Unsettled Alliance: Brethren of the Wild Lands


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Wow, I hadn't even seen this thread the first time around. Thanks for bringing it to my attention that the thread is old, because I was going to reply to some of the previous posts. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Wow, I hadn't even seen this thread the first time around. Thanks for bringing it to my attention that the thread is old, because I was going to reply to some of the previous posts. :)

Old idea I had, but considering it may be quite sometime into EE before PC settlements, it might be something that will be hard to give up.

With the introduction of POIs / Outposts; the greater focus on outpost raiding for the UNC; the Viking (Ulfen / Linnorm) theme of UNC; and the news that Barbarians will be in the second wave of character class types, this idea has come fresh into my mind.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Arise from the depths!!!

You wildlings need to find a place to bathe and pronto! :P

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Arise from the depths!!!
You wildlings need to find a place to bathe and pronto! :P

So sayeth the one who looks like he is smeared in charcoal.

Scarab Sages

Yes, Ifrit and Undine pairings are looked down on for a reason.

Goblin Squad Member

Will the members of this Alliance all be tied to NPC cities then? I thought any character in the game either belonged to a player settlement or an NPC settlement?

Would this mean that player settlements(or the battle-companies therein) could declare a Feud against these wildling companies without fear of being drawn in a War with another settlement?

I also feel that what it means to be a part of an NPC city will experience many changes over the course of EE and probably long after OE too. To avoid that NPC-cities become too much of an "opt-out" feature and nobody bothers with PC settlements anymore.

Also, I thought "high level training" was linked to being a part of Settlement that can actually provide the training you want: when you are not a member of this settlement, you lose the Feat or Skill or perk or whatever. I thought this was actually one the big perks of being a valued member of a settlement. If you can just buy the high level training in some settlement and then turn your back on them again, that sounds wrong.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Tyncale,

There is some debate as to what will be the effects of not being attached to a PC settlement; Having never been attached to a PC settlement; Having been attached to a settlement, and then no longer attached; etc...

If the difference is slight, which I feel it may be, then the trade-off might be a meaningful one.

Call me a skeptic, but many of the systems GW has on their plate are awful complicated and have never been done before. I believe in the end they will have an effect, but each on their own will only be marginal.

In one post somewhere, Ryan had actually said the difference could be as little as 5%

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the difference is slight, then the Game of Settlements will fall flat on its face imo, and PFO will most likely fail.

I think you are hitting a very tender spot with your idea of a meta-gamed free Alliance, that bypasses the Settlement-system.

The thing is, I feel that there is a large contingent of players out there that basically want one thing out of a PvP game(which PFO obviously is): and that is to be in direct conflict with an other player, most of the time that they are online.

If you make it too convenient for these players to live ouside the Settlement system, then you get two games in one: those playing the Game of Thrones, including building up Settlements with all the crafting, trading, diplomacy and defending that is part of that, and then a large percentage of the players who could not be bothered less by all that and are just looking for action, without participating in the Settlement game.

If the perks of being part of a Settlement are minor, then I can see that part die off: why would you build up, fight for a Settlement if it brings you nothing?

What I was hoping for, is that PFO is a game where everyone actually WANTS to belong to a Settlement, *because* it gives them the best chance and best tools to do what they want: both for those builders and crafters and diplomats *and* for those action-minded players that love to be in direct conflict constantly. I was hoping that those action-minded players would populate the Raid-companies, the defenders of PoI's, the posses that get sent out to clear the lands of unwanted elements.

I would hope that there is so much action in PFO that these players will find all the action they will need, but within, and supported by the Game of Settlements.

I can see some of your points about freedom, most certainly the one about not being tied to a certain Hex: but I sure hope that there will be settlements out there and Companies that make it a goal to roam the lands from East to West and North to South, and find lodgings in friendly settlements (and danger along the road no doubt).

I do not want the game of Settlements to fizzle. Settlements are the foundation of this game, they must make it worthwhile to belong to one.

Goblin Squad Member

To all the discussion of freedom to roam and not being tied down, there is a reason that many world settings have places where adventurers are tolerated for their usefulness but despised as a whole, labelled as untrustworthy and troublesome. The free nature and lack of attachment that traditional adventurers often espouse is a dangerous element.

