Meadhros's page

I think that the focus will be more on settlements rather than alignments. I imagine that there will not be any pan alignment organisations and that conflicts will on occasion have far more than three protagonists. Alignment need not be an overriding concern when aligning ones settlement with another but rather how trustworthy the settlements concerned are in the prevailing circumstances.

With regard to TN settlements there will be enough druidy folk about to start their own TN settlement. I would hope that in time there will be structure skins available for natural tree hugger types, people can call their settlements anything they choose, including 'grove'.

With regard to traders and mediators I imagine that the politics will be localised so rather than TN been required to transact with polarised alignment camps different settlements will take on those roles depending on the geography and politics of the circumstance. I don't think alignment need be related to trustworthiness, surely honoring is more relevant but metagame considerations would probably trump that too.

/crawls back into the dark corner from whence he came.

Haha, I knew GW would click to that but I didn't mention it just in case :P

I agree Bluddwolf. I have expressed similar concerns previously. GW however has made its decision, I don't see them changing it much from here on. I hope the proposed system works or can be tweaked post go live. For myself I think the settlement penalties (access to training facilities of varying degrees of crappiness) for chaotic, evil and yes, neutral settlements need to go.

Here is my prediction if things proceed as currently proposed:

Evil aligned characters may be popular to start with but when people see the difficulties involved they will just play good aligned characters and occasionally step out of line to reach certain objectives. Most people who play 'evil' characters would play this way anyway (on account of most of them not being stupid) so their play style will not be inhibited.

Some people have a different sense of what is fun and those people will be less swayed by the punitive measures so continue on their evil aligned ways. The anti-griefing objectives may or may not be met but in either case a significant amount of flavour will be lost from the game.

I don't think people will enjoy 'being other peoples content' if it means they will hamstring their development. This could be an option for some if the game ends up being Free to Play at some point, god forbid.

What I am saying is that it is actually impractical for any player or nation to play 'evilly'. It is more practical to be good aligned and then jump out and do evil deeds once and a while or in the case of the champion flag and evilly aligned victums whenever you like.

One can actually be engage in evil behaviour as a good aligned entity and gain the benefits of being good aligned.

This may be exactly what GW is looking for. I think it will be a great loss to the game if able and skillful players end up being metagamed into being good aligned and we lose the flavour of the evil cultures.

I am as yet undecided as to the alignment of the settlement I would like to be a part of, largely because of the asymmetric and unbalanced treatment of differently aligned settlements and characters.

As I understand it only one character per account earns XP, two if you have destinies Twin, more of you want to pay for them. So I'm thinking that wouldn't work.

I don't see it as an advantage if one actually has to kill someone to maintain ones alignment and has to take a rep hit at the same time, that is a disadvantage. Not great for those evil crafters who already have to contend with varying degrees of crappiness related to facilities.

It is not a hit to a good player because they take the champion flag and can do whatever they like to evil characters (if there are any).

I'd like to know were you got your understanding from Being. My understanding is that Ryan said LE settlements would be less crappy than CE settlements, then after a barrage of outrage from the community came out with a less contentious statement saying LE settlements would have the 'advantage' of being evil and have high quality facilities without actually saying they would be equal to LG settlements. It defused the situation but didn't actually withdraw the statements which were at the heart of the argument.

@ Ironguard

Too many flags already! If I had a penny for every flag idea that had been suggested....

Also there must be some space on the screen for something other than flags.

The Champion flag is for good aligned players only. I am not aware of a Challenger flag.

As I understand it evil characters can always attack anyone else but will take a rep hit (and an evil which is not an issue) unless the attacked character has an appropriate flag.

This means it is harder for an evil character to keep their rep up. So if you want hte rep you can't kill people often (the supposed advantage of being evil) and you can't use the champion flag. Even if you do this you will only end up with "less crappy" structures in your settlement than a CE settlement)

If you are good you can use the champion flag and do whatever you like (to anyone brave enough to be evil).

I can totally see how it would be beneficial for you (Tigari).... but for me it is just a token gesture at evenhandedness. I think you are safe, I don't see things changing too much from where they are now re alignment/settlements/flags. Everything is so interelated that I don't think GW will be keen on reworking what they have done thus far.

I hope it works out well.

Just be good and go champion. If you can find an evil character to whale on there will be no need to atone for anything and you can swagger about all you please.

I am in favour of more symmetry. Give evil a champion flag too, get rid of the assassin flag, stop trying to equate in game evil with metagame antisocial behaviour.

To me getting penalties for doing the same action as another player who gets none, may be interesting (for role playing reasons) or it may be a pain in the arse.

