Micco's page

As the owner of a small business, I know how hard it is to keep cash flow up enough to keep everyone employed right now. So I want to order some stuff to put some bucks in Paizo's pockets now to make payroll and rent.

1) If I pre-order is there a way to pay now? It looks like I don't pay until they ship, and I'm willing to prepay.

2) If I order multiple copies of the 2e Core rulebook to give to a couple of players who can't afford it, does it automatically have my name in it or can I have someone else's name in the pdf even if they don't have a Paizo account.

Trying to figure out how to help out. My main employment is in a business that is not affected by this craziness, so I think I can afford to help.

I'd subscribe, just to put my voice in the pot.

Does anybody think it wouldn't be a bad idea for the PCs to share joint ownership of the deed to the Citadel with the Bumblebrasher tribe?

Interesting idea and the answer to the question is, I'd say, very campaign/player/GM dependant.

It should work if:
- Your players/characters are likely to buy into the 'goblins have rights too' line of thinking. If they think they are still monsters then it changes the tone of everything...you might want that, but be sure that is what you are signing up for.
- You can find a way that having them as joint-owners can create dramatic tension or provide color to make the world come to life.

It might not work if:
- Your players would feel slighted by not being "Kings of the own domains", so to speak. One of the premises of this AP is that they get a base of ops all their own. If they've always wanted a castle, then sharing it with a bunch of gobs might be a let-down.
- It just complicates the story without adding to it meaningfully.

It needs a purpose. Find a great purpose and you have your answer.

If the primary reason you'd like to do it is to say the gobs have rights equal to the colonizer-analog players (that some have assigned them), then perhaps you should let the players negotiate with the gobs for something in exchange to buy them out. Maybe a future favor that you can turn into an awesome hook that is way more expensive than the players bargained for (a reverse Louisian Purchase, as-it-were. "Oh, you'll let us have the deed for just these beads and us killing some 'Lizard King' for you...sure, we can take out a trog camp in exchange for a castle!:) Then go prep your dragon sub-plot.

Or maybe the goblins don't want a castle, they really just want to live in town. And the players' job is to get them accepted in Breachill as full citizens...

The deed separates "local, national, and Hellknight law." What would be the case under Isgeri law, then?

Breachill seems oddly sequestered from Isger at large, for that matter.

Doesn't "national" = "Isgeri"?

I do agree that Breachill seems quite sequestered from Isger. I've thought a bit about that. At first it bothered me, as Breachill seems very out of place. But...Breachill was created by a very powerful creature who undoubtedly still planned that the town be as perfect as the flawed creatures who inhabited it could allow.

So, I reason, he intentionally created it to be separate from Isger. It adds to the general creepiness about the town stemming from its founding. Things are just a bit too good here to be natural.

And I'm toying with the idea that the water towers (which nicely foreshadow the ring) are somehow part of a larger ritual cast by the town's founder during the construction. Why else create a ring of six water towers that mirror a nearby magical construct if you aren't using them for some purpose? Perhaps the ritual serves to protect the town from both the attention of hostiles (goblin-blood wars) and to keep the town isolated from the general despair in Isger. The ritual might even explain why the Hellknights (a lawful group) was attracted to the locale in the first place. I think I'm going to say he had the statue created before he left as the capstone on the ritual (those creatures are very vain, after all.)

Just to be clear, the last post wasn't a criticism of the back-story, but only saying once you've accepted a gold-dragon that can erase memory then adding a persistent suggestion doesn't take any additional suspension of disbelief.

Also, as to the distance between the Citadel and town, there is no reason it can't be both 1 mile and 10 miles. If you've ever hiked in mountainous terrain before, it is entirely common for something to be only 1 mile away geographically, but 10 miles away via road/trail.

I plan on make the Citadel on a sheer very high bluff a mile outside out town. But the road has to go to a pass at the end of a ridge and then switch-back it's way up the mountainside to the front entrance.

So the secret door is a great advantage once discovered, as it allows the PCs fast access to town while still making it a distance for visitors to travel.

A2, the temple of Ketephys, is 5 hexes away from A13, the Fortress of Sorrows. Therefore, it is 50 miles away, within the blindness radius.