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:

If the difference is slight, then the Game of Settlements will fall flat on its face imo, and PFO will most likely fail.

I think you are hitting a very tender spot with your idea of a meta-gamed free Alliance, that bypasses the Settlement-system.

The thing is, I feel that there is a large contingent of players out there that basically want one thing out of a PvP game(which PFO obviously is): and that is to be in direct conflict with an other player, most of the time that they are online.

If you make it too convenient for these players to live ouside the Settlement system, then you get two games in one: those playing the Game of Thrones, including building up Settlements with all the crafting, trading, diplomacy and defending that is part of that, and then a large percentage of the players who could not be bothered less by all that and are just looking for action, without participating in the Settlement game.

If the perks of being part of a Settlement are minor, then I can see that part die off: why would you build up, fight for a Settlement if it brings you nothing?

What I was hoping for, is that PFO is a game where everyone actually WANTS to belong to a Settlement, *because* it gives them the best chance and best tools to do what they want: both for those builders and crafters and diplomats *and* for those action-minded players that love to be in direct conflict constantly. I was hoping that those action-minded players would populate the Raid-companies, the defenders of PoI's, the posses that get sent out to clear the lands of unwanted elements.

I would hope that there is so much action in PFO that these players will find all the action they will need, but within, and supported by the Game of Settlements.

I can see some of your points about freedom, most certainly the one about not being tied to a certain Hex: but I sure hope that there will be settlements out there and Companies that make it a goal to roam the lands from East to West and North to South, and find lodgings in...

Two games in one.... You mean, like a sandbox.... /perk

If settlements are not über reward, they will fail.... Poppycock! Eve proves this wrong. Not everyone is in a large corporation or an alliance, and yet in their corps of one they manage quite well.

Goblin Squad Member

I was under the impression that character skills/abilities/feats will be tied to the character's settlement in some way. Thus the idea that characters who engage in mindless ganking/griefing will soon find that they are weak and unable to train new skills.

Do I have this wrong in my head? Wouldn't allowing players to train each other undermine this system of punishing the griefers?

Goblin Squad Member

Alzaric wrote:

I was under the impression that character skills/abilities/feats will be tied to the character's settlement in some way. Thus the idea that characters who engage in mindless ganking/griefing will soon find that they are weak and unable to train new skills.

Do I have this wrong in my head? Wouldn't allowing players to train each other undermine this system of punishing the griefers?

You dont have to be a part of a PC settlement to train. PC settlements are supposed to have access to the highest level of training, but Ryan stated that it will be a minimal increase over not having it.

Ganking/Griefing will have nothing to do with it. Low Rep, which you may gain from Ganking, MAY keep you from entering settlements. Depending on how the landlords have that set.

If you cannot train the highest level, then you can put those points else where and maybe even to better use.

Goblin Squad Member

Alzaric wrote:

I was under the impression that character skills/abilities/feats will be tied to the character's settlement in some way. Thus the idea that characters who engage in mindless ganking/griefing will soon find that they are weak and unable to train new skills.

Do I have this wrong in my head? Wouldn't allowing players to train each other undermine this system of punishing the griefers?

At the end of the day your impression is correct. Players who do not associate strongly with PC settlements will be left with sub-optimal options at their disposal. This is not to say that the characters will be useless, merely disadvantaged. Contrary to Xeen's assertion, these differences are likely to be individually significant. However, they are not so significant that a highly trained individual is immune to those with lesser training. Being that this is not a game meant for individuals, but rather for groups, a group of lesser trained individuals can still be very threatening to solo individuals and smaller groups of more highly trained individuals. When you compare something like this to WoW, being 10 levels above someone makes you effectively immune. At 20 levels difference, a hundred of them could be attacking you with no ill effects at all against you. In PFO, 20-to-1 will always be viable regardless of difference in experience.

In the future, formation combat is likely going to be a strong way to counter strong zergs of unaffiliated players trying to achieve victory through numbers.

Goblin Squad Member

Alzaric wrote:

I was under the impression that character skills/abilities/feats will be tied to the character's settlement in some way. Thus the idea that characters who engage in mindless ganking/griefing will soon find that they are weak and unable to train new skills.

