Rynnik's page

53 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Shop smart, shop Stache!


Tharak Venethorn wrote:

I cannot name any grounds on which PFO could possibly be considered better than DFU/DFO or MO.

Both games offer maps with a wide variety of visual appearance to areas, some of them very impressive like the floating elven city in DFO or the massive/ornate tunnel though the mountain in the middle of nowhere in Mortal.

PFO, not so much, and none of it looks very impressive.

People may sometimes feel abused during PvP in Mortal and DFO but at least there IS PvP... and people. Not only that but with real loot drop (the kind where you couldn't just bank your inventory before PvP to negate all real losses) and actual territorial control there was meaningful PvP too.

Mortal had the best animal taming and breeding system I've ever seen. Darkfall Unholy War's naval combat is the best out there period. PFO has.... a crafting system prettymuch ripped of directly from EVE?

Wurm is hands down the best fantasy sandbox until LiF and CF are more ready, and it's F2P w/ 15 Euros per TWO months for premium. Unlike PFO LiF and CF have enough people still behind them to actually become something someday.

To each their own and my post can be read as 'for me'. But it really isn't a competition at all.

Wurm isn't designed around inter-player conflict. Darkfall has no economy. MO is even buggier then PFO, the skill system is awful, and its f2p model sucks.

For single shard, economically driven, one-character can do anything games you have this one and EVE Online and my spaceship flying days are over.

PFO is a wonderful start to a game with an empty market niche and all the potential in the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder online is the best fantasy sandbox game on the market right now (okay, okay it isn't all that amazing to beat out Darkfall and Mortal but there you go) and it is getting better with each patch. There isn't a lot out there right now that is released and anywhere near this much fun.

Best way I can find to spend $15 a month.


I have a 15 day trial buddy key available for you so you can sell YOURSELF on it without financial investment. PM me an email address or just straight use the code I just sent you as per this blog: https://goblinworks.com/blog/introducing-free-to-play-trial-accounts-and-th e-buddy-program/


Yup, that looks awesome! Nice work folks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
<Kabal> Daeglin wrote:
I can't believe this thread is still going. Somebody call the dead horse guy.

I can't wait to necro it in a few months. lol


Tharak Venethorn wrote:
Ah so you are retaining that part. Is it your belief that all, or even the majority of players that will come into your territory to adventure and gather read the forums enough to be aware of these borders that exist only as lines on the forums and rules only laid out on the forums?

Aragon

So they tell the offending player to come read the forums after warning them? UNC

Aragonian Council

Individual members of listed associations.

Bluddwolf wrote:

Edit: I will now take my leave of this thread, please do not drag me back in with mentions of Aragon, Aragonian Council, UNC or any individual member of listed associations.

*cough*


Nihimon wrote:
It is very regrettable that a communication breakdown allowed Golgotha to assume that Phaeros was a party to that agreement. Perhaps we can all learn a lesson from this.

It was a good post on GW dude.

And miscommunications always suck and can never be 100% blamed on either party. Takes two to tango as the saying goes.

That said Phaeros in no way had to be PARTY to an agreement to be able to UNDERSTAND it and draw a line saying if we do 'A' it will have 'B' effect.

Won't kill gatherers if you don't take towers doesn't leave a lot of reaction wiggle room when a tower goes down does it?


DeciusBrutus wrote:
What did you think the point of taking the tower was?

To get us to kill your gatherers?

I mean that is what any reasonable person would assume knowing the in-place deal you disrupted between EoX and your ally TEO.


Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:
Rynnik wrote:
Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
Flynn Pontis wrote:
Gaskon I don't know what you can't understand about the story here.

I guess what I don't understand is why Golgotha chose to escalate from "we lost one tower" directly to "We kill all Phaeros members."

...

I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.

Out of curiosity, what would you (or anyone) feel is an appropriate response to hostilities as defined below -- specifically (as in this case) someone attacked escalations and establishing a holding in declared territory?

TEO Cheatle wrote:


The EBA has established our borders, shown on the following map, for resource, escalation, and holding claims. We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership.

Is anyone suggesting the EBA (of which Phaeros is a member) does not have a right to respond to acts of hostility?

Is this game about territorial control?

