celestialiar's page

293 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Audoucet wrote:
When I was saying the exact same thing, I was called a frustrated troll.

we were before our time. ha.

But yes @ crowdforging things that are already in the pipeline.

Crowdforging is a way for the devs to get feedback, so that everyone will not be mad. I think that a chorus of NO NOT THAT will be more successful than suggestions.

So, people who thought this was going to be a game made by the players are... sorely mistaken. Still I hope some input can be given and listened to. Who knows I may come back in the end if this turns around. I see the direction as not positive.

Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
"Heh. Now I'm going to have to get an attack with a knockback and go looking for Doc. ;)"

I may have to branch out from Rathglen then! :D

Seriously though. I work from home, I have 3 computers on my desk right here, and will often have a game up and running on one. Often times, I was "afk" farming in PFO while not really *away* from my desk, but just glancing over every 15 minutes or so to make sure my health wasn't too low.

I suppose I can just glance over to look at chat to see if somebody is messing with my char.

What is the solution now?

What if a player is actually farming in the same spot for 4-6 hour stretches, and is not actually "afk"?

Your only recourse then is to trim the loot table for starter goblins of anything useful past a certain level of advancement, or remove them entirely. But consider this, you can remove recipes from goblins and I will still farm them for Goblinoid Armor and Weapon scraps to use in crafting.

The solution is requiring a more sophisticated targeting system. As much as auto target is good, I wonder if it's not really good for a pvp game. A vast autotarget to where you can just auto attack and target whatever comes on the screen (after it hits you) is broken.

IMO there's no reason that you should be able to kill enemies by doing cycle target 1 1 1 1 forever. It's easier, sure. I would hope in the end that's not there tho.

TEO Cheatle wrote:

1) What you'd say if you could only say one, honest, thing to try to get someone to try PFO.

Despite some arguments and a few crazies, the PFO community is one of the best of any MMO.

While a lot of people look for games because of mechanics and what you can/can not do, I would say just as many people are looking for a solid gaming community. A good gaming community can lead you to a group that aligns with your own goals, can provide support, friendship, and help you get past parts of the game you think are subpar (every game as these moments).

2) What you'd say if you could only say one honest thing to try to stop someone from trying PFO.

This is a game where you have to pay to play beta.

I have actually said this to a few people, people I know who make judgement calls too early, in my opinion. I generally want everyone to check out the game, but some people need to stay away until they can get on board with features that will keep them occupied.

Yeah, I'd say if you think this game will go anywhere at all, I would try it because the community is dedicated and overall good. Especially in terms of a sandbox community with pvp.

In regards to not playing, I would just say that I don't believe it's going to be what it was sold as. To us, and the earlier ones. The vision buyers bought, but to sell the actual game now will be much harder. I don't see anything redeeming about this game. I don't HATE it. It doesn't make me angry. I never felt griefed or overworked by its systems. It was just after about I dunno... 20-30 hours I felt I understood it and where it would go. I don't believe the foundation can support interesting game play, for me.

And this is coming from someone who sold people on the game. I convinced people to buy in. Seems as though there is no creativity, nothing to separate. It's just grind and fight over grind. There's no creative way to avoid fighting and succeed anyway.

This subject again. My favorite!

It is an issue whether people foresee it or not; I think it's game breaking (as said before.) It is not sand boxy, to me, because I believe there is a third variable: the neutral.

The game seems to place a lot on trying to limit griefing or punish people for being bad, but there is also a player base that does that. Not that people should police the world, but everyone knows. If the top settlement is 'bad', then people can reluctantly fight them. Even if it's just fight them to make their life inconvenient.

Now, the top settlement can potentially consume the map. If you are in a settlement and they want to kick you, they can really damage you. But why?

The *idea* of settlements is good. Company v company, but to force people into that is where the issue is, and I am surprised nobody sees how this could potentially end the game very prematurely. That is, after the first war.

OR, there would be no wars and the large companies would just scratch each other's back and dominate the smaller ones. Maybe realistic in terms of corporate America, but not really something you're bringing players in to sub.

Players want to know they can make a difference to start. I am sure a lot of people come into the game with big dreams. The way things are set up, you'd have to play good for x amount of time before you did anything to fight against the larger groups and by that point, you may have lost all of your support or will to fight.

We shall see what happens. I could be wrong. If there was a PFO betting line on whether what I said would happen or whether it would work out swimmingly and cause everyone to group up, working side by side, and fight epic wars... I would bet on my side, of course.

Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:

I'm literally begging(...)

I think we all tried begging. Which stage of grief is that? haha.

At least we are progressing on some plane.

I feel like there is much less crowdforging than I was initially led to believe. It seems they have exactly what game they want to make and have known it for a long time. And that game... I dunno if I like that game. :(

I talked to Bonny they said... refunds available soon. Hopefully cash refunds.

Neadenil Edam wrote:
sspitfire1 wrote:

True enough. I was there. Anyways, even so, I suspect it will be very easy for players to have very distinctive styles in this game.

As to the cookie-cutter bit, that remains to be seen. But right now, there is some definite "This works best so everybody uses it" going on with the short bow and long bow.

That may also be a symptom of the fact that we only have 6 or so attacks to choose from for each of those weapons.

Well against low level critters (up to easy reds) Staff AoE spells are far better than bows so I suspect it is not just "what works best".

I think people like the idea of bows and want to use them - and that is part of the reason for the obsession with them. The second factor is staff spells take a bit more to understand so the other attraction to bows is they are a simpler weapon to use for a beginner (which also explains why suddenly with an influx of new players about 6 weeks ago the previous forum discussions which tended to be "wizards are OP" changed to "archers are OP" without any real change to the bow in game :).

You can take levels in fighter and use a bow is why.

Best of both worlds.

What becomes META in a game is rarely the best possible, it is the kind of balance between best and easiest. So, you are right, but I think that the fact you can carry a bow as a secondary weapon and still DPS is why. Nobody wants to be a fighter wizard, that's effectively cutting your exp in half.

And once armor is working against spellcasting (is it already?) it will be even more toward bows.

The lack of misses is a big deal, too. No spec, no misses. No idea why they aren't changing this. Other than "It's hard."

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:

Grouping, combined with reputation and DI is a core part of the overall mechanic for interfering with griefing behaviour. By having our behaviour impact the other members of our settlement, they put additional pressure on us to avoid reputation-negative activities, or get pushed out of our group, which interferes with our ability to progress. Most of those who want to be primarily solo will be perfectly welcome in most settlements as long as they keep their reputation up in general and do stuff. I don't think they'll be forced to have an active role int he settlement if they don't want it.

Smaller groups will be able to administer a POI, I'm guessing with very little interference from the settlement leader as long as the bulk goods flow.

By OE, it will only take ten people to go off to a new spot and build their own settlement.

You are correct that is working as intended, and we won't know for months, or longer, if working as intended will work. If the core mechanic doesn't function when working as intended, they'll re-work it, or give up.

Thing about this though, is it assumes the people at the top are great people. Not that they can be jerks. If they are jerks, the griefing that they do, basically blocking people from training or forcing them to work, is going to be a huge obstacle.

It's possible the world could be conquered by jerky people who just limit the training of new players in order to keep their hold on the world. If this happens before OE the game is over.

I have a different definition of griefing... I don't think that PKing is. As I said a million times, I am not a PKer, but as long as people aren't PK'd in town, it's all good to me. IF people CAN be PKed in town, then all of this nonsense means nothing. Cuz people will find a way to kill people in town and get away with it. Thus invalidating any sort of anti-grief mechanic and it's "git gud nub" all over again.

It would be nice, again, to have something more dynamic... even a mechanic where towns or certain PoIs (if they are as I assume they are) are near impossible to get kills. Then there is neutral territory and owned territory and the owned territory can have its own rules. Can choose who is protected by law and who isn't. Who is allowed, who is not.

But, that limiting training is an anti-griefing mechanic... that blows my mind. People can likely still grief with NPC lvl characters. And they probably will.

I think there needs to be an equal amount of "I need you" and "You need me." Seems like too much control is in the settlements, namely the big ones that will inevitably suck up all of the small ones, due to this mechanic.

I reckon you can play solo if it means by yourself while in a settlement. The issue becomes un-settled people. I believe that is a design flaw that you basically are forced to join a settlement. I know it's 'working as intended.'

I see, as I said before, how that would limit a lot of things. It would make the rich get richer, per se. Doesn't seem like it'd make a fun game for the underdog and, of course, there needs to be people other than the most giant settlements. I don't know if GW thinks everyone is just going to group up forever, but what may happen is... people who group will stay and the ones who don't will leave.

I'm even for making it harder to train while being un-settled, but not impossible. That is probably my largest problem with the game.

People love to group up, sure, but a lot of MMO people don't. Some of the really heavy players, too. I've met them in games... Independent people are interesting in a game of war.

The way things are, too much control is given to the founders. Which is OK, I guess... but again, it's going to end up being mostly them.

Tyncale wrote:

Age of Wushu (Wulin in Europe) has imprisonment and you can actually visit the perpetrator in the jail. He can also try to arrange a breakout, with friends.

I was ganked at some point and soon after it was announced in chat that such and so was apprehended and got 2 hours jailtime or some (due to a rather interesting bounty system that I will not explain here).

I decided to visit the guy in jail, see what it was like to see him there and go "neener, neener" :) . When I got there he was jumping on his bed, up and down. I made a few laughing and point emotes but I do not think he even noticed me.

Needless to say the "neener, neener" act was not fulfilling at all, and I had not expected it to be. It was kinda cool to see at least the system in working, with action-consequence.

Not sure if the guy would jump on his bed for the whole two hours, log off or that he was arranging a breakout: I did not wait to find out.

All in all, I think it is very hard to make this sort of thing fun/unfun, unless you implement all sorts of additional systems like the breakout. And then you are actually rewarding the ganker with some extra gameplay. The prison sentence does nothing for the "victim" and most likely nothing for the criminal either, other then at some point deciding to not bother with the game anymore.

So I think I like the Reputationhit-->less access to Cities/trainer/utility better.

It is the only way to punish people who are bandits, really. I do think it needs to be complex and most games probably don't have it right, even if they do have it.

Again, if you get imprisoned for 4 hours after being captured for doing something... people are gonna act like that's gonna make you quit the game?

It is mind blowing to me that the ganking and stealing part is totally cool but the idea of time-loss (because time > gear for bandits) is abhorrent.

Trust me, it would make people more focused. As for break outs, that's kind of funny. There should be something... even paid releases.

I think the rep makes less sense because it's more crippling and the world is huge. No way would one city across the map know you were bad unless you were renown... I dunno. I guess in the context of this game where they want everyone tied to a certain place... and not giving people reason to have to 'pick up everything and move' when they wear out their welcome... it makes sense.


Edit: The rep system just needs to be more dynamic. If someone has v high rep killing him would be like killing a nobleman and get you bottomed out. If you kill someone who is up and down, they might let that go more. I think that would be the idea... as it is, it is too lenient.

Edit 2: by v hi I mean someone who hasn't killed, not someone who is maxed. It's relatively easy to just max.

<Flask> Ulf Stonepate wrote:

Since Toolkits and Hold-outs already exist, can we hope to see Commoner and Expert expendables soon? Or a feat progression leading to Commoner 7 (perhaps even a more specific "Miner 7")?

What constitutes an expendable for these classes? Since those are by definition combat actions, it has to be something that that takes place in battle even though these are not combat classes. I'm thinking of stuff like:

Appraise - a ranged action which has no effect on the actual combat, but improves loot drops for the targeted mob if it is defeated. This represents the Commoner hanging back in battle but observing the mob's stash of equipment. It makes having a Commoner in your party more attractive (important if the party limit remains 6)

Flee - Much like a charge, but away from the mob. It would have a longer range, but leave the character flat-footed at the end and would not end with an attack.

Play Dead (I still want to call it "Possum") - Knockdown on self, and mobs lose targeting on the character. Obviously, if there is no other target nearby, there's nothing preventing the mobs from reacquiring the target once the effect ends, but if you've dragged them from their starting point, they may return home.

Appraise is good. They need more skills like that.

Need reasons to spec non combat. The only one I find odd is play dead. Mainly because I can't see why it would be needed and it wouldn't help vs pvp. I think it could potentially be exploitable... as most lose target things are. If nothing else, pull, lose target, then nuke as they move back would get you more time than just attacking straight up.

TEO Cheatle wrote:

Since this thread has served its purpose:

I expected that everyone would be grown up enough so that they wouldn't drowned out this thread like every other one. That, people constantly posting, is what has been cited by the few that decide to speak up as the main reason they stay silent. So, the idea was that some of those people would feel like they could speak here, and be heard. Some of them were able to do just that, even though some of you ignored the ground rules.

It was also fascinating to see which of you just ignored and posted what you wanted to post anyways, and insightful too. To be honest, if I had the ability to, I would delete all secondary+ responses from this thread, since some of you have declared "this thread is so far off topic, better toss in my thoughts, again."

I consider this my first post, I wanted to wait awhile, since I actually didn't give my personal response, but set up the ground rules.

I believe that the game is going in a positive direction, but I believe that they have gone at a pace that a lot of people just can not handle. GW has also made some decisions about priorities that a lot of people just don't understand, although if you follow the spread out responses from the GW Staff between Alpha/Paizo forums, you get a better understanding.

This is a big disconnect, and it is one that continues to plague this game. GW need to take all this mini blog posts in the forums that we see from Ryan, Stephen, and Lee (some times others), and form them into a more coherent and structured Blog Post. This would go a long way into helping people understand the process.

I believe that there are positives to this game. I enjoy the Gathering to Crafting process, it has some depth to it, but in ways that most don't understand. The Keyword system is awesome, and I can understand why it will be the great balancer, and allow for a 3 tiered system in where combat is more balanced. I enjoy the map, and the big world we have here, and all the different armors, weapons, and...


to be fair, I responded to people and many other people were responders as well.

Also, this thread has been active for a pretty long time, so I don't think there is as much clutter as it seems. - thumbs up -

Nihimon wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
I just mean I expected it to be more TT-like than it is.

Just out of curiosity, do you think your expectations were appropriate given the information in Your Pathfinder Online Character?

That was the 3rd ever PFO Blog, and the first one I read. It was followed by To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms, and together those two blogs still capture the essence of what PFO is and will be, and I don't feel like any of the broad expectations I formed have been challenged at all by the reality of what PFO is right now.

I love it - as much for its promise as for its current reality.

Spending some more time Crafting last night, and finally grokking why I need to make lots of +0 and +1 Components in addition to the +2s I'd already made, I am even more impressed with the depth of the Crafting system than I had been. For a number of folks, a learning "cliff" that makes EVE "seem like a candy crush clone" is a feature, not a bug.

TT in concept. As in, more freedom. More meaningful choices. More role-play-y. More depth.

It is the basic-ness that bothers me. Crafting and gathering, to me, is a huge bore. To not sound pretentious, I will say, I don't think the learning curve is an issue in anything in PFO.

Look at it like this. MMO does not equal table top. What kind of experience is a tabletop trying to create? An immersive world, and succeeds when done correctly. What is an MMO trying to create, hopefully the same thing.

I think immersion is different for each person, and I'm sure the more heavy investors are going to give it much more time, but I find PFO to not be immersive. Never do I feel like what I am doing matters or that I am in danger. Even if I was in danger, I don't think I would be driven to fight against it.

The reply to this is "alpha!" But it isn't, really... this is the game. It's going to get better, but this is the framework of the game. The idea of putting much time into this game, caring about the outcome of conflicts, is just not working for me.

Like I said, most of the features sound cool. It looks okay on paper. Escalations even sound interesting. But what is happening is not... there is no creativity. No challenge at a basic level. You can say the challenge is in the situation, but that's not enough for me. It's like do you think this game is exciting... hard? No? Well how about if I slap you while you are playing it. At that point, it becomes even more apparent that it's not... and I wonder why am I doing this.

People must get lost in the world FIRST, I believe. This has nothing to do with graphics, but it's looking at the game and saying "This is my goal." You see many things happening as you log into the game the first time. You are overstimulated by what you don't understand. You see people who you may want to be like, and those who you kind of dislike.

I don't think this is some revelation. I've tried to get people to play this game and they say "Too basic!" I even defended it at first... again to alpha, show me where they say they are going to make these systems deeper and when.

Schedim wrote:
One reason imprisonment is a bit ridiculous is that it means that quite a lot of people will just leave the game on for three days straight and play something else during that time...

haha. Well I don't think anyone imagined they would be stuck at the computer, logged in, while watching propaganda in prison.

I don't even think it would be acct wide. It would be per character, and it would just be a time that you couldn't log into that character.

Nobody is limited from playing the game, assuming they don't become a murderer and get caught. People would get over it.

Then maybe they would be flagged as a once criminal and get harsher punishments from that point forward. Everyone is like NO DON'T MAKE CRIME HARDER...!

It makes a lot more sense than a half-baked rep system. If people leave the game because they got imprisoned then they are soft, period.

Yet another post I will make about necessary involvement of either game systems or GM-types.

The issue in every game where they believe that it will work itself out, that the players must police it, etc. The issue becomes that it's just not worth it. It's not like real life. Until there is a hardcore system that can handle crime and maybe, in the some cases, bring the matter before a jury/arbiter then it will always devolve to 'the wild west.'

The idea that the arc of a game would mirror humanity, that it would start out that way and then create structure... is not true. Well, it is partially true if you think of the corruption behind our current world-structure.

I don't think anyone should be banned from the game. I don't understand why imprisonment or the like is so off-putting to people. It makes a lot more sense than getting PK'd. KILL HIM. Just have a big conveyor belt with a guillotine at the end of it.

If people are saying NO ANYTHING BUT IMPRISONMENT, IT'LL DRIVE PEOPLE FROM THE GAME, we have to look at it as an option because there are people saying NO ANYTHING BUT PKING...

Because time is more valuable than death, in a game, and death does not always equal such a huge loss of time (you could have spent time gathering more stuff, time that you would have spent anyway, and have much gear) I think the idea of imprisonment should be looked at. Even making people do community service to get out early. Put someone on escalation clean up for 3 days... etc.

We also want our criminals to have an anger that doesn't just stem from their personality. We want them to have a hatred of the game system and the people who will ultimately take them prisoner. It creates better villains.

Edit: But on that note, I see no reason why people can't train where they allow people to train, buy goods etc. People should have to be black-listed by settlement I think. It shouldn't be an auto target. So, yes, that means that a settlement can have people who go around and kill but are treated like citizens. That is no big deal, to me.

Drags a spoon against the bars. :(

Flyin thru the clouds like superman, purplely.

Black Silver of The Veiled, T7V wrote:
Summersnow wrote:

I made a comment early on that calling this Pathfinder Online was blatantly false advertisement :-p

I've also emphatically stated that this is not PATHFINDER online. Its a MMO set in the Pathfinder Universe.

People mostly either ignored me or told me to shut up.

I'm sorry you feel duped but it was pretty clear that this was never going to be TT no matter how much people wanted to put on blinders and pretend it would be.

No MMO is going to be TT. The technology is just not there yet. Would I love to be able to strap on a headset and play an MMO (Sword Art Online -like). Absolutely, but in no way did I expect PFO to feel like a TT game.

wellnow, I just mean I expected it to be more TT-like than it is. haha. I expected it to try to bridge the gap a bit.

I don't like them saying it can't be done... I think in a way saying that is like accepting less. People laugh you off the stage when you suggest anything that isn't an MMO convention.

I didn't think they were trying to remake Eve in a fantasy setting using 'feats' instead of skills. I definitely put in SOME work researching this game, but the only think I ever saw that turned me off was someone talking about how Ryan had said, "Wait til the Russians get here..." and it sounded kind of like a strange comment. I noted then that the main focus of this game would be TC. TC for TC it seems, which is where the problem is.

I think it's cool that people are like yeah but I'm in control...! You see those hexes? I control all of them. But for me... I want something more. A world, maybe. Something to fight for...

Dorgan Berkham wrote:
celestialiar wrote:

We are all in this boat more or less together. It's funny that people continue to say stuff like "Just leave!"
As he's actively trying to sell his accounts, I wouldn't say we are in the same boat at all.

I'm not an Andy or anyone ally. I like to side with truth, if possible.

I don't know what he's doing, really. My 'empathy' tells me he wants to see PFO be a good game.

I'd take a refund right now if I could get one. In fact, I asked for one. I really don't see why I can't get one being as I haven't used any part of it, but I am pretty sure I won't get it.

I still wanna see PFO as in the dream of PFO succeed. If not in this game then in another in the future. That is, to take the next step in the sandbox, toward something that isn't just meta-number crunching, pvp ad nauseam. That's not saying pvp is bad... but in the end people will realize there needs to be a world to fight for. Sure, a game can retain pvpers... but in order to become a good/legendary long lasting game... we need people who get on and spend 5 hours handling their animals and planning social gatherings.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will post some in here now. Even though I continue to be pessimistic about whether it matters.

I can't say PFO is a bad game. I mean, maybe looking back at it in some years, I'll be like WOW PFO WAS TERRIBLE. It doesn't have that effect on me right now. It's just... very flavorless.

I feel like (rehashing) they were very insistent on making a good payment model, very into creating the world and getting the servers right, which is mostly awesome even though it's got some hitches. However, they forgot to make a unique game.

The main thing I wanted was something more like TT. Everyone can talk til they are blue about how that's impossible. They can even say BUT THE RIGHTS. Really? It couldn't be something *similar*?

Pathfinder Sandbox is an amazing idea. In fact, it is an idea that is more amazing to people with higher expectations. I think that's why some people are so disappointed.

If there had been some level of that in the game...

It's like we can't have dice rolls, that's copyrighted! We can't have misses, that'd be too hard. In the end, you get a game with some familiar names.

I feel duped.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The one thing you can say about these threads is they tend to be the most active, oddly.

I guess furthermore you have to ask yourself what you would do if you were Andy. It seems as though he wants to love this game. If you were given a game that said, "We'll give you a hand in building it..." and at some point you felt as though it wasn't happening, would you just walk away?

I think it's interesting that people come in here and bash Andy opposed to just ignoring the threads, if they dislike them.

Plus, let's all keep in mind there is still time for the game to get better. Does no one want the game to get better?

I agree with his sentiment in that it is past the "wouldn't it be cool" stage (as I have often said.) Now we're really getting to see what the finished product will look like. Sure, it's just a frame, but I don't think they can build outside of the frame... much.

We are all in this boat more or less together. It's funny that people continue to say stuff like "Just leave!"

^ If people are ever choosing to be naked, that means the game is messed up. It means people are accepting inevitable death and cutting their losses. That's not realistic...

If you're getting ganked outside the craft building, that means the balance is very wrong. That's what we're trying to avoid, moreso than bandit in the wild ganking... I think?

If it turns out where every non-combat char is naked or in rags getting killed all of the time, that would be too much of a murder sim for me.

It should be like the heist of the century for someone to get into town, gank someone, and get out. Something people would talk about days/weeks.

In fact, even ganking and not getting out, I think, should be near impossible because people will just grief you even if they can't get your stuff.

Much thought should be given to town security. Also to stop naked gathering. Environment damage? You come home with your thighs all cut up with thorns, your feet dashed on rocks.

C'mon... if this part doesn't get right then that's a huge failure. That means it's gonna be just like other murdersim games.

I don't think anything can be too complex in a game. Sometimes, it just doesn't register for people because of language, but in general, people can figure it out if they want to. We do complex tasks on a daily basis. We cook. We may put together a some assembly required item... etc.

Complexity is never bad. Sometimes what is un-intuitive is bad.

I really like the idea of secret recipes, though. I like the idea of modifying recipes...

I'd like it if each weapon type had a recipe. Or each whatever type. And then depending on what you used or how you altered it, you could get an item that was a different material or a + item.

I also support mutation crafts, as I said a long time ago. Something like YOU JUST CRAFTED THE SACRED SPEAR And it's like oh ok. Then it would exist in game, die for awhile, and then return to having a very small chance of being remade.

Ideally, I'd like a system where you could throw stuff in a craft, where you could sub almost anything but maybe something forgiving enough that you wouldn't get your stuff eaten. It could say something like "This item looks unfinished" and you could add to it.

Could also have % chance. Be like chance of failure, etc.

I believe mats, except for top tier mats, should be easier to get, and the crafting should be more about using intuition and knowledge. Some of it can be expressed in a recipe, some of it can be expressed by character levels, but I think there should be more.

So, the ability to make good weapons, shoddy weapons, custom weapons, is what I want out of crafting. In that way, you would be more about just collecting mats opposed to just stacking the ones that are needed for the regular recipes... because you might be able to use them.

I think the idea is to have more craft skills, too. Craft creativity, craft insight (would be nice for your dude to be able to look at a recipe and learn others at a certain level), craft consistency...

I just feel it is too simple. Crafting drives games, I still say. I'd rather it not be a production line but, at the top, something more like a science.

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
I think half the board doesn't have outstanding coordination, and that's part of why PFO is so appealing: same big sandbox style game, but with a targeting system that's more user friendly for them.

I have initial anxiety and kind of 'packet loss' of the mind. Once I understand the game enough to do what I think then it is coordinated. It takes awhile.

I think it's cool that people can be coordinated just picking something up, but I feel "the best" are like me. I kind of wonder if it's the same for most people who say they aren't. You just gotta work until it's in your mind.

Basically, when I am playing a game I am playing in my mind. My mind has re-created the game. Which is why graphics mean little as long as I can read what's going on.

I mean, how fast do you type? Action-based games can definitely be fun... they just take practice. I'd like to have 50/50 of action and thought. So you can create a good build and have a good strategy, but you will also need execution.

Altho, to be honest, I do get dizzy in first person games sometimes. Not really physically ill, but I lose focus. Again, I think it's related to anxiety though. It's like IM GETTIN ATTACKED WHERE ARE THEY OGOD.

^ yabut pvp isn't enough to make a game viable, either.

Open world pvp is a blessing, true. It's a different dynamic. And the idea of a sandbox is something driven by the players, but I still will keep saying it makes no sense to have a game that is completely driven by the players with no other content.

Also, the rep change is good, to speak on the blog. I think there need to be two reps. I don't think people should be able to kill you or that you should get guarded, but people should know you are a terrible person if you are always killing people and taking rep hits.

Maybe like an alignment rep that doesn't regen with time, or that you must regen doing other things, good deeds...!

I think this is nerf to would be summoning necromancers, though, because once you get get that flag for raising dead, you become worse than a lot of PKers.

Plus groups of PKers could run around and handle a lot of gatherers, taking turns killing. Should also be a penalty in rep (hopefully) for looting.

Audoucet wrote:
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
When few people agree with your rants, it's far easier emotionally to just dismiss everyone else as fanboys, rather than come to grips with the fact that a lot of people just don't agree with you.
Well, seeing how this game is already a disappointment outside of the 10 or so PFO Crusaders flooding this forum, I would say we have very different definitions of "a lot of people".

I am a cynic because I must caution myself against being too optimistic, lest I get fooled.

When I read a quote like the one by Lisa, I am emotionally touched... even though I am disappointed in the game. It's that moment of they care, they really care!

Mommy, play with me...!

That being said, what they are offering in comparison to what they envision, it makes no sense. It can be taken in the context of... we'll do anything for (money), but we won't do that.

I don't think the game they are offering is trash or has a trashy vision, but it's really, as you said, unpathfindery. People care a lot more about Pathfinder than I do, I am sure.

I merely wanted a game with TT like choices and depth. Basically if you think about it TT is the ultimate sandbox.

However, there aren't as many choices... no creative ways to get rich, no way to make it on your own. There are some really limiting design decisions. I think PKing is abhorrent, but I think without some murder-sim people, the game would fail. In fact, I would play a game with half legit people and half murder simmers... assuming it was balanced. Right now, it's not balanced.

In the wild, if something goes down, you should be able to kill someone. How would anyone ever know? Maybe add some skill that's like soulseer and you can tell if someone is a murderer. heh.

I feel like PFO could be good. With the graphics as they are, with every system... if only for a few changes. More gathers/interactable, more dynamic crafts, better pve (patrols, rewards, can ramp up from there... )

Keep settlements, TC, but allow unsettled people to train as they wish if they can deal with a place to train. EVERY world has wanderers.

Again, it is insane how GW has given me literally nothing on my list. It is a fishslap in the face. I don't think it's anyone's fault, but it's a misunderstanding. I wish it would change. It can change.


Schedim wrote:

I was just a bit suprised that it worked so ... efficiently...

unintended evility.

I dream of good pve. Good pve has patrols, period!

Would also be cool to have some groups that had battle horns or something to aggro a wider range if you attacked them.

It's funny to imagine tho... a group of goblins sitting there, look to the side... it's bob... look to the side, bob is dead, wiggle your toes in some grass. Etc.

It's like a Leslie Nielsen movie.

I'd be interested in a mechanic that would initially spook a mob if you one-shotted someone, like make them scramble for a few seconds before they regained composure.

There are many interesting aggro ideas.

Being wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
Please do not question my effort or devotion to *anything.* I am not the developer of PFO. This is not my fault. My words are only words.

I wasn't pointing toward fault, but toward responsibility.

celestialiar wrote:
I believe unless what I suggested was something they could easily program in, they wouldn't do it.

Difficulty will increase cost, but cost can be outweighed by value. That is a central tenet to project management, and the developer is unlikely to dismiss the difficult where there is sufficient promise of value.

celestialiar wrote:

Like I said this is shaping up to be a game that has nothing but players. And they think the players will keep it going. I personally don't. You have to motivate them in some way. Especially considering there are other sandbox MMOs. If this was the only game with TC, then sure it would be a selling point.

Like I said, required reading for your reply is... my...

I daren't make the same requirement of you before you can say something to me. The number of my posts is too great, and the majority of them say something. I confess I tend to attempt humor in too many of the rest.

But if you don't adequately value what you have to contribute ("words are only words"), then should I?

Words are not merely words: words carry meanings. Meanings suggest value. But then I am one of those odd people who believe that opinions are not all alike or of equal value. For me opinion is a human representation of practical truth, a.k.a. 'the Case', and that facts are characteristics of truth. The more an opinion is built from facts, the more like truth that opinion is bound to be.

I have been wandering elsewhere, so late:

Well, it is like this. Imagine I had written a book on a subject and you came up to me on the street and said, "What do you think of..." Some days, I may have responded.

Others, I may have said, "Get the book." Truly, the answers are there.

Especially if I am often on CNN promotion said book. It was not anything but that. I didn't mean in order to converse you had to read my post history. I meant if you want to know what I've said, you can find it. I have said it, manytim.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

bunny hops thru thread favorite-ing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

We already have proof positive that the population is too small to cope with the escalation system.

Double post (sort of) I don't agree with this. If it was worth it, people would clear them. If you can do it in 4 hours with 5 strong people ( throwing out numbers) and you get an amazing reward, then people would go throughout the map clearing them.

Also, if there was ever an issue making those hexes impassable, people would clear them. Then, the further hexes would be overrun. I mean, the escalation system is good, I think. It's just too simple like everything else.

Show me an escalation system where the dudes, after getting at 100, start building a monster settlement, heh. You know?

I think the main issue, even though clearing them can take a long time, is just that people don't want to be bothered. Nobody is like in all-chat "An escalation is forming!" and like 10 people report to that hex.

The downside of making it even more ridiculous in terms of hex control is people may feel it's grind, but as I said, it just seems that they can be avoided, for now.

Maybe not everyone has my mindstate, but, let me repeat, if it was necessary or worthwhile to clear an escalation with however many people I had, I would do it. But it's neither... to the point where it's essential. Escalations have to become an issue. They have to make it so you can't gather, pass, pvp, etc in the hex... otherwise, it doesn't matter. As long as mobs can be run around or through, no issue.

Edit: so possibly the escalation system is taking control due to player apathy, and it's less of a proof of a low pop game than an apathetic playerbase, currently. Low pop of dedicated players could do it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
This game is in serious trouble and burying our heads in the sand and saying it's all going according to plans isn't going to fix the problem.

There is a lot of middle ground between pretending everything is all right and being a white knight, and griefing the forums continuously to facilitate a negative perception of the game.

What the game/community really needs is for the the white knights and forum griefers to back off, and provide more room for the less vocal majority to provide constructive criticism and useful feedback to the development team.

I would cry a bit if I was described as a forum griefer. haha.

Probably am, oh well.

That's not my issue.

If it matters what I think (and I can say again, for fun), I don't have the same problems with the game that other people do. I don't have any issue with paying for EE as is... IF the game continues to improve. I am more worried about the OE state, looking at the game now, than the EE state.

If they can go from Alpha now to OE in 20-whatever, then that's gg. If it's partially the game I want, I would probably pay them through then. So, I would say I am neither a white knight nor a griefer. I can believe; I want to believe. I have optimism, but certain things have really made me take a step back.

The issue is basically this: I played Alpha solo for awhile. I had fun. I played alpha with my buddy for awhile, I had fun. Now, I've pretty much done everything there is to do. No, I didn't take it to tier 3 gear or whatever, but enough to get a 'feel' for what they have to offer. It really does feel, after much thinking, like something is missing. It could be full loot pvp. That could literally fix the game, and I would like to see that in the game before EE, but it seems to me everything other than pvp is underdeveloped. And no, I don't believe a game can survive on pvp alone.

Edit: @ Ryan,

I can speak for Mortal. I played it. It's imbalanced, somewhat. The main issue is exploits. They have duped and they have stuff like mining macros that really kill the game. Also, they have speed hacks and, in that game, even a tiny bit of speed is enough. Like 2%, cuz you can run and self-heal.

The positive of Mortal is that even though it's in a literal beta state still, it's deep. It's got a lot of systems. It's also got GMs that you can say GM I FELL THRU THE EARTH FIX ME. And they say OK! Or my mount... it didn't follow me.

The thing that turned people off to Mortal more than anything was the way pvp was. It's a very high stress level game. I didn't mind because it was a challenge. I still did my stuff. Farming was fun in that game, gathering was fun... because I was focusing on mastering the cooking system in the game. Why cooking? Why not. It was kind of mathy. I traveled all over the map, farming, gathering. Then, when I finally figured it out... I became bored. All of the games flaws came to the forefront. That it was all big guilds just ganking people, etc.

That Mortal had a system it took me 2 to 3 months to master (counting gathering to experiment) was cool. I am missing that in PFO. Some of us want non-combat challenges. We want occult knowledge.

