Pax Pagan's page

Pax Pagan wrote:

-Aet- Areks wrote:

What Tink said.

Sorry Areks just the way things work I have been Steelwings 2Ic for more years than I care to count and he needed people to come in and be in place in case we joined

To be perfectly honest, Krow and I had conversations about you. There was no evidence to back up our intuition of course, but there were two instances where we both got the same gut feeling. We were content to let things play out and well they have.

Neither you nor I are in the game, but regardless I consider you a friend. Whether or not I trust you as far as I can throw you is another story =)

At the end of the day these are video games. I would like to think we can step outside the game and have friends even if we aren't what we seem in game. I liked people in Pax as people. They are a great bunch. What happens in game is purely in game :)

Good play Pagan and Steelwing. You stepped down well before the game monetized but the TEO spy angle worked perfectly. My inbox was blowing up with accusations, almost all pointed at Areks.

Charlie I enjoyed my time in Pax thanks to all of you and I enjoyed immensely all the games I played with you all such as lotro, tsw and I even hope I helped you all enjoy Eve though that was a problem not to appear to know to much:)

I am sorry I afflicted your inbox on you but at the time I was just doing the job I was here to do. Hopefully you will forgive that as there was no animosity behind it merely playing the meta game.

The reason I agreed to be outed was not to embarrass Pax but because while I no longer feel this is a game for me I would like it to succeed and I wanted to illustrate the lengths people will actually go to for success. The community should look at it as a wakeup call. If the game is successful people will come that will play the metagame just as fast and hard as we have if not more. Especially when you consider we did this not even being sure we would end up playing

What Tink said.

Sorry Areks just the way things work I have been Steelwings 2Ic for more years than I care to count and he needed people to come in and be in place in case we joined

I would add that it was only pfo I was spying for all the other games I played with Pax (and enjoyed as I said you are a great bunch of people) I played straight

As I have been outed(with my permission) sorry Pax guys you are a great bunch and it wasn't personal

I love this. If only Pax/Callambea would allow Free Agents to apply for their city. I really like your focus on Trading and Callambea seems to go strong.

Unfortunately not a fan of the obligatory "post a lot of extremely friendly posts with lots of smilies on our forums so we can count you as one of ours after 2 weeks, even if we forgot about your application and mostly ignored you" application processes that seem to be the thing these days.

Also not a fan of having to make up Haiku's(looking at you T7V)!

I know, I know, it's all friendly banter, well so was this. :)

Sorry guys, did not sleep too well tonight.

The two week period is only for those that wish to be full pax members. Xeilias will be full supportive of sponsored companies who do not wish to be full Pax members. Speak to ambassador Hobs about it

you specifically talked about 6-8 people beating 30 to 40

6-8 is a small squad and is a laughably small number when it comes to formation combat frankly. I would hope formation combat requires at least 20 to 30 people to even become viable as a tactic. But as with the rest of the information on formation combat it is an unknown.

What prompts me to post is your airy assumption it will all be ok because of formation combat.

It is also a stretch to believe that the figures nightdrifter calculated or the formation combat information has not undergone transformation frankly anything over a year old from the blogs is likely to have changed substantially, hell even 6 month old information can barely be regarded as much more than circumstantial evidence.

Pax Pagan wrote:

Speculating on formation warfare, especially when we have had so little information on it except that there is this concept called formation warfare may be previous.

Perhaps to sound a note of caution it may be worth waiting for some sort of blog before we assume it will allow us to lay waste to hordes and leap tall buildings in a single bound.

You're in the Army Now!

And that blog has no figures or anything else to support any of the claims you have been making. It does little more than say there will be formation combat,it will require some training, this is how it may appear mechanically, this is what it is likely to be used for. It gives absolutely no facts nor figures.

From that you get 6 - 8 people defeating 30 or 40 people and small squads being able to fight off the hordes of chaos? I think it is fair enough to call that rampant speculation.

Speculating on formation warfare, especially when we have had so little information on it except that there is this concept called formation warfare may be previous.

Perhaps to sound a note of caution it may be worth waiting for some sort of blog before we assume it will allow us to lay waste to hordes and leap tall buildings in a single bound.

So the one step is for core alignment only and where does that leave the individual character who's core and active are not in sync with each other?

I could see one step having no effect.

Two steps May or may not have an effect.