Finally, in the name of being constructive, assuming no one is objecting to Settlements/Alliances/Kingdoms defending their territory, what would be an appropriate way to address the actions of rogue companies? Is there any agreement as to whether settlements should or should not be be held accountable for the actions of companies they agree to sponsor?

How about in ways that don't break the arrangements or agreements political affiliates have made?

Did the agreement or arrangement in question offer permission to harvest resources, attack escalations, and/or establish holdings in EBA territory? If not, can you offer the details of the arrangement so I can understand how it trumped EBA sovereignty?

Sure.

No Golgothan Towers = no EBA towers or hunting for PvP on EBA 'territory'

We didn't take your towers or instigate non-consensual PvP in your lands. In exchange we kept our own towers (Hey, we gave you two things for one - damn we are reasonable).

Everything else fell in into the category of skirmishable offenses and things that may, you know, create content for each other and allow some force vs force fun (think the great Ogg escalation fight we had 3 hexes south of KB, that was so much fun) without going for each others throat with the two things that were banned: towers and your gatherers (not ours btw - PLEASE come kill some Golgothan harvesters).

You then attacked a tower.


Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
Flynn Pontis wrote:
Gaskon I don't know what you can't understand about the story here.

I guess what I don't understand is why Golgotha chose to escalate from "we lost one tower" directly to "We kill all Phaeros members."

...

I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.

Out of curiosity, what would you (or anyone) feel is an appropriate response to hostilities as defined below -- specifically (as in this case) someone attacked escalations and establishing a holding in declared territory?

TEO Cheatle wrote:


The EBA has established our borders, shown on the following map, for resource, escalation, and holding claims. We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership.

Is anyone suggesting the EBA (of which Phaeros is a member) does not have a right to respond to acts of hostility?

Is this game about territorial control?

Finally, in the name of being constructive, assuming no one is objecting to Settlements/Alliances/Kingdoms defending their territory, what would be an appropriate way to address the actions of rogue companies? Is there any agreement as to whether settlements should or should not be be held accountable for the actions of companies they agree to sponsor?

How about in ways that don't break the arrangements or agreements political affiliates have made?


Gaskon wrote:
Rynnik wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.
How is that appetizing if you want to avoid ever fighting at a tower ever because it isn't fun?

Gatherers have whole lists of unappetizing things they have to do to avoid PVP they don't like.

And people that don't thrill over freestyle PVP get told that this isn't the game for them.

So... suck it up and take the towers back, even if its not fun?

Or ignore the tower wars and have your training capped at 9?

Don't play until more enjoyable PVP systems are implemented?

Or...

Do exactly what we are doing.


Gaskon wrote:
I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.

How is that appetizing if you want to avoid ever fighting at a tower ever because it isn't fun?


Gaskon wrote:
Pretty sure neither of those versions included allowing Golgotha to go kill people in hexes adjacent to Phaeros.

Why would you be sure of that? It came out as a he said/she said where one party said exactly that. It was resolved privately and admitted afterwards that it WAS in fact a genuine misunderstanding.


Gaskon wrote:
and somehow Golgotha thought that wouldn't be considered war by the rest of the EBA.

Due to an arrangement exactly to that effect that was the subject of an already hashed out misunderstanding - you have been posting throughout this entire thread. Have you not being reading as well?


Gol Phyllain wrote:
Rynnik he is just going to say that he didn't have a deal with us and damn the rest of the EBA's diplomatic stance.

Very true, boss.

But credit where it is due I respect Nihimon for admitting the actual circumstances with Phaeros aggression being the instigator in this war and the breaking of the agreement not with them but with their allies.

Especially in the face of them knowing that our unmolested towers was the conditional for gatherer 'peace' in the SE as it was the only way we could reasonably protect our training (which of course I respect that you have told us to 'suck up' and forgo) from much larger forces. The only way Phaeros could even say they didn't do this with the expectation of us having to murder their citizens is if they say they didn't even know the deal existed... And they have of course already done that.

Gol Phyllain wrote:
And to be fair to him, he did not have a deal about towers with us. I made the mistake of assuming the deal I negotiated was with all of the EBA and not just one of the cities.

I think that is why Nihimon's post impressed me. You have of course been very upfront about admitting your mistakes. I think Nihimon is the only one from Phaeros I have ever seen do that and he deserves a lot of credit for that.