Once again I will state my preference for variation of attributes at creation and the associated boost to application of skills based on those attributes.

The only argument against it appears to be that a character is then locked into something. Most people will be familiar with this concept from PnP. If someone does get it wrong then they can start another character which will advance in their new chosen path (but with favourable attribute) just as quickly as their previous character would have.

This means that there will be more characters per player rather than the one (Or two if you have Destinies Twin). I think this would lead to a richer environment.

As set out I would guess most people would spend a day or so training each archetype to 4-5th level, why not? If the top end skills take weeks or months to train who cares if you are a week or two behind to level 20. The downside (as I see it) is that everyone will be able to do everything (to a moderate degree). I think that is a bit silly. I understood the GW wanted to avoid that.

Ultimately every character can get to exactly the same level of ability in every skill as every other character can. I want to make a meaningful choice when I start my character. I want it to be smarter and less charismatic than average or stronger and more poorly than average or what ever.

I want one 20 fighter/ 20 mage to be different than the next 20 fighter /20 mage. Maybe one is quicker and smarter (to a moderate degree in each) and one is stronger and of average intelligence limiting their maximum effectiveness as a mage.

I see the issue as being that PnP players have to define alignment (to a degree) and everyone seems OK with the idea that Paladins must be LG, Barbarians chaotic, etc... that does not seem to be an issue.

The issues in contention in that not only can you no longer be a Paladin but

a) You may not be able to belong to your previous settlement. Now that is no big deal either unless the settlements are treat unequally and they are, that is the asymmetry that people are worried about.

It has been said that CE settlements will have 'crappy' settlements, LE settlements have 'less crappy' settlements. I realise that subsequently that has been glossed over due to widespread outrage from the crowd forgers.

Subsequently it was stated that LE high rep settlements will get high quality structures. I note however that it has not however been stated that LE settlements will get structures 'equalilent to' LG settlements.

and

b) Asymmetrical flagging systems, Champion in particular. Now I realise that evil characters be go 'Assassin' and get some advantage. Some people (including me) will not want to be assassins, sneaking around. That flagging system pushes alignments into pigeon holes. GW creating a new definition of what it is to be evil and then punishing people for it and I think this is what many PnP players will have issue with.

The evil character and the antisocial player concept are being combined in game. I think people feel they are going to be punished for being an evil character even though they are not an antisocial player.

The game does have to replace the Game Master and the Game Master doesn't appear to want you to be playing an evil character.

It's hard to be viewed as an afterthought when so many of the core mechanics revolve around it in an asymmetric way. If the mechanics were symmetrical there would be far less discussion around alignment. It's not like wearing nine different coloured t-shirts, it's all about encouraging ingame and metagame behaviour. Some people don't like being metagamed by the dev's I guess.

With regard to the LE 'fascination', its about being metagamed by the devs into acting like they want you to act in order to get an ingame benefit.

Some people are twisting and turning, trying to justify the asymmetric treatment in an in game context but it's too complicated for that really. Some people kick up a stink but the dev's feel they know best (maybe they do) and it doesn't look like things will change.

GW has to decide what they are trying to do and who they are trying to please (I think they already have) and stick with that. You can't please everybody and if you try you will probably end up pleasing nobody.

For my part I know what open PvP means to me.

@KitNyx

I was referring to the game mechanic as stated by the dev's (drift to good and Law) rather than PF or life in general. I see your point.

Although I view Law as one of the many facets of Chaos.

[edit] (so in my view) paradoxically in order for something to be perfectly chaotic there must be an element of Lawfulness.

Why do almost all topics always turn into alignment discussions? /sigh

@Elorebaen

I hope that as there will be little PvE content any interaction between players will essentially be rolepaying.

It seems like a lot of effort is going into ensuring interactions outside of ones own Kingdom/settlement/CC are not restricted to attacking on sight. (ala EVE?)

If the mix of alignments is at all balanced I would see the NN settlements as being the trading powerhouse of the PFO River Kingdoms. Keeping the right alignment mix in ones settlement could be a challenge.

I'm interested to see how how sponsored CC's and their members relate to the sponsoring settlement as regards membership and access.

A few of observations:

In PFO:
Good is defined as the absence of evil and
Lawful is defined as the absence of chaos.
There really is no definition of Good, Lawful and Neutral, only evil and chaos.

As the game is proposed now, trying to remain neutral in any respect will be harder than being at any extreme of either axis. This is a designed and very intentional feature.

