Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This spark the subject.
There's an interesting assumption I've seen in this thread that I wanted to mention.
The assumption is that a character can gain X ability while a member of one Settlement, and then keep using it when they change Settlements to one that doesn't have the necessary perquisites to provide and/or sustain that ability so that a character's total available abilities are disassociated from thier Settlement affiliation.
That's an assumption, not a fact.
How powerful you would be the link character-settlement?
Just a training center and a market?
Or they will be benefits and disadvantages with affiliation (something more close)?
One of the more interesting points about this is that it implies, assuming it means what it comes across as, that it will not in fact be viable not to be a member of a player settlement if you want to use any skills above the basic ones provided by the non player settlements
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Paladins are a pretty unique exception, requiring both Lawful and Good and having to really, really stick to it as well.
I'm curious, if a Cleric breaks from alignment, does he/she get defrocked and lose all powers much in the same way that a Paladin does? Would that former Cleric have to go to a different Deity and start from scratch or would he/she regain common spells instantly?
These are PFRPG / AD&D questions, but could of should it work the same way in PFO?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Paladins are a pretty unique exception, requiring both Lawful and Good and having to really, really stick to it as well.
I'm curious, if a Cleric breaks from alignment, does he/she get defrocked and lose all powers much in the same way that a Paladin does? Would that former Cleric have to go to a different Deity and start from scratch or would he/she regain common spells instantly?
These are PFRPG / AD&D questions, but could of should it work the same way in PFO?
I'd have to find the blog reference, but I remember reading about drifting from your core alignment through warfare, accident or other happenstance. (The discussion was regarding "alignment drift" when you were logged out). IIRC, you may drift away from your core alignment, but if you do, certain abilities may be prohibited until you "get right" with your deity again, and perhaps perform some deed in recompense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan wrote:
"The assumption is that a character can gain X ability while a member of one Settlement, and then keep using it when they change Settlements to one that doesn't have the necessary perquisites to provide and/or sustain that ability so that a character's total available abilities are disassociated from their Settlement affiliation."
My first question is, what "X ability" is he referring to? The phrasing of it sounds new to me, since I don't recall hearing talk of gaining any new abilities simply by joining a settlement that aren't already understood as only being accessible as a member of a particular settlement (e.g. you obviously need to be a member of settlement "A" to get settlement "A" leadership abilities).
Pagan and Brignslite,
He does not use the term training or skill, so hopefully we're not saying that if you change settlement allegiance, you no longer benefit from the skills you trained there. If this is what he means, I think that will be rather unpopular. Also, what would this mean to the settlement's entire membership if their settlement is conquered? Finally, what about people who don't belong to a settlement, and never plan to (like myself)? Such a change would contradict earlier statements of being able to gain training (as a gift or by coin) from settlements you are not a member of.
Paladin/Cleric Question - For paladins, I would think it wouldn't be too difficult for a paladin's holy powers to be toggled on and off depending on his alignment. For a cleric who has fallen out of favor (alignment shift further than one from his/her deity), the same kind of skill toggle might be employed until they move back into the required alignment range or until they go to a new, alignment appropriate deity's shrine/temple and do some required action to commit themselves to the new deity. You might institute some kind of penalty if this happens more than once. For those in the business of faith, there should be a cost for not remaining faithful, and in a world where deities are granting you your powers, they may get a little ticked at your on-again-off-again devotion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All we know hobs is so far the official use of the word ability had been in relation to xp buying skill then achieving the merit badge gives you the abiltity.
Is this what Ryan means? Frankly no idea and personally I think unless he is willing to clarify further he would have been better saying nothing given how good this community is at twisting any ambiguity to suit their own argument.
*shakes his fist at Ryan Dancey
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as we all appreciate their posting here, it would have helped to have been a bit more clear.
I think of it as 'fishing for ideas'; throwing something out there and making the forums light up with speculation, brainstorming, arguments, counterarguments and whatnot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As much as we all appreciate their posting here, it would have helped to have been a bit more clear.I think of it as 'fishing for ideas'; throwing something out there and making the forums light up with speculation, brainstorming, arguments, counterarguments and whatnot.
Now we are making assumptions from that statement. What? No free range chicken on the menu?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now we are making assumptions from that statement. What? No free range chicken on the menu?As much as we all appreciate their posting here, it would have helped to have been a bit more clear.I think of it as 'fishing for ideas'; throwing something out there and making the forums light up with speculation, brainstorming, arguments, counterarguments and whatnot.
I'm not saying it's intentional, nor that it's a bad thing. I'm just saying, that's all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As much as we all appreciate their posting here, it would have helped to have been a bit more clear.I think of it as 'fishing for ideas'; throwing something out there and making the forums light up with speculation, brainstorming, arguments, counterarguments and whatnot.
Maybe that's what Crowdforging really is.
/rampantspeculation|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the more interesting points about this is that it implies, assuming it means what it comes across as, that it will not in fact be viable not to be a member of a player settlement if you want to use any skills above the basic ones provided by the non player settlements
Zen, this is a good point, do you mean:
1. All players must be a member of some settlement to earn beyond the basic skill-training (ie f2p players if in the future is highly applicable)
OR.
2. If you train-skills at YOUR member settlement, the higher skills TRAINED at that settlement are only usable/accessible if you REMAIN a member of that settlement, beyond a certain level of skill-training (eg hypothetical cut-off (could vary per skill progression) but let's say level 10/20)?
>>> Hence: If you changed membership, you'd have to re-train higher skills at your new settlement as a cost of switching settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ AvenaOats
If you switch to a settlement that is different from the one that you got advanced training in.
You can switch without cost is you go from one CN to another CN settlement
You will incur some kind of a cost if you go from a CN settlement to a CG settlement. You may actually retain your high tier Chaotic skills in this example, and only lose your high tier Neutral.
It does add a whole new loss to a settlement being taken over, by a different alignment. All of its high tiered citizens may lose their abilities.
Imagine going on vacation, coming back after 9 days, to find out you have no settlement and all your high tier skills are "denied access"!!
I'm sure this really won't take effect or have an impact for a long time. Getting to those upper tier skills will probably take close to or over 2 years to get to.
If you can play the game for two years without those high tier skills, how much do you really need them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Ryan lied to read the reactions. :D
I don't think it is fair to say it's a lie. It's more of a trial balloon, send it up and see what happens.
I think the assumptions that he wanted to squash were the ones that the alignment system could be gamed in the sense that, we could just run under one alignment and switch to get other skills, then with again.
If a game system has certain restrictions and limitations, it sometimes leads to min maxing, to work around them.
One of the more interesting points about this is that it implies, assuming it means what it comes across as, that it will not in fact be viable not to be a member of a player settlement if you want to use any skills above the basic ones provided by the non player settlementsZen, this is a good point, do you mean:
1. All players must be a member of some settlement to earn beyond the basic skill-training (ie f2p players if in the future is highly applicable)
OR.
2. If you train-skills at YOUR member settlement, the higher skills TRAINED at that settlement are only usable/accessible if you REMAIN a member of that settlement, beyond a certain level of skill-training (eg hypothetical cut-off (could vary per skill progression) but let's say level 10/20)?
>>> Hence: If you changed membership, you'd have to re-train higher skills at your new settlement as a cost of switching settlements.
I wasnt speculating so much on what happens if you change settlements. I was thinking just about the fact on the face of it you wouldn't be able to be a member of no settlement and have any high level training.
Eve is similar in that you are always part of a corporation even if it is only one of the starter npc corps. However in Eve being in the npc corp is no bar to gaining and using skills. It seems PfO is going to insist that if you try and stay a member of only the npc settlements that you will be at a significant disadvantage in terms of skills you can gain.
I am a little ambivalent about this as it would have been nice for the alliance that bludd had proposed to have been able to work as true nomads. However ensuring people have a reason to move from npc settlement affiliation has the effect that it means they are then exposed to settlement conflict which is the major focus of the game
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Ryan lied to read the reactions. :DI don't think it is fair to say it's a lie. It's more of a trial balloon, send it up and see what happens.
Bludd,
I'm not sure that was meant to be "lied". I believe it was meant to be "liked" (it makes more sense with the rest of his sentence), though Papavar can clarify when he gets on next.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, I'm sorry. "lied" was indeed not the correct word. Of course I meant "deceived with unmistakably the most malicious of intents of hurting every possible affected person involved"
PS: actually to lie is not accurate at all as the opposite of the assumption is also an assumption and Ryan's intent was to see what the reactions would be.
PPS: I really like exaggerating stuff, like REALLY LIKE! It's the sweetest thing there is!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Zen: Ah yes. I think iirc there was mention players could stay with NPCs. IE 100% 'safe' zone as opposed to it's opposite (which Bludd correctly pointed out is a potential elsewhere 100% "free" zone (perhaps a demon gate).
But yes it strongly appears best items or skills = PC Settlements.
Imagine going on vacation, coming back after 9 days, to find out you have no settlement and all your high tier skills are "denied access"!!
^Yes, indeed!
I think if it's VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHING of your chosen settlement it might apply - effectively what you're "investing" in is your skills FOR your settlement. Maybe that logic is flawed, but it's one potential possibility to go with to tie players making "real investments" in the society they decide to be a part of.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is not a "trial balloon". It's the same message he gave me a long time ago when I was speculating about training skills in one Settlement while being a Member of another.
There will be Abilities that you will only be able to use while your Settlement has the necessary facilities. There will be other Abilities that will be tied to your Player Nation in some way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan wrote:
"The assumption is that a character can gain X ability while a member of one Settlement, and then keep using it when they change Settlements to one that doesn't have the necessary perquisites to provide and/or sustain that ability so that a character's total available abilities are disassociated from their Settlement affiliation."
My first question is, what "X ability" is he referring to? The phrasing of it sounds new to me, since I don't recall hearing talk of gaining any new abilities simply by joining a settlement that aren't already understood as only being accessible as a member of a particular settlement (e.g. you obviously need to be a member of settlement "A" to get settlement "A" leadership abilities).
"X ability" is just a generic reference to some ability that has that sort of requirement. It's a placeholder.
He does not use the term training or skill, so hopefully we're not saying that if you change settlement allegiance, you no longer benefit from the skills you trained there. If this is what he means, I think that will be rather unpopular.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he meant. But it doesn't apply to all skills/abilities, probably only some relatively few top-end ones (but don't read "relatively few" as 2-3 out of dozens or hundreds, read it like "20%"). This isn't news, by the way.
Finally, what about people who don't belong to a settlement, and never plan to (like myself)? Such a change would contradict earlier statements of being able to gain training (as a gift or by coin) from settlements you are not a member of.
If you never belong to a settlement you'll probably never be able to use any top-end skills. You'll still be able to train skills below those at accommodating settlements. GW is aiming for settlement membership (if and where) to be one of the most important decisions you make for your character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Tuoweit,
I'm fully prepared, with my somewhat unique choice of play (unaffiliated, not a settlement member, etc.), to never reach the highest tiered skills if that's the way the game goes. For what I'll be doing most of my time, I won't likely need such skills. However, depending on what the "X ability" turns out to be, it might be considerably more prohibitive if you plan to play a company of nomads, unaffiliated bandits, etc.
Until we know what "X ability" is, like so much discussed here, we're swimming around in the speculation part of the pool again. Being a proponent of moderation, I'm just voicing a desire that the "X abilities" linked to membership aren't too numerous and too widely needed. Moreover, I would hope that they are abilities that make sense being chained to settlement membership, rather than simply being chained to membership as a means of forcing membership.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Tuoweit,
I'm fully prepared, with my somewhat unique choice of play (unaffiliated, not a settlement member, etc.), to never reach the highest tiered skills if that's the way the game goes. For what I'll be doing most of my time, I won't likely need such skills. However, depending on what the "X ability" turns out to be, it might be considerably more prohibitive if you plan to play a company of nomads, unaffiliated bandits, etc.
Until we know what "X ability" is, like so much discussed here, we're swimming around in the speculation part of the pool again. Being a proponent of moderation, I'm just voicing a desire that the "X abilities" linked to membership aren't too numerous and too widely needed. Moreover, I would hope that they are abilities that make sense being chained to settlement membership, rather than simply being chained to membership as a means of forcing membership.
I suspect you are correct, and a number of independent-minded players will find they can get by just fine without those restricted abilities - but yes, just speculation and hunches at this point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fully prepared, with my somewhat unique choice of play (unaffiliated, not a settlement member, etc.), to never reach the highest tiered skills if that's the way the game goes.
Every character belongs to a Settlement, Not all Settlements are run by player characters.
[Edit] I see that you've already seen this in the other thread...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is still a small chance of having a mobile settlement (later "down the road") in the form of a Gypsy caravan or caravan of entertainers, actors and musicians. This was floated a few months ago and seemed to get some positive feedback from other players, but have not seen any official position on it from the staff.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is a question, Will hideouts be considered "settlements" for bandit types? And if so, can we have a few that we bounce between or is it set in stone that we must affiliate with a settlement? Also, will the hideout provide ANYTHING else besides storage and a "lookout" point for bandits? What I mean is will training be available at hideouts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Ryan Dancey, or any other Dev
Is it still possible for:
Members of an unchartered company to be of any alignment combination (no 1 step away rule)?
For characters to be citizens of different settlements, but still members of the same unchartered company (no 1 step away rule)?
If the answer to both of these questions are yes, than a company (unchartered) can have LE ,CN, its members belonging to at least two different settlements, and still have access to upper tier training in their respective settlements.
The perception is, and this is a problem if true, is that unless you are a member of a settlement that matches your alignment, you will not have access to upper tier training. This does not just apply to CE alignment, it applies to all alignments.
This would not be such an issue if the 1-step rule treated all alignments within that one step, equally. Instead of a settlement having a core alignment, it could have a limited range of alignments that are all treated equally.
Ex. A settlement could include LG, NG, LN and citizens of those alignments would have access to the highest tiers of training in that settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The perception is, and this is a problem if true, is that unless you are a member of a settlement that matches your alignment, you will not have access to upper tier training. This does not just apply to CE alignment, it applies to all alignments.