Nihimon wrote:
We took one Tower from AGC because they were deliberately provoking us

At least you are admitting now that you broke the agreement between Golgotha and your political affiliates despite Golgotha respecting the terms exactly.

That is a small step but important I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Try to act in good faith.

Good faith?

Like people from Phaeros trying to tell new players in general chat that there is not a war ongoing in the SE last night? Purposely putting new players who may NOT be aware of the ongoing situation in harms way for the sake of political posturing? THAT sort of good faith?

Because that is pretty lame and if Phaeros can't even set aside political perspective long enough to be honest and helpful with new players I don't want any of your brand of 'good faith'.


DeciusBrutus wrote:
If your members and leadership abide by a policy of not griefing in the territory of foreign powers

Golgotha doesn't grief ANYWHERE.

Please watch the language you choose to employ.


Stu1234 wrote:
If anyone has an code I'd like to try the game out. Please email me. Thanks.

pm sent with a code, enjoy your trial


Versai wrote:
Rynnik wrote:
Versai wrote:

If you still have an invite available...I would love to try the game out.

Sent
Thank you!

Very welcome!

I highly reccomend the subject organization for answers when the inevitable questions pop up. Set aside preconceived notions as things aren't entirely intuitive but are very rewarding once you start to see how things work or will work eventually.

Tyranius wrote:
I would like to try

Also sent.


Versai wrote:

If you still have an invite available...I would love to try the game out.

Sent


Bluddwolf wrote:
The consumer dictates what is "minimally viable", not Goblin Works or Ryan Dancey. Every individual consumer will judge what that means for themselves.

Yup, exactly right. And what the old salt seems to be ignoring or flat out unable to see is the way, from a player perspective, the game is growing nicely. New recruits every day, turn around in new player organizations and new names in general chat every log in.

Slow steady growth is what is going to keep PFO in there for the long haul and by every actual metric they are achieving that right now.


AvenaOats wrote:
Anyway, I'm not a game-designer

That is readily apparent in every post you make.


Mistwalker wrote:
Rynnik wrote:
I get it. Your messaging is very clear, but if you want to launch a Golgotha smear campaign you should be meticulously clear on your details. Why would anyone place credibility in what you stated after when your first few phrases contradict themselves?

Then I haven't been clear, as it has never been my intention of doing a smear campaign. I was addressing the issue that Savage Grace raised in the first post in this thread.

Mistwalker wrote:
yet rarely do I see Golgothans fight with even odds

This was in my first post in the thread. I will admit that when I responded to the comments from Phyllain, Tink and Savage Grace, that I should have stated that I have only seen it once.

Rynnik wrote:
At the end of the day Stoneroot's impression of Golgotha is irrelevant. You have MADE it irrelevant.

I do not speak for Stoneroot. I am not an officer in Stoneroot, nor am I one of the leaders. My statements are my own.

It is unfortunate that my comments have raised your ire, as it was not my intention. I have found your comments to new players in "General" to be helpful and have a fair bit of respect for you for that.

Honestly, no personal ire at all mate. You are talking to the same guy that that loves to help new players and wants to teach at PFU someday. That said lets not beat around the bush okay?

Mistwalker wrote:


Or expanded on the fact that it left the impression that as Stoneroot had come out with the upper hand in that encounter, that Golgotha was no longer willing to meet Stoneroot on even terms. That Golgotha is unable to compete unless they have the advantage in numbers. I know that that isn't the case, but the impression is still there.

That has nothing to do with the original post imo and falls quite squarely in you airing a rather shakily established negative perception of us as a PVP organization.

And that is both fine and your own fault.

You have the capacity to assemble a group and 1vsMany some Golgothans. You could provoke a reaction and match our expected numbers with you and some friends. You could paint us as some monster to be stopped and use that theme to recruit until your newb hordes over run us.

You don't however get to passively accept whatever comes your way and then blame anyone other then yourselves for it. If you do nothing to shape the situation you should be zen about accepting the way the fun finds you. Our obligation as Golgothans is to each other not to you. When I log into and tell a joke, start a group and hang out on TS with a few buds my concern is the content I can create and find for them.

Why would I be motivated to shape my activity for a set of armour? I ask and receive a fresh set for asking. Why would I spam general for an opponent for a 5v5 arranged fight? I could go play LoL for that.

