Oberyn Corvus's page

Im in the same camp as Jazz and Shane. I read faster than I can watch, and its easier for me to have a couple of things going at the same time if I can read through it quickly. I get Nihimon's point though about ease and getting across the sense of excitement. maybe split the difference and do a bit of both or alternate? Either way, Im happy were getting the regular updates :D

And lest I forget, props to Shane for the transcriptions!

Nihimon wrote:

Very cool link, I may end up searching for others from Schola Gladiatoria :)

They may only last 5-10 minutes, but you'll end up watching so many that your day will quickly disappear....

yup, that just happened to me :P. I like the way he keeps it simple and interesting.

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I don't think that at the party scale there's anything better than the freedom to kill the offender and boo his Reputation through the universal Reputation rules.

I wonder if there's an appropriate place for some kind of flag applied by a Settlement's leaders to an ex-member of the settlement...

I have witnessed more than a few circumstances where the corp leader, or a member of the leadership, was the betrayer / traitor.

It would be interesting is whatever system of PC generated flagging could account for that as well.

Couldnt that be handled under the governance rules that were discussed a while back? For example, the system of governance includes an option where if X number of leadership members vote to remove the 'boss', then hes out. Wouldnt help if that option isnt selected in the governance of the settlement/corp, but then it could be a plus point and/or point of negotiation to bring people into the group.

spear and shield was so overpowered they wrote it out of history

The concern I have with having tangible, mechanical debuffs is how to ensure that it is not twisted to use it against 'weaker' players (weaker here being defined as having less popular support).

I dont recall exactly how reputation is gained or lost, but my understanding was that there would be some level of player choice in granting positive or negative rep to other players (dont know if this was changed in a subsequent dev post). Assuming that is still true, wouldnt it stand to reason that if some group wants to neutralise a champion of an enemy faction, all theyd have to do is save up whatever currency is used and then rep-nuke the champion so that he/she is debuffed and less of a threat?

On the flip side, if there is no player-decided mechanism for assigning positive or negative rep, then reputation becomes more akin to alignment by making it explicit what is acceptable behaviour and what is not (similar to a three-strike system). This is not necessarily good and its not necessarily bad. However it does make it very mechanically dependent and probably wouldnt catch alot of unwanted behaviour as the bad apples 'game' the system.

As such, I am rather leery of mechanical penalties based on reputation and would prefer that it remain a social mechanism and/or a tool for GM intervention.

Heartily seconded! Thanks Nihimon for your efforts and thoughtful input. Three cheers for Nihimon!

In unrelated news a body was found in a dumpster behind the fan offices of an unreleased game called Pathfinder Online. Investigators are baffled by the number of staple wounds inflicted on the body. Police continue to look for the culprit with the aid of a local community member who goes by the name of 'Nihimon' who, in the words of colleagues, is 'a really nice guy who you can absolutely trust'.

I was one of the backers and Im rather disappointed they decided to cancel the game. Looked like alot of fun and I would have preferred to have the game skinnned with characters that I like rather than something 'generic'. Not saying they cant come up with something cool, but Im already invested in the iconics and it would have been interesting to play them in a dice format. I dont think that everything with the pathfinder label on it has to fit neatly into our experiences and expectations, even though I can and do appreciate the desire for a continued narrative.

I would strongly argue for a continuous/contiguous world for many of the same reasons that were argued above. Ultimately I find that loading screens are disruptive to immersion, even if the loading is quick. Also I think that if portals are implemented, gate camping will occur no matter what as there will always be a few gates that turn out to be more important than others. While I think ambushes are fine, I dislike gate camping because you rarely have a chance to do much besides try and muscle your way through.

For variety, one thing that could be considered is a plane or dimension directly opening up onto one side of the river kingdoms (like the worldwound). For those familiar with MtG, think the Phyrexian overlay. How it is handled is a different matter entirely, but I think it could be done.

Id have to go with Magus as my favorite class. Partly because Ive always liked mixing swords AND sorcery, instead of swords OR sorcery :P Plus its got some fond memories of an absolutely epic campaign with some awesome role-playing moments. Im currently playing a Witch (Scarred Witch Doctor) and I must say that despite not rolling any stat over a 12 (4d6 even!) Im finding it to be a fun class to play.

