Nevy's page

Total bonus and penalty isn't relevant. Only the total of bonuses and penalties that are relevant to a given character matter to that character.

It is relevant to the context and point I am trying to make.

Thanks, I made a mistake, dwarves actually start -40 !

Nevy wrote:

Perhaps this is intended, though.

"Wanna play a Dwarf? Ya gotta *really* want it!"

Hi Jazz, I'm at work. Would you mind posting the link to the wiki that lists racial bonuses? I can't seem to find it and I don't have my favorites on my work desktop, Thank you!

Nevy wrote:

Lord of Elder Days wrote:

One group of bonuses I don't agree with for dwarves is anything that has to do with wood working. Dwarves are at their best when working with minerals. I would assume they would only make average woodcutters and carpenters. Perhaps the bonuses can be taken from those skills and moved to someplace more fitting?

Yes, perhaps it can go to +5 Officer and +5 Senechal. I can understand the -5 Sage and -5 Dowser but not -5 Senechal and -5 Officer. Please note Dwarves are the only race with -20 points.

I'd like to hear from the devs but there may be a reason we don't know yet that could swing the pendulum hard towards dwarfs: encumbrance. Encumbrance promises to be a big thing in PFO and traditionally dwarves have a bonus to that.

It might be foresight on GW's part to gimp them with stats.

Exactly I'd love to hear about these things!

As of now, the -20 towards feats coupled with the high bonuses for crafting make playing a dwarf pretty undesirable for someone pursuing adventuring. Perhaps this is intended, though.

One group of bonuses I don't agree with for dwarves is anything that has to do with wood working. Dwarves are at their best when working with minerals. I would assume they would only make average woodcutters and carpenters. Perhaps the bonuses can be taken from those skills and moved to someplace more fitting?

Yes, perhaps it can go to +5 Officer and +5 Senechal. I can understand the -5 Sage and -5 Dowser but not -5 Senechal and -5 Officer. Please note Dwarves are the only race with -20 points.

Nevy, I don't know whether they're set in stone, but I'll bet there is room for some fine tuning.

The other thing to keep in mind is that -5, and even -10, are less of a hindrance than they seem. Skill levels extend all the way from 10 to 300.

Will a dwarf that starts with -5 in Dowsing be able to cap out at 300 or max at 295?

Wizards have their own set of problems (such as friendly fire).

I'm not sure how that relates to my point? So dwarven wizards will have that to worry about + the less than adequate racial bonuses.

I'm fine with that being the case, I'm just curious if there is a chance racial traits will be tweaked or is this the final frontier?

Back to dwarf racial bonuses... they have significant advantages as fighters and clerics, iirc.

I wouldn't say as significant as elven wizards, but they do have some bonuses towards these roles. My issue is they have a lot of negatives to adventuring (more than the other 2 races) AND don't have many adventure bonuses. They do have heavy bonuses on crafting though.

After taking a look at the character customizer I realized that elves are REALLY overpowered. Their blinding damage is insane.

I really hope that post alpha you rework their faces and ears. They look like a dramatized version of elves and I hope I'm not alone in saying they are pretty darn ugly IMO.

Seriously nerf the elves' visual damage!

That's pretty funny :)

Good morning,

I've been contemplating for some time what race I shall make Buurz the Fishwife in game: A dwarf because they are short and plump or a human because Buurz is indeed a human. On doing some research into racial traits, it kind of hit me that dwarves, more than the other two races, have a higher disadvantage when it comes to being an adventurer. Now, these disadvantages are definitely small but the OCD in me cannot let me play a race that gives me three skills already in the negative (that have nothing to do with crafting) and very little bonuses to adventuring (when compared to the other races). It seems whilst the other two races have a proportional divide between adventuring and crafting bonuses, dwarves are left with a high intensity of crafting bonuses coupled with low to negative adventuring bonuses, no fun!

I was wondering if these racial traits are are set in stone or if they are eligible for alteration?

so.. why did Buurz marry that fish again?

I've heard through the grapevine that Buurz is a bit of a conwoman and the whole fishwife thing is just a front... I don't believe it though!

Armenfrast wrote:

Three days ago one of my buddy still had not accepted the enrollment and wanted to sell it but we received all these mails requesting to validate our pledge under risk of loosing everything, so he accepted the invitation.

Sorry, too late...

You can still transfer it. Eventually there will be an in-game mechanism, but for now, you could just make up a throw away email address somewhere like gmail. Change the account to that, then include that with the login. The new user would be forced to use the existing goblinworks login name, but it's something.

Mmmhmm, and don't scam me please! :D

Shameless bump, don't worry I'll give up soon :p

Nevy wrote:

Hmmm? I missed the Kickstarter so I am only eligible for accounts without Destiny's Twin and in the second wave of early enrollment.

Pandora's wrote:

They also sell $100 access to EE on the Goblinworks website, without Destiny's Twin or other Kickstarter rewards.

Ah OK that makes far more sense. Now I understand. Thanks for your explanations and good luck Nevy.

Thank you :)

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Adventurer Reward Bonus - Destiny's Twin:

As a special feature of Adventurer accounts, you'll be able to have two characters training skills at the same time! While one character is learning how to master the martial arts and gain renown as a warrior, your other character can be learning the intricacies of the crafting system and earning a name as an industrial powerhouse! As long as your primary character is earning skill points, so will its counterpart - FOREVER! The value of this benefit could easily reach hundreds of dollars if you became a long-term player of Pathfinder Online. (You will not be able to log in and play both of these characters at the same time)

The Adventurer level was the $35 primary-donation option, rather than an add-on.

Oh thanks, then does it mean that all backers above the Adventurer level got this feature ? But then why Nevy's request ? Obviously anyone in the EE had to support the project *above* the adventurer level ?

Hmmm? I missed the Kickstarter so I am only eligible for accounts without Destiny's Twin and in the second wave of early enrollment.

@Audoucet and Nevy: Contact me closer to EE if it is still available and needed.

Otherwise good luck if someone else chimes in.

Thank you Thod, appreciate that!

The Seventh Veil

Anyone need to get rid an account? My dad wants to try Pathfinder Online with me and before I go buy another account from Goblinworks I thought I'd try here as I'd like Destiny's Twin for my alt.

Thanks in advance!

I've been readying my application for some time now... I still can't decide on my characters theme!

How many times will a Paladin attack a random person to see if he's carrying any juicy loot?

Will crafters issue a S&D against a fellow crafter just to take his materials and make more swords?

Will a merchant leading a caravan use his mules to trample someone returning from a monster camp and take his stuff?

Unique consequences for behavior that is deemed by many players as intrusive and frustrating and not ''content generation''

Exactly.

Nevy wrote:

Xeen wrote:

Nevy, nothing I said there can be defined as crude. If I said something crude, then the post would end up deleted. The feeling is mutual on the poor points.

Robbor, go and tell that to CCP. I think WOW is your game of choice.

And now you're telling people what games you think they should play, how courteous of you. You seem to hold the absolute truth of what Pathfinder Online should, and will be. Who needs developers to explain their game when we have your infinite wisdom to turn to?

In all seriousness, I think you should do a little more research into developers thoughts and outlooks of Pathfinder - and try not to hear only what you want to.

Nevy, did you bother to read Robbors post or did you just jump after mine? Looks like the latter of the two.

I have been following Pathfinder and what they have talked about for 2 years now, how about you? All I have stated is what they have told us, and what I have seen in other Open World Sandbox PVP games. Dont like that? Oh well.

I'm still not understanding? Oh well what? I'm glad it will be an Open World Sandbox with meaningful choice and consequence. How about you?

Nevy, nothing I said there can be defined as crude. If I said something crude, then the post would end up deleted. The feeling is mutual on the poor points.

Robbor, go and tell that to CCP. I think WOW is your game of choice.

And now you're telling people what games you think they should play, how courteous of you. You seem to hold the absolute truth of what Pathfinder Online should, and will be. Who needs developers to explain their game when we have your infinite wisdom to turn to?

In all seriousness, I think you should do a little more research into developers thoughts and outlooks of Pathfinder - and try not to hear only what you want to.

Its not an argument, it is a fact.

Also what you replied with has nothing to do with my statement. You are pulling in garbage and saying that is what PVP is...

PFO is based on PVP, non-consensual pvp is a big part of the game. Once you get over that, you will be fine and have an "open mind."

If your "community" joins the game. You can run your settlement however you wish. Thats your part in the sandbox. That will not stop anyone from war decing you. You may not consent to being raided, war deced, SADed, or just plain ganked on the highway but you will be subject to it.

Ryan told everyone a year or more ago. If you want to practice up a bit for this game, play Eve. Granted most at the time played Darkfall instead because he also said he would like to to try the game.

I suggest you look at Ryan's posts in the link I posted.

You come across quite crude, sadly it just makes poor points, poorer.

You do understand that this is an Open World Sandbox PVP MMO, correct?

I've seen quotes like this a lot and quite frankly they're incorrect. A more suitable description would read: You do understand this is an Open World Sandbox PVP MMO with meaningful choices and consequences, correct?

Something so loosely defined as "Griefing" can not be fact, it is an opinion.

Just because some may share your opinion, does not make it fact.

The victim is made the victim of an action that he or she considered griefing.

You fight so hard for the strangest ideals. I'm not comprehending why you are dissecting the griefing concept, what is your goal here?

Nevy wrote:

Let's be clear, anyone who has experience in MMOs knows exactly what Nihimon means when using the term "corpse camping." Again, this isn't complicated and there is no need to get into semantics. Just don't corpse camp a dude's corpse for the lolz, what's so hard to understand about this Bluddwolf?

Why are we fighting these clearly-defined issues?

Because like griefing there is nothing clearly defined. Everybody has a different idea of what these are and taking it to the GMs is just a waste of their time and effort.

I daresay only the illogical would find griefing behavior enigmatic.

Let's be clear, anyone who has experience in MMOs knows exactly what Nihimon means when using the term "corpse camping." Again, this isn't complicated and there is no need to get into semantics. Just don't corpse camp a dude's corpse for the lolz, what's so hard to understand about this Bluddwolf?

Why are we fighting these clearly-defined issues?

Bluddwolf wrote:

The problem I have with your perspective Nihimon is, you always seem to turn to GMs and game mechanics to solve problems.

There are real problems with a lot of "Open PvP" games. GMs and Game Mechanics are part of the solution to those problems. The idea that we should just leave everything to the players to solve themselves is a horrid, horrid idea.

Exactly. We can already see that the "game style" of some players will, perhaps unintentionally, ruin the game experience for other players. You see, I'm not trying to be the standard-bearer for all players that are not a bandit; I'm trying to speak for the casual players that you'd never find posting on message boards or have yet to play an MMO which Bluddwolf seems to forget about.

Personally, I'm fine with a bandit trying to murder me, I welcome that challenge. Yet there are players that will indeed be victimized more than others do to their lack of experience or knowledge. These are the players that could use an extra few game design features in their favor, so they aren't always on the losing side. Just something to think on...

Nevy wrote:

And will he receive a criminal flag followed by reputation loss for preying on the weak? Surely.

Actually, no it won't be assured. This is why I believe you are not understanding the various systems the Devs have expressed an interest in putting in the game.

SADs
Faction
Feuds
Wars

All of these will provide the ability to perform either banditry or killing, without reputation loss. These are all part of GWs plans to generate meaningful player interaction through PVP conflict.

Is this some kind of way of saying "I'm right, your wrong?" I'm sure you will be able to prey on the weak using those systems; I'm so glad for you. But there will be situations where preying on the weak will result in reputation loss. Again, it's not complicated.

Nevy wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nevy

You still don't get what reputation loss is meant for, or how it is to either be suffered or avoided.

Gaining the criminal flag in and of itself does not imply reputation loss. Banditry and even murder can be conducted without reputation loss, even against whom you call "innocent".

I understand completely though I don't see the need to explain every subtle nuance. It's not that complicated. I'm aware that every criminal action will not result in reputation loss, I'm also aware that some will. What am I misunderstanding?

It generally sounds that you are not missing anything. I don't think that Bluddwolf is either. He seems aware that some actions will penalize rep and is planning a balanced approach to managing that as a bandit.

Edit: There are apparently going to be plenty of ways to go about banditry without losing rep at all. That has always been the little rub (for me) about S&D.

Yes, I'm hoping that preying on the week won't be an easy thing to accomplish without usually receiving reputation loss. We shall see. :)

@ Nevy

You still don't get what reputation loss is meant for, or how it is to either be suffered or avoided.

Gaining the criminal flag in and of itself does not imply reputation loss. Banditry and even murder can be conducted without reputation loss, even against whom you call "innocent".

I understand completely though I don't see the need to explain every subtle nuance. It's not that complicated. I'm aware that every criminal action will not result in reputation loss, I'm also aware that some will. What am I misunderstanding?

It's all about having fun and experiencing the character concept. My character concept for Bluddwolf is to be PvP combat focused, and to rob others of their wealth. Will he be liked by most, nope.... Will he be hunted by do gooders, I hope so! Will he prey on the weak, sure sometimes. Will he hope to pull of the heist that goes down in PFO history, absolutely!!!

And will he receive a criminal flag followed by reputation loss for preying on the week? Surely.

That's the whole point, I hope you have the ability to partake in criminal activity, murder and banditry, live out your dream of being the most sinister villain in Golarion! After all, what's a world without darkness? Yet be prepared for the game to recognize your behavior and punish you, rightly so.

Bandits/Criminals/Murderers should have a harder time victimizing Unflagged/Innocents than Unflagged/Innocents have being victimized by Bandits/Criminals/Murderers.

There is really nothing else to say on this topic, it's pretty self-explanatory.

Nevy wrote:

They are both bad things, it's unfortunate. Does this unfortunate reality somehow translate into "bandits should be able to kill unflagged players without reputation loss or becoming criminally flagged?" Absolutely not.

Luckily I never said they shouldn't have the criminal flag.

Oh I see, so you were just replying to my prior posts (that clearly stated criminals should receive the criminal flag and reputation loss) with comments obviously used to discredit my opinions because we were in agreement. Interesting.

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Start a thread on economic PvP, list some behaviors that you think might result in players getting frustrated and quitting, and discuss ways that those behaviors might be discouraged.

The reason I haven't started a separate thread is...

Bluddwolf wrote:

There is no need for GW to try to regulate economic PvP, the players can handle it on our own.

The thing is though, players can do this with combat oriented PvP also, but everyone seems too worried about the solo gatherer or merchant not being able to participate in combat that they want all manner of restrictions and regulations put in place. Yet, look at it from the other side of the coin - a solo hedge knight wandering the countryside not being able to buy any good gear, because some enterprising company has cornered the market for a particular metal and hiked prices through the roof which in turn forced crafters to raise their prices.

The hedge knight has zero ability (solo) to do anything about the economic situation going on, just the same as a gatherer can do little (solo) about roving bandits. Yet, these bandits can get alignment shifts, reputation losses, death curses and all manner of mechanics levered against them (the stick). What do the people playing the market get for interfering with the ability of the hedge knight to play solo?

In any case, I'm not too worried about economic or social PvP - and definitely not worried enough to start an entire thread on the topic. I am more trying to bring into the picture the fact that PvP is about conflict, and conflict is more than just simple combat. Hopefully people will think of that when calling for mechanics such as reputation loss simply for being a bandit and playing a role within the game.

They are both bad things, it's unfortunate. Does this unfortunate reality somehow translate into "bandits should be able to kill unflagged players without reputation loss or becoming criminally flagged?" Absolutely not.

I missed this, anything interesting?

I actually like tab-targeting! But perhaps I'm just jaded from Darkfall's cumbersome UI and/or the button mashing of Guild Wars 2.

What was a great listen! I'm quite glad Ryan Dancey is the voice of this project, he is very well-spoken.

You are correct, we will never agree on it.

Merchants and bandits should have the same risk. Both are in it for the profits. Merchants need to recruit protection and lose profits. Bandits may face those guards and lose profits. Sometimes one will win and some times the other.

Done and done

I'm not asking you to agree with me, not at all. What I'm asking is for you to at least acknowledge my points, as they are logical, rather than hammering that bandits and merchants should have the same risks.

Xeen wrote:

Nevy wrote:

Why would merchants need more risk? And why do you think bandits will always have a population disadvantage? Heck, if I can kill merchants who spent hours of their time working for their goods, in less than half the time, I'll become a bandit also! And guess what? So will my mom, and yours too!

It is imperative, I repeat, imperative that bandits have a harder time victimizing merchants than merchants have being victimized by bandits. Goblinworks shares this same sentiment I believe...

So what your saying is, its ok if merchants make large profits risk free, but it is not ok for bandits to go after them.

Just want to be clear here.

NO, GW does not share your sentiment. If they did, there would be no PVP in the game.

What? I have no idea how your thought process led you to respond in this way, sorry. I never said merchants should have zero risk, silly guy. What I said it bandits should have more.

Okay, I'm talking about risk vs. reward and you're talking about spaceships. We're never going to get anywhere.

Nevy wrote:

Why would merchants need more risk? And why do you think bandits will always have a population disadvantage? Heck, if I can kill merchants who spent hours of their time working for their goods, in less than half the time, I'll become a bandit also! And guess what? So will my mom, and yours too!

It is imperative, I repeat, imperative that bandits have a harder time victimizing merchants than merchants have being victimized by bandits. Goblinworks shares this same sentiment I believe...

So what your saying is, its ok if merchants make large profits risk free, but it is not ok for bandits to go after them.

Just want to be clear here.

NO, GW does not share your sentiment. If they did, there would be no PVP in the game.

What? I have no idea how your thought process led you to respond in this way, sorry. I never said merchants should have zero risk, silly guy. What I said is bandits should have more.

Urman wrote:

Yeah, it depends very much if hex law is predominant. My understanding was that war and feuds likely superseded hex law; I expected that faction conflict would as well.

My expectation is that a settlement can choose a faction for itself, and then the actions of its enemy faction would also be a crime (trespass). They would not only be faction targets, but criminal flagged as well.

However in the absence of criminalizing factions, their actions alone would not be criminal.

I could freely SAD a faction target without triggering the criminal flag, unless SAD itself is a crime in that player controlled hex.

To address Nevy's issue with the faction system being applied to merchants and bandits. Bandits are supposed to rob merchants, that is their role. Merchants are supposed to hire guards, that is the responsible thing to do. Guards are supposed to protect caravans, that is what they are hired to do.

By factionalizing the three roles, it allows for all three parties to operate within their roles without fear of losing reputation. No player's character should lose reputation for playing a role in the prescribed manner.

I expect that GW will make the joining of the faction worth the risk for the merchant to do so. The same will hold for the bandit and the guard.

We in the UNC will of course support this system and we will encourage those who choose to opt out, to reconsider. What we don't get from faction targets, we will get through the SAD, feud, or assassination systems.

Sorry, I just don't buy it my friend.

Nevy wrote:

My issue is not with merchants being able to deposit their goods on a regular basis. What I have a problem with is taking risk vs. reward out of the bandit equation by the game recognizing bandits and merchants as enemies. Bandits should be flagged as a criminal when attacking or robbing a merchant, or anyone, for that matter.

By factionalizing the roles GW creates both risk and reward for both bandit and merchant.

Merchants who opt into the faction system, will have access to higher faction based skills that will presumably lead to great efficiency or profit.

Bandits who opt into the faction system, will have access to a greater pool of potential targets, without risk of reputation loss.

Merchants who opt in will have greater access to PC guards that are also members of the faction. These guards would likely be a lot cheaper because the guards will gain faction benefits for defending faction members. Otherwise the merchant would have to hire mercenaries, who are only loyal to the coin and their own self interest.

There will always be more merchants than bandits, and so your shear numbers is also your greatest protection.

Why would merchants need more risk? And why do you think bandits will always have a population disadvantage? Heck, if I can kill merchants who spent hours of their time working for their goods, in less than half the time, I'll become a bandit also! And guess what? So will my mom, and yours too!

It is imperative, I repeat, imperative that bandits have a harder time victimizing merchants than merchants have being victimized by bandits. Goblinworks shares this same sentiment I believe...

Nevy wrote:

Factions should not be an avenue for bandits to kill merchants without fear of reputation loss. And don't respond with "well merchants can kill bandits too!"; how many merchants do you think will actively attack bandits? Not many, so the advantage goes to the bandit. Focus on the big picture rather than just the bandit's perspective.

Playing a bandit and/or murderer should absolutely be more difficult than playing a merchant.

Its not and wont be. The majority of the time, merchants will have no difficulty taking their product to the markets for profits.

My issue is not with merchants being able to deposit their goods on a regular basis. What I have a problem with is taking risk vs. reward out of the bandit equation by the game recognizing bandits and merchants as enemies. Bandits should be flagged as a criminal when attacking or robbing a merchant, or anyone, for that matter.

Factions should not be an avenue for bandits to kill merchants without fear of reputation loss. And don't respond with "well merchants can kill bandits too!"; how many merchants do you think will actively attack bandits? Not many, so the advantage goes to the bandit. Focus on the big picture rather than just the bandit's perspective.

Playing a bandit and/or murderer should absolutely be more difficult than playing a merchant.

I've been looking for that quote, thank you!

The magic is in allowing the choice of PvP to be there if desired but adding nuances that prevent unprovoked PvP from always happening.

If Wow was a PvP improvement over EQ (which I never played) then EQs PvP must have really sucked. Wows PvP was nothing more than meaningless arena care bear PvP, no player looting and the most you suffered was a repair bill.

I certainly hope PFO has a better PvP system than Eve, but that is a pretty tall order. The key will be to have as low an entry level or lower and I think that is certainly doable. The combat itself should be more dynamic, not just tab targeting + auto facing. The use of keywords and other enhancers should also add greater diversity and skill combinations that should really advance the system beyond other PvP based MMOs.

We are like polar opposites, it's interesting to be honest! In fact, I can't think of one core function we agree upon. We should get married.

My greatest hope is that PFO does PvP so well that all the folks I know who "don't play PvP games" end up really enjoying PFO. I think one of the most difficult things to overcome is going to be the mindset of folks who think there's really nothing wrong with the PvP in most other PvP games. I want PFO to be to EVE what WoW was to EQ; that's not going to happen if PFO develops a reputation as "just another gankfest".

Exactly.

Recall that criticals inflict Injury points (IP?), which will accumulate until they exceed your current hit points and then cause you a lot of penalties until they are removed. So I don't think that "critical effects" will be a thing per se, or at least a variety of critical effects won't be a thing (instead it'll be a set list which every critical type pushes you towards).

I like the armor piercing keyword that was discussed before (bonus unmitigated damage equal to 10% their armor); I think keywords which sacrifice maximum damage output in favor of more consistent damage output are a good choice for implementation. Same for armor; maybe your heavy armor can receive a keyword which reduces a specific energy type's damage, in an effort to spread out your defenses instead of super-specializing in one defense.

My hope for keywords is that, though there might be good "go-to" choices for keywords on specific items (for example, bonus health keyword on armor pieces I would expect to be a staple), most times keywords will be specific to the individual's needs. I don't like having a system like this with a variety of choices when nobody uses 90% of those choices.

Woo Shane, can I get an autograph?! Pretty cool seeing your name on the video blog!

I'm not a fan of disarm or energy drain (via melee attack); I like all the others though.