Goblin Squad Member
|
I figured I would start up a topic for people to ask random questions when they come into the community. Rather than starting a new thread for a small question or posting it another topic where it may not be entirely on subject.
To start things off there is a lot of great information in the blog.
In addition, Nihimon of The Seventh Viel has been very involved in helping maintaining lists of public resources some of us refer to as The Nihimonicon.
But I know there is a ton of information to dig through so this is a place where you can come and ask any question to the long-time members who have been following this game closely. This is a no "Learn to Google" zone so don't feel afraid to ask anything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm pulling this from another topic because I didn't want to distract from the original subject of that topic:
There seems a concept that one company owns a settlement. Because one can not be in many many companies, there needs/should to be possible concept of a board the run a settlement that may come from multiple companies. Otherwise there is only one concept of rulership.
How does a compact of companies form a settlement?
r
lam
Great question, there is actually a blog that deals with just this subject. You should check it out.
In short though I believe the game does provide systems where many companies can control one settlement. I think the idea of one company owning a settlement is one that persists because of The Landrush. However there seