Player housing is, at the end of the day, a nice to have, not a need to have, so I can understand Goblinworks not wanting to throw resources at it early in the game, as other things should take priority. That said though, it would certainly be VERY nice to have something like officer housing in the keeps, or just baracks, inns and hostels which could host a number of players.
LazarX wrote:
Magic aside, we also got fairly advanced alchemy (speaking about non-magical alchemy here), and we also got guns. Furthermore, fullplate, while not common, exists in the world, as does halberds and rapiers, all which were fairly late invetions. So from a strictly non-magical point of view, Golarion is actually fairly advanced when it comes to "simple" science and advancements. It is very late medievial if not renaissance. All in all, it is impossible to say exactly where on the "real life timeline" Golarion fits into, and arguing about a fantasy world which do not in the least follow our world's laws with our world's laws is ultimately redundant. I will agree that using a system which only exists in Golarion and not in our world makes much more sense than anything else, however, failing that, I do not see why the people of Golarion would not have figured out that dividing by 10 is easy.
LazarX wrote:
I haven't seen anyone claim that they will "ragequit" the game based on measurement.
This is a bit sad, yet I cannot say that I did not expect it. They have worked on it so long now, yet there has been so little news about it. To me, World of Darkness Online looked like it were dying from the moment it was announced. It is too bad it didn't work out for them, but that only means I can lend my full focus to Pathfinder :)
We know that it will be possible to gain a boost with certain factions, like the Hellknights and the Pathfinder Society, in the game through the Early Enrollment store. My question concerning this will then be, what will these factions do in the game, and how will they affect my gameplay? Will I have to "grind" reputation with them, or are there other ways to interact with them? Will interaction with them be meaningful?
I think that the most important thing with armour is to have realistic proportions. Sure, they might look fancy, magical, even fantastic from time to time (I don't think we can escape that) but at least make it look like they could work. No shoulderpads that are bigger than your head, no gauntlets that look like you are a cyborg, things like that.
I think out-of-combat healing should be fairly quick, especially since Goblinworks have talked about their injury system in an earlier blog (Thunderstrike I think). You will still be required to do more complicated stuff to get rid of the injury points, so I don't see why your hit points wouldn't regenerate at a fair rate.
Lifedragn wrote:
I for one am glad that the followers of Lamashtu and Sarenrae take to the slaying of one another! Let us sit back for a while, let them play this out amongst one another, and then the heavy hammer of Law can sweep in to make right out of what is left.
It has probably been asked already, but I will show interest in this anyway, in the hope of a blog answer: How, if at all, will prestige classed be involved? Will some of the unique to some prestige classed be present, such as the arcane trickster's ability to disable traps from afar? If prestige classes are not present, will there be other features that would make cross-role characters (such as wizard-warrior) viable?
I will probably go rogue and a little bit of wizard in anticipation for arcane trickster or anything like that, though prestige classes were sadly not mentioned in this blog. Nonetheless, I approve of the direction of adding classes slowly to make sure that they are done properly and have their own feel, I don't mind waiting and I am sure that I will have fun sneaking about!
Oberyn Corvus wrote:
It is going to affect anyone who whishes to play on more than one character. Even if you can pay for subs with in game money, that still means I have to do a (probably) heck of a lot of farming for the honour of keeping another account running. While I agree that kickstarting is a high risk system, all who kickstarted were (hopefully) aware of that. And they do get benefits, and rather big ones, if you ask me. But Destiny Twins is a pure advantage, and it is not un-economical to offer it at a higher price for none-kickstarters. If their business model relies on people having more than one account, I think they should take a look at their business model. @Being
Being wrote:
I don't see the need for sounding condescending when we are saying that we are willing to pay for it, even willing to pay more for it.
Oberyn Corvus wrote:
I am happy to let them "keep" any perks which doesn't give them an all out advantage to everyone else. Some extra gear, an xp boost or whatever, isn't the same thing as earning twice the xp to everyone else at launch. I know you don't want to turn this into a pay to win debate, and neither do I, but it's towards that it's turning, if it is not offered to everyone, in one manner or another.
Being wrote:
And I hope that I do, which is exactly why I am raising the issue.
Being wrote:
Yhea, I own the responsibility for my "choice" of not knowing of the kickstarter. Now I want to make up for that "decision".
Oberyn Corvus wrote:
My argument for the financial factor is that I wish to be able to do the same. Even if I have to pay a few dollars more for the ability to have Destiny Twins on my account, I would like to have the ability to have the same experince as the kickstarters. I don't think a one-time cost for none-kickstarters should be seen as a kick in the teeth for those who kickstarted the game, just because I wish to have a nifty feature in this game.
Being wrote:
I am willing to put in the equal investment, I am just not willing to pay way more money than you do for the honour of equal investment.
Being wrote:
But your good fortune dooes reduce my good fortune, as you have twice the advantage that I have. Also, I am one of thsoe crazy people who actually like having one alt rather close to my main, and this system discourages me from doing just that. If one account is allowed one character, a Destiny Twin account will have twice the characters, and therefore twice the benefit.