Three steps probably should have an effect.

Latest statement was they weren't sold on the idea of a penalty for mismatch

Thanks for the clarification Stephen

Pax Pagan wrote:

In deed the Tork shaw quote was from the same time as he was telling us that the one step model wasnt still being used.

Tork didn't say that.

Tork Shaw (Disadvantages for Chaotic Evil) wrote:

The choice of alignment for settlements/VCs is possibly slightly more fluid than simply 1 step. It is possible that we will need to allow a settlement to choose which of the 9 alignments they permit, and to allow them to be much more permissive. I'm still playing with this a bit (as I battle with VC/settlement relationships) but a single step restriction is potentially going to be too harsh - particularly early on in the game's life.

Let me explain it for you....it is obvious from the post I quoted that there was a difference in what they were looking at then for settlement alignment and what they decided on in the end. In short using a quote from a time when the whole question was still up in the air as proof is dubious at best. This is what you did....you took Tork's comment made when he said they were still looking at things and that it disproved what I said about the current blog.

It is not me adding words to the alignment blog that aren't there it is you. Indeed I can already think of several good reasons for settlement alignment not to change due to changes in players active alignment such as the settlement leaders being kicked out purely because a large group gets tangled up in a pvp confrontation that shifts them from lawful to neutral or good to neutral.

Here went looking a few posts above the tork shaw quote you used to say I was wrong he days

ZenPagan wrote:

Tork Shaw wrote:

Settlements and VCs will choose their permitted alignments and there may be many who choose to allow CE players to join.

hmm can you clarify this Tork....currently I think our understanding is that the only settlements that CE can actually join are CN,CE and NE.

The above however sounds almost as if you have ditched the one step alignment requirement for being a member of settlements

Nein. I cannot ;) Well, I can try... The choice of alignment for settlements/VCs is possibly slightly more fluid than simply 1 step. It is possible that we will need to allow a settlement to choose which of the 9 alignments they permit, and to allow them to be much more permissive. I'm still playing with this a bit (as I battle with VC/settlement relationships) but a single step restriction is potentially going to be too harsh - particularly early on in the game's life.

The difficulty with this from a settlement's perspective, however, and the reason they are probably going to want to choose a limited selection of alignments (if they end up with the choice) is that there are factional consequences. A settlement's alignment will CERTAINLY determine the kind of factional alliances and therefore the kind of factional buildings they can have in their settlement. If lets say 40% of the players want to be clerics of Sarenrae (I dont think is the case by the way I'm just using it as an example!) then it makes sense for settlements who want to attract high populations and become centres of trade to build a shrine to Sarenrae - for which there will be settlement alignment requirements.

I think it is fairly obvious that the current alignment blog supersedes this....Indeed you have argued so elsewhere.

@Pax Pagan, I think you may be reading too much into that quote. It sounds to me like they're saying that the only characters who can change the Settlement's Alignment are the leaders, not that that's the only way a Settlement's Alignment can change. Or perhaps you're right and they really did intend to walk back from prior statements. At any rate, I think it's fair to say that a Settlement will suffer in some way if it has a lot of Members with misaligned Active Alignments.

Lee Hammock (Goblinworks Blog: I Can See for Miles) wrote:

Granted the settlement may not want the venture company around long term since it drags down the alignment of the settlement, but short term some warm bodies willing to do terrible things can be really useful.

Tork Shaw (Disadvantages for Chaotic Evil) wrote:

... however they are initially defined, settlement alignment will be affected by membership.

And they have since issued a new blog on alignment in which they make it clear that alignment and reputation have altered in how they want to do things.

In deed the Tork shaw quote was from the same time as he was telling us that the one step model wasnt still being used. I am not going to interpret words that aren't in the latest blog on a subject just because some old material has some differences...especially when it is obvious that they have changed their minds about alignment stuff said at the same time.

Alignment of settlement being altered by its members would be a significant fact. You really think they would leave it out of a blog on alignment?

Of course this could all be the experiment of a Mastermind Merchant with the aim of bending public opinion and actions to his personally profitable Master Plan.... :)

That would indeed be a very evil merchant and as I am sure all us merchants know we are all upstanding pillars of the community and therefore can't possibly be scheming evil masterminds

I actually like the idea of stolen goods being flagged as Stolen Goods. It seems like it would create an opportunity for some merchants to train Fence skills that would allow them to remove/reduce that flag.

