I suppose someone has done the math, how many times can you kill per week and it has no real punishing effect to your character? If creating a border and being able to kill to defend it is possible, I wonder how many characters are needed for the job. I mean how many characters that aren't going down to a criminal level of reputation from too much killing.
Declaring a border is good for security but depending on the loss of reputation a hostile group could use the defense as a means to send your reputation into the crapper.
I've been away for several months so I must have missed something about what happens if you kill someone else. Don't you get flagged for murder anymore, say when you kill someone because they broke your rule that is not supported by a game rule that allows you to kill them without the reputation hit?
If the game rules do not support your wish to kill them ,it is murder , or can you kill anyone now?
I don't have a problem with declaring a border ,it generates conflict , but how do you get away with killing them if the the game systems and not just your own law, don't consider it legal.From what I remember you now threaten people with what the game considers as murder to enforce a border you created. The rules must have changed or is it a crime ? You are going to need a goon squad to run people off your land you don't have a legal claim to.
What new game rule allows you to tell someone to stop using a part of the map and then you can kill them if they don't do what you say? Sorry for being ignorant but this is very different from what I remember.
I believe that would be an anti-fanboi vs being a fanboi. The fanboi loves the game and the anti-fanboi hates the fanboi, neither can hide their all consuming passion.They have contempt for anyone who loves it so much ,kind of.
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
You have a secret anonymous informant with evidence that the 'big 3 ' are conspiring to brainwash us into never criticizing what GW does ? WOW! Now I understand your mission to show us the real truth. PFO sucks and we don't even know it, our happiness is all a lie.
From what I read LiF is going to sell the 64 man private server game in alpha that they made to pay for the development of an mmo, some day. If that is their plan then how many clients do they need to sell of the game they are making to pay for the mmo to be made? Before you can compare having to choose between two mmo's in alpha that you are interested in, you need two mmo's in alpha. It seems very important to have a plan that you are sure can work if you are going to compare one game to another , just looking at graphics or gameplay isn't enough if they fail to fund the mmo, the 10'000 player version I mean.
Do you think it can be done? how big is the market for a game that is just played on small private servers?
This sounds like what I would like to see different. If you run past mobs ,they chase you and give up , that's fine . But the same group of mobs seem to give up as fast even if you kill one of them from range and then run. Killing one should get you a lot more aggro somehow.
However if our ability to run far is going to change soon then any changes should wait for the stamina changes to be tested.
Is there a way to change the initial threat the creatures get when you come within 20 meters to something that gets rechecked over time or is that tied to them being at their starting position? If a creature could gain aggro again after the first time just because you are within 20 meters then they won't behave like they want to run home, as it kind of feels they do now.
My concern isn't too easy vs too hard but just that the creatures are acting so dumb it 'feels' wrong.
However, thoughtless broad spectrum nerfing is never a good answer to the real issue.
Thoughtless nerfing is not what is being done, so what was your better way? The new mechanic needs to be tested to see if it brings ranged attacks ( Temporarily) closer to what the devs planned them to be.
I'm wondering about the Doctrine of Sovereignty , you will all defend each other from any attempt to take over a settlement, that must be for settlement warfare in the future? Well ,have you all also pledged not to try to take over other settlements ? What if a member tries to conquer a neighbor and the war gets out of hand and the attacker is threatened with their own destruction ? You gonna go defend them ? Or what if a members' actions warrant an attack from someone, it seems like pledging to defend each other no matter what the other settlement did to provoke an attack could get you all in trouble.
It reads to me like a member can do whatever they want to outsiders and if their actions result in an invasion to destroy them then you are obligated to defend them. Are there restrictions on what members can do offensively to non-members? I should think it would go better if you were a full alliance, attacking and defending as one instead of just defending as one.
Which illustrates my real point, any temporary change just creates new issues.If the bows are too dependent on game content that is not in the game yet to be balanced , then they need to be removed until the game is ready for them. Or remove overdraw at least.
From the patcher I loaded the alpha 8 quick start guide and followed it until I was slotting the wand .It says,
Drag the wand into the “2nd” circle on the Paper Doll below the circle that holds your club.
Electric Brand is a staff feat, I had a staff from a drop and slotted it instead of the club and the feat showed up then as usable.I would have put this on the alpha forum but it isn't working very well today.So you can only use Wyrmling breath with a wand, and need a staff for the other feat.
Baldur's Gate and NWN did a good job of recreating the TT into a single-player type computer game. Because it was just one player or several in multiplayer they could make a campaign for you to play. The whole purpose for the PC game could be to recreate a TT campaign .
But the MMO is a different creature , imagine 1000 people trying to sit down at a table and play a TT game at the same time. The theme parks try to do that and it can be fun. PFO won't be a game like that ,instead of quests for content it will be the actions of other players that create the possibilities for your own choices of what to do.
So I look at who is making the game and hope that they can take what they have to work with and create something that satisfies the type of interest I have. The possibilities of what you can do in PFO will be so far above what you could do in Baldur's Gate that PFO will be the game that more closely recreates the gameplay that the TT rules were made for. But it all depends on all the other players and what they do.
So I don't believe that a cut and paste of the rules from TT to PC recreates the fun of the original ,it just makes you feel like you are making the same character that you could have made. That is part of the fun , but the wide open choices of what you can do in PFO is the part of the TT game that also needs to be recreated for a huge crowd to enjoy at the same time.
So PFO could be very satisfying or a huge disappointment ,like an mmo in a galaxy far ,far away was after I followed it's hype for 4 years. It seems that it isn't the IP that matters ,it is the people that make the game and what it is that they are trying to do. I believe GW is trying to make a game that appeals to people who love the TT type gameplay, not recreate the gameplay itself but recreate what is satisfying about doing it.
The New TEO Promotes Agreement That Will Make Sacrificial Lambs of Smaller Settlements or as an alternate title The New Golgotha Agreement Will Put Meat on the Table.
It's a joke, personally I hope for an Epic War of Conquest by someone .Who will think back a year from now and think about how cool it was when we were so nice to everyone, we need an all out epic fight for the world to get server growth.
Well if it turns out that the big settlements will not do any real harm to each other but they are free to smash little settlements (if they want to) ,then this NAP is going to be something far different in practice than in theory. But I expect the people involved already know that it will be a big guys can smash the little guys but not each other deal.
I suppose like all people that try to run things they think the world would be a better place if everyone would just join in their plan.
You can't deny that ,we won't attack each other (much) ,means that we will attack others more.
The devs could add more to the game that we haven't considered and that might change everyone's opinion ,so even if we think we are right it may not matter when the changes come .The game as we see it now may not be the game we are playing in 2 months, depends on what systems get in and how far they are in their development.
How about you people delay the NAP until 3 weeks after the tower war starts, maybe it will be ...fun?! Give it a chance before you try to shut it down. You don't know for sure what will make PFO a 'great ' mmo . Game systems should be tried out to their full potential.
When settlement warfare is put in are you going to refuse to test that out fully too, because you only care about your own (characters) behinds. Lets test the game as it was designed to be played.
We all know the game is far from a finished product, but putting your own advancement ahead of fully testing what we can do in the game is shortsighted for the future of PFO's development,(lose a war ,it's good for the game).
TEO Pino wrote:
Well ,this whole NAP seems bad for own future ,so I was just warning of the pit falls of leaving the thousands who will join EE out of your plans. The increase in the numbers should not be seen as a bunch of serfs coming to PFO to join your NAP, it being a PVP game and all.
So much of this future is going to be about us losing control and not having a choice but learning to deal with what happens to us, so we could learn how to PVP as a settlement fighting a settlement, and have a chance to survive as a settlement when it gets to that point in the development.
I can't imagine a PFO (in the future )where you don't have enemies, that is an important part of the game.
So nobody wants to have any real enemies? I'm laughing. I suppose you don't want any settlement conquest either and you will all be NAP signers for that too. I was leaning towards peace but now that I am seeing where it is going ,it just looks dim as a view of what PFO should be like.
It's not gonna hurt that bad to fight over the towers, what got everyone so scared of it? The game is designed 'around' a healthy amount of PVP, don't be scared of it. How did a PVP dependent game come to be led by people who don't really want enemies, or to be an enemy to someone by choice.
Please ,some settlement say that they want to fight the war of towers!All out I mean ,so that there is glory for some and defeat for others. At least on the weekends , you can kill 10,000 bandits on weekdays.
KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:
You kind of just said that there will be no wars in The War (of Towers).Is that how the devs designed it to work or is it just the vision of the few here on the forum, the majority that join later in EE will just push back against any attempt to hold them from doing what amounts to meaningful pvp as opposed to a 'it doesn't matter very much' level of pvp.
If you take all the towers from a settlement you have 'won' a war against them.