybe PFO could allow a crafting "palette" where the crafter (or the new owner) can utilize colors and design to customize their gear. I'm not thinking like LOTRO where a single dye is applied to change to a single color, but more of a adding non-functional crests, symbols, or spikes optionally. I would be particularly interested in creating a family crest, company, settlement, or deity's symbol - even if only a surcoat or chest piece is customizable.

I know ... not high yield for the MVP, but might be pretty simple to implement. It would also help with that attachment sensation that keeps people playing a specific character - something any MMO would like.

I like the idea of hexes having some level of variation when looting corpses between them. I do think that ninja-looting someone else's kill could be behavior that causes reputation loss. Does anyone know the decay time one a corpse has been looted?

I assume this upgrade ability will likely be in prior to alpha going live? My brother is an original Kickstarter pledge at the Crowdforger Guild level. He would like to figure out how much it would cost to upgrade to alpha (or even if it is worthwhile), but can't seem to figure out exactly how to do it using the Paizo website links.

MapTools by RPTools is great, but takes some time to set up and become proficient enough to lead a game on the fly. However, if you do the pre-work, the macros can make the game more about story and less about the die-rolling (although I'm the type player to enjoy a healthy combination of both).

I like CBDunkerson's idea of some method for "GM-mode" or some role to allow world modification, spawning or control of monsters/quest storyline, etc. But I bet operationalizing the safety controls on this type of power would force it to be limited to GW employees only (and even then under the strictest guidelines). I'd hate for a "player-GM" to mess with the class game balance/loot scheme at all.

To get the thread back on track ... I'd pay for alpha members to be able to achieve DT status.

My wife and I will be in the alpha. We are very flexible in roles and how we play as long as we are together! I tend to be the crafter; she tends to be the healer type. Unfortunately, we missed out on the Kickstarter (had no clue) so no DT for us.

My brother may be in the alpha if he pushes his Kickstarter amount upwards (he's not figured out how to do this yet - he may wait until alpha starts to see if it is worthwhile).

42

I think this could also be part of the PvP aspect or a contract-offer mechanism (of course added after Early Enrollment).

Think of it this way: in the above evil Bonedancer example, once a certain amount of good PC resistance is achieved, then randomly (not every time) a "call-to-arms contract" could be spawned to try to recruit evil-aligned PCs to help promote and perform necromantic quests to strengthen the goblin horde or weaken opposing good PCs with regional/hex effects. Possibly even paying the assisting PCs in resources, specialized training, or access to restricted lands/allies.

Many cool examples could be created to promote alignment good/evil axis conflict or banditry vs settlement (chaos/law). Regarding increasing your escalations to prevent/reduce attacks, it could/should backfire if not monitored closely.

Lurker.

As one of those players who missed out on the original Kickstarter(s), I would love to see most of Kickstarter rewards available (especially the Destiny's Twin option), even at higher specific costs (but probably not thousands).

I would suggest have both single-item as well as "package" buy-ins that might allow for a small percentage of savings to the total cost for a larger set. That way you would get less picking and choosing of specific perceived higher-yield items.

I agree with most everyone who says that Gathering is a solo activity: herbs, fruit, random low utility but frequent stones and metals. I.E. like in every other MMO out there.

I think beyond that, it would handy to discriminate between actions that are spontaneous and actions that are planned. For a spontaneous example, a PC or company says "Hey look, I found a small-sized XYZ special node of rare stuff, everyone help me guard it!" I see that as unplanned Harvesting. This might require a PC to go back to a Settlement to get "tool kits" or hire laborer NPCs to collect the resources, but it would be a short term point-of-action by a small number of people to gain a small volume with high value. The full task could be completed in a matter of minutes to hours.

For planned activities, such as a larger scale Outpost setup generated by a Settlement, I would use more complex terms (maybe even a few delineated by the type and name of the Outpost):

Cultivating (crop/tree farming),
Mining/Extracting (ores/gems/rare metal veins underground),
Ranching (sheep/cattle type raising)

These actions would require a more complex model, and might take days or weeks to complete the action. Other job roles could be developed such as a caravan to transport the final resource, protection details (by a company or NPC force/guards), and should be able to be a target for opposing settlements / companies to wrest control of or destroy outright.

I like the name Deed for a low level tier accomplishment and Accolade for a higher tier accomplishment. I could also see the naming structure being different for single character vs group/company accomplishments.