I am not concerned about the stolen goods flag merely the convert it to gold at the hideout bit

Bringslite wrote:

Can you actually set at LG and play NE?

Yes, but you'll be dragging down your Settlement's Alignment while doing so, and the leaders will probably tell you to change your ways or leave.

Sorry Nihimon this also appears to be untrue according to the blog

Each settlement has an Alignment that is set by the founding company when the settlement is created. It must be within one Alignment step of the leader of the founding company and the company itself. Once set it can only be changed by leaders of the settlement with sufficient permissions.

The bolded part is the only part of the blog that mentions settlement alignment changing in anyway shape or form

DeciusBrutus wrote:

If the merchant was expecting to sell their cargo at the destination, why shouldn't the bandit (or his fence alt) be able to do the same?

Because that does not have an economic impact on supply, it just changes who is selling it. Plus, the bandit is going to undercut the prices on the market to get a quick fist full of coins, hurting the value of that item on the market.

The point of my idea is to remove the item completely from the market while still transferring some of the value (minus waste of fence) to the bandit.

It also prevents the exploit of SADing your own cargo, because it will be tagged as stolen, and can only be fenced. By tying fencing to hideouts, the system makes the hideout an integral part of banditry and this as I explained above increases the risk to the bandits.

The hideout becomes the equivalent of a free-standing POI, and a potentially very valuable and expensive resource to have to replace.

1) This thread is not about the effects on poor hard done by bandits, there are many threads like that already this is a discussion from the merchant perspective not the bandits or the vigilante

2) Your idea as has been pointed out is exploitable and I can sell rep to bandits

3) Your idea introduces NPC vendors to buy gear which has an impact on the whole market and sets a floor on prices

4) There are only 3 meaningful decisions bandits have to make
a) can I win
b) can I transport the goods I steal
c) can I use or manage to sell what I steal. Your suggestion removes two of these and basically reduces your risk to can I win.

You want easy mode banditry I appreciate but don't expect the rest of us to agree.

Thanks Pagan. I should have reviewed that before I wrote the above.

What will it take to involuntarily change your core? Can you actually set at LG and play NE? It would seem that at some point your core should change.

The blog implies that core alignment is changed purely at the owners behest

Core Alignment is chosen at character creation and is the intended Alignment of the character. It is set at the middle of the ranges for the selected Alignment, so a Lawful Good character will have with 5000 in both Lawful and Good. Core Alignment can be changed by players at any time, but only to match the character's current Active Alignment

If your competition can satisfy the market below your cost, you will go bankrupt regardless of your pricing. "Market value" is simply the price at which the supply and demand are equal (in the vastly simplified model that can be applied to hypothetical situations without details)

No arguments I was merely disputing that shrinkage and transportation is part of deciding what to sell at whereas it is patently a decider for what to make and where to sell it.

Exactly in fact how it works in Eve, my industrialist avoids making certain goods in the region they are based because there is nowhere I can make a decent profit on it. Some goods I make only get sold in certain places due to I can only sell for a profit there.

As I said these factors determine what to make and where to sell not what price to charge. Anyone just going on what it cost me and thats what I will sell at plus 5% will undoubtedly go bust.

Remember that both your core and active alignments must be within one step of your settlement.

Sorry Bringlite that statement according to the blog is incorrect here is the statement where I have bolded the relevant parts

Each settlement has an Alignment that is set by the founding company when the settlement is created. It must be within one Alignment step of the leader of the founding company and the company itself. Once set it can only be changed by leaders of the settlement with sufficient permissions. Only characters within one Alignment step in both their Core and Active Alignment can join the settlement, and if your Core Alignment falls out of that range you are forced out of the settlement.

To summarise what I understand for that

My active and core have to be within one step to join

I can remain a member as long as my core does not deviate

So to use fictional LG settlement I can join as long as my core and active alignments come from the following selection LG,NG,LN

I can remain a member as long as my core remains one of LG,NG,LN even if my active became CE

@ Pagan,

My idea is converting (destroying) the stolen goods, in exchange for a portion of their value (reduced based on % of waste of fencing).

If you claim that this creates a gold faucet, it in fact does, and is no more of one than grinding PVE content for gold. The difference is, PVE grinding for gold, does not at the same time remove items from the market place nor does it give incentive to hire guards.