I can't speak on Eve, however.


Add in some fall damage, too. I really liked RPGs backintheday when you'd spec armor and it would have like Def and Magic Resist, and for the most part (except for some outliers) light armor gave you more magic resist. So, in a way, we should also be focusing on something deeper like how each armor resists each attack type.

So, heavy armor would be more suited to going in and fighting, and might resist arrows a bit better, too. An ideal light armor would be high resist to arrows (pierce?) and magic. Then really take a hit from swords and blunt.

I still want to see, with the ranged balance, a system where a person in light armor can possibly be faster, even if like lvl 8 light armor gets light armor speed bonus 1 feat or whatever. Nothing huge, either. But so that in a foot race a character could outrun a fighter in heavy armor.

In these games, speed is obviously most important, so maybe it could be a sort of sprint feature. I think that's what is going to balance the game more or less. Stamina helps, too.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The reason why they probably aren't going to launch Thursday is player unrest. Add to that they have been quiet in response to it... we should be ready for a push-back. Rightly so, I've taken a huge step back from monitoring these forums because it's too chaotic. I can't sit there thinking O ITS ON then be pushed back.

I think if they could fix the game then yeah... it would be nice to wait until it's fixed. The truth is: bugs don't bother me. I've played buggy games and laughed off bugs.

The underlying issue is, as said, it's not balanced yet. The armor, the encumbrance, probably stam, too (assuming they didn't fix that... haven't been in game for awhile) are huge issues.

as I said in another thread: the game can launch slowly, but they should avoid trying to pop it into EE if there is a chance they could have to roll back and/or give an unfair advantage to people.

IF Heavy armor is king, people will spec heavy armor. Even knowing they will get nerfed. Or the game will be all heavy armor characters. Which, we wonder... is heavy armor even balanced against light armor at the moment?

Many questions, most regarding balance, to me. I think MVP should be balanced. Even if it is bare. Games never recover from extended periods of imbalance, at least in my eyes. Some people can overlook it, but people who go super hard can get so much stuff in 6 months, knowing the imbalances.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
how u kno they aren't even in da gm yet...
Okay, I know this is a joke, but I dun get it. >.> <.<

well it was kind of a stupid joke inthat it was meant to say this game does not equal PF TT and there's no reason why they couldn't balance it if they put it in the game.

I'm with you in that... they won't. However, they should. They should be doing things like this because that may give their game something other games don't have. If it's skins, that shouldn't be a big deal. If it's balance, again... shouldn't be a huge deal. Especially once they create a core balance and can run it against that.

But yeah, they won't. These threads make me sad for players because I see their excitement and I remember... they won't.

Diella wrote:
I can see them gathering Monday morning for a big meeting to make the go/no decision. Bet we get a blog monday night or Tuesday letting us know.

GW is all about those "AT THE BUZZER" delays.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
Although, dare I say that people do not like them because they are OP but because of their flavor, and they would probably accept nerfs to make them a balanced race.

Just gonna leave it at this:

Werewolves are not a balanced race in Golarion. They are not supposed to be a balanced race in Golarion.

how u kno they aren't even in da gm yet...

I support the adding of flavor races, as I said, somehow debuffed, because it adds flavor to the game. More flavor is good.

I stand by what I said, people would still play werewolves/vampires if they were balanced against regular PCs. They could even be terewolves or whatever, some pseudo-race that is similar.

There's no way to take something that is imbalanced and put it in the game "with caveats" because it would ruin the game.

I fully understand that this has about .1% chance of ever making it into the game. I'm just saying that I feel ideas like this are huge pluses and will help bring the game to more people.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:

@Celestialar would you say more what 'more interesting environment' looks like in your vision?

Open question: I think we will end needing more (beyond better escalations) of a PvE game to reach a right end state, but aside from Emerald Spire and eventual set-piece encounter instances crafted by players, what might improve the PvE Environment in your view?

Starts at the bottom with challenge and rewards.

I want both things, though. I want a very interactive as well as dangerous environment.

I want places to be different and the further you venture into the wilderness, the more you should be able to get crazy rewards and also find crazy enemies.

I'd like to see places where everything changed. Like snow places or a volcanic area... I want to feel as though I am in this environment.

I really wanna see some pickable stuff. I wanna see things you can touch. I want enemies that are gonna keep the good rewards protected, not the players.

As I have said before, I think the ideal sandbox is a functional game with sandbox features on top of it... not a game that is very base and requires the players to provide all of the danger, reward, etc.

PvE is that part that would make someone want to play if they didn't like pvp. It's imperative, in my eyes, to get people who only play as PvE. It's a different type of person, it creates social dynamics.

Again: I feel PvE is the base of the game, then you add sandbox open pvp on top of it and everyone wins. As far as I can tell, no game has done this.

Dungeons, to me, do not matter because they are, although not instanced, something outside of the general PvE. I want to have to think where I am going, both because of players and PvE challenges. I want a chance to use the environment in my favor if I understand it better than my enemy.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Honestly, I could see it as a temporary curse—something that goes away the next time you die. In the meantime, you have a stat increase and get the Heinous flag. Simple, harsh, but possibly with some uses. The trick is finding a werewolf and getting the curse without dying in the process—and then hanging onto the curse afterwards long enough to use its boosts effectively.

I've thought about this in reference to necromancy. As well as thinking about said flag.

First, I think that flag should be adjusted. In an open pvp game, it's too much (except for one instance, which I will get into in a second.) I think it would be nice to be able to hide your flag with a higher level feat. That means, you could still get attacked if people knew or could perceive you were, but if not, like just walking you could find some way to appear either as an animal or disguise yourself as a human.

Now, in regards to using the heinous flag effectively, this was the idea that I came up with. Basically, it would be before doing some srs pvp. You could group up, all raise your undead (or become werewolves) then go in on a settlement. In that case, it wouldn't matter. could also see roaming kill groups doing the same thing, but if you didn't do it as a sort of cultist group thing, you would get destroyed pretty fast.

Edit: @ Avari, yeah I mean they could/should be in the game, I think, but modified. +/- is good, but any sort of invulnerability is a joke in pvp games. It could be something as simple as +20% stats -50% + abilities that only work during certain instances. Ideally, it would be great for the game to say "I gotta move these goods from this town to this down... but it's a full moon... maybe I should stay in." Or "WE shouldn't slight the Lycan settlement, the full moon is upcoming.

Just more choices is good, but you're right in that these other things are OP. Although, dare I say that people do not like them because they are OP but because of their flavor, and they would probably accept nerfs to make them a balanced race.

Thod wrote:
<Kabal> Kradlum wrote:
This tells me the game is failing the stress test.

The stress test is working as planned.

Is the game failing? Too early to tell. It depends if GW is able to fix the issue or at least reach an acceptable level or if I can't do this in time for EE.

The only reason I see why he'd say it's failing... is because I would expect many more people to come into the game for EE. Obviously, if they continue to add more server-room then yeah. But there shouldn't be any server issues ideally when EE starts. Because if there are, then it will only get worse.

