Qallz's page

What are we paying you for?

Proxima Sin wrote:

Since I'm assuming land rush leaders for each spot will be public knowledge during LR2, where do you guys want Aragon to be?

There are several locations we are considering, each spot has their own merits and pitfalls.

North!

Sounds like North is where my prey is. I shall answer your call Andius! North!

Qallz wrote:

Mbando wrote:

Hi Hobbs! I wasn't gone, and I'm not back. I don't think the moderation policies at these boards are well-thought out or effective, and so I don't choose to generate content here. I'm hoping we get new boards soon, so that I can contribute my little 2 cents in a useful way :)

Generate content. lol.

I can think of a few posters who genuinely do. In particular one who has done this consistently and then not participated once that has been done achieved.

Just to add that is.

I don't know what any of this means, but I'm way over my post quota.

Hi Hobbs! I wasn't gone, and I'm not back. I don't think the moderation policies at these boards are well-thought out or effective, and so I don't choose to generate content here. I'm hoping we get new boards soon, so that I can contribute my little 2 cents in a useful way :)

Generate content. lol.

What are the issues that are bugging people about the UNC policies as they have been explained, many times now?

I don't wanna get wobbed!!!!

/woeisme

Well said Valkenr. PvP also increases the danger of gathering and transporting resources... with increased danger, you have more valuable resources, and thus, you can earn more money from them... enough to hire the honest protection you need from honourable mercenaries/protectors.

It's a nice feeling going through a dangerous area surrounded by people who're protecting you. It gives the non-PvP'ers a fun sense of danger... and, since they're gathering resources, they can afford to hire the help while providing jobs for those who wish to PvP on the side of light, (or the side of honest profit, as the case may be).

3. Although our focus is in recruiting PVP oriented players, we are by no means exclusively recruiting from that pool. PVE focused players are also welcome and needed.

FOR SHAME, Bluddwolf, FOR SHAME

@ Nevy

I think that I grok what you are getting at. Not speaking for Bluddwolf, but my impression is that the discord around some of his posts doesn't really bother him all that much. Certainly not as much as it annoys those that read through it all of the time.

Someone had to fill my shoes. OK, there's my daily post. Goodbye.

A WHOLE THREAD TO BAG ON UNC?? QALLZ THE INSATIABLE DEMANDS MOAR PVP!!!

Ragnar Danneskjold

If we cannot get people to engage in meaningful PvP and they simply insist on treating the game like a murder simulator, we'll have to impose restrictions on where and when PvP can occur. But there's no design or plan for that because I don't think we'll need one.

No offense, though I think people in general are underestimating the power of incentive. People will engage in meaningful activities (PvP included) if they have an incentive to. Even if there are absolutely no restrictions on PvP.

Qallz out.

Yea, that question was really directed at Ryan. Thanks though, I'll pretend that allowing FFA PvP even when people are motivated to engage in the "desired" forms of PvP and game-building would somehow magically turn the game into a "Murder simulator" which would indicate that my question was answered (even though we both know it wasn't).

TBH, I'm not really that worried about the "combat lobby" concerns. Long term, the game either establishes that PvP can be implemented without becoming degenerate, or it can't. No amount of hand waving by us at this point is going to convince anyone otherwise.

@Ryan - Assuming it can't, what's Plan B? Are you going to shut off PvP entirely, or, just remove the Reputation system and let people have the pure PvP freedom?

How can the game possibly work with NO PvP, if that's the solution?

I thought this post was going to be about the Elder Scrolls Online development process.

Who's sexay? You look like a boy.

You look like a cartoon.

Welcome back Qallz. :)

Not back, just popping my head in to make sure no one steals muh sexay Avatar. lol

"Never attempt to win by force, what can be won by deception."
- Niccolo Machiavelli

P.S Great read! Thanks Ryan. :D

So, if you want to play Sorcerer, it's best to play a weak, watered down Wizzie during Early Enrollment? lol

Pfft.

Wizard's Tower is one that strikes me as a good inclusion in either the settlement structure or PoI area. Of course, with different wizard's towers having the option to specialize the school of magic they teach.

Let's tear down that Wizard's Tower and throw up a Sorcerer's Mansion plz.

A Hospital. A place for the Healer to heal the wounded. A distinctive landmark that might become a known refuge for those who are in need.

Possibly a necromancer's haunt that appears to be a hospital.

In a place of Divine Magic, I think there would be Church's instead of hospitals. If people can cast a spell to heal wounds, it doesn't make sense to try and heal them by mundane means.

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Stephen Cheney

Is there any reputation implications of raiding outposts?