This would not be such an issue if the 1-step rule treated all alignments within that one step, equally. Instead of a settlement having a core alignment, it could have a limited range of alignments that are all treated equally.
Can you clarify what you see as a problem with this scenario, and how you think the "non-core alignments" are treated unequally?
I think what bluddwolf is getting at that if you are Chaotic evil and an assassin you are not going to find much training in the Lawful good settlement you belong to.
However if I was a chaotic evil fighter and the lawful good settlement had a warriors hall offering training I would hope that I could train to the same level as a lawful good fighter
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Ryan, ZenPagan, others...
What I was thinking about was, the statement that characters can be members of up to three companies, but only one of which could be attached to a single settlement.
Then there was the posts by Tork Shaw that suggested that the 1step alignment restriction for settlements may not be the case.
I then took Ryan's post from a while back that a company, that was not attached to a settlement, can have any alignment mixture they choose.
I am under the impression that a settlement has a core alignment, the combined average of all of its citizen's alignment, and that alignment's structures are the only ones that support the highest tier of training. Ex. A LG settlement can train the highest tier Paladin skills, whereas a NG settlement could not (even though LG can be citizens of an NG settlement)
I take all four of these and I apply them to this thought:
I have a company made up of:
4 x CN
2 x LE
2 x N
If each grouping of alignment belonged to a settlement of their alignment, they would still have access to upper tier training, and still belong to a persistent company that is not bound by the alignment limitations of the 1 step rule, nor limited in training for being a mixed alignment company.
I know it might sound complicated, but I like to take a look at several statements or systems, combine them, and think of the different ways they might work.
We have had very little information about how buildings will work in terms of what you can put in a settlement.
I would suspect that alignment will only affect certain buildings, temples,paladin chapterhouse, assassins lodge etc. I would hope that these buildings would be equally effective in any settlement that they are built in, I would further hope they are not restricted to the settlement of only one alignment. It is quite possible that not every alignment will have a settlement dedicated to it. The most sensible option to me is to apply the one step restriction on it.
If the settlement is one step away from lawful good you can build a paladins chapter house sort of thing. I certainly can't remember anything that suggested that the paladin training building would only work fully in a lawful good settlement though that doesn't mean there isn't one.
However now they are changing settlements and companies away from the one step rule I would certainly be viewing any old quotes on how buildings work in settlements with the assumption that this may well be part of that reworking
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
in terms of non-adventuring skills, settlement-dependent skills makes sense:
-a master smith needs a fully equipped and staffed smithy to produce quality items. Moving to a new village a setting up a small forge won't be the same, and putting it in a huge building with lots of unqualified staff isn't going to help much. Skilled workers and the right suppliers and supporting industries (ie DI) makes a difference.
-same for refiners, gatherers and even socialites. You can't make business deals in the opera house or golf course if all the town offers is a single tavern (and the elite think you are a country bumpkin).
-for adventurers the logic is a bit more tricky. Monks without a place to meditate, rogues without a safehouse, fighters without a place to spar, barbarians without a place to let steam off, bards without a place to gossip - sure they could be stressed/stifled enough to lose their edge after some time. But when they hone their skills in wilderness, dungeons and warfare everyday that logic is hard to buy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am under the impression that a settlement has a core alignment, the combined average of all of its citizen's alignment, and that alignment's structures are the only ones that support the highest tier of training. Ex. A LG settlement can train the highest tier Paladin skills, whereas a NG settlement could not (even though LG can be citizens of an NG settlement)
I never got this impression. The idea behind restricting settlement structures is that those NPCs involved in making the structure function would not want to be members of settlements of incompatible alignments. If your NG settlement accepts LG members, I don't see why that wouldn't apply to those NPC structure workers as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All Companies are chartered by, and affiliated with, a Settlement.
So that is different from the "characters can belong to up to three companies", but only one of which can be attached to a settlement.
I understand now, thank you.
Next question, about settlement training. If a Neutral Good (core) settlement builds structures for training. Will the structures what train Neutral or Good based skills be the only ones capable of training top tier level skills?
The CG and LG, would still be able to train Chaotic based or lawful based skills, but not to the upper tier. They would have to belong to a settlement who's core is either CG or LG.
That is the impression that I have, and I hope that I am thinking training is more restrictive than it turns out to be. I'd rather my impression be completely wrong, in other words.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All Companies are chartered by, and affiliated with, a Settlement.
Ryan,
So there will be no way for a group of characters to create a company with any more perks, lasting cohesion, or identity than if they had formed a temporary party, unless they affiliate themselves with a settlement?
hmm...not sure how I feel about that one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So there will be no way for a group of characters to create a company with any more perks, lasting cohesion, or identity than if they had formed a temporary party, unless they affiliate themselves with a settlement?
Keep in mind that you can get sponsored by one of the NPC Settlements.