I like playing stealthy classes but I find its difficult to get the most out of them unless your entire group is built for it (whether skill or magic) because going in solo tends to be a one-way trip to the grave (we often play with no resurrection or extremely prohibitive resurrection).

Ive always found it a bit jarring when I run into a racial enemy NPC and they cheerily greet me as though were bosom buddies. If the lore says there are tensions between the races, then I would highly prefer to see those tensions in game beyond just jacking up the prices from hostile traders ala "I overcharged that haughty elf. Ha! Thatll show him whos boss!".

*raises hand* Im up for it as well, although timing may be an issues as Im in GMT+3.

Others have posted the relevant links to previous discussions on nonlethal damage. Although I used to advocate implementing nonlethal damage, now Im not so sure. It ultimately leads to back to actions having consequences. Arguably the point about implementing nonlethal damage is to avoid consequences from PvPing. That alone makes me stop and consider the impact of such an implementation.

I think that part of the problem is a) how flags will be used and b) each persons understanding of RPKing.

As an example, a group of brigands come across a group of harvesters doing their thing with a vein of adamantite. The brigands really want that adamantite so they kill the harvesters to get it. Does this scenario qualify as RPKing? Assuming the harvesters are not under any flag, what consequences would the brigands face?

Scenario 2: A sentry is walking his beat around a Top Secret Installation (tm) which could be the previously mentioned gathering operation. He comes across an adventurer in full combat gear (as most adventurers are wont to do). If the adventurer sees the Top Secret Installation (tm) he/she might alert additional players who may come in and attack. So the sentry takes proactive measures, ambushes the adventurer and kills him/her. Same questions as above regarding RPKing and consequences.

The issues, as I see them, are:

1. If PvP is too restrictive and/or has excessively harsh consequences, it will lead to less 'meaningful PvP'
2. If these restrictions/consequences are tied solely to flags, then the bloc that wants to avoid all PvP can keep the flags off as a deterrent to PvPers.
3. If there are not enough consequences for unplanned PvP (i.e. not wars), then things could rapidly devolve into constant NBSI.

Ideas for a solution
On an initial read it sounds like the key may be in how the flags are implemented. Here is what I would suggest (Im thinking out loud here):

1. Everyone is under one or more flags at all times. The default flag is 'Civilian'. This flag provides small(?) combat penalties to the character with possible bonuses to non-combat activities. Killing a 'Civilian' is considered an Evil act with reputation loss.
2. All other flags bring the characters combat capabilities up to 'normal' or 'expected' levels but flags them for PvP (i.e. no reputation loss). Alignment hits may vary. Each flag has its own associated bonuses (e.g. Bandit flag has SAD). Each flag is usable by more than one alignment (e.g. all Nx and Cx alignments could use the Bandit flag)

It's almost as if introducing themselves to new potential players (and investors) is more important than preaching to their choir :-).

Yes, yes, the choir needs some preaching to continue the singing! We demand new material to debate! :D

Havoq wrote:

Moridian wrote:

What do you think of the topic?

I think you should let your players play their game.

If someone can come up with a racial that breaks the game, stand up. Let's hear it.

Anything that involves level adjustments is a good candidate. Player Drow with actual Drow racials and level adjustments for example might break things. Not to mention player characters with various undead templates (play a Lich anyone?), player characters with planar traits or are ephemeral.

I always wanted to play an ooze :D Or maybe play a beholder "Elf Only Inn" style.

Its also a case of equivalent power. In PnP the usefulness and relative power of racials is dependent on a number of factors including DM style, DM interpretation and campaign structure (i.e. what the DM throws at you). In a computer game where things are not meant to be left to arbitrary DM decision, having relative balance and usefulness between racials becomes more important. For example, implementing something like the elven immunity to sleep could become problematic. And just to clarify Im not saying these things WILL be a problem, Im saying they COULD be a problem and its worth taking a look at them.

Regarding the specialisation vs. generalist discussion I think it might be good to remember that we can only slot a certain number of skills in our 'active' build. To me that would lean towards being 'specialised for X' at any given time.

Aleron wrote:

Personally I'd hope both, as I'd like to see mounted combat be viable (and I also like having a good selection of mounts available in different styles and colours).

... llamas, camels, elephants ...

... and flying mounts :D ... Hey dude cast fly on my Rhino animal companion ... thanx ...

Then while riding your flying rhino, cast prismatic spray behind you .... Nyan Cat .. err Rhino lives again!

If you bought the game through Steam try accessing the game directly without going through Steam. This has, from what I have heard, resolved the problems others were having.

Thanks for the advice Being. I can log in, but once in controls are rather non-responsive, to the point where aiming a bow at a target five paces away is an exercise in frustration. Probably something to do with my machine and might be solved by turning all graphics details down. Ill have to tinker with it later.

Seems were drifting off-topic here. For whats its worth, although Im not a 'hardcore PVPer' and lean more towards team-PVE and crafting, I wouldnt want a game to 'hand-hold' me. I would strongly prefer that the wilderness be wild and dangerous. And if I step out into it unprepared, then I can expected to get killed. Sure it might put some people off, but more importantly itll keep more people involved because of the constant risks in facing the world. The only thing that I think really needs to be done (based on experiences with EVE) is clearly explaining to new players the consequences of their actions and, if there are areas of differing protection from marshals, how protected they will be by NPC guards. And no, I dont consider killing a new player griefing. Poor taste perhaps, but not griefing. On the other hand, if the killer is camping the new player area specifically to kill new players, then yes I would consider that to be griefing and it should be stopped.

Back on topic, as far as my mentioning the 'voting' mechanism I wasnt advocating that it replace the current system. I was making the point that should GW wish to poll the playerbase, it might be preferable to link the results with paying accounts to get an indication from the playerbase. Obviously this need not apply in all cases and is more a response to some of the very vocal feedback on other MMO forums from a minority of players.

For all Mortal Online did wrong this is one thing they did VERY, VERY right.

This is the first time Ive heard of this system but it looks very compelling and engaging. Id love to see something like this in PFO! *starts thinking of the possibilities in crossbreeding a chimera with a unicorn*

While Im aware of the CSM's work, Im not familiar with all the intricacies of the decision making (I started reading some of the minutes and got distracted a few pages in :P ). I would echo some of the thoughts expressed here about timing and the potential for abuse, while still recognising that there may be merit in the idea. My other concern would be reaching a significant portion of the playerbase, regardless of whether we have a council or use the forums. One thing I dont like in many MMOs is that the forums are crowded with naysayers, whining and claims that the game is being destroyed. In actuality its a small group of very vocal players repeatedly posting and not necessarily indicative of the player base as a whole. I would suggest some method of polling through the account (for paying accounts) to get a fairer representation of the opinions of the playerbase and/or crowdforging. Sure there may be a case of players with multiple accounts getting multiple votes (one per account), but theres no real way to avoid that regardless of medium.

Oberyn Corvus, recent member of TSV and been on the boards for a while now. Unfortunately I missed the Kickstarter (still not sure how) but fully intend to jump on the bandwagon once they open it up again. Just started Darkfall to engage with the community in that exercise, but am having some difficulties with the game (dunno if its my setup or the connection), so some troubleshooting is required before I step out into the big bad world :P. Been playing RPGs (PnP and PC) for many many years now, and I thoroughly enjoy the world-building aspect of it in addition to playing.

Guess were going to be having hill dwarves rather than mountain dwarves in that case :D

Looking forward to playing with the Seventh Veil in game. I applied primarily because of the relaxed attitude Ive seen their members display and the really engaging purpose and backstory of TSV. Im hoping to see this exploratory thirst for knowledge show in game in a prominent way. Just have to wait and see now :)

Personally I think were going to be seeing lots of roleplaying characters, not just minmaxers. Then again, I can be a bit overly optimistic about such things, so Ill have to wait and see.

