Notmyrealname's page

So now there is a declared EBA border of words on this thread and people need your ok to speak here? It is just wrong to push people off of GW's forum by acting like it is your's. Telling people to leave is being a bully and that's fine for your in-game characters but leave it in the game.

And I'd like to add many of these people giving feedback wouldn't criticize GW no matter what they delivered..... and I actually got a PM from an ex-TSV yesterday completely disillusioned with this product and the crowdforging process informing me they won't be playing this game.

Oh and you might find this part of their PM interesting...

Ex TSV Member wrote:
Nihimon, Being & Jazz are perfect examples, they just adapt their opinions To the dev's...

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.

Beta Burnout is a fairly common illness for mmo addicts, or should I say players. First you soar on that high then you crash. A couple of weeks break should fix it.

Maybe they can temporally substitute Jabba the Hutt for a banking system.

I think they will surprise us by introducing time traveling monkey ninjas.

It was the dwarves. It's always the dwarves.

Dwarf Fortress is 12 years old and still in Alpha...you can't rush dwarves.

I am going to predict that this weeks blog will include Ryan's cell phone number so we can call him at 3am if the server goes down.

And that the devs are working on a big red button that says FIX, that they will just have to push.

From what little I've skimmed over the PFO forums, it seems that PFO will be substantially different than Pathfinder.

Is this correct?

I mean, I know Paizo isn't developing the game themselves, but I figured that the game would use an engine derived from the Pathfinder Rules, the same way Baldur's Gate was based on 2nd Ed and Neverwinter Nights was based on 3rd Ed.

Why the changes?

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.

“...to learn and not to do is really not to learn. To know and not to do is really not to know.”
― Stephen R. Covey,

@notmyrealname:

1) I know there will be some non-tower taking fights, many have forum-grudges to 'act out', so there is some PVP to look forward to.

2) Remember 'Beta' is about building the game, not (just) playing it. EE is for making a world with a functioning economy and some higher tier goods and services than the start towns provide, so we kinda have to get along, at least until OE. We're only halfway through this crowdforging ride.

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.

@Nmrn

There will be NO settlement vs settlement PvP proper at all during the War of Towers game. I'm sure towers will be won and lost among all the players involved during EE, there will be no shortage of fights to be had, just not wars.

That comes later.

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.

So a couple of guys on the internet think they can stop 20,000 players who signed up for a PVP game from doing the only PVP that doesn't wreck your reputation? Don't think that's gonna work, or did I read this wrong and the leaders want to PVP and did not make a lets-not-pvp deal?
It is a real jaw dropper if it is true that leaders are gonna try to divide up the towers and not PVP, dumbest thing I have heard of so I must just be understanding it wrong.

Leithlen wrote:

@Caldeathe Thank you for an additional data point there. Could you post your FPS values in a similar manner to what Wysper did?

I did not change the settings at all. If someone can point me at a straightforward way to know what FPS I'm getting, I'd be happy to oblige.

I downloaded the free version of FRAPS to see what my frame rate was in Skyrim . It should work with any game.

It would not be unreasonable to have certain kinds of encounters cause greater or even complete equipment damage on death.

Well if it is a PVP death ,the winner will loot you and you lose it all, so as it is now the PVE death is less of a loss than a PVP death . Your non-threaded gear could be put on a timer and it is gone if you don't get back to it , simulating the mobs taking it.Or for hard core the boss mob could have a spell that breaks threads ,so if you die you lose more gear. I'm not against the idea of some PVE being higher risk encounters, its a good idea but it does have to make sense .

Well anyway , PFO is looking to be a game where you will have choices that have big consequences for your future, it will be interesting to see what people choose.

Why even think of solo gathering and harvesting as dangerous PVP activities, those are supposed to be the safest things you can do. People that want PVP don't want to go search the woods and chase after solo runners who are just harvesting, if a gatherer wanted PVP they would be doing it. This is a straw dog considering that this is the MVP and we are a long way from real settlement warfare and the territory control that goes with it, the territory control will make solo gathering dangerous .