In order to circumvent this dev's could allow players to switch off the automatic gain of Law/Good, this could be at a default 'zero' or potentially at any other level, this will enable people to cap their drift away from evil and chaos.

I see this as currently cutting across the current design goals of the game and impacting significantly on player and settlement interaction. If someone wants this to change they better rally the troops now because impacts it on many of the game design elements. I get the impression dev's current stated intentions won't be changing anytime soon.

Having said that conflict will (apparently) be largely settlement driven so conflict need not be derrived from alignment based considerations although alignment differences (particularly evil/good) will facilitate conflict.

Having a large and or powerful 'neutral' body will stabilise the region with respect to alignment based conflict. Is this what the dev's or the game want?

I don't see 'neutral' characters being better at diplomacy than anyone else, each alignment will have their own strengths to bring to the table in various diplomatic situations.

I have read everything in the posts above but I was hoping that Wesley of someone else could give me an up to date listing of source material for Hellnights in general and the Order of the Nail in particular. Also I know that The crimson throne adventure path has been mentioned as a source, I have flicked through it and can't find anything substantial, am I missing something?

Any hellp would be much appreciated :)

Point taken

@ Being

I know you are championing the whole 'druids don't need regular settlements' cause Being but really I don't see any need to limit the player mentoring just to Druids and Rangers. Plenty of things can be and are taught without the need of a centralised settlement.

If you need settlements to teach skills I think it should be for everyone. If any particular group can mentor students their own hut out in the wilds, anyone should be able to do it.

I like the idea. It might be that if you had a skill level 2 higher than the one you wanted to teach you could teach it to someone else, for a fee or for free if you chose to.

With regard to scarcity of training in settlements, that can be infinitely variable to that could be tweeked to any level GW desires and players can set any price they want so that should not be an issue, that is how markets work.

In order to make the transaction more meningful maybe the mentor and the pupil would have to be present at while the mentor actually used their skill at a high level a number of times? Just a thought.

I imagine this would be something added later on in the development process rather than right on EE. I won't be necessary because everyone can get training from the NPC's and the developers will have other priorities

FYI

....There's no defined cap for Chartered Companies at this stage, we'll figure out the optimal size via Crowdforging. ....

There is currenltty no defined cap on chartered company size although it looks like there will be. There is a ground swell for that limit (if there is one) to be more than 20 (in other threads).

I understand that the main drivers of PvP interaction will be settlement driven, but with the significant mechanical benefits of being part of the 'right' settlement I see no reason why there should be a limit on settlement size. Settlements can compete for larger CC's. Sounds like meaningful player interaction to me.

On the other hand... not so excited about the whole 'all attributes start at 10' thing or the 'attributes have no impact on the USE of skills'. If this is the case then I strongly advocate having some good character customisation options as some sort of alternative. People like to be special, they don't like being like everyone else.

I don't like the concept of 'if you want to be strong specialise in fighter thing.' Eventually the ancient players will be able to do anything, whip out the armour, put the fighter skills on your action bar, BOOM King Richard Lion Heart. Get out the pointy hat, put the wizard skills on the action bar, BOOM Merlin.... etc ...

If I am wizard, second to none, the idea that anybody else's toon can also be just as good even though they were a fighter second to none 10 seconds ago, is very unattractive.

Specialisation and interdependence are what make people special and prompts interaction.

Some people are strong, some people are smart, some people are quick, its just the way it is. I think people want to be different at the start and I want to be a bit different after 5 years.

If you want a wizard, start a toon with high intelligence, if you sacrifice intelligence for strength in order to be a good fighter then that toon may be just too plain stupid to ever cast wizard spells.

If you want a character who can end up doing both then you have some meaningful choices and there will may be short term detriments for long term gains.

People can just start another toon if they think they would rather play a wizard as opposed to the fighter they just started with. It's not that big a deal with the quick increase in power followed out by the flattening of the power curve.

No doubt GW has considered this option already but I will put down my preferred option:

1)Attributes bought on some sort of points basis on toon creation.
2)Bonuses for attributes effecting skill usage
3)training in various facilities allows increases in attributes over time (as they are linked to XP as described in the blog)

This option effectively mirrors 3.5 and I consider it to be a superior model.

GW if you must stick with their stated intention that attributes should all start at 10 with the exception of racial bonuses then:
1) I see a danger that all fighters will be dwarves, all wizards will be elves and all rouges halflings.
2) Please, please allow at least a tiny bit of customisation even if it is only 2-4 of points of adding and subtracting from the cookie cutter flat 10 on all attributes.