I am Golgothan. My obligation is to Phyllain, Asmodeus, and my fellows. In that order.

GW are the ones responsible for bringing PvP to PFO and they are committed to doing it.

Seriously though Mistwalker you seem pretty chill. Consider throwing in an application because this game is a LOT of fun and we are having our share of it and would love to bring you along for the ride as well.


Audoucet wrote:
Rynnik wrote:
Standing on the front porch refusing to join the party inside while throwing up your hands declaring, "This minimumally viable house before me doesn't exist!" doesn't mean much either.
I don't call a house something without walls, without roof, and without door.

That's fine and as much a valid choice as those of us content with full plumbing, their own bedroom, and a broom closet so we can sweep the floor with folks.

Your definition doesn't dictate fact.


Mistwalker wrote:

Perhaps I should have quoted the other posts.

Or expanded on the fact that it left the impression that as Stoneroot had come out with the upper hand in that encounter, that Golgotha was no longer willing to meet Stoneroot on even terms. That Golgotha is unable to compete unless they have the advantage in numbers. I know that that isn't the case, but the impression is still there.

I get it. Your messaging is very clear, but if you want to launch a Golgotha smear campaign you should be meticulously clear on your details. Why would anyone place credibility in what you stated after when your first few phrases contradict themselves?

At the end of the day Stoneroot's impression of Golgotha is irrelevant. You have MADE it irrelevant.

We find and make content and sandbox in such a way that we daily have a lot of fun and keep our players interested and eager to log in. We aren't f#@$ing travel guides setting out altruistically to find you, discover what you want, bring it to you on a silver platter, then spoon feed it to you in the exact flavour and with the desired spiciness.

Golgotha is content IF you chose it make it so. You have choices. You can come crawling to us whining about 'fair' and pay us enough tribute or otherwise entice us to leave you alone. Or you can fight us when and where you can find the leverage to win. Or you can ignore and seek to avoid us (hot tip: being a loud forum name or snagging towers from the empire would be poor ways to avoid attention).

The onus is on you at the end of the day to get exactly what you want out of PFO... We are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mistwalker wrote:

The Devs have stated that they were surprised by the fact that we weren't killing each other more than we are. That there was more resistance to PvP than they expected. That apparently most players are not in companies.

If you want to have more PvP in the game, you (or someone else) will have to find a way to get the players that are reluctant (or opposed) to join in PvP.

As you say in the top quoted sentence: 'The Devs have stated...' People will be seeing changes that bring more PvP into the game regardless of player reluctance or not.

Golgotha and obviously the Brighthaven Alliance will be ready for that. Will you?


Audoucet wrote:
A set of foundations does not make a minimum viable house.

Standing on the front porch refusing to join the party inside while throwing up your hands declaring, "This minimumally viable house before me doesn't exist!" doesn't mean much either.


Mistwalker wrote:
Gol Phyllain wrote:
Yeah Golgotha never fights people in groups that out number them. Nope, never happens.

I have no doubt that you have done just that, but I haven't seen it.

To my knowledge, I have fought Golgothans 5 times.

1st fight, Tink and Tubomo attacked 3 from Stoneroot
while they were out doing some PvE (and apparently is the only time that Tink has been killed in PvP).

ITT 2 > 3

lol


1 person marked this as a favorite.
serioustiger wrote:
But I call "Emperor's New Clothes" on anyone saying that PFO is currently in any kind of acceptable (even viable) state and my fear is that like so many MMOs before it, it will be dead inside a year of release.

Well come join Golgotha and find a bunch of people who are playing and enjoying this viable game and tell us how crazy we are. After the laughing calms down you may enjoy hanging out with us.

MVP is that FOR A SPECIFIC AUDIENCE. No one dictates that you need to be part of the niche that is going to support this but GW knows and expects its audience to be very small. That doesn't make it less viable. The game will get there... Maybe not to where it ever appeals to YOU, but who f!#~ing cares about that at the end of the day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Rynnik wrote:
Bluddwolf, how did this game hurt you so deeply dude?
I think he wanted a murder simulator. He's been railing against every design element that was intended to curb that kind of thing for years.

To be fair that isn't what I hear him saying at all.

AvenaOats wrote:
However seeing where PFO is

Where exactly? I am daily playing a very much alive and growing game.

You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.


Nihimon wrote:
It's no longer April Fool's Day, folks.

The penguins are a lie?!?

:-(


Yah, don't think so mate.

My EVE background: http://evewho.com/pilot/Rynnik

Hopefully you get something out of the forum play. GW's compelling game and vision are gonna be just fine.


Bluddwolf, how did this game hurt you so deeply dude?

Your 4 EVE points are ridiculous and indicate a perspective 100% blinded to anything outside the pontification you seem so dedicated to.

Sell your accounts, recupe your financial investment and go find another game to troll because there is obviously no point talking to you about this one.

Crowfall sounds great. Plenty of room for it in the market as well. Persistence is a big deal for certain player types though and it will draw heavily on the Rust etc crowd but there is MORE then enough niche left over for this game (and others). Crowfall's infringement on PFO's potential player base is minimal at best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
EvE Online launched in 2003/4 with graphics that were comparable to its time.

Nah, the graphics were often bemoaned by the community and were bad enough to be considered bad FOR the time.

And that is even with the considerations made for it being space which is much easier to deal with then a fantasy setting like Avena said! (Avena: PLEASE don't turn this into another perspective change thread. We read it. We get it. No one cares.)

Bluddwolf wrote:
If you start a race a half hour after everyone else, and you run at the same pace as they do, you will finish a half hour after they do. You will never make up that time or ground.

It is a race of one. Sounds like a great way to win first to me. :-P

The only EVE clone out there, Perpetuum, was also Sci-Fi. Fantasy EVE has been waiting for a proper realization for a long long time and finally GWs has the balls/capacity to actually accomplish it. No one else is even trying.


serioustiger wrote:
I didn't expect PO to be as good at launch as WoW is today, but it's nowhere near even the quality of WoW when it launched in 2005.

Nah, the comparison you are looking for is EVE in 2003... ;-)

And just like that game there are some of us that can see through the graphics and UI of spreadsheets in the riverkingdoms all the way to anniversary 10 and one of the best looking and by far the best persistent universe and sandbox games around.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Al Smithy wrote:
... just don't have any confidence that GW knows what they're doing.
I wonder how many people said that about Ryan when he pushed the Open Game License.

Another good laugh is to look up the EVE forums from 2003 and see what people said about CCP back then on their boards.

I do know I have a lot more faith in GW then I do in nose picking armchair game devs and their grand visions.


Al Smithy wrote:
I don't believe PFO will be around for another year, much less 10,

I'll take that bet.

I am fine with a smarmy 'I told you so', but if you want to up the stakes a bit that sounds good to me.

365 days from today sound good?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Al Smithy wrote:
to keep alive the game world or worse, their finances.

huh? Do you even log in?

Game isn't dead and GW isn't out of business. Do you just get off on throwing around empty doom and gloom about the game (addressed to the thread in general not Al in particular)?

Go away for 6 months and then check back on things if it has all gotten you down so much that you just can't help yourselves, but I for one will still be around then and look forward to celebrating the 10th anniversary of PFO with those who have a bit of patience with the implementation of their vision.


Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:
I am sure you are right, I was just trying to think of a way to keep those you want to give you stuff (namely your requests above) interested in supporting your endeavor.

It may a bit easy to forget exactly what PFU is actually providing that makes it so damn important and worthy of community support. The resource that PFU controls is more valuable than any other in this game. Nothing comes close. It is of course the graduates.

If organizations haven't already tuned into the game and realized that a prime concern needs to always be recruiting, training, and replacing culturally acceptable members of their organizations to compensate for burnout and turn around, they probably don't have a long life expectancy in PFO. Recruiting, equipping, and training contains a huge risk though as certain folks will just decide not to play, others will decide another org betters fulfills their play style etc.

PFU alleviates much of the risk for groups in this game. In 90 days most of us should have got our feet under us and stopped drooling on ourselves (well, maybe not Padric). As at the end of the day what Hoffman and faculty is running is kindergarten much more than university. So when you recruit a grad you can feel much better about the lower risk you are taking because we known the basics, known what we want in game, and know why we want to play in your group particularly.

This sole reason is enough foy ANY forward thinking organization to assist PFU if ever required. Else they will see the majority of prepared and pre-invested players moving off to play with competitors.