Mind you, that it is almost certain that when EE starts, there will be new server issues, or the same ones. But at this point I would hope that they could get the alpha servers working cuz I bet way more people are gonna be on when EE starts.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
By the way this is pre-EE Pfo community them song

That's gold man. haha.

My POV about EE and delay-ment is this:

I think maybe EE should start off simple. Obviously. The MVP should be that where the game can be driven, stuff can happen, but nobody can really gain any huge ground. Being as it's a beta-state.

I think the bugs listed are definitely issues. I think PKing needs to be in day one, too. I feel like this game is going to change drastically during EE. A lot of the things, or some of them, which seemed like good ideas are going to really become sores in action. That's normal. Like I said, the issue is to make it so that there never has to be a roll-back, in my eyes. So, advancing slowly is fine.

But bugs, yeah, getm.

The funny thing about PvE is that E is what the sandbox players will be fighting for. Should be kept in mind.

More PvE can never be bad.

Edit: Not talkin' bout dungeons. Talking about just the actual environment being more interesting.

Being wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
I didn't think we'd be finding nodes or... farming recipes for crafting. I kind of thought that would be a temporary measure until the environment was made more alive. alas.

So rather than sitting back passively, like a spectator, take an active role. Make suggestions toward your vision in the Ideascale crowdforging tool, Celest. What was you vision? However nebulous and unformed it might have been it was inspiring enough for you to make a meaningful commitment. If you manage to capture us with your vision we could well find our GW devs grow caught up in a brilliant idea and eventually it may become a milestone realized in our shared history.

But if you don't, if you allow it to lapse and fade, engulfed and fed upon in a parasitic mass of writhing disappointments and painful cynicisms we may never see its like again.

I am passive now because I see.

As I said in the beginning (my post history, check it!), the forging stage of an MMO will grab people who hope. It is like an election, you reach a wide audience. I now see the way things are shaping up. I also feel GW doesn't want to really make the game as advanced as I thought they would. The idea of a TT based Sandbox says DEPTH to me. We're almost to EE and what is going on?

EE is gonna be more of an alpha level product to me. I wonder if in 1 year they can get it together (that's that serious.)

Please do not question my effort or devotion to *anything.* I am not the developer of PFO. This is not my fault. My words are only words.

I believe unless what I suggested was something they could easily program in, they wouldn't do it. Like I said this is shaping up to be a game that has nothing but players. And they think the players will keep it going. I personally don't. You have to motivate them in some way. Especially considering there are other sandbox MMOs. If this was the only game with TC, then sure it would be a selling point.

Like I said, required reading for your reply is... my post history. I haven't even made that many posts. read all of them then we can talk about my vision.

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
The map could be 1000x what it is.

I'm not sure why that's a good thing, when people are already worried about how well we're going to be able to find each other--for both good and bad reasons--once we're all spread out to our Settlements, and travel-time is five minutes per hex. The current map is 28x29 hexes, so it'll take over two hours to go from one end to another; the full PFO map is 61x47, so travel time, even on the shorter dimension, is just short of four hours.

celestialiar wrote:
It could have 10000 different types of resources, weapons, recipes, races, classes, skills... but if the base model is what it is, that's too simple.

Again, how does this make things "better"? Today, people who are deeply involved with the public data are having trouble keeping 105 resources; 140 weapons; 1293 recipes; three races; four Roles; and 560 Feats, Skills, and Abilities straight, not to mention that more of most of those are coming, and we're trying to teach it all to newcomers.

Don't forget to add in 213 keywords, 24 proficiencies, and 239 Achievements...so far.

My plate feels full for now.


I can go at it from a different angle. What I was saying was "they could continue to stack more stuff, but if the basic idea does not change, it is too simple for me." You can plug whatever you want to into a formula, but I guess the base formula is not what I expected.

So if you go to a piece of rock protruding from the ground, fondle it for awhile, and it gives you... whatever. Then you do the plants, the trash, etc. You tiptoe around enemies. Maybe farm them a bit if you actually want a recipe, then you go home and make your item.

My issue is I feel the backbone of that... the "pve" element or the non-combat pvp element is not enough to support a great war game. Some might argue that as long as the soldiers are getting geared, it won't matter how flavorless the gearing is. Maybe. We shall see.

I don't see how adding pvp is going to make everything that is here now... so much more awesome. Main point.

But yeah peace...

Edit: @ Bludd. I must have met the same wolf. I got away from it once. Met some guy on the game and we were going to fight it, but it wrecked us. Hilariously, I died and then I saw it laying there after I res'd, and asked him, "Did you kill it?" And he was like nah... I think it's asleep. It was asleep. It just stopped in the middle of the fight and took a nap. heh.

Mind you, I don't care as much about terraforming. I just really thought PFO was going to have a similar level of environmental interaction as well as more interesting crafting. Possibly something where you could 'discover' new things. Sandbox to me is about discovery... and feeling as though the world is something you can reach out and touch with a mouse-click.

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
I dunno if I can say the graphics are better or whatever, but if both PFO and LiF were in the state they are in without any possible issues (like crashing to desktop level issues), I would play LiF.
Celestialiar, it may just be me, or a basic facet of your personality on the boards, but it feels like you've never had a single positive thing to say about the game in all the time you've been posting. I'm confused about why you are still bothering if it such a poor fit for you?

I explained it: hope. Albeit a small 85dollar nugget of hope.

I want to see it. It's not about food but flavor. I also thought the crafting system would have more flavor. I see this game is being built, but the systems... seem like they won't get much deeper. The only thing that is going to get deeper is TC.

I've been positive, at times, when I felt excited about something. I came into the game w/ an open mind, but the thing is... it's disappointing to see what is happening.

If PFO turned out to be a great game, I would be like man was I short sighted! And play it.

I didn't think we'd be finding nodes or... farming recipes for crafting. I kind of thought that would be a temporary measure until the environment was made more alive. alas.

Like I said, I will keep checking in. I was facetious when I said "I am hoping for them to come say, 'We are making the game deeper!'" But I keep waiting for depth, something to latch onto and say, "The person who is creative... not the person who grinds, will be successful."

The map could be 1000x what it is. It could have 10000 different types of resources, weapons, recipes, races, classes, skills... but if the base model is what it is, that's too simple.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

LiF feels like more is going on.

I dunno if I can say the graphics are better or whatever, but if both PFO and LiF were in the state they are in without any possible issues (like crashing to desktop level issues), I would play LiF.

I can get behind that sort of a sandbox and I was pretty sad to realize PFO has much less environmental interaction. I like that you can click on something and interact.

PFO doesn't have much interaction at all. The reason LiF seems more promising is because there seems to be a larger structure to build with where as PFO doesn't seem as though it's gonna do anything except polish what they already have... which is bare bones even if there are PoI, Settlements, etc.

I have more fun gathering twigs to make a campfire in LiF than I do in PFO. haha. LiF is also more immersive because you have to eat and such. PFO doesn't feel like a world to me.

Edit: you know the reason I come to PFO forums every once in awhile is because I kinda feel like they may say something like O we were wrong! Our game isn't robust enough, we are going to make it deeper! I know it's stupid, but it'd be nice if it happened.