What is this picture, if not A2 being 5 hexes away from A13?

Actually, all the rest of us got a message from Paizo stating that the Cult of Cinders secretly use the metric system. Apparently, the reason that Dahak is so furious that he wants to destroy the world is that he cannot abide by what he sees as non-rational systems and he gets overly obsessed with meaningless details.

So while it appears to you that it is within the range as stated, those of us in the know realize that the range is only 50 km, and therefore only 31.067 miles.

Really TL;DR - PFO will succeed, but changes are needed on the initial focus.

TL;DR - GW needs to deliver the content and features most beneficial to keep their core user base excited about the game. I posit that it is actually meaningful PvE content, and not player Politics and Wars, that is most needed early in the PfO's life-cycle. Put another way, predators need prey. Attracting only the wolves won't make for an interesting world. Get some sheep, the wolves will follow.

Pathfinder Online is at the teeter-totter stage of product development, and a few choices will tilt the future to success or failure.

The design vision has been tested against the reality of the budget, timing and skills of the team producing it. As is always the case in product development projects like this one (it just happens to be a game this time), there are gaps between the vision and what the project team can deliver due to the real-world constraints. Some of those constraints are imposed. They just have to be dealt with. Other constraints are the result of choices and should be re-evaluated. It is the choices made during this critical moment that will largely determine the ultimate outcome of PFO.

This is a low-budget project using a slow-ramp growth model. This is very important to remember. The consumer target for this game is substantially different than the target that the block-buster sand-box games are going after. Targeting that smaller core requires _really_ understanding the features that group is looking for, and then maniacally focusing on delivering it early in the ramp.

I worry that GW has forgotten that EVE's initial target was NOT their ultimate user base. The political maneuvering and heavy PVP wars were not how that game began. While it was built into the mechanics and planned for the future, the game's initial game-play was largely exploration, PvE and trade (mining.) Make those three things compelling in PFO Early Enrollement, and a large group of Golarion fans will take up residence just to explore and live in the world.

Then, once you have a thriving community inhabiting the world, allow the politics to develop naturally. Wars always follow politics.

I fear that GW has targeted the current state of EVE as the initial state of PFO, and have targeted the wrong initial consumers. They had a great initial user-base of people who love the setting. But by focusing on the conflict aspects, they've failed to get the mass of Pathfinder players excited about their one competitive advantage..the developed setting with a loyal fan-base. Focusing the initial development on content would have attracted a lot of Pathfinder players, who then would have made the world a place where politics naturally develop.

Put another way, GW was fooled by the vocal PVP community into focusing on that aspect of game-play initially. Look, I'm a PvP fan, but I'm not fooled into thinking it is the only meaningful type of play. The typical militant PvPr is impatient and easily bored...it's why they don't like 'unexciting' PvE play.

To expect them to go on this journey of joint-development and early game creation was a _fundamental_ mistake. They'll be full of excitement early as they imagine dominating their opponents; but will be the most vocal in declaring the death of the game when it doesn't meet their expectations during EE.

Enrolling rabid fans of Golarion as a setting (rather than PvP players) would have played into the tendencies of the target segment instead of against it. Golarion-loving players are invested in the success of the game as a way to experience their love of Golarion, and will be patient as the game goes through the many inevitable growing pains. Once the game has a stable core, the PvPrs will join the game just like they did EVE.

If I were writing the business proposition for this game, I would have focused on "Golarion-loving Creators" as my initial design target (small population that will be the early adopters), with "Conflict-loving Players" as my strategic target (ultimate large population from which I'll draw customers after growth inflection.)

My suggestions: Let the PvP meta-game develop over time. Refocus on creating a reason to care about the world. Give us something to fight _for_ and we'll fight. Putting us out in a soul-less paintball field and saying 'go at it' isn't a sandbox game, it's a large MOBA without the smooth mechanics and Nintendo-inspired finishing moves.

I believe that it can grow to have a meaningful and long-lasting place in the sandbox world. But survival in the next 6 months will be the key, and keeping the core engaged and excited is absolutely required.

I put stuff on the Phoenix Pass AH just to try to seed it. So stop by (or move) there if you are looking for mats or recipes for sale.