Do I have this wrong in my head? Wouldn't allowing players to train each other undermine this system of punishing the griefers?

Yes, you have it wrong in your head. The punishment of griefers is not the reputation system, nor the skill system tied to PC settlements, not the alignment system. The punishment of griefers will be capricious and arbitrary and dealt with separately from those other systems.

This is not saying that griefers won't also have to deal with those systems, but you can suffer the negative consequences of those systems without having been griefing anyone.

Goblin Squad Member

Contrary to my assertion??? Ryan said the differences will be minimal, on an individual basis. How is what Ryan said my assertion?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
In response to the apparent limitations of the Alignment system, as it relates to both settlements and charter companies, the Unnamed Company will be forming a meta gamed, player alliance.

@Bluddwolf sometimes you remind me of one of my brothers, the most avaricious one of us, who is incessantly consuming self-help media and chasing one get-rich-quick scheme after another, each with it's paramount epiphany, each with it's paragon of schemes, and so far each with its crushing futility.

You should assemble all your brainchild schemes into one massive plan for world-domination just to, you know, simplify.

Goblin Squad Member

Read a good part of this thread and like the idea a lot of mercenaries, bandits & outlaws being able to be a strong and interesting part of the game but am concerned about the possible abuse. Seems sad that we have to be wary of the lest common denominator abusing the system and wrecking the game so systems must be put in place (and others not) just to deal with the LCD.

I think I can glean that *griefing* is people who simply hassle and harass other players for no good reason? Is this correct?

Goblin Squad Member

@ Being,

If nothing else you should take from my approach that I look for the sandbox to have as few if any internal boxes within the main box.

I'm willing to deal with, and have little choice, to accept trade offs.

As for your analogy, it is not my play style that has been shown to be futile in other Open World Sandbox MMOs, it has been the attempts to contain certain play styles that have proven to be futile.

I have history to back up my expectations, GW does not. They are the ones who are trying to do something that has been tried and failed. I believe, like all things, they will be partially successful.

@ Harneloot,

Yes, griefers are the LCD, but none of the systems GW are devising are actually geared towards eradicating them. Nor are these systems going to deter a true griefer.

A true griefer pays his / her $15.00 month to ruin someone else's enjoyment in the game. They don't care about character advancement, or alignment, or reputation or being a part of a settlement. None of that matters. They will wipe a toon once it is no longer viable; wipe an account once it has been banned; and pick up anew for another $15 a month.

They will typically have a "clean" account to funnel coin and resources to.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

Contrary to my assertion??? Ryan said the differences will be minimal, on an individual basis. How is what Ryan said my assertion?

I believe the statement was "Relatively flat compared to other MMOs" which is very different to "minimal". Minimal makes it sound like two novice untrained characters given equal player skill would be able to defeat a 2.5 year veteran with a fully trained role with relative ease. Which is simply not the case.

I seem to remember an example given of roughly 4-to-1 for absolute new to moderately trained vet and 4-to-1 again from moderately trained to fully trained vet. This is a significant power curve. But it is much more flat than most of the existing MMOs out there today.

Edit: Furthermore - with the higher levels of training only available in PC settlements, and the ability to use that training potentially linked to being a member of a PC settlement, the roving unaffiliated player is likely to be equivalent to 'moderately trained'.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

4-to-1 was imagined, but close. Actual statement was here

Goblin Squad Member

PFO's powercurve is also a matter of economics: if you want players to keep subscribing after the initial strong powergain of the first few months, you have to keep the powergain actually interesting.

I realize that players can go "horizontal" with their characters development(more variety, dualclassing, crafting), but I think if you can reach 90% of a certain Roles power in 6 months, not everyone will keep paying for another 2 years to get that last 10% of the role.

I also realize that they do not want it to take too long for a new player to reach a certain plateau of power so they can be useful and have fun in the game; I agree with this, else you will scare off new players once the game has been around for a while. But at the same time they must keep it interesting for a player to keep investing in his character after that initial powersurge.

So it sortoff worried me when I read the statement that at higher levels, a skill-up would not only have much less return then a skillup at the start of the curve, but that the skill-up would also cost a multifold in XP at such high levels. I know there are people out there that will want that tiny edge for their character even if it costs them another year of subs, but I think a lot of people would just stop subscribing for that particular character when they reach that "wall of diminishing returns".

You can hope that people will make Alts (and so pay for them)or go horizontal with a character and keep paying to get that 90% in other roles, but they may also simply stop subscribing and keep enjoying the game for free.

No doubt that this will be tweaked though.

In short, if the curve is too flat, if the gain is too little, if the differences become too small, why keep paying for a sub?

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:
... but they may also simply stop subscribing and keep enjoying the game for free.

Ryan has addressed this.

@Hroderich Gottfrei - our thoughts on "playing for free" are evolving. There will be some form of free play, that's a requirement in today's market where people want to try an MMO before they put in any money.

How long you can play without paying anything is something we're thinking about. 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.

Goblin Squad Member

Personally, I think there's some sense in having two tiers of access: one that only grants the right to log in; and another that grants the right to log in as well as training time. I think it makes sense for these to all be per Character, although you should be able to change which Character on the Account has the access. If you want to be able to play three Characters at the same time, you would need three different access keys (subscription, PLEX-equivalent, whatever), but you could easily change which three Characters you were able to log in.

Goblin Squad Member

Possibly you can only get a certain important Feat that needs 2,5 years of pre-requisites, that sort of thing.

Even so, it will be a tough act to balance: to not scare off newbies with the idea that they need 2,5 years to reach full power, so making them usefull with a few months of training, yet wanting them to keep paying after that still.

It is a bit contradictionary.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Personally, I think there's some sense in having two tiers of access: one that only grants the right to log in; and another that grants the right to log in as well as training time. I think it makes sense for these to all be per Character, although you should be able to change which Character on the Account has the access. If you want to be able to play three Characters at the same time, you would need three different access keys (subscription, PLEX-equivalent, whatever), but you could easily change which three Characters you were able to log in.

I think this would make sense. A cheap-tier may cost $5/account to login and have access to micro-transaction store for a-la-carte access. A higher tier may provide $15/account to log in, some amount of credits for the microtransaction store simulating an all-inclusive package without quite being all-inclusive, and training time for one character. Additional training time can be purchased for $10/character.

This would allow players who feel they have enough training to continue playing and contributing to revenue, albeit at a lower rate. Account-level log-in access is a great incentive to link your characters to a single account and makes having multiple characters more attractive. A lot of folks may decide to rotate training between characters from month to month using this model, but once multiple characters are in play, the psychological barrier to pitching in that $10/month to train more than one at a time becomes significantly less as players grow attached to the characters they may log in with.

I don't know if this is the right thread to discuss such models though. We should let this get back to The Unsettled Alliance topic.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Xeen wrote:

Contrary to my assertion??? Ryan said the differences will be minimal, on an individual basis. How is what Ryan said my assertion?

I believe the statement was "Relatively flat compared to other MMOs" which is very different to "minimal". Minimal makes it sound like two novice untrained characters given equal player skill would be able to defeat a 2.5 year veteran with a fully trained role with relative ease. Which is simply not the case.

I seem to remember an example given of roughly 4-to-1 for absolute new to moderately trained vet and 4-to-1 again from moderately trained to fully trained vet. This is a significant power curve. But it is much more flat than most of the existing MMOs out there today.

Edit: Furthermore - with the higher levels of training only available in PC settlements, and the ability to use that training potentially linked to being a member of a PC settlement, the roving unaffiliated player is likely to be equivalent to 'moderately trained'.

Actually, He said something like a 2% difference between having that PC Settlement only skill and not having it.

Minimal difference

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Actually, He said something like a 2% difference between having that PC Settlement only skill and not having it.

I think Xeen is probably thinking of these quotes.

Losing access to exotic character abilities(*) is not necessary a "gimp"; it is really a loss of some benefits on the margin. You might have a sword with the [Vorpal] keyword that you (eventually) lose the ability to leverage, meaning that maybe a certain attack option ceases being available, meaning that you are 0.5% (totally made up number) less efficient when attacking characters with necks.