Otherwise, I may have to make a meaningful choice and stop checking.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:

Am I the only one here who really REALLY hates the ALT economy or most MMOs?

I understand having Alts to play, learn new stuff on, and to make a "different" character but it seems like the popular opinion around here is pushing is that Alts should have little to no restrictions on trading from PC to PC, should be the primary AH market dominators, and should always be free from PvP since they have no interest being logged in for moments at a time let alone every leaving town.

I'd personally LOVE to see a system whereby items and equipment cannot ever be exchanged between characters when one of them is not gaining XP. I look at it like taxes, if you can't pay the bill for the PC, you shouldn't have access to any of the trading, reputations gates, or Marketplace since they are essentially homeless leeches that don't add anything to the system, instead they just move it around to make the game harder for others at their own profit.

Double post: ??

Is it that serious? There are other ways to limit such things.

DT is gonna be an alt regardless. So, basically, then the game is only playable for DT people. They will get to abuse the system, but no one else... I guess because they paid the tax?

People are gonna know the world market regardless, also.

If you wanna make the system so no alts, then make no f2p period. F2p might be a good business model, but it ruins games. Sooner or later, people find a way to exploit it.

If every char had a subbed account with 4 slots or whatever is "average", it would be a non issue. All of this financial wiggling is going to be a headache because, more than likely, there will be loopholes. And it's like the rep system: it hurts the person who isn't playing against the grain. Cuz they get limited where as the people who will do whatever it takes will find a way.

I really feel like the game system should be designed to stop this. It's not hard to be creative. But the issue then is that games want to bleed every cent out of people. Many metaphors... like "Do you think if you get a membership to a gym, you get all services..." but the issue is that gaming used to be free beyond initial purchase. Now, we have decided we will pay a company per month, and they still want more. They want to have half sub micro-transaction characters who will, as I said, destroy the economy. It is inevitable.

But, people still play games with bad economies. Especially if they got destiny twins plus understand how to game the system.

When they said, "You can have as many characters as you want!" naive me didn't think they meant "if you sub them...!"

Nihimon wrote:
Jakaal wrote:
... why in the world would you not be able to log into characters not gaining xp?
"We don't want a game full of folks who trained for 6 months, got reasonably competent, and are now playing without producing any revenue."

Gotta give GW credit, their financial game is pretty well-developed.

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

The 500 players guess on Xeen's part is just a guess. And not a good one.

There are 2,300 people who have access to the Alpha. Of those, over 1,000 are people we have directly invited so we know they're not alts of each other. I suspect the number of alt accounts (two or more accounts controlled by the same person) is less than 500.

Score one for Avari :)

1000 direct invites does not equal 1000 players actually active in game. We have sent out quite a few invites that were not activated.

The point really isn't so much, how many are there, but more so..... are there enough to build up and sustain the various systems that are population dependent?

Yeah, I think a lot of people play it a little then stop. I agree with less than 1000, easy.

If we're talking about people who actually play, it may go much less. Maybe 100-200. I know I always saw the same people.

I've sent our some alpha invites but of the people I know, none of them are interested in it anymore. Two of my friends who have EE packages are sharing my disinterest.

now, there isn't much that can be done in the game... no pvp is gonna make less people play. Unless you are crafting and farming, there's nothing to do, and pve is bare bones at best.

Urman wrote:
celestialiar wrote:

I don't even really understand how to clear escalations. Do you kill all mobs or just the xs? I've not found much reduction from killing the xs. Would be nice if the mobs were HARDER, more aggressive ( so that you couldn't just walk through a high escalation hex) and not so spread out with so many tiny groups. It's more like cockroaches now than anything.

In Alpha 7 we were able to clear an escalation in one hex with two 6-character parties, running separate paths thru the hex. In Alpha 8, the one escalation I took part in (one party) was dropping the level of the escalation for completing missions (the x's: killing priests and killing commanders); each completed mission bumped the escalation down something like 3% or 5%. The escalations had spread pretty wide by that point, we probably needed one or two parties in a hex, and maybe additional parties in adjecent hexes. Because adjacent infected hexes are going to be bumping the escalation up even as the PvE parties are working it down.

I think wise settlements are going to learn to clear escalations early. If you don't have the force to deal with it, get help.

Another thing the PvE types might consider: whether attacking an escalation's border hexes is easier than attacking an escalation's core hexes. That we don't know... I take this as evidence that the PvE types haven't gotten serious about testing escalations yet.

yeah, I went in on some in alpha 7. I really took it down, but it wasn't very high to start. I got rewards but I don't think I ever zeroed it out. It gave me messages, though. Maybe I did. It was just me and one other person, though, but obviously with OP chars.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People avoid escalations. I remember logging on the next day after passing through one... again they aren't really big enough that you can't go around them. IF they made the hexes impassable then they would be much tougher.

I logged in and it was like WOW this escalation is still at 100%. I even said in the chat WE NEED TO CLEAR THIS ESCALATION. No reply.

I don't think they grow really fast, but the issue is that people don't care. No rewards, no challenge beyond whack a mole...

I still think if you had 2-3 people you should be able to make a dent in an escalation.

You should be able to clear one in a very long time. Now it seems like it would take a day haha. I don't even really understand how to clear escalations. Do you kill all mobs or just the xs? I've not found much reduction from killing the xs. Would be nice if the mobs were HARDER, more aggressive ( so that you couldn't just walk through a high escalation hex) and not so spread out with so many tiny groups. It's more like cockroaches now than anything.

Imagine an escalation that was literally wall to wall with enemies, that would be funny. I don't think being able to sneak through them is good at all.

Doc || GenAknosc wrote:

I figured I would see what people think, about shifting a lot of discussion off this forum and over to the sub-Reddit for Pathfinder Online that already exists - http://www.reddit.com/r/PathfinderOnline

Why? Well, Reddit has a built-in voting mechanism that allows readers to, as a group, downvote to oblivion comments or threads that are deemed inappropriate, off-topic, or just rude.

There seems to be a tendency for a few specific individuals to dominate every discussion, and it sometimes turns a bit negative. Other than flagging posts, there doesn't seem to be much other readers can do?

For instance, if you think my post here is bothersome, you could all downvote it and not have to deal with it anymore. :)


I dunno.

The issue I have is I think that the community is skewed. There are still some that have supreme faith in the devs. I wonder if maybe that is the larger group. They are just like OH ANOTHER GREAT IDEA!

But then there are people who are "negative." I haven't seen one negative thread on this whole forum that I felt didn't have merit. Sometimes people got into arguments, but that's their own thing.

I don't think anyone is dominating anything. Some people post more haha. What would happen if the community hated you and downvoted everything you said?

I want the discussion to stay here because I think people need to know what's up about this game. I came here. I researched. It seemed like the overall tone back then was much more positive. I think if the community is wavering or upset, it should be noted so that the customers, who funded this project, can be pleased.

Suppression, to me, is not a good thing. I personally would never downvote someone's post.

1 to 50 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>