I believe firmly in local AHs to make settlements matter. We just need people to put stuff on their local AH to get the ball rolling...If you can't use it, then just sell it for fun (for now.)

I only wish the AH had a 'only show items for sale' feature!

I think the interesting opportunity this brings is to unite even warring guilds against those who try to ruin the game.

Let's say some guild joins with the express purpose of making the game un-fun for others by being purposeful jerks (as defined by this). I think it would be cool for us founders to band together against them no matter if they are role-playing LG, N, CE or whatever.

Ruining the game is an attack against us all, and this should be how we set the expectations on behavior in the game (from fellow players.)

The was a young lass from Brighthaven,
You'd think from her gait she was craven,
But lo and behold,
Because of the cold,
It's just that her legs were unshaven.

(So sue me, I'm a Dwarf and that's as good as the poetry gets.)

Sounds like an awesome Settlement idea, Quietus.

I'm really hoping you guys can field an army of armored cavalry with pinioned lances, slowly advancing to the trot across a dew dampened field.

Good luck!

The issue is Pax is getting looked at as the guild when its not.

I guess you define 'guild' differently than I do.

I just want to reassure any applicant that we are the best-est community evar. We don't fight or argue or rage or go off topic. There's no need to check out the forums to verify that, either, because no one would lead you astray here. Honest. ;)

Best of luck!

I'm not quite sure what Nihimon said above, but it was cool :)

I just want to say that GW has done a good job with the map. There really isn't any 'best' spot, as for every strength a location has there is a pretty counterbalancing 'weakness.' They've clearly spent more than a few moments making it balanced without making it uniform or symmetrical.

Nice job Steven and all at GW!

This is the problem when you bring words like 'fun' and 'enjoyable' to conversations like these, it is a pure matter of opinion. What is fun for one person, may be unbearable for another.

Actually most of the problem here is that some people's 'fun' is only achievable by ensuring other people can't have fun. So, can easily bored players be challenged without a feature that makes the game un-fun for others?

I think the answer is a definitive 'Yes'. That is certainly the intent of the designers...to let people take on the level of challenge that they prefer.

I, for one, have a very challenging real life profession. So I'm not looking for over much levels of pretend challenge. I want just enough to relieve some stress without making this another job. You might be different...fine, but don't force me to play your style.

But why would GW implement something that brings you marginally more 'fun' while forcing others to have significantly less 'fun'?

As Pinosaur suggested, how about an optional toggle that let's people play on 'uber challenge' mode...it would let people loot your body while offline if they find it regardless of the state of their toggle. If what you really want is "challenge", then you should definitely make that choice..even if others choose to have less challenge (and get to take your stuff.)

But I suspect that 'more challenge' isn't the real motivation here. I think it is advantage that you are seeking. An advantage created by leveraging the fact that you rarely have RL issues that force you to leave the game quickly.

Maybe I'm wrong...but it sure comes across that way to me.

I've likely got a spot or three on my Guild Forger pass that I'll sell to dedicated TEO members once we get very close to EE opening up. They have Day 1 EE, almost all of the dailies, Destiny's Twin, etc. Join up, be active and let me know you are interested in an EE account.

No promises yet, as I'm still waiting to hear from a couple of game table friends who might join. I'm guessing at this point RL will keep them from participating.

If they aren't used then I'll offer them at cost (1/6th of what I paid) to new (after this post) dedicated TEO members on a first join basis (I reserve to the right to determine if you are active enough...not looking for excessive participation, but joining and doing next to nothing in the ramp up will likely not make the cut...)

I agree Sepherum, no targeting circles (for the wizard or the opponent.) Just a targeting point and you'd best have a good idea of what 30' looks like before you cast. This is supposed to be a skill-based game. Since AoE takes the least amount of skill then we should take away all of the training-wheels (like targeting templates.)

Actually, it just looks like an honest attempt to decide collectively, as those who have invested early with time and money, that we will work together to keep the world a great place for all to enjoy within the design intents of GW. If you don't agree with GW's design intents, then I'm really confused why you are here.