Of course you want that 0.5% (who wouldn't, especially since you probably jumped through a lot of hoops to get it) but it's not the difference between being useless and being uber.

(*) NPC Settlements will enable you to use a lot of abilities. We're even thinking about ways you could use abilities you can't train in an NPC Settlement, so people who end up back in an NPC Settlement after a sojurn in PC Settlement life would actually be better than people who never left, but I digress.

Remember that Pathfinder Online is a game of increasing complexity, not primarily increasing power.

Advanced skills are about using keywords and getting marginal improvements to attributes. A very old character stripped of Settlement-linked character abilities will be less flexible, and marginally less powerful, than a similar character who has not lost access to those aspects of their character sheet. But they won't be gimped. It is not the difference between a 10th level fighter and a 20th level fighter on the tabletop.

It means that crafters will be slightly less efficient and may not be able to make exotic goods. It means that transporters will not be able to move quite as much stuff. It means that harvesters will get less material per time unit, or the quality of what they get will be slightly less.

These "slightly less" things add up to a huge advantage when the Settlement is cohesive and working with an integrated plan, which is why there's a value in getting them. But the frontier is the place where you will find less cohesive Settlements who are struggling to learn how to work as a team. If a group of characters backed by wealth and experience show up they're going to be able to displace the weakest Settlement through ability and strategy.

If a Settlement from the core gets destroyed and it's leadership falls apart in a round of finger-pointing, and nobody managed to haul off lots of weapons, armor, rare materials, wagons, etc. before the end, and the Settlement doesn't have enough harvesters or crafters or teamsters or soldiers to pose a threat to anyone, then it's going to dissolve and its members will find new homes.

However, it also sounds like Xeen is conflating "a very old character stripped of Settlement-linked character abilities" with "a moderate level character who never trained High Level skills". I'm not sure that holds up.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
However, it also sounds like Xeen is conflating "a very old character stripped of Settlement-linked character abilities" with "a moderate level character who never trained High Level skills". I'm not sure that holds up.

No, that is not being done. The assumption is being made that you will not need to be a member of a settlement to train skill there. Which could be realistic, since not all settlements will have the best of all trainers. The sale of specialty training could be another revenue source for settlements.

However, the availability of such services may be moderated by player reputation. It depends on whether allowing players of certain reputation/alignment values to visit your city has adverse impacts. So far as we know, these impacts only occur for members joining the settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
The assumption is being made that you will not need to be a member of a settlement to train skill there.

I remember that assumption being at the center of the UNC/Pax alliance. My understanding is that the reason that alliance fell apart is because it became clear that was a faulty assumption.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
The assumption is being made that you will not need to be a member of a settlement to train skill there.

I remember that assumption being at the center of the UNC/Pax alliance. My understanding is that the reason that alliance fell apart is because it became clear that was a faulty assumption.

Actually, no that was not really the reason. I won't go into full detail, but the most innocuous of the reasons was that Pax is planning on having three settlements LN, LE and LG and they would not be providing very much or any chaotic based training.

That basically left the trade of our activity for their training null.

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:

Possibly you can only get a certain important Feat that needs 2,5 years of pre-requisites, that sort of thing.

Even so, it will be a tough act to balance: to not scare off newbies with the idea that they need 2,5 years to reach full power, so making them usefull with a few months of training, yet wanting them to keep paying after that still.

It is a bit contradictionary.

Here is another bit of contradiction....

If I just spent the last 2+ years playing my character without the highest tier trained skill, how much will I really miss not having it?

As I have been saying, you can't have a "non steep power curve" on one hand, and a "or you will suck" on the other.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


As I have been saying, you can't have a "non steep power curve" on one hand, and a "or you will suck" on the other.

Again, the proper way to view it is "Not-As-Steep Power Curve". As for the "you will suck" sentiment, it is hard to determine that at the current level of information we have. However, if the idea is to avoid settlements as a way to escape the alignment and/or reputation systems then I would expect there to be some negative consequences.

The game mechanics are trying to use social associations for reasons to participate in the game in positive ways. Sure, some of this may make a pretty unusual use of the alignment system to try to segment players into social buckets, but I doubt their designs will be very forgiving to those who attempt to work around the system.