Alternatively some sort of mid point may be a cap on total attribute levels, and a toon would reach a point where increasing one skill would reduce others. In this scenario attributes would more appropriately have an effect on skill use rather than skill training as one could just increase the skills desired to train a particular skill set then move on the next attribute/skill set combo as the old attribute would no longer be needed.

Please let me be a little bit of an individual.

I think the blog confirmed several things which had been stated or inferred earlier.

Most of it sounds great, especially settlements specialising and competing with their training facilities as well as using them as tools to be used against others or to aid in forming alliances. All very conducive to interaction between players and nations.

For those worried about settlements cornering a training market just ask yourself what you would do if there was no such facility at all. The answer is the same in both circumstances, make one. Someone else is not being nasty because they have something you want and they're not giving it to you. It's theirs, they built it they can do what they like with it. If you want one build your own.

Limits should be able to be set, Limits should be able to be removed, if someone can manage a significant orchestration, good on them. IRL they are called robbers, confidence tricksters or politicians. It'll make a great PFO news story, everyone would want to read about it.

@Bluddwolf

Agreed and Agreed. However if there is an option someone will take it. Why deny them that option?

If the power gap were in the region of 10-15% then PD would not be an issue at all. I understand the power gap will be in the region of 4-500%.

Agreed that spending 2.5 years on a character which is then killed would be horrific. Perhaps a crafter or speculator who stayed in town all the time might enjoy some sort of skill training or other game mechanic benefit.

If it was an option someone would take it. If you took the PD option and got killed who you gunna go crying to? Your mumma? After they got their first full archetype tree maybe some people would want another challenge to show how grand they are?

I generally don't like holding hands.

Well if the training windows gave visual cues then one could ensure one was training all the time rather than having to wake up at 3 in the morning when your traing ran out, as you say you could also resource farm.

Thinking about it one may have to leave the screen on it the hack relies on 'visual' cues?

I still can't tell if you're trolling so I'ma stop contributing to this tread :p

Well if is an option and it is an option, if you don't like then you can just not take it, no harm done.

If there is a benefit that makes playing a PD character 'better' in some mechanical way more people would be inclined to play one. Once again if you still don't like the idea no one would force you to do it.

I realise it's not for most people and I'm not really bothered, but having the option would be no skin off anyone's nose would it?

As for the BBEGs, I think they need a hug, we need them, don't make it too hard.

There has to be real benefit to go with severe consequence.

If PD is an option only then there doesn't have to be a real benefit at all, some people will do it for kicks cos they like a challenge. A benefit would be nice.

@Blaeringr

I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

I sure as heck hope that those macro's are not going to work because turning combat into a cyber macro programming war doesn't sound that attractive to me.

Buy a macro, leave you computer running, level up endlessly. Make sure you leave the screen off to save power. Doesn't sound like something I'd be interested in :/

I'd bet i was playing Avatar and Moria on CERL/PLATO before many of the people here were a glimmer in dad's eye :)

I love Moria, I have no idea why :)

Currently death means a respawn from a set point. Some items on your corpse may be lootable but you are able 'thread' some so they are not lootable.

If you run back you your corpse you can loot it yourself => lose nothing.

I understand this is the current state of GW thinking, I don't think it will be changing that much.

Ooo, Ooo .....I just had a great idea.

PD can be an option or even a standard feature! Just make the usual cost of defeat of a PD character a ransom payable to the victor. If the victor actually chooses to kill someone permanently then they get a flag of the nastiest kind for a long period of time.

.....just thinking about it mandatory PD is just not an MMO winner :(

Although in a game like Pendragon, character death is expected and you then play a relative or associate of some kind and inherits the goods and a bit of the rep of your predecessor. Stops power creep dead and makes combat meaningful.

Having said that maybe PD should be an option at character creation. Maybe you get a higher stat block to start with, therefore higher skill progression or maybe you are extra resilience as you approach 0 health. Maybe if you have a PD character your next character can inherit everything in their bank (having been named in the will obviously!)

Either with or without the extra benefit(s) I am sure some people would get a kick out of playing a PD character. I enjoy seeing how long I can last in MMO's without getting killed, adds a bit more excitement... not the usual devil may care attitude towards character death.

Awwww, you guys can visit my settlement :) You just gotta behaive when you're in town is all.

[ The screwed up part is in PFO they are going to make all your coin available at all times, even if your not carrying it all. :/. I would love to say this is just rumor and we don't know, But I believe it's been mentioned. I really disagree, but my 1 vote doesn't change much.

It would be easy enough to make an exception I'm sure. I don't think coin is lootable, if it is there should be a cap to the lootable amount, much the same as my proposed cap to the SAD amount.