We've all seen games ruined by groups whose primary enjoyment in a game comes from reducing the enjoyment of others. They aren't even acting with indifference towards how others feel about the exchange. They can only be pleased when they know that others are unhappy.

Yes, it will be dangerous to stand against such groups. I understand that it is easier to pretend philosophical indifference or (even better) outrage than to take a stand. History is replete will well-meaning cowards who watch quietly on the sidelines as tyrants rise. And they all learned that eventually the focus of the tyrant that was 'not my problem' becomes 'my problem.' But, by then, there are no allies left to help them.

The method of the destruction of the game is immaterial. It could be anything, but 'kill everything in sight' is a very common tactic of these anti-social bullies.

What is being asked is are you willing to take a stand when the time comes to keep the game enjoyable for multiple play-styles. That's all. Nothing more. Can you be counted on if the worst happens?

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?

It's simple. Consequences.

If you want sexy middrif-baring armor, then it will have less protection than armor that actually works.

I can see a case for some mitigation of that 'realism' rule if it is magical armor. But it has to be much easier to create equivalent protection armor if you start with some real protection underneath the magical layers.

Basically, if you are too sexy for your shirt, then take it off. You can always get a ring of protection if you like. Or you can take your chances. But people who wear more armor should get more protection, all else being equal.

Actually, the name is the last thing I would copy. It's an anachronistic reference to someone else's intellectual property, and no one would pronounce it right.

Agree, not the name. Way too out of place. But I'd love to throw a subtle nod of respect that way :)

Someone should call Jim and see if he'd pitch in to help fund the game!

My guess is that GW just didn't realize that the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality was so prevalent in the gamer community! ;)

Could we eliminate name tags all-together? I mean the float above the head things? Or maybe set it up so that you and a person had to 'friend' each other for the name tags to be perma-float?

I'm sure there are a million reasons this won't work...but name tags cause a lot of issues and I'm not convinced they are worth the trouble. I really don't care that some stranger named his character "Atoon Forme"..the only things I care about are the things I shouldn't know at a glance anyway: Friend/Enemy, Relative Strength, Organizational Affliation, Alignment.

I do care about my friends, so maybe only your friends are identified with a tag.

The whiners have used dubious, at best, logic...as whiners usually do. Their self-centered interpretation of the DD is that it is 'punative' to late pledgers. Stop. No. Let's examine.
- The purpose of the DD was to encourage early pledging.
- The items were created for the express purpose of enticing said behavior.
- Therefore: If the DD did not exist, these items would not exist.
- Therefore: Those who are complaining about not getting them could not have gotten them if the DD did not exist.
- Therefore "not getting them" is the default state.
- So they lose nothing over the default state.
- And the DD is not punative.
- Instead it is a reward for those who did pledge early.

My opnion...we are probably better off without them in the game. I'll pledge more right now to make up for the OP doing something else with his time.

EDIT: @OP. No worries mate. I just upped my pledge to make up for your unwillingness to join without getting un-earned rewards.

Yes, some nice home-brew and steak sandwiches. That'd be awesome!

Also, it kind of already is a rich kid's hobby. The books are expensive, the play mat, miniatures, and heaven knows what other accessories you might have. Of course, you get what you paid for (I enjoy Pathfinder WAY more than video games now.)

Rich kids hobby? Compared to what? Tiddly-winks? The fun-hours per dollar for role-playing is superb compared to most other hobbies. Let's see:

Golf - Nope, not even in the ballpark cost-wise
Season Tickets to Sports - You're kidding, right?
Scuba - Forget about it
Movie Going - $25 for 2 hours unless you smuggle in your Rolos, then it's still $7/hour.
Boating - LOL
Skiing - Oh my, stop, please.
Playing Cards - Okay, cheaper as long as you don't wager. But, um, why do it then?
Computer Games - PnP is still cheaper/hour of fun unless you like Angry Birds or Farmville, if you don't count the cost of the device to play it.

So yes, if you mean 'Rich Kids' as those who are willing to actually pay more than the $7.99 for a deck of cards , then I suppose it is. :)

@OP: LOL. So you are angry that other people were rewarded for committing earlier than you? Well, I committed right away BECAUSE of the Daily Deals, and I've been active in recruiting others to commit ever since then. But you, coming in at the last minute, expect to receive all the rewards with none of the work or dedication. Did you always get a trophy as a kid, too?