I'm not certain that they will try to make a group like this suck, but there is a chance at it. Particularly if it begins looking like a reputation loophole. It could really go either way, and I am not advocating for one or the other.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:


As I have been saying, you can't have a "non steep power curve" on one hand, and a "or you will suck" on the other.

Again, the proper way to view it is "Not-As-Steep Power Curve". As for the "you will suck" sentiment, it is hard to determine that at the current level of information we have. However, if the idea is to avoid settlements as a way to escape the alignment and/or reputation systems then I would expect there to be some negative consequences.

The game mechanics are trying to use social associations for reasons to participate in the game in positive ways. Sure, some of this may make a pretty unusual use of the alignment system to try to segment players into social buckets, but I doubt their designs will be very forgiving to those who attempt to work around the system.

I'm not certain that they will try to make a group like this suck, but there is a chance at it. Particularly if it begins looking like a reputation loophole. It could really go either way, and I am not advocating for one or the other.

It has little to do with reputation, and more to do with play style and role play. I have little doubt there will be a settlement that opens it doors to low reputation, possibly to just support its own members. I have heard rumblings in the Internetz. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

There will be such settlements. They will not have access to the good training, as that would require they set the reputation minimum higher.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
There will be such settlements. They will not have access to the good training, as that would require they set the reputation minimum higher.

Has this been confirmed? I'm wondering if the Devs just expect that the settlement managers will set them higher just based on meta social conscience, but may not feel like coding in the actual limitation into the training structures.

It remains to be seen and is a long, long way off near the latter part of EE.

Goblin Squad Member

Gimme a sec and I'll find the quote...

Here it is, very appropriately found in the Alignment and Reputation blog:

Alignment and Reputation wrote:
Having a negative Reputation will mean that certain settlements will be off limits to you. Having a Reputation below -2500 means you cannot safely enter most NPC or starter settlements. Player settlements can set a minimum Reputation to enter safely; if your Reputation is below this value the guards will attack you and none of the NPCs will talk to you. Higher end structures, like tier 2 and 3 training and crafting facilities, require the settlement have its minimum Reputation set to certain levels to function. So if you want your town to have awesome training and crafting facilities, you have to set a high minimum Reputation to enter the settlement. This means characters that do a lot of PvP outside of wars, feuds, and such will be forced to visit less developed settlements that are wretched hives of scum and villainy.

They specifically use the phrase "you have to set a high minimum reputation", so I don't think assuming middling reputation can have all training is safe. Of course we don't know where the lines are drawn yet, so we can't get into the nitty gritty of it.

Goblin Squad Member

I will remind you that "reputation" is used to track how well you play your role, not how "good" aligned you are. It is possible to have a Chaotic Evil High-Rep character, difficult though it may be.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:
I will remind you that "reputation" is used to track how well you play your role, not how "good" aligned you are. It is possible to have a Chaotic Evil High-Rep character, difficult though it may be.

It is easy to be CE and High reputation. As long as you have chaotic evil motives and focus your actions against sanctioned targets or play a non combat role, you will be both CE and High Rep.

This is where people like Ryan don't understand the nature if role playing, and get too hung up on their own preconceived notions that CE is almost always played stupidly.

I could easily play a CE merchant.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
BrotherZael wrote:
I will remind you that "reputation" is used to track how well you play your role, not how "good" aligned you are. It is possible to have a Chaotic Evil High-Rep character, difficult though it may be.

It is easy to be CE and High reputation. As long as you have chaotic evil motives and focus your actions against sanctioned targets or play a non combat role, you will be both CE and High Rep.

This is where people like Ryan don't understand the nature if role playing, and get too hung up on their own preconceived notions that CE is almost always played stupidly.

I could easily play a CE merchant.

I don't think motives will be sufficient to determine Alignment. I think that Alignment will be determined almost entirely by actions, and there might not be a lot if Chaotic|Evil High Reputation actions, at least at first.

Goblin Squad Member

If alignment drifts towards your chosen core and reputation drifts upwards, all you need to do to be CE high rep is to set CE as your core alignment and wait for reputation to increase.