As you said before, SADs don't remove items from the market so they have no economic impact. My system would provide economic impact, that would benefit the merchants that did not get pulled over by bandits.

Also, by tagging the goods as stolen, the only place to get rid of them would be a hide out. Add to that, if possessing stolen goods is a crime, the 1 copper piece SAD will not be exploited unless it is not against the law or unless the participant is willing to be tagged a Criminal for using the exploit.

It also elevates the hideout to a necessity for a bandit group, increasing their risk. Bandits will never be truly "naked" if they have a hideout that can be discovered, looted, taken over or destroyed.

Bandits will have top consider what they can and can not haul away when they do attack a caravan. They may have to train some of the very same skills that merchants have to operate caravans themselves.

The merchants then gain the "Victimized Flag" that applies to any future bandit (during the 20 minutes), not just those that SAD'd them. Any attack will result in double reputation loss for the attacker, not the original bandits. This way you don't have alts violating your own Victimized Flag to hit the original bandits with a rep hit.

All of this leads to a much more realistic, and meaningful interaction that is the Bandit vs. Merchant interaction.

Because NPC vendors even at a reduced price impact on market economics by setting floors for prices. I said this in my original post. Decius Brutus has said. I have now repeated it.

Anyone who doesn't build shrinkage and transportation losses into their costs and prices will go bankrupt.

What your costs are is largely irrelevant. It is a free market and while you can certainly try to sell for more than the lowest price for that good I don't expect many purchasers taking merchants whining about shrinkage and transport costs into account when making their purchase. Feel free to take the stance that you want more because it cost you that to make it but dont expect many buyers to do much more than go "sorry your point is....him over there is selling for half your price so keep your overpriced junk"

Where shrinkage and transport costs comes into effect is when making the decision on what to make and where to transport it. Not on what you are going to charge for it.

Jazzlvraz wrote:

Wurner wrote:

Any character has access to all her money all the time but is never carrying it on her person, thus not going to lose it upon death.

Thus it's an excellent argument against SADs being in coin; one could never "reverse" the transaction upon bandit-death, if necessity forces you to pay and your friends catch up to them as little as a few minutes later. It'll be bad enough that bandit-death destroys a significant percentage of the payment, but coin would guarantee 100% loss.

If bandits can only get items through SADs it would discourage small-time, independent bandits since I imagine they would have trouble finding a buyer for 100 stolen axe-handles. I guess they could salvage the axe handles for wood and then sell that but that would mean a bandit spends 5% of his time ambushing and 95% salvaging (which may require skills), transporting goods and playing the market. That's not how I envision the bandit life.

Unless you are part of a sponsored bandit group belonging to a settlement or kingdom. Then SADs would be very usable as a means to weaken enemy settlements or to stock up on cheap goods in your own settlement.

I'm all for sponsored bandit groups but I'd hate to see independent banditry being too much of a hassle to bother with.

A small time independent bandit shouldn't be ambushing and looting what he can't get rid of. A hideout will give you access to some information about what the merchant may be carrying. I would expect bandits to look and go "Axe handles? Pah no use maybe we should wait for the next caravan"

Why in addition would bandits be able to only get items with SAD's? They can visit a market and buy the stuff they have been unable to rob.

As to Bluddwolf's suggestion about goods being turned into coin at the hideout frankly a poor idea. The game should have no npc vendor's you can sell things to because it directly impacts on the whole economy by placing a floor on the price of some goods.

Axe handles price have been dropping like a stone....no worries just pm your nearest friendly bandit to goto the npc vendor for you. He gets reputation for the sad and you get more coin than the current market price.

Drakhan Valane wrote:

I don't believe a pre-arranged SAD for 1 Coin in exchange for services is the intended use of the system.

Can be sorted if there is a sink placed in the system. E.g. 10% of the goods/coin extorted/in cargo are destroyed. Can be thought of in terms of damage to the goods due to careless rummaging.

10% of 1 coin would obviously be ridiculous but in combination with a minimum SAD value of, say, 100 coins there will be a loss of at least 10 coin each SAD. Alternatively, if a caravan loses 10% of items carried that might be prohibitive too.

Another way might be to scale the rep bonuses, SAD immunity and other consequences of a successful SAD to both bandit and victim based on the value (either in absolute value or relative to wealth of victim/value of goods transported). An SAD for a small value might have NO effect in terms of rep & buffs etc except for a criminal/attacker flag. A larger SAD might provide some rep gain to the bandit and a period of immunity to new SADs for the victim.

There are many possibilities in the implementation of the systems, maybe GW have something quite different in mind from the way SADs are discussed on these forums.

10% of all goods destroyed just inflates what bandits demand, as a hint I expect the vast majority of goods on the market to have less than a 5% profit margin in a free market. Inflating the value of goods asked for just ends up driving more merchants under the threshold of profitablility.

As to the other part it is no solution and can be easily gained instead I just pay a sad of the size the bandit wants to get his rep gain, say 20000 coins and he immediately turns around and gives me the coin back because of our meta arrangement. Result as far as the system is concerned is a high value SAD

Pax Pagan wrote:

A successful SAD causes no damage nor does it remove any items from circulation by their being destroyed. In many cases the bandits will even disrupt the market by undercutting in order to shift their ill gotten gains more quickly.

I don't think it has been stated whether SADs will be for goods, coin or both.

I still think coin would be the best way to go, or possibly a trade window where the merchant can place both coin and items until the bandit is satisfied. (But in that case I think most bandits will demand only coin anyway so it would be implemented for nothing)

Regardless of whether the SAD is for coin or money it causes nothing to leave the system. Merchants are only advantaged when goods are actually destroyed.

SAD being for money is what bandits would love, nothing to transport when making a getaway and it can't be recovered from them even if you catch up to them.

First of all a happy new year all and as I am heading out for a party after I post this I wont be responding till tomorrow :)

A lot has been said about SAD from the bandits side and the I am good and want to help out side. Time now for a merchants perspective.

I am not really wanting to talk strangely enough about the mechanics but the consequences and the reason I am posting it is to make my fellow merchants think about the SAD consequences more deeply.

here is the kicker for my thinking

A successful SAD, while good for an individual merchant on that one occasion is not good for merchants on the whole! Surprised? You shouldn't be it is simple economics.

Merchants make money by selling items or repairing items. The scarcer the item the more profit that can be made.

A successful SAD causes no damage nor does it remove any items from circulation by their being destroyed. In many cases the bandits will even disrupt the market by undercutting in order to shift their ill gotten gains more quickly.

While painful for the individual merchant at the time making them kill and loot you has the following effects. It removes 25% of the goods from the economy totally therefore inflating the prices a little due to scarcity. Attacking and killing uses consumables again removing them from the economy. Item wear also needs repair bringing us more money.

If prices start to rise in settlements due to banditry you can also be sure those settlements are going to notice and they will then take steps to eliminate the problem.

In the long run I believe we as merchants gain more by saying no to SAD's than we do by kowtowing to bandit tyranny. This then is a call to arms for merchants everywhere. JUST SAY NO!!! Our reward will be higher prices and laughter as the settlements drive the unwashed from the trade routes

The Apprehend and Subdue could be used against someone with the Criminal Flag, that would make it a Lawful Good action.

If the Criminal resists, and the Paladin or enforcer can kill without rep loss but the alignment shift could still be Lawful and Neutral. It could still be a Good act if the criminal also had low rep.

Again, keep the ideas rolling because it would be nice fir those seeking to enforce justice to have the tools to do so.

I didnt think killing someone with the criminal flag resulted in rep or alignment loss anyway

Subdual cannot be at the choice of the one winning the fight. I as a merchant will not be able to fight back easily while at first glance subdual seems something I would want it is only at first glance.

I am killed and looted...I respawn at town where I have access to everything I need to reequip.

I am subdued and looted I am now stuck in the middle of nowhere and have to travel to go reequip.

The only person subdual benefits is the person who doesn't want to get the evil hit for killing. It does nothing for victims whatsoever. You want to attack me fine learn to love the evil shift don't start telling me though that I have to accept being left ill equipped in the middle of nowhere so you get reduced penalties

If there is no suitable settlement to join, then my company is going to have to head to the frontier and start again - and we'll be competing with raw new players. So in a way, it's probably a good design to have my powers cropped for a while - providing some balance on the frontier.

You are very much assuming here that there will always be new places to set up a settlement on the frontier. While Goblinworks havent said anything on the subject except that they do intend to expand the land mass from time to time I personally would expect them to keep the number of settlement hexes a far lower number than the number of player groups looking to set up a settlement.

The reason I think that way is that settlement conflict will be largely driven by scarcity of land and resources. If everyone who wanted to start a settlement could there would be no need for anyone to coalesce into larger groupings.

You'll be able to do basic crafting in NPC settlements. You'll need PC settlements to do anything beyond the basics.

Some basic items can have high quality.

Thank you for the clarification Ryan that is nice and explicit

If crafters could craft high tier gear in NPC settlements, it would not benefit them leaving NPC settlements. PC settlements only real service would then be high tier training. If anything I would like to see those reversed.

Let me get my training from NPC settlements or faction, and I will steal the gear I want.

Neither high level training nor crafting should be available in npc settlements any other way and you end up with the high sec issue and settlements just become the home to PVP'ers and everyone else does become a second class citizen purely because they aren't needed

Pax Pagan wrote:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Pax Pagan wrote:

Ryan's plan to make crafting everything but a few keywords in npc settlements

That's the exact opposite of the plan.

Not according to Ryan Dancey

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

In order to craft quality equipment, the crafter will need to be in a player settlement that is outside of NPC areas.

Probably not corrct. You will probably need PC Settlement resources to access some keywords and use some materials, but you will probably be able to craft high quality stuff in NPC Settlements.

"Everything but a few keywords" is not the same thing as "high quality stuff".

Details are probably still TBD, but I would expect that the set of items that can be crafted in NPC settlements will almost exactly match the set of items that most players consider disposable or easily replaceable.

Go back and read the thread Ryan responded to. It is pretty clear that he is not talking about disposable items only he explicitly says "some keywords and use some materials".

I give credit to Ryan for having sufficient vocabulary that it would include the word most which he could of inserted if that is what he meant.

Ryan clearly says that the items restricted to player settlement only crafting would be some keywords and some materials not most keywords and most materials.

You merely choose to interpret his words to suit how you want the game to be. Me, well when I see the CEO contradict himself seemingly I prefer to ask him to clarify

Pax Pagan wrote:

Ryan's plan to make crafting everything but a few keywords in npc settlements

That's the exact opposite of the plan.

Not according to Ryan Dancey

Imbicatus wrote:

In order to craft quality equipment, the crafter will need to be in a player settlement that is outside of NPC areas.

Probably not corrct. You will probably need PC Settlement resources to access some keywords and use some materials, but you will probably be able to craft high quality stuff in NPC Settlements.

Pax Pagan wrote:

and those in your group would then have higher weighting because they are people you most often do business with

Something like that. Though I am more focused on roles. The system to develop an information-economy is a bigger monster than I really want to take on atm and seeing as the devs are set on MVP anyway for a good stretch.

The central idea I'm working from is say an eg LG HR these players invest into a settlement that improves opportunities for all those players both skills and environment of the game world. That playstyle works that way ideally via alignment/reputation.

Conversely you could have playstyle high pvp that invests in more fun pvp but it lumps you with similar playstyles. This is obvious but worth stating.

I'm currently thinking of roles that improve the gameworld where it's not just about improving at killing. Eg a Paladin "regulates" the pvp'ers ; a "religious Cleric" gifts boons or curses to virtuous or abominable settlements (and their members) that reflects real sentiment in the player base or a contract system with the "trustworthiness" rating that provides diplomatic information gathering opportunities (requires some sort of signed deal skill).

Etc etc. Some of this is clearly undercooked, but it all flits about alignment and reputation and roles and group interactions.

The fear is that competitive gamers will make mince-meat of other playstyles, if there are not enough viable roles that work on the social side of the game. Which is tricky to work into a system without it becoming gamed anyway. Competitive players are good for driving the game but how to attribute "winning points" to players that enhance sociability? Maybe it's impossible.

You only improve the gameworld if what you do as a player assists your settlement to prosper and survive. If what you do is valued by your settlement there will be a place for you. If what you do doesn't help a settlement to survive and prosper then you will find it hard to make a place in a settlement and will find yourself living in the starter settlements.

This is a game of settlement and territorial control. It is down to you as a player to find a way to make yourself useful to a group which will offer you protection. It is not down to the game to create some artificial niche in which you can lodge yourself and get artificial protection.

Harsh? Yes it is harsh but it is also true. I fully hope that crafters, gatherers and merchants will be useful to player settlements which is why I think Ryan's plan to make crafting everything but a few keywords in npc settlements is a bad move for crafters and makes us less useful to settlements. If however it turns out crafters and merchants are not useful to settlements due to game design then I will not sit and ask for new mechanisms I will just shift my attentions to a more useful role for my settlement

and those in your group would then have higher weighting because they are people you most often do business with

It would be a different system (100% player feedback) as opposed to the current Reputation (big R!). "Trustworthiness" would be a more applicable term.

....and therefore a measure of how many people in your group to vote you up.

Hobs, I thought up a real role that is a specialization for social players to be able to rank other players. It was stemming from this conversation and I posted in the other thread on the Alignment wheel by avari3.

It would be interesting for say a Cleric (A man/women of peace) to go from settlement to settlement "judging the purity" of players for the better of the game and being "diplomatic/holy immunity" role-playing this sort of role perhaps...

Could be a powerful force in the world! It was just an idea but it would allow some RP'ers out and about influencing/"infecting" the playerbase.

Trustworthy players will soon get known throughout the river kingdoms due to the overarching metagame. There doesn't need to be any mechanism for this word of mouth will do. If Eve with 500000 subs can have players with sufficient reputation for honesty that they are known throughout the community then I am sure are infant sized community will be able to manage to recognise the trustworthy

Liz Courts wrote:

...Walk away from the keyboard...

NEVER!! **charges back into the Paizo Forums waving his keyboard like a broad sword** =)

Sighs heavily as he digs out his diplomatic toolkit and readies to soothe over the ripples caused by his bosses keyboard wielding rampage muttering under his breath "I know I said use your keyboard when you need to send a message but that wasn't what I meant"

Pagan I don't think there is much of anything that can be done about the plague of negative vitriol we see for every game, no matter what it is. I think the cause is a common psycho-sociological defect in the modern age. You might as well try to prevent road rage.

GW probably has the best answer, which is a very limited, paced rollout. Beyond that, there is not a thing in the world to be done unless we stop amateur sport venues which disallow winning and losing in order to boost the self-esteem of children while preventing any player from earning it. Just for starters.

Yup I agree we can't stop it, I would like to hope we could mitigate it somewhat though.

Pax Morbis wrote:

And as soon as the game shows the slightest bit of potential to turn into the next EvE in terms of competitiveness, anyone who was relevant before that point will be pushed out by others coming into the game with more experience and more people. The people who come before that will hold on through their time based mechanical advantage, but that will be eroded over time, and by my measure that won't save them for long.

I am curious about chartered companies; they will have the ability to move en masse from one settlement to another. Will the companies from early settlements be absorbed into the new settlements in OE?

This would be down to the settlement. There is certainly no onus on settlements to accept companies and indeed some companies may find that no one wants them.

I would imagine on the whole settlements will always be interested in recruiting those they consider decent companies. The divisive one will come however when a company is told we will accept your company but we don't want some of the players in it

As an addendum because rereading it I fear it came off as being negative when I didn't intend it to be.

What I said is what I believe has a good chance of happening which is

Players trying the game without full knowledge then bad mouthing it because the experience wasn't what they expected. It happens to virtually every game these days.

To combat this I think I would like to see

Goblinworks making a real effort to ensure newcomers know what they are getting into game wise before they enter EE

Goblinworks providing some sort of road map for introduction of missing features, not necessarily giving exact dates more an order of progression so people can make informed decisions about when they want to join EE

Goblinworks providing both of these and a clear concise vision of where they see the game going in a linkable format so that we can use them to counter the negativity that the game may garner on other forums.

I also think we as a community have to be aware of how we handle countering points, when I have read comments from game supporters on gamer sites from a neutral perspective I have often found that excessive zeal and fanboy style white knighting actually puts me off the game more than the negative comments of the nay sayers.

No game is perfect, this one will not be either. If we are honest and admit the flaws while pointing out what is being done to remove them then we will do more for promoting the game than by not admitting any flaws

All of the above is my personal opinion and does not reflect on anyone but myself

Pax Pagan wrote:

Alignment limits the training halls that can be built and the level they can operate at

Reputation affects the individuals ability to train to the higher levels even if they have access to a training hall that can provide that higher level training

That's the only part I don't really agree with. That's why you can fudge on killing and still get high level training but can't fudge on chaos without suffering bad training facilities.

I tend to the "I don't believe you should make some alignments automatically worse" school of thought myself. Unfortunately it is not me you need to convince but Ryan

That continues to be my worry. Excessive player killing (evil) does not affect your training like banditry does (chaos).

The lawful evil character can kill players on his lawn with regularity. The CG character can rob them but can't defend his territory.

Chaos is getting the shaft. Even if they PvP by the rules.

Player killing costs reputation though if done outside the strictures of allowbale rep free situations. My understanding is reputation is what knocks your ability to train for six far more.

This is my current understanding

Alignment limits the training halls that can be built and the level they can operate at

Reputation affects the individuals ability to train to the higher levels even if they have access to a training hall that can provide that higher level training

My predictions for EE are that the players that will actually be relevant throughout haven't appeared yet. I believe that the vast majority of the regulars on the boards right now will disappear about a month or two into EE (I tentatively include myself in that.) The culture that emerges from EE will do so organically, counter to anyones attempts mould it beforehand. I don't believe that anyone here will be happy with how the game develops mechanically, however that some people are better equipped than others to deal with that dissatisfaction.

And as soon as the game shows the slightest bit of potential to turn into the next EvE in terms of competitiveness, anyone who was relevant before that point will be pushed out by others coming into the game with more experience and more people. The people who come before that will hold on through their time based mechanical advantage, but that will be eroded over time, and by my measure that won't save them for long.

While I agree with most of what Morbis says above I would add an extra worry in.

During EE the game is going to be pretty sparse in implementation, yes I am aware it will improve during the period but even near OE we are only going to be starting to see the major systems such as settlements etc. The worry then is will the game be able to attract new blood during that time or will it be limited to the kickstarters and second chancers? A group which as Morbis notes we can expect to have a certain attrition rate during EE. I would not be surprised certainly to see a lot of negative press on other sites such as mmorpg from outsiders trying the game in EE and not appreciating its lack of systems.

Age of Conan is an example of a game that got hugely negative press, deservedly if we are honest, once that flood was out there it never recovered.

I know many will say 'but we expected MVP' yes kickstarters did. Joe Random hearing about the game and deciding to give it a try isn't necessarily going to do much more than read the What pathfinder is about blurb and not read widely enough to know about MVP all they will know is the game seems under developed and is charging them a full price sub.

I bet the guys who managed to get funding for this research could sell it....or anything else come to that

unexpected deficiency

Camelot Unchained Drakhan

Sitting in a chair and writing notes in a book or scroll seem so .... unimaginative.

I can't say that in close to 30 years of playing roleplaying games I've ever thought "the best part of that session was when I sat in a chair".

If you came to me in 1990 and said "imagine you're playing a shared world game with thousands of other people in a detailed 3D virtual fantasy world - tell me what you would want to be able to do in that world that would be meaningful to you as a way of developing your character" I can guarantee you "sit in a chair" was not going to be on the list.

Perhaps what people are telling you is they prefer to keep their imagination for the big things and think the small everyday things aren't what they should need to imagine

From what I'm seeing, it seems like most of the self-identified "Roleplayers" want commands and animations of a similar number and technological nature to the commands and animations available to PvP players, but with the meaningfulness of those actions not being server-mediated.

Am I mostly correct in that?

I don't think you are

The only animation I think rp'ers have asked for is sitting in a chair.

custom emotes I think most aren't expecting anymore than any game gives them which is a line of text coming up along the lines of

Pagan takes a long drag from his cigar.

I do expect the built in emotes may well have animations as well but they are generally no where near the complexity of combat animations and certainly the number of built in emotes doesn't have to be extensive at least to start with.

Frankly I do not understand the point of view of some here who are arguing that RP should not get any support because rp'ers can use their imagination. Surely that applies to PVP or PVE just as strongly and there is no need for combat animations at all as you can imagine your character swinging the sword and the resultant splatter of gore. All the game needs to do is let you indicate which skill you are using and tell you the result. This is patently a silly argument when applied to PVP or PVE and is just as silly when applied to RP.

The reason for the game to support animations to indicate what is happening for all three are the same. It aids immersion in the world and immersion in a believable world aids player retention.

Do we have a topic for tomorrow?