I think the Deed: Saving Captain's Flagon would refer to an event, quest/series completion.

In contrast the Accolade: Savior of Bartenders would refer either to repetition or mastery in one deeds or of a set of deeds that are similar in nature (or possibly linked).

Another tier could be added for Mastery or Badge of XYZ. This would be especially appropriate for crafting or a limited resource grouping (so there can only be only be 6 Masters of XYZ).

For groups of people or whole settlements, you could have Achievement, Crusade, Triumph, Commission, Coup depending on the circumstance involved. I would love there to be different accomplishment names for tiered events or conquests.

Nonetheless, thinking of these as flags to allow and deny access to certain areas can be a slippery slope if you take it too far. You need to have a mixture of social / exploration / PvP attained "Deeds" and those "Deed" requirements for certain groups/classes/advanced training.

Here are a few of mine, some are tongue-in-cheek (i.e. read the blogs), but people will ask anyway:

Generic
What makes this game better than other MMO games out there?
Compare and contrast a theme-park MMO vs a sandbox MMO.
What will the cost structure be like (sub vs free-to-play with content purchase vs both options)?
How much will it cost per month to subscribe?
How many character slots per server will be allowed?
How do I get in on the action (donation/Kickstarter/swag)?

Content
What classes and playable races available in Pathfinder will be available in PFO at release?
How players will be allowed in each group (is that what Chartered Company means)??
How well will I be able to solo? How well will I be able to find a group when my friends/guildmates aren't online?
How familiar with Pathfinder / D&D rules will I need to be to play the game?
Will there be just open content, or will it be story-driven?
Explain the point of escalations.
Will quest-based choices affect my alignment / reputation, or will that be solely based upon interactions with other characters?
Will there be "raid"-type content other than PvP battles? How many players will be able to participate at a time?
Explain the relationship between guilds and settlements.

Combat
Will there be an auto-attack button? =)
Will I have a limited spell-book and a mana-bar, or a complete spellbook with a number of casts per in-game "day"?
Will melee types be obligated to specialize in certain weapon classes / types in order to be effective, or will they be able to use any weapon they pick up?
Can we find a way to avoid loot squabbles? (i.e. explain the loot system)

Misc
Explain how threading and PvP looting will work.
Will gold farmers / scripters be "shot" on sight?
Explain the concept of the PC flagging system, both voluntary and involuntary flags.

I am happy to see the honesty as well. However, I'd bet that GW and Paizo have lots of creative energy to tap that could come up with dynamic escalations. I'm sure there will be some static-types of encounters based on the terrain/location and history of the area. There will probably also be alignment-based escalations as well - think of it like SWTOR where the flunkies hanging around the Republic areas can be the "Kill Xs" of the Empire players. However, they do have to have somewhat of a limiting factor of the power based upon the area (newbie areas shouldn't have a marauding high level giant clan stomping the starting areas).

I think "escalations" theoretically could range the gamut of event types:

1) A neighboring nation tries to impose its will with its armies by trying to strip mine resources and using slash-and-burn tactics on areas it knows it can't hold.
2) PC-generation points, such as the undead-awakening army by a Necromancer player mentioned above. The PC gathers the right people/rare resources, performs the correct ritual, and then the event begins. The PC either joins in or watches with malevolent laughter.
3) An NPC merchant guild floods the PC sales market with low-cost weapons that are marginally better than the crafted versions, but there is a limited numbers, and of course they are carried by NPCs who could be harassed, stolen from, killed ... etc.
4) Famine occurs in an area where the PCs have removed too many resources, leaving the NPC population without enough food to support themselves.
5) etc etc etc

I'm sure you can see my point. Simple ideas for new ways to engage players of course lead to tons of programming, debugging, balancing and might be more difficult to implement than you think. The more players it affects, like smashing a hard-earned settlement with the aforementioned giant clan - while cool - it would really stink if your 18-person guild had just spent 500 in-game hours gathering the resources and crafting each piece of lumber to be blown up in 2 hours.

That's why 99% of MMOs have the "Go kill 10 bandits and bring me their sashes" quests. They are easy to develop and require little-to-no maintenance once created. Maybe we could save those for PC-to-PC hire quests - especially if those sashes have a use?