The OP was more about "I don't have time for PVP wars ,so what am I going to do in PFO?" I don't think a neutral city is addressing what is needed, maybe a settlement that trades and supports others who make war would be better for a casual player. I think crafting and trading can be done as a casual player and it will be a very needed activity. As long as PFO does not have roving gangs of gankers that exist to ruin your day it will rise above the bad PVP reputation mmo's have.

Mr Voice of Doom sounds his Gong of Destruction

@ Saiph,

But that advantage you claim to receive, is not infinite! There will be engineers who can build these items, who will sell these items for in game resources, and these items will be as good if not better than what is being offered. So says GW.

The only advantage here, so to speak, is time! For $50 you can save whatever amount of time it would take to create an engineer, and level up the ability to build one. The item purchased has offered to me the convenience of skipping all that time spent and go out into the wilderness to forage for resources.

I haven't gained any skills from the item, nor any abilities from the item. Therefore not pay to win...

People who play more hours per day than others also gain the advantage that these resources offer... SO if $50 or even $200 is not worth it to you, just simply play more to balance out the "advantage" you claim.

I agree it is not pay to win, we also need to consider that some people have less time to play the game. They can purchase what they could have gained if they had more time in-game to construct it, so there is the huge advantage of having lots of game time to get ahead that people don't seem to see. To be fair we need to look beyond just the game mechanics and consider how the players live their lives too.

People who buy a base camp can store items in it ,and at some point we will be able to craft the same instead of buying it, but what is the big advantage in storing items. You stash your loot at the base camp but it still needs to be taken to a settlement so why not run to the settlement instead of a base camp? It will take the same number of trips to haul it all from a base camp or straight to a settlement.

How are people planning on using base camps, you still will spend the same amount of time running loot to a settlement with or without one, won't you?

That's not PVP. It's PVME.

Did you negotiate any Hideout Rights if you are being chased by a posse, Xeen?

You dwarves sound like a cool bunch.

More screen shots of the crafting please!!! I will beg if it helps, Please please please, PLEASE...

I tried to join but she said I have to use my real name. Noooo...

Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:

As a gaming community, like anywhere else, we have our internal issues. So people within Pax Gaming that have issues with one another can't say, "Oh well Pax X has been around longer and done more than Pax Y!" It promotes equality among our guilds. It is a measure in place to quell and prevent internal drama and does not have any implication outside of the Pax Gaming Community.

To be fair, you might be 100% right in this. I have no idea. I am judging the content of the Pax Charter by what's on the page, not adding what I think it might be used for. What's on the page tells a story of Pax is Pax.

I'll also add that for me, the fact that I see Pax as Pax right now doesn't mean that I'd vote "no" on that poll, if I even vote at all. I don't like the idea of punishing the old Golgotha members for joining Pax. They were going to have a settlement before, and punishing them for joining a gaming community seems wrong to me. I say that because I don't want my previous post to be interpreted as a rallying cry against Pax or anything of the sort. It was an answer to a specific question regarding how I view the Pax companies.

I'll also add that I don't think any members of Pax are trying to game the system in any way or are trying to nefariously "get away" with something.

However, I do view Pax as Pax. And I further think someone having the opinion that Pax having 2 settlements is against the spirit of the rules or bad for the community, and who would vote no on that poll, has valid points to make and should not be shouted down, or be called fools & babies, or have their motives questioned.

I agree with what you say but one thing I would like to add. In any effort to bring about what is 'best' for the community we should never ignore what it will do any individual . We can't view even one person as expendable in our effort to have a good community , and many individuals would be hurt by this attempt to go back and undo things.

I am talking about trying to vote one settlement into oblivion or harass them into quitting.

Notmyrealname wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

Notmyrealname wrote:

I'm not real interested in doing that.

Are you saying you won't engage in this conversation?..... Hmmm, that does sound vaguely familiar.... where did I read that?

You will just keep it up until you think you have won and beat me in a fight , won't you ? You need to act more mature in how you treat other people, God did not put them here for you to beat up on verbally .Go ahead and have the last word and declare victory.

Hey, check that mirror out.

You never did answer my question.

Who are you voting for in the land rush?

I will sell you my vote, you tell me who to vote for( don't say Pax ). The price is that you will become my forum bodyguard forever.

Notmyrealname wrote:

So if I ask a question about if both Pax guilds decided to withdraw from this thread or was it just one that decided , I am trolling? maybe I want to know who thinks they don't need to answer questions about their conduct. Why are you against me asking a question about who was it that decided their guild won't engage in conversation?

By what relationship is Pax beholden to you, to answer your questions?

Do they not have the right to say, we have addressed this issue as far as we choose to, and leave it in the hands of GW?

To answer your question, I don't think they need to answer to you, me or anyone else other than GW.

I can tell you who decided their guild won't engage in conversation. It was the second shooter on the grassy knoll.... You see how silly this can get?

Ryan Dancey has already responded to this thread. As convoluted as his post was, there was still no affirmation that Pax did anything wrong. So why would Pax Golgotha continue arguing over a settled matter?

Sorry Bludd but you have all the appearance of someone who just wants to fight and argue on a personal level, what are you really mad about? You aren't able to follow how this thread evolved , you are stuck repeating Pax did nothing wrong . But I think you are just in the mood to fight it doesn't matter with who or about what, I'm not real interested in doing that.

Well said Dancey, exactly how I'd assess it. I'd furthermore like to say I believe the OP accomplished what he wanted to do: throw shade without blowback on himself. He is almost effectively 'whistleblowing' and stepping away after stirring the pot. I don't appreciate that underhanded maneuvering by the OP.

As for the current political climate, it is what it is. FMS has been brazenly clear that we understand the landscape and believe in unification of similar companies to create the vision we have as our path. We haven't signed any accord or joined any empire in hopes of beneficent votes.

We are very happy with the work we are accomplishing in creating a wholesome settlement and have no other opinion than to say we do not like the throwaway account tactic to stir this pot.

Don't be so quick to judge the OP, maybe it is a Pax member who is concerned about their guilds ethics. People who try to uphold high ethical standards get personal attacks from all the ones who think they don't answer to anyone.

Xeen wrote:

Notmyrealname wrote:

Can metagame guilds grab two or more settlements, yes or no?

Yes

I concur. However if a member of a company did not vote in the first landrush they should still apply their vote to their own company and not an affiliate, even if their own company has a settlement assured.

I don't care if they have two settlements , I care that they are now on public record as refusing to do what Ryan asked them to do for the sake of a good community, it is wrong.

Quote:

So Pax not doing what they are asked to do has set a new and horrible standard for the community, they don't even care what we think because they are gone.

We aren't responding. That doesn't mean we aren't reading.

You refuse to comment on your refusal to do what Ryan asked your guild to do for the purpose of building a better community, then you don't care about what Ryan says or about what is best for the community. So you have set that as a standard of behavior, it is wrong.

Is the official position of Pax that you can refuse to do what a CEO asks you to do for the best interests of the game and do whatever you want, or are you breaking from the official Pax policy?

Here's the thing, it's not just about Pax getting two settlements, it is about Ryan leading us in building a better PVP game community. Ryan will not tell everyone what to do , he asks us to do things. If we do what he asks then we support his leadership and vision of making PFO different from what is out there. If we refuse to do what he asks we undermine the entire effort to make PFO different and encourage others to also ignore the higher community standards that are essential to make PFO different.

If Pax ignores what Ryan asked them to do then they are replacing Ryan's leadership for the community with their own and in effect telling us all to ignore what Ryan says and do what you want. So you end up with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes and the vision of a PVP game that will be different fails. Ryan has to be our leader in community standards , we cant all just decide for ourselves what is good because people will put self interest ahead of the vision for a better game and it will ruin PFO as a better PVP mmo.

Well it looks bad if you ignore what Ryan says about setting good standards for community behavior. Some people don't give a rats arse what Ryan says about having high standards for PVP gameplay ,they just want to know what they can get away with without any GM action.

The story at this point looks like Ryan asked , but did not tell you , to not go for two settlements.

@ Proxima Sin , So you are asking do people want to try to help others that seem hard to help or kill, kill , kill them. I think wanting to help them to be 'beneficial participants of the community' fits right in with what Ryan has been saying about how to change the toxic perception of PVP mmos. It isn't just kill them or help them but some of both that will change things. It will take time for some people to adjust to a new kind of PVP gameplay that isn't a FFA but allows you to kill anyone anyway. People are going to experiment with the game systems.

Notmyrealname wrote:

Steelwing wrote:

Notmyrealname wrote:

I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.

My comment was admittedly a mild divergence from the topic at hand but not totally unrelated I feel

So if you can get hired as a merc because you are low rep and kill players that go where someone doesn't want them to it is different than griefing, it's all about the why and not the what. That would be one way to help griefers to be more useful to the community, turn them into a mercenary company.

But all people with low rep got there by being jerks. Did you not receive the memo?

They are only a jerk or griefer if they waste their talent for doing dirty deeds on selfish pleasure, they can fit in with expected and sanctioned gameplay with minimal change required , join the evil military. They can play the goon squad and kill people and the righteous can find them all in one place to smite them more easily.

So I would say forming merc companies of low rep characters is what the OP could be looking for, seriously.

Notmyrealname wrote:

I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.

My comment was admittedly a mild divergence from the topic at hand but not totally unrelated I feel

So if you can get hired as a merc because you are low rep and kill players that go where someone doesn't want them to it is different than griefing, it's all about the why and not the what. That would be one way to help griefers to be more useful to the community, turn them into a mercenary company.

I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.

I think we can all agree that the first thing to do to change a griefer is to stop them from griefing. If they are content with what happens to them if they grief then they wont stop, so killing them a lot will help them, maybe. If they never wanted to play the game as intended then they will quit, if they are interested in non-griefing gameplay then some one can help them get involved . But it all starts after they give up griefing behavior, so getting killed a lot is what they seem to think ruins the game , that is why they do it to others, when it happens to them they will be ready for something different.

Ah, but Proxima is arguing that we don't KNOW that he was newbie hunting. What if he's guilty of a hundred other heinous crimes instead?

Ahh , well then we need a game mechanic that puts a 'joker' maniacal grin on newb killers so we will know what they did.

Don't kill characters that are flagged as hostile(because of low rep)? Who we gonna kill then, some other player who is flagged hostile, I don't get it. Do you feel sorry for the griefers who become game content, like a goblin that we see.

In an mmo you have to make up your own story to go with what happens, but what if there were official player-storytellers who gave us a kind of history and background flavor to what goes on in the game. Something you can read and it makes the mmo feel like a Pathfinder campaign, it would all be after the fact but would make the world have a recorded history that sounds like a Pathfinder story. Some kind of recorded history of the world would be cool to look back at after a year or two. It could also keep us up to speed on what's going on around the game world.

Well its a good thing we have so many role-players , they can lead us in doing something that only requires imagination to work.

PVE is a boring grind because you know what will happen before you engage . You know the mobs hitpoints and its level and its class , the info is all given to you but with less info on the mobs it is different gameplay. What if the mobs have generic names instead of names that tell you their class and no hitpoint number and no con system to tell you the level of the mob. Now its not going to be boring because the risk of death increases.

Maybe there are enough people who are tired of the easy mode PVE gameplay to do it differently.

Faith can't be proven wrong ,it is hope for something better ,you can only choose to lose your hopes and dreams and live day to day as a cynic.

It would be funny if the goblins could loot your gear and equip it. When you came back the goblin would be wearing your helmet. In EQ NPC's could pick up items and equip them so it might be possible.

Well then we will just have to make all cars crash proof, or give everyone a crashed car to start with, or pave everything and it will be unlikely that you will ever get close to another car. Cars crashing problem solved.

Some type of world progression that is a result of player actions. I know the world and gameplay will change as new features get patched in, but it might be fun if some of it needed to be unlocked first. Like an epic battle that needs to be won against mobs to open up a new map area, or research needed to allow new spells into the game, something everyone can contribute to if they want. Even better would be a competition between two or more progression choices based on player actions , it might fit in well with crowdforging new features into the game.