It's not fun losing everything you own. It's OK to take a couple of hits once and a while. Perhaps those limits could be tied to your total skill level, or maximum merit badge attainment or something.

I dont think that coin should be able to be the target of a SAD. What dumb arse merchant (SADee???) carries their life savings around so someone can screw them over? If a bandit (SADer??) succeeds in a SAD then they can take goods to the value of the SAD. If they can't carry it.... tough luck.

"Sure you can take 10% of the 100 metric tons of stone I'm transporting, good luck avoiding the law on the way back to your hideout."

If a merchant wants to carry a 'Strongbox' or some other container in which they can carry coin to pay SADs or any other reason then they could move coin into or out of the container anytime they had access to a 'bank'/'stash' with coin in it.

If the 'Strongbox' idea is too complicated then just give the merchant (SADee???) the option to pay a SAD out of an bank account to which they have access but make it unlootable in general. It would be harder in this instance to plead poverty though.

Perhaps the level of a SAD could have a coin value cap on it. This would mean that SADers could SAD (interact) more often and be satisfied with the result while SADees could be SADed more often without devistating results.

I think that is a great story and if such a thing happened in PFO it would add greatly to the lore. It just goes to show that you can never really trust anyone....... except me of course :)

....There's no defined cap for Chartered Companies at this stage, we'll figure out the optimal size via Crowdforging. ....

Thanks Ryan, I think that addresses most people's concerns for the moment.

I take from the posts on this thread that there seems to be a ground swell for unlimited CC size. If people don't want to utilise that and if it is of no use that is still not a reason to limit the size of a CC IMO.

These merit badges will allow you to place an ability on your action bar.

If all the abilities on your action bar are from the same archetype you will gain a bonus of some type.

If you choose to have abilities from a variety of archetypes on your action bar you will not get this bonus

So what you suggest is an option which may or may not be better than the bonus you get for an action bar with only one archetype's abiities.

This bonus increases as you have better abilities on your action bar.

I think the idea is that a 'pure' archetype action bar intended to be better than a mixed one.

But go for your life, try it out, I know I like the idea of mixing it up a bit.

As far as we can tell nobody starts off as anything, if you want to be a druid you have to work towards it. To start with no one has significant (if any) skills. No spells, combat abilities, pets, etc

Nuff said

I'd quite like one, is there chance of a new batch coming out? I think they look great :)

Awesome, thanks Valkenr

@ Lord of Elder Days

Ryan has said that they hope to be able to mark significant items with the makers mark. Perhaps a master craftsman will learn a skill to mark the items they manufacture.

Obviously this will incur some overhead re storage and computer power. I would imagine not that much I though.

If this is the case it then in relation to the concerns you have, who sells the item is not relevant.

One of my character concepts is a Hellknight, I have ideas not dissimilar to yours. I'd be happy to head up the order under whatever settlement you feel would be appropriate.

I see order being imposed first then other compatible ideologies being accommodated in that ordered environment.

Lol licensing necromancy, love it.

"Excuse me sir do you have a permit for that zombie to eat brains in public?"

Lol, What are your ideas IronVanguard?

I would suggest there is plenty of support for a LE CC. But someone or ones need to be dedicated enough to keep the concept alive for the next 18 months.

@Bluddwolf

For myself I was really saying if a bandit wants to (for whatever reason) escort a merchant out of the hex that is their concern. Personally if I were a bandit I wouldn't.

You don't need a fleeced flag because there will be a limited number of hideouts in a hex (maybe only one?). Merchants take your chances.

If a local lord (which some might consider bandits) choose to levy a toll rather than getting paid off then that is similar if not exactly the same as the SAD mechanism.

If you were a local lord you may well be included to offer safe escort off your lands. The 'levy' goes towards maintaining the roads, clearing hideouts and providing some surety of safe passage. Travellers may be happy to pay such tolls to remain otherwise unmolested.

I agree there should be no in game mechanic pressuring people to do escort anyone off the hex or penalising Group A if the mark subsequently meets and get ruffed up by Group B. If people don't like getting extorted multiple times they can group together, pay guards and or demand protection from local authorities.

There are no classes.

If you train the skills to get barbarian rage you qualify for the 'rage' merit badge.

This does not stop you from the learning skills to get a merit badge qualifying you to cast a cleric spell and then a sorcerer spell.

These merit badges will allow you to place an ability on your action bar.

If all the abilities on your action bar are from the same archetype you will gain a bonus of some type.

If you choose to have abilities from a variety of archetypes on your action bar you will not get this bonus.

I think this answers you question :)