Variety will keep people interested, certainly, but in working with IT, I understand that the game designers definitely have to prioritize where their programming time and effort is used. A nice experiment would be for GW to engage the community - maybe using a locked spreadsheet format, where members of this forum/Kickstarter backers could be given a specific framework of lore, "points" of enemies, and acceptable themes/outcomes. Consider a contest submission where the top pick is built into the game at release. That would fuel some creative juice, generate excitement, and provide some added content that GW can use, modify, or trash-can as they see fit.

Reading this thread makes me more and more desire an auto-loot distribution among the party where both gold and items are immediately and randomly split among the party (or raid) when a NPC dies. Have nothing be BoE, except possibly quest-related items. This would make loot as fast as possible (allowing more time to attack/respond to the next thing), there would be no corpse to click, and reduce bickering (that will never be eliminated). Someone might feel it "unfair" to someone who goes LD, but you can always try to win over your party to your plight after you come back.

Keep it simple, have only one looting method, and let the market and player-to-player negotiation the best method for each party's loot distribution. If I'm a sorcerer and a Wis +6 item drops, of course I'd give it to the party priest, unless they already own one. However, I wouldn't be obligated to, I could always sell it or give it to an alt.

If you want to have a method for rogues to pilfer, I suggest that you make it a pickpocket mechanism either from an unaware mob/NPC or from a fellow PC, albeit high-risk and high-reward.

Depending a PUG player to be a "fair arbiter" is not possible.

I really like Gregg Reece's comment above: "What I'm guessing (based on some random comments from the Goblinworks guys) is that you'll kill the boss and he'll have whatever he was using on him. Otherwise, you'll raid his treasure trove and find a bunch of gold, crafting materials, wondrous items, potions, and a few randomly created weapons/armor in the method I listed above. You'll probably also find more general quality items as well that could be sold."

It would be quite original for an MMO to have a loot list generated when the "boss/leader" is spawned (or even the miscellaneous hobgoblin_0345), and then have the creature actually use the items during the fight! Varied as they may be; it would add some excitement to certain encounter types and potentially could make some MUCH more challenging depending on the length and potency of the item list.

While some charged-type items (such as potions / wands) might be used up, it would not affect the generation of an appropriate "Creature_01-type" table crafting related items and scaled-to-level-of-creature_01-with-random-effect(s) weapons/armor/misc items, unless limited to certain classes. it would be another discussion if an alignment or class restrictions would apply to the hobgoblin_0345 example.

As a possible solution to the N/G/P and master looter problem, I might suggest having each player involved in the kill receive their "own" loot table for randomly generated items. This could also eliminate the need for a "loot box". Then they could optionally choose to keep it for future sales or give to a friend or guild mate. Maybe if it is meant to be BoP, it could be traded to party members as long as they remain grouped (or a specific timeframe after looting). However, please let's have no "four" heads on each bandit, one for each party member.

I love the idea of "core" and "active" alignment, especially if your active alignment affects actual gameplay. In effect, core alignment may get you in the door, but how you've been acting for the past week determines everyone's reaction to you today.

Nonetheless, I think there should be some stratification system and variation for the alignment hits for different leveled NPCs, PCs, and others. Instead of everyone being an all-or-nothing either zero or 500 alignment shift, have sliding scale type situational modifiers (level comparison, active alignment comparison, current actions of both parties, flag status, etc etc). That way the range could be from say 0 - 1000 alignment points for a particular NPC depending on what he was doing.

For example:
1000 evil points for killing him while praying at his diety's altar inside a sanctuary, but 0 evil points for killing him while he's attacking as part of a larger battle/war effort. Maybe 300 points if you kill him accidentally in a drunken tavern brawl fight, 500 for killing him in an alleyway ambush as part of a quest, and 700 for killing him asleep inside his own house as part of a theft.

Of course a situational sliding scale would be more difficult to implement and keep accurate, but it would reduce the aforementioned calculation of "I'll do 18 good quests so I can murder that shopkeeper who is ripping me off."

My friend successfully pledged/paid for the $500 Crowdforger Guild level during the Kickstarter. I do not have a pledge. He has granted me "buddy" status using the Piazo.com website. I would like to be able to play with him during early enrollment - it appears from reading the Kickstarter pledge site that he should have 6 early entry accounts.

Do I need to / am I able to pledge at a Crowdforger Pioneer level (for example) to be able to play with him at the start of PFO?

Is there a way on the Paizo (or Goblinworks) website that can confirm this access status being granted?

Does shieldmate status only occur once the game has started?

Lastly, as part of a guild/buddy status, how do I purchase Add-Ons for my characters?