I would like to throw in my worry about the Destiny Twins perk as well. While it, as has been stated, doesn't give you training but experince, I still view this as a big advantage. For example, someone with Destiny Twins can have two characters which actievly support each other, like a blacksmith and a warrior, and will therefore be able to get gear, items and money quicker than anyone who does not posses this perk, as well as being able to run around and explore, adventure or whatever you wish to do. While this might not worry you, it throws me off a bit. A Destiny Twins account will have double the advantage. As I view it, no matter how it is put, this perk is a huge advantage, and it encourages kickstarters to make alts, while it forces others to pay extra just to keep up. Or if they do not pay, they are bound to fall behind. Now, I agree that the kickstarters deserve a reward for being there from the start, but I don't think the rewards should be something that gives them an out-right permanent advantage to anyone else. Besides, Destiny Twins is such a nifty feature that I think it would be a shame to limit it in such a way. My main worry with this feature, to sum it it up, is that it will launch the Destiny Twins ahead in such a speed that it will be very hard for those who do not have it to catch up. While someone Destiny Twins wont have an individual character with more experince than anyone else, they can have two characters who can support each other, which is arguably even better.
Probably making a human (or half-orc) leaning toward something arcane trickstery. A roguish character who sneaks through long dark caves trying to gain as much treasure with as little risk of getting into a fight as possible, and then sell the less valuable of those treasure to be able to train skills while keeping the more expensive stuff somewhere for a rainy day. Leaning towards having him be Lawful Neutral or Lawful Neutral, because I find those alignments funny.
Discussion about the common or uncommon Trials by Combat none with standing, I would still like to stress the example from Neverwinter Nights 2 made in my post. In the game it's stated that it's a long dead tradition that they don't really do anymore, and the only reason why they let you do it is because it's still, technically, in the "lawbook". You would be lying to yourself if you stated that Fantasy RPG, especially Dungeongs & Dragons / Pathfinder are based on the midieval times of our own history. To begin with, slavery is considered an act of Evil, which, if we look as history, doesn't really seem to go all that well with the view on morals from this time in our own history. Serves and slaves were a rather common occurance, one could say, part of the norm. Secondly, many parts of the D&D / PF universes frown upon torture and public executions. Again, not really matching all that well with our historical society, where people went out to watch people getting pulled apart by horses, gotten limbs choped off, etcetera, etcetera. As a closing statement, we can't forget that D&D / PF adds a whole new class of citizens to the mix, that of the Adventurer. It's not that it's a particularly common class in these systems, but it's common enough, so to the point that almost every community, no matter how small, have at least one individual within itself who have belong to this rather odd little class. This, in combination with the fact that magic is real in this setting, and good and evil is a force of nature, makes it almost impossible to properly compare this to our own medieval society. To round this off and move back on topic, either you have the cake or you don't. You allow slavery, you are considered evil. No matter. It's the only conventient and logical way to do it. On a whole other topic, I find the idea of the hienous flag redundant.
I agree with Decorus on this point, and it's what I tried to get across in my previous post though, admittedly, I did it rather poorly. If anyone could be, potentially, considered heinous at any time, I fail to see the point of even having it in the game. Sure, if you break the laws of whatever place you find yourself in, you should be open for punishment, maybe not death, but possibly a healthy beating and being thrown out. I think trying to have a "moral compass" in an MMO that is trying to encourage roleplay is... iffy at best, and will result in more grief than joy.
But in some fantasy settings you do have to clear it with the law of the land before striking down supposed evil-doers. An example were made earlier by GrumpyMel about Trial by Combat in our own world's history (which I don't consider a very valid argument to begin with, but will reply to none the less). Yes, trial by combat have occured and still do, even if it's more of a criminal offense now a days, but there is a key-diffrence here. Almost all trials by combat have had one very strong rule: You DO NOT kill your opponent, but leave them to be dealt with by the law of the land. It's also a more formal process than "here have a sword lets go" in most (western and eastern, since those are the ones I know the most about) throughout time. Actually, all throughout our world's history, killing is an act that has been largely frowned upon when it can be avoided. This is why even gladiatorial combat got a rather low death rate for what it is. I would also like to bring up another example that I think relate to the topic. In Neverwinter Nights 2 (SPOILERS for that game to follow, if you do mind) you find yourself in the city of Neverwinter where you try to twart the plans of the evil Garius and his lackeys, Torio and Lorne. Now, these individuals commit crime like murder, goading of the local orc tribe, raising of the dead, worshipping of evil deities, etc. etc. as well as framing you, the main character for murder. Instead of killing them all out for their henious ways, you go to court, and only through a series of long quests (and high diplomacy rolls) can you clear your name. No matter if you do clear your name or not, a trial by combat will take place, either on the suggestion of your "lawyer" Sand, or Torio, depending on who won the diplomacy rolls. This trial is to the death, however, as it's fine to do that in a fantasy setting. We're playing in a setting where "evil" and "good" are objective truths after all! Now, to bring my rather longwinded argument to a close, I'd also like to mention that most cultures in our own history have employed slave work in one way or another (and we can argue that we still do with economical slavery, though that is a whole other can of worms we don't need to open!). We can either do the simple thing here, and say that slavery, no matter what, is always considered an evil act, and should really, REALLY count as such, if it will even be in the game. The only real solution I would see to this problem is that any settlement which allow slavery inside their walls should be considered to be evil, no matter what good they do other than that. Sorry for the wall of text!
My problem with the Heinous / Villain issue is that it punishes the good for what the bad might do. Let me explain what I mean. The "lol-child" runs around and smack people over the head will get the heinous (maybe even villain) flag, and for those actions, it's very possible that he deserves to be a free kill for everyone. Now, if you are a gang of bandints, extracting goods from those who pass by you, and killing those who doesn't pay up (you need to keep your reputation after all), you will also be flagged heinous / villain, for simply RPing out what you are. Now, I have the mentality that you shouldn't punish something that isn't wrong by default, if you can avoid it. It feels like this system will punish some potentially really good RP. |