Woot!!! That is so awesome fellow Teoites! (Or is it Teotians?) :)

I might have to buy a Brewmaster's Special now just get to name an ale for it! Should it have thirteen tables with thirteen irregularly spaced columns? ;)

Can we all just agree that 'reference-targeting' (/assist) should NOT be allowed. I shouldn't be able to select Jameow and auto-magically target whatever he is targeting. That is the worst 'easy-button' sin of MMOs, and it causes exactly the issue that Andius was describing in PvP.

I propose:
Auto-targeting what you have at your target point until you hit 'tab'. Then tab-targeting that cycles through the targets currently within your range and 'zone of fire' for your weapon. If there are three potential hit-boxes within your weapon's damage arc, then you could tab between them as long as you have LOS to them.
Appropriate 'soft-cover' penalties are added for each hit-box between you and the target when you fire, which gets factored into the hit-chance.

That should cover:

1) Facing important
2) Tab-targeting allowed
3) Line-of-sight required to target
4) Formations matter (soft-cover)
5) No /assist or UI-based targeting

On a side-note: I'm really hoping they have both a hit-chance and a damage-absorption component in the combat system. Avoiding and mitigating damage are two entirely different things, and it would be cool if the system treated them as such.

@Ryan, I'm rather disappointed in your suggestion to just ignore the OP. I can understand that opinion if it were coming from a fan-boy, but I don't think that is an appropriate response from a CEO who has been very vocal about wanting input from the community.

I hope that you can admit that the OP was generally polite and well-intentioned (if a bit stubborn.) So this wasn't about behavior outside the accepted norms for these forums. I think a more professional response was in order. In particular, I would expect a reply to the OP rather than condescending instructions to the 'loyal fans' while referencing the OP in the third person.

I'm now a bit concerned about my support of the KS, as I want to really believe in the people I'm supporting with my donations.

The Paizo brand is built on superb customer interactions, and it has engendered a huge amount of brand loyalty. As a former CMO, I'm sure you understand the value of brand loyalty and the need to always be consistent with the brand promise and attributes. Basically, I don't believe your post was consistent with the Paizo brand I have seen over the past four years.

I'm very glad that Lisa weighed in with a more professional response. It's why I've been a Paizo supporter since the very early days.

If you really want to screw with the PCs, then have Blueblood turn out to be a Diabolist who wants shadow parts to improve her summoning.

Or perhaps she is a plant from Thrune who 'pays for shadow corpses' to find out who the potential trouble makers are...and then kills them.

I've added (actually changed a couple) of the CoT Campaign Traits to better fit my game. I thought I'd share them in case someone found value in them. I'd also welcome comments or thoughts on the mechanical elements regarding balance.

Faithful to the Last
Although most have lost their faith, you know that Aroden did not abandon his own. So you remain patiently awaiting his return. Against that fateful day you keep the faith by following his tenants devotedly. You secretly visit the sacred shrines that dot Westcrown to keep them clean, and have even helped a few other Faithful repair damage done to the Sanqatada Cinqarda by the thralls of Asmodeus. Many think that your devotion to the Dead God is sad, some think worse; but you are convinced that the Last of the First will return in glory. Perhaps he will not return in your lifetime, but in the moment he is most needed he will not forsake his people. Your dogged faith bolsters your will; you gain a +2 to Will saves triggered by evil outsiders.

Enemy of the Rack
You have learned to despise the Order of the Rack. Although you had always found comfort in the knowledge that the Orders were there to ensure that justice prevailed, you think the Order of the Rack has become way too zealous in their efforts. It might have been something that happened to a friend or a relative or to you, personally. Instead, you might have witnessed something done to a stranger that changed your mind. Or perhaps you’ve recently starting seeing the world with new and more compassionate eyes. Whatever the case, you’ve decided they need to be reigned in before the very order that they are defending is destroyed in an endless circle of violence. But you also know that blood does not wash away blood. You gain a +4 trait bonus to Diplomacy or Bluff when dealing with the Order of the Rack.