Just don't commit any acts that decrease your rep or shift your alignment and you're gold.

Harvesting, crafting, PvE-ing, trading, building, "sanctioned" PvP, "tavern RP"; these activities should all be fine as long as you avoid the specific situations that move your alignment towards good or lawful.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
I don't think motives will be sufficient to determine Alignment. I think that Alignment will be determined almost entirely by actions, and there might not be a lot if Chaotic|Evil High Reputation actions, at least at first.

Actually the impression that I got from some of Ryan's comments was that in most cases players will set their alignment and then forget it. Most of our actions will not be traceable and the automatic drift towards Core (set) Alignment will keep most characters there.

Alignment is almost purely a segregation mechanic in PFO, and has very little to do with more traditional role playing.

One if the things I will test during EE is the alignment system. I will set my core alignment to Lawful Good and then behave in a chaotic neutral manner and see what impact incongruence of my core vs. active alignment will be. I will then measure the difficulty or lack thereof of that in congruence and do a cost / benefit analysis.

If I discover that a particular alignment grants greater advantage, and yet the cost does not hinder my actions too severely, I will select that alignment as my core. If alignment is treated as a mechanic, than it will be min-maxed as a mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

Can Settlements set restrictions on alignment as well as reputation in terms of who can enter?

Goblin Squad Member

Harneloot wrote:
Can Settlements set restrictions on alignment as well as reputation in terms of who can enter?

That is what has been either suggested or assumed. However, alignment in the absence of detection won't trigger a the trespasser flag. In other words, there is no automatic "know alignment spell" at your gates.

It is unknown which type of alignment is detectable. It could be core, it could be active or it could be both.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Actually the impression that I got from some of Ryan's comments was that in most cases players will set their alignment and then forget it. Most of our actions will not be traceable and the automatic drift towards Core (set) Alignment will keep most characters there.

Ryan did say he expects most players to set their Alignment and then forget it, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect the automatic drift to keep you there unless you basically never do anything outside of that alignment. If you set your Alignment to Lawful Good and then spend all your time playing Chaotic Evil, the automatic drift most certainly will not "keep you there" at Lawful Good.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That most characters will 'set and forget' is close to a confirmation that edge cases will likely not be able to ignore Alignment.

If you're not going to take the same actions as characters of your alignment who don't pay attention to it, you'll probably have to pay attention to it.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

That most characters will 'set and forget' is close to a confirmation that edge cases will likely not be able to ignore Alignment.

If you're not going to take the same actions as characters of your alignment who don't pay attention to it, you'll probably have to pay attention to it.

Yes, and the only edge case at the moment is Paladin. Even a cleric has flexibility within the 3 or 4 alignments allowed by their Deity.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
However, it also sounds like Xeen is conflating "a very old character stripped of Settlement-linked character abilities" with "a moderate level character who never trained High Level skills". I'm not sure that holds up.

I was comparing an old character that has High level skills with an Old Character that just trained other skills instead of high level skills.

Goblin Squad Member

There appears to be considerable 'wishing' going on.

<tosses a coin in the well>

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Harneloot wrote:
Can Settlements set restrictions on alignment as well as reputation in terms of who can enter?

That is what has been either suggested or assumed. However, alignment in the absence of detection won't trigger a the trespasser flag. In other words, there is no automatic "know alignment spell" at your gates.

It is unknown which type of alignment is detectable. It could be core, it could be active or it could be both.

So is reputation always visible to all, but alignment is hidden from all unless a spell is used?

Goblin Squad Member

Harneloot wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Harneloot wrote:
Can Settlements set restrictions on alignment as well as reputation in terms of who can enter?

That is what has been either suggested or assumed. However, alignment in the absence of detection won't trigger a the trespasser flag. In other words, there is no automatic "know alignment spell" at your gates.

It is unknown which type of alignment is detectable. It could be core, it could be active or it could be both.

So is reputation always visible to all, but alignment is hidden from all unless a spell is used?

Yes, Alignment is hidden and Reputation is visible. Unless there have been changes of what was said in the past, and I don't believe there have been.

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Unsettled Alliance: Brethren of the Wild Lands All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.