@ Tork Shaw if Stephen Cheney doesn't answer the above question... Could you also let us know if there are alignment shifts as well? (this question also applies to @Stephen Cheney if @Tork Shaw doesn't get around to answering said question)...

@ Any Dev ...Could we get an answer to these All-important questions please:

1) Does raiding an outpost not belonging to a faction your at war or feuding with change alignment, and if so how?

2) Does it shift Reputation? And if so how?

220 settlements is certainly a few more than 15...

If my calculations are correct, then yes, it is.

I don't think the ability score requirements of crafting skills will be such that it is possible to make a character who trains nothing but crafting skills.

Are you saying Crafting can't make you Wise Decius Biggus?

Bluddwolf wrote:

I have not seen any compelling reason to believe that settlements won't be Lawful of some kind. There is no downside for crafters in being Lawful, what could possibly be the use of being chaotic as a crafter?

As I stated earlier, any LN, LG or NG settlements will have (exclusively) LG merchants. Why wouldn't they? That alignment will pass on maximum penalties of alignment shift to anyone killing them outside of non alignment shifting means.

Because not everyone who crafts is strictly a crafter who only min-maxes crafting.

It'll make sense to have dedicated crafting toons, so yea.

Sounds like this game will start with roughly 12,000 places to build outposts so that sounds very achievable to me.

Not even close. There's only 2 outposts location per Wilderness hex. That means there would have to be 6k Wilderness Hexes at the start of EE.

@ Stephen Cheney

Is there any reputation implications of raiding outposts?

@ Tork Shaw if Stephen Cheney doesn't answer the above question... Could you also let us know if there are alignment shifts as well? (this question also applies to @Stephen Cheney if @Tork Shaw doesn't get around to answering said question)...

Vwoom wrote:

@Steelwing

I suspect the 15 settlements number is, or was a rough minimum to support the 9362ish people that will be in EE but I am doing rough math and guessing a little.

Yes I know what the kickstarter number is and I know they expect that number to be bigger by OE. I estimated maybe 15000 based on Eve graphs in one of the threads around here.

The question still remains why the shift from 15 to 200+ when those numbers and estimates on their side havent changed. I don't think my assumption is unreasonable and all they have to do is respond that it is not the reason.

I think you may be confusing EE #'s with OE. There won't be 220 Settlement hexes in EE, that's OE.

They split each Hex into 7, so likely, that means there's 7x as many Settlement hexes... which means for EE, we likely went from 15 to about 75. Not 15 to 220.

It's just that that 220 number seems really high to me, for the map area that we have seen. Maybe it's just because the perspective of the fly-over was weird.

They broke each hex on that map into 7 hexes.

Edit: See Harad's Unofficial map above. Pretty good.

Andius wrote:

All good news.

My only point of concern is if all outpost raids give the criminal flag will all outpost raids move you toward chaotic? Not a problem for me, but I'd like to see this not be the case when part of an official war or feud.

Yeh I totally forgot to include this in the blog - my bad. It was in the previous outline of raids but I forgot to carry it over. If you are at war with a company who own a PoI, Outpost, or Settlement, you can raid their affiliated Outposts without getting the criminal flag.

Otherwise you'll become more Chaotic?? Also what happens to your Rep? Would it be affected either way?

@Qallz My rough sketch on a piece of hex pad says about 1 per 3 settlements; about 70-80?

No, cuz I think the map is 50x50 isn't it? Or am I wrong about that? I also didn't factor in NPC hexes, but I'm pretty sure there won't be too many. So maybe 250 Monster hexes?

So maybe the same amount as Settlement hexes? My math could be way off here. I don't have all the facts...

Numbers are subject to change as we build out the map, but 2000 PoI hexes is slightly rounded up and number of settlement hexes is around 220, such that if every single settlement played nice and tried to distribute them as evenly as possible (hah!), each settlement would sponsor 8-9 PoIs.

And how many Monster hexes then?

Edit: Wow. According to my rough estimate, that's ~300 Monster hexes. Does that sound about right? I guess there's going to be more Monster hexes than Settlement hexes it would seem.

All good news.

My only point of concern is if all outpost raids give the criminal flag will all outpost raids move you toward chaotic? Not a problem for me, but I'd like to see this not be the case when part of an official war or feud.

Have to agree with Andius here. Can we get an answer to this?

I think if Criminal flags are activated and make people more chaotic, it'll be nearly impossible for Lawful, or even Neutral (LvC) settlements to compete on a large scale, without being heavily dependent on smaller Choatic companies to raid and steal Outposts.

"Bluddwolf" wrote:

One of my favorite tricks was to go to a jet can and instead of take ore out, I would but a small amount of ore in. Then when the hauler returns and scoops up the rest of the can, he would go "red flashy" for my part of the ore and he was legit target.

This is a common tactic. How revealing that you should use it...

Would you care to explain for the sake of the audience, factoring the time it took to find someone who would fall for this, waiting for them to actually grab the ore, and the fact their ship and most of their modules would be destroyed, how profitable of a tactic this was compared to mission running or mining?

Provided the obvious answer that you weren't doing it for the profits would you care to explain why you used this tactic that mainly hurt newbs who didn't know better rather than engaging in piracy against more challenging and prepared targets in low/null sec?

I dare say no one on these forums enjoys hurting people more than you, Andius. You just tend to want to do it in such a way that allows you to justify it to yourself as being the "good guy". But, hurting people, that's what you really love, isn't it? At least that's what I gather from reading most of your posts.

Qallz wrote:

ESO is a joke, and will fail. They keep inviting me to their stupid beta, it's like they're begging me to come in.

The problem, however, isn't that they made it a sub game, it was a sub game from day one when Matt Firor kept saying it would be "Premium". People kept saying "well, we don't know for sure it will be sub-game", and I was like *rolls eyes*. And... sure enough.

The PROBLEM, was them making it a sub game from the start, and then bending to a whole bunch of self-entitled whiners on their forums who played the Single-Player ES games, and wanted a completely different game than they were offering.

So, they CHANGED the game to suit their needs, and made it more like their regular single-player TES games, and then once that happened, people were expecting that it wouldn't be a sub game, just like the other single-player TES games they've played. Originally, it was never like those games, it was more akin to DAoC.

Then they destroyed it. I just hope it causes Zenimax to go bankrupt, and no mroe single player TES games are made. That way I can look at all the Single-Player TES fans who worked to destroy the game with a big smile on my face, and say, "Mission Accomplished". :)

ah, yes, nothing like watching thousands of people lose their livelihoods so one can say "told you so" on the internet. Burn baby, burn.

I kid, but in part you are right, ESO kinda deserves to fail.

I was hoping there would be a few of us, and we'd say, "mission accomplished". I already got the opportunity to say "told you so". But yea, I agree, it would be totally worth it. :D

ESO is a joke, and will fail. They keep inviting me to their stupid beta, it's like they're begging me to come in.

The problem, however, isn't that they made it a sub game, it was a sub game from day one when Matt Firor kept saying it would be "Premium". People kept saying "well, we don't know for sure it will be sub-game", and I was like *rolls eyes*. And... sure enough.

The PROBLEM, was them making it a sub game from the start, and then bending to a whole bunch of self-entitled whiners on their forums who played the Single-Player ES games, and wanted a completely different game than they were offering.

So, they CHANGED the game to suit their needs, and made it more like their regular single-player TES games, and then once that happened, people were expecting that it wouldn't be a sub game, just like the other single-player TES games they've played. Originally, it was never like those games, it was more akin to DAoC.

Then they destroyed it. I just hope it causes Zenimax to go bankrupt, and no mroe single player TES games are made. That way I can look at all the Single-Player TES fans who worked to destroy the game with a big smile on my face, and say, "Mission Accomplished". :)

pink parasols and drink Mead from a boot which will have to be orange or maybe purple.

Drink Mead from a Das Boot?

A few changes I would like to see with SAD:

1. The "Fleeced Flag" should not allow any other to SAD or Ambush the merchant for the duration of the flag.

2. Whomever violates the flag gets the double reputation hit.

3. The amount the merchant was fleeced for should be visible upon inspection.

4. SADs can not be issued against members of same company, settlement or kingdom.

If you're referring to the Victimized flag, the first two are already in effect.

Everything is not as it seems but this is what Harad and Quzon mean, starting at 1:00.

Fixed.

<click> darn, premature click.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yop62wQH498

Qallz wrote:

Steelwing wrote:

Qallz wrote:

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

@Qallz, good point, I was making a total assumption there. However, who needs the highest tier crafting in a settlement that can't even effectively use the items you'd produce with it?

Example: You can make up to q300 swords. The vast majority of your settlement, full of CG players, can only use up to q275 gear. Why would you spend extra resources to make q300 blades when your buyers will want the cheaper q275?

If they do restrict crafter training by settlement alignment, that will mean all the people who are in it only to "make the best swords ever" will be LG. The people looking to maximize their profits will go where the money is.

If all the best crafters and combat-focused players get big advantages like that for playing LG, the game will devolve into a two faction game: LG vs. CE. LG will win of course, turning it into a one-faction game where everyone holds hands and never ride their horses over the speed limit.

As most people who end up playing this will not care about alignment except which is most advantageous I see no reason to suspect so. Wars will be fought mostly for other reasons than alignment because most people will not be role players that end up playing frankly most won't even have a clue that there is even a table top version. It will merely be use the mechanics to the best effect to fight for domination

I was talking more about Rep than alignment, though the two seem to go hand and hand according to Ryan Dancey.

Reputation is largely irrelevant there appears to be plenty of ways to kill who you want when you want without needing to worry about it from our point of view. My only concern about either system is gating of skills potentially.

Once in game I believe from everything that has been said that a group like mine can just ignore them because they won't be an issue

Yea, reputation is totally irrelevant, unless you want to not suck.

Qallz wrote:

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

@Qallz, good point, I was making a total assumption there. However, who needs the highest tier crafting in a settlement that can't even effectively use the items you'd produce with it?

Example: You can make up to q300 swords. The vast majority of your settlement, full of CG players, can only use up to q275 gear. Why would you spend extra resources to make q300 blades when your buyers will want the cheaper q275?

If they do restrict crafter training by settlement alignment, that will mean all the people who are in it only to "make the best swords ever" will be LG. The people looking to maximize their profits will go where the money is.

If all the best crafters and combat-focused players get big advantages like that for playing LG, the game will devolve into a two faction game: LG vs. CE. LG will win of course, turning it into a one-faction game where everyone holds hands and never ride their horses over the speed limit.

As most people who end up playing this will not care about alignment except which is most advantageous I see no reason to suspect so. Wars will be fought mostly for other reasons than alignment because most people will not be role players that end up playing frankly most won't even have a clue that there is even a table top version. It will merely be use the mechanics to the best effect to fight for domination

I was talking more about Rep than alignment, though the two seem to go hand and hand according to Ryan Dancey.

@Qallz, good point, I was making a total assumption there. However, who needs the highest tier crafting in a settlement that can't even effectively use the items you'd produce with it?

Example: You can make up to q300 swords. The vast majority of your settlement, full of CG players, can only use up to q275 gear. Why would you spend extra resources to make q300 blades when your buyers will want the cheaper q275?

If they do restrict crafter training by settlement alignment, that will mean all the people who are in it only to "make the best swords ever" will be LG. The people looking to maximize their profits will go where the money is.

If all the best crafters and combat-focused players get big advantages like that for playing LG, the game will devolve into a two faction game: LG vs. CE. LG will win of course, turning it into a one-faction game where everyone holds hands and never ride their horses over the speed limit.

I don't think all crafters will be LG.

The main benefit to LG is increased combat power through superior training.

They said the training will be superior in LG/High Rep settlements, but they didn't specify "combat" training. I think if crafters benefit from joining LG settlements, it's going to be a VERY boring game.

I'm sorry, after watching the After Ever After YouTube video, I just can't hear Disney songs the same way. Especially "Colors of the Wind."

OMG, that was hilarious, thanks for posting.

I've spoken opposition from that to the start and I'm still kind of behind that opposition.

Say Brighthaven, Phaeros, Callambea, Golgotha etc. are scattered all over the map. Pax is having a war with Shadowy Fiends From EVE. Shadowy Fiends From EVE lays siege to Callambea.

Within 20 minutes of that siege being laid armies from every major faction show up to support the sides they want to see win, or scroach the siege (Hang around and attack either side if they present a weakness to get their gear.)

I just really don't want to see that happen here.

If there's no lax on the Rep system during open PvP windows around a Settlement, sadly, this couldn't happen anyways (making Settlement warfare a back and forth endeavor see: Pong).

However, I have to agree that any type of fast travel that allows people to send rapid reinforcements is essentially a game destroyer. The only exception to the rule, naturally, would be very high level and dedicated Sorcs/Wizards with a teleport spell. Teleport being so integral to D&D, I would think that if someone spends 18 months dedicated to a Sorcerer or Wizard role, they'd have that ability. Otherwise I'd agree.

I've always had the impression that Caravans would utilize Fast Travel. This doesn't say it outright, but seems to hint that a Teamster would be able to develop skills to increase travel speed.

Caravans, using fast travel? That seems pretty reasonable.

look! a frost troll! kill it with fire and acid.

No, I wouldn't say you're a frost troll. Just a regular troll.

Though neutral should have something of their own... but what?

OAR: Observe And Report