Lifedragn wrote:
Daikin wrote:
Think Any creature you don't have targeted also does more damage to you, but that is same for everyone not only wizards...
That is for rogue-like's, such as goblins.

And bandits... And wolves... And...


Deianira wrote:
Thod wrote:
Deianira wrote:


See, we need musical instruments, because what is a hunt without a proper hunting horn?!
If you play the music and inspire our troops then I will lead them into battle against Rynnik - is that a deal ?

Yay! To battle!

I'm 100% serious when I say this sounds like a ton of fun! Will draft a proposal and submit it soonest so that we can see just what sort of fox I make!


LazarX wrote:
What many won't be prepared for is when the gamers come. Gamers who look at games in quite different ways.

I'm already here. We'll be fine.

You obviously didn't go through the links. If EVE can support and in fact allow an organization to flourish for 11 YEARS in the exact vein Hoffman is pursuing how much more can PFO with its strong homegrown roots and commitment to a new type of pvp sandbox environment support it?

Please take your uninformed alarmism elsewhere than this thread.


Bad move M_K, it just means more characters you can die on! Kidding. Grats on the new acquisition.


LazarX wrote:


Face the facts... you're playing a walking version of Eve Online. Once a group decides they want what's being held by the University, they're not going to bother to ask.

Yup, walking Eve. You know, EVE online where a recognized player run university has been a institution protected, supported and championed by the community. That nasty dark MMO community that has recognized EUni as a brand since 2004. http://www.eveuniversity.org/about/

I predict players in PFO will recognize the admirable contribution to our game you are making, Hoffman. I further predict that the effort and time you are committing will be championed and protected by this community you are serving when the time arises that someone decides to burn Riverbank.

So. LazarX who is your EVE Online character? I'd love to look it up on EVE who. Here is my link: http://evewho.com/pilot/Rynnik

BTW Hoffman the rules look great although I have to express a slight disappointment I will have to leave our grounds to practice being jumped in PvP. Nice work, Boss!


Fanndis Goldbraid wrote:
There are a number of threads...

Both I and my lazy second beer owe you a deep debt of gratitude.


Fanndis Goldbraid wrote:
... good Rynnik!

A small point of clarification: I am in all likelihood stretching the definition just to call myself a mediocre Rynnik. I would never presume to actually say I am good at it...

---

That out of the way, I heartily thank-you for your kind invitation Fanndis, and don't be surprised when I remember you well for it someday when our paths cross. But as a strongly independent and occasionally overly stubborn character I plan to choose whom I grace with my eventual association on their in-game actions, not on forum hurf blurf.

I expect I shall be taking the hard (lonely) road for at least the first few weeks if not months of my life in the riverlands.

---

A complete aside: Can anyone tell me the character naming requirements in place for Alpha? IE. multiple names required or not, punctuation limitations, etc. Probably should be at least a new thread if not an actual thorough search to see if the info is out, but it would cut into getting my next beer...


Guurzak wrote:

The ability to start and stop XP credit freely would mean that the systems which process bonuses to buildings, completion of job queues, etc would constantly have to query the character database to verify that credit was still in place, rather than just once when the job or bonus was initiated.

I am new to tracking the finer details of PFO as we get closer and closer to EE.

Can you please explain why this is the case?

My thought would be that a query to the character database for buildings, completion of job queues, etc would be checking purchased character skills. Not xp flows. Why would the acquisition of unspent xp impact abilities in game? Isn't a character with 1 million unspent xp as capable as a 0 xp character newly created? What to do I still need to learn about how PFO characters 'tick'?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:

In EVE, and other "one Character per Account" games, you buy a month subscription for the Account and you can't swap that over to another Account halfway through.

You are right about EVE.

More detail on the system: in EVE you designate any one of the three character slots available to the account as the one that accumulates skill points (EVE's xp) and can play any of those characters at anytime without having an effect on that skillpoint acquisition (as long as you maintain an active subscription for the account). I could solely play on my hauler character while another character on the account is the one 'leveling'. The option for character advancement is completely separate and independent from character usage on the account, and training is controlled independently from playing. It is possible to waste the advancement your subscription grants you by not having a character training at all (although the game gives you big warnings if you do this).

Not stating this as a contradiction - just a clarification for using EVE online as an example (and deliberately skipping past the option to have multiple characters on the account training at the same time etc).

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>