With regards to the crafting, I like the idea of racial variants of gear. Or even keywords that are the exclusive domain of specific race(s). Anything that adds to the breadth and depth of crafting is good IMHO. Imagine needing to learn the best way to fold metal from the dwarves and coupling it with the best way to balance the blade from the elves, etc. However, Im in full agreement that any racial recipes should not be restricted to that race, although members of the same race may get a boost in learning it (easier access, faster time, etc).

Im not sure what the latest stance on character attributes is. Last I read attributes would not affect training time and instead we would be gaining attributes from learning specific skills (e.g. training ranks in stealth would add incremental values to the characters Dex). If thats the case, then a simple solution would be to give each starting character a set amount of xp to spend at creation and access to skills that are flavorful to that race (this is independent of any similar creation xp granted for class selection). This would allow for racial diversity and flavor without being overpowered since those skills are accessible to all.

All in all though I am definitely opposed to static racial bonuses that affect gameplay and cannot be learned in game. Even if the actual gameplay effect is negligible, it still creates the perception of the character being 'sub-par'.

Bluddwolf wrote:

... a player nation could eventually have 9 settlements...

Each Settlement must be within one Alignment Step of the Player Nation...

So, a Player Nation cannot have all 9 Alignment Settlements.

So basically a TN Player Nation seems to have the greatest flexibility (5 possible settlement alignments) but would, presumably, not be able to gain access to the highest level of Paladin training (due to no LG Settlement). I dont think any other class/role would suffer from that as the rest tend to be restricted along an axis and not to a specific alignment (i.e. Barbarians any non-Lawful, Monks any Lawful, etc).

There an another con that you forgot for the barter system (also call troc).

Inflation.

Because ressouces are infinite (more than one person could stach lot of good) The price for a rarer item will be more and more high. Because the common ressources will be more and more available. This is the reason why GW will have a control currency.

From what Ive read, I would expect goods inflation to naturally be countered to some degree by the following:

- 25% destruction on death
- new players selling to NPC vendors (which would more or less remove that item from circulation, assuming that these goods are not available from NPC vendors to begin with)
- 0 durability items being recycled for less than their original 'value' (bit of an assumption on my part here)
- Discovery of new high level schematics which require ever-increasing amounts of these low level items.

Jumping in a bit late, but just wanted to add my voice to the support for the excellent work shown. I especially like the character animation and 'realistic' armor (where realistic means it looks like it actually could stop a sword swing and wouldnt keep getting caught on stuff :P ). Keep up the great work!

I like Deeds and Accolades. Something that youve achieved, not a gold star :P

There are occasionally things that go 'ooh' in game, and those are some of the major aesthetic items (e.g. primary armor, primary weapon, mount). Sometimes its annoying not to be able to get a particularly cool piece of gear. But honestly, whether it came from the cash shop, a grind, an achievement or a raid boss, there are always going to be some elements that Im just not going to be able to get, for one reason or another. Therefore, as long as the availability is impartial, it doesnt break my immersion or start madly raging.

When I talk about impartiality, I mean being consistent in how it is available. If achieving a specific mount took an average of 100 game hours to achieve, that has real value to players. Some of it is epeen, some of it is just wanting to be different than the rest. Should that mount suddenly require less effort to achieve, it has destroyed its value. It doesnt matter if the change was requiring 10 game hours to achieve or 10$ to buy, the value has been significantly reduced.

To illustrate, imagine you bought a house next to a beautiful natural vista such as open fields with copses of trees. Without much warning, that natural vista was removed and turned into a landfill. Whether you bought that house for bragging rights or just because you wanted a nice view, the value of the house is no longer the same. If you doubt that, just ask yourself this: Would I pay the original price (with fields) in the current situation (with landfill)?

Im firmly in the camp of 'cash shop should provide training time and cosmetic items only'. Im particularly averse to the idea of crafting components and items being available in the cash shop.

Given that the PLEX-equivalent can turn $$ into in-game coin, anything can be bought with $$. The real difference is when can those items be acquired (waiting for a crafter to be able to make it available vs logging into the cash shop) and where you can purchase it (im assuming here that cash shop items appear in your inventory once allocated and do not require travel in-game to pick up).

To me, both of those points would appear to detract from the growth of the in-game economy. For example, instead of a CC pushing and supporting their crafters and gatherers to become proficient enough to provide them with the arms and armour they need, theyll just purchase them off the cash shop instead. As for the transportation issue, that may be a problem for scenarios such as banditry (less people traveling to and fro) and wartime (where even a low quality weapon/potion/etc delivered instantly could make a huge difference).

It has been discussed, but without any clear decision (to my knowledge) that resources could possibly be upgraded (e.g. 10 QL1 refined into 1 QL2, etc). I have no idea if this is part of the planned crafting system or not, but if it is then it needs to be taken into account with respect to offering crafting materials on the cash shop.

While I would prefer that even skins are made in-game by crafters, I concede the point that GW needs to sell some stuff through the cash shop. One idea is that the cash shop sells a single use skin for a category of item/building but also sells the plan for a crafter to incorporate that skin in his creations. The crafting recipe would be very expensive in both $$$ and in-game resources (i.e. would probably need CC or settlement support to make it viable).

Id strongly prefer that there be skill involved in setting them up. Setting up a bedroll for the night may not be difficult, but understanding how to set up a camp so that it provides proper shelter/benefits is not so simple.

The benefits each camp provides should be linked to the skill in question as well.

What Id like to know is can a LG settlement train LN and NG buildings/trainers/etc to its highest level or does the alignment of a top-end building/trainer have to match the settlement EXACTLY in order to be built? If the answer is yes, then I dont see much of an issue.

It would also be useful to understand what exactly are the buildings/trainer that are limited by alignment? Beyond the Core Rules specific stuff (LG Paladins, LX Monks, etc), Ive seen some theories and suggestions proposed, but nothing definite.

Between those two points, it may not be as big of an issue as it sounds.

Shopping in several places will lead to more player interaction than standing in one place where you can access everything everywhere without even coming up for air.

In principle, I would agree with that. In the context of an MMO, I think the flaw in the premise is the assumption that out-of-game tools wouldnt be used. It also may not take into account the distances that we are expecting between settlements. As far as i am aware, it is going to take a not-insignificant amount of time to travel between settlements, which would just push players, in my opinion, to relying on alts and/or out-of-game tools.

I would much prefer that there is incentive to keep the entire transaction 'thread' in-game. My preference is for skills that allow for a radius of 'market awareness' (with or without the buying option). Collection and delivery of goods should most certainly be in person or by contracting a third party.

As for justification of these methods, this is a classless game where everyone can train almost any skill and has access to magic items. It is not inconceivable that through some combination of divination spells and magic items that a merchant in Town A is in contact with a merchant in Town B to get the latest prices and demands.

Id be happy to support funding a Foundry option at launch, or soon after, if GW put out the call.

As for NW, Ill keep an eye out for your creations Being and give them a whirl once you put them up.

On the specific point regarding settlement membership, Im in support of keeping the membership open to all.

From a RP point, i find it extremely odd that just because the government of a settlement is of one alignment, that fringe alignments cannot be a citizen (e.g. no NG or CG in a LN settlement). Ive always felt that the government's alignment has more to do with the system in place (law, order, crime, punishment, etc) rather than a 'toe-line-or-be-kicked-out' policy. As an example, I can imagine a LG settlement inviting others to join so that they can redeem the evil or various charitable activities. I can see the alignment restrictions applying to a CC because that is a smaller affair, but not on an entire settlement.

A possible solution is the following:

- A settlements alignment is derived from the alignments of its ruling council (anyone in a defined position of authority that affects the Development Indices). It may change based on the alignments of these individuals.
- A settlement may only sponsor CC's that are within one alignment step of itself (A government is unlikely to support organised groups that are not similar in ideals/objectives)
- Individuals of any alignment may join a settlement

Xp accrual is steady and bought with RL cash or its in-game equivalent (starmetal, etc). So basically training is only a matter of spending that xp at a trainer and paying a cost in either time and/or resources (cash or items).

Mentoring should have an in-game benefit to make it attractive for players to utilise, else people will just use the NPC trainers (barring fringe cases where its more difficult to find an NPC trainer).

Taking into account the earlier comments, I would propose the system works as follows:

Player A (the 'Mentor') must learn a skill, or series of skills, to take an apprentice. Lets call the skill 'Teaching', with successive skills being 'Advanced Teaching' and 'Master Teaching'. Each new level of teaching requires that you reach maximum level in the one(s) before. Each teaching skill allows a certain set or tier of skills to be taught, but at no higher than the current level of the Teaching skill (e.g. cannot teach Basic Mining 4 if you only have Teaching 3). The Mentor must also have the skill at the required level to be taught(i.e. If you want to teach Short Sword 3, you must have Short Sword at 3 or higher). This in effect would allow someone with a maxed skill to pass that skill on to others, assuming they also met the Teaching skill requirements.

Assuming we have three levels of teaching skills (as above) I would propose that a Mentor can only have one Apprentice for each tier of Teaching unlocked (1 at Teaching 1, 2 at Advanced Teaching 1 and 3 at Master Teaching 1). This is to avoid having huge 'classes' of apprentices and diluting the Mentor-Apprentice model.

Mentor training should be faster and/or cheaper than NPC training (as the Mentor has already provided an investment in training the required Teaching skills and is limited in the number of Apprentice's he/she may train). The 'money-sink' would be in the form of items that are consumed upon starting the training (e.g. blank parchment, weapon oil, training sword, etc). These materials should be craftable by appropriately skilled players. If training a skill takes a matter of minutes, then the Mentor and Apprentice need to remain together for the entire period. One leaving the vicinity of the other would pause the training. If training a skill takes many hours then I would propose that the Mentor and Apprentice need to meet periodically to continue the Apprentice's education.

Mentoring an Apprentice should generate reputation for the Mentor.

Hope thats a fairly lucid read :P

Oberyn Corvus wrote:

...And whatever points come up with which I personally disagree Im perfectly willing to give GW the benefit of the doubt and see how things turn out...

If you have concerns with something you see in the design my recommendation is that you should speak up, giving the developer the benefit of the doubt but ensuring they have noticed the possibility you spotted. If you caught sight of a real problem nobody else noticed it is easier to correct early than after launch when players are in an uproar.

By no means am I intending to sit idly by. What I meant was that if, after constructive discussion and analysis, something is decided or announced that I have some reservations about, Im willing to see how the issue plays out.

Welcome aboard Tork!

Ive also got some concerns about the '1 minute capture' mechanic, particularly when taking into account time zones. Even though the PvP window (as clarified in this thread) would allow for the 'beefing up' of NPC guards, Im fully expecting groups to build up enough of a force to attack during those periods simply because AI cannot (as far as I have experienced) be as creative as a skilled player. Which could potentially lead to a game of 'hot potato' where the settlement trades hands in alternating time zones.

It would be particularly useful to understand:

a) How the capture mechanic is initiated (wander up, attack through the keep, etc)
b) How the NPC guards would react to a capture attempt during a 'non-PVP window'
c) If there is a minimum time that must elapse before the settlement can be recaptured (whether by the original owner or a third party)

As far as the DI's go, I really like the different focus each settlement can take and the consequences therein, although i would have expected Clerics to go under Morale and not Security.

I think the weekly design blogs are directly linked to the topics being discussed on the forums. There was a two week argument about assassins and disguise, and then we get a blog post on assassins and disguise. The game designers post on the boards in answer to our questions, and on more than one occasion have changed how something is planned based on community feedback. Just because the polls have stopped, it doesn't mean that there is no community input affecting the game design.

This.

I count myself amongst the latecomers to the scene, but I dont have any particular concerns about the vocal 10% engaged with the developers. My initial concern was that people would be pushing for a simpler 'dumbed down' game. Happily, its become quite clear thats not the case. And whatever points come up with which I personally disagree Im perfectly willing to give GW the benefit of the doubt and see how things turn out. If they continue their current trend, I wouldnt be surprised to see the engagement continue well past OE.

I look at it this way, auction houses should be localized. Reason being, settlements will have a transaction fee, just as they do for selling skill training. It is an added source of settlement revenue, which will help to offset the great expense of building and managing a settlement.

That being said, it is not in the best interests of the individual settlement to set up a system where merchants can even view a regional market. They want things to be sold there. In a kingdom you might see an interconnected trade network because the interest would exist there, and there would likely be a management skill related to that.

Thats a pretty important point actually. Forgot about the settlements taking their cut of the transactions. Down with the Diviners!

As far as AH's go, I can live with the instant sharing of information, as long as the goods dont magically transport (i.e. similar to the EVE system). This is easily explained as divination magic. Sendings, Whispering Wind, Scrying and the like could all account for the information being available. There should be a range limitation in place, but no idea what the appropriate hex-range should be.

There could be a guild of merchants specialised in Divination who provide these services for the NPC towns. For a player settlement to have access to the instant AH/market updates, theyd need to reach a certain point of development to be able to recruit the services of these guild merchants.

As far as formation skills are concerned, I believe they should be trained separately from the weapon skills. It doesnt matter if my character knows Short Sword V, has he trained in its use with with allies pressed up against me limiting my range of movement? Someone with Polearm I and Spearwall Formation V should (in theory) be better in a team context than someone with Polearm V and Spearwall Formation 0.

@Kobold Cleaver: I really like the Anglerfish formation! :P

Im loving the ideas this blog is bringing to mind. I really like the possibility that escalations could become so entrenched (even to the point of forming monster settlements) as to require a 'coalition' to beat it back down into submission. This, along with the stated importance of PVE, should hopefully get the point across that the wilds are indeed dangerous with or without players running around.

I hope that in order to disrupt/defeat an escalation it requires a bit more effort than just killing a moderate number of the monsters in question. Something that would either require a large number of players, an extended amount of effort and/or some completion of specific objectives.

@HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise: I like the option of pre-built versus freeform building and youve listed some good basic layouts.

The key questions are going to be related to how much can a settlement build and can it expand beyond its initial boundaries? If yes, then what skills/developments influence that?

Id be in favor of requiring the settlement leaders to train up several key skill lines to be able to manage the settlement. Some could be optional such as reducing operation/maintenance costs and others could be mandatory such as requiring skills to maintain certain buildings in the settlement.

Id rather not have a portal system in place in general. While there are ways to do it well, it usually breaks 'world-immersion' to one degree or another, with the possible exception of 'ships-as-portals' where you are crossing rivers/seas/oceans to get to another port/harbor.

As far as expansion goes, I think they have some good options available. Ustalav to the west and Galt to the south provide some darker areas to explore with some rockier/mountainous terrain. Razmiran to the southwest and Brevoy to the northeast provide some 'coastal' terrain.

To sum up, Id much rather the map grows organically from its edges, with the possible exception of adding a harbor-to-harbor transit option.

The game looks great, especially for such an early build. Im particularly fond of the goblins screenshot. Keep up the good work GW!

Amwaj, Bahrain

Love the approach taken towards assassination. Its making me rethink my character choices for PFO. Hmmmm..

With respect to the taking/assigning of contracts, my thoughts are as follows:

1. Contracts can only be established by someone with a high enough level in the relevant skills. Setting up contracts takes some experience/skill and shouldnt be easily done by just anyone (excepting perhaps extremely limited ones). To my mind this is especially true for something trickier such as assassination contracts. This also would help differentiate the clientele for assassinations and common thuggery.

2. As has been mentioned previously, assassins need to take their contracts at specified locations and not just 'ringing up' the local 'cleaner'.

3. Contracts should be open for a long period of time to allow for the subterfuge elements to come into play. To balance it, the longer a contract is open, the higher the costs of setting it up and maintaining it with the 'town hall/guildhouse/etc' that posts these contracts.

If nothing else, I hope this post makes you think that just maybe PvP can be done A LOT better than it has been done in the past. And PvP...

Nicely put. Although I dont focus on PvP, I wouldnt play on a PVE server. Its just too tame. No thrill, no risk, nothing.

@Dario: I laughed at that suggestion. We may end up seeing RPed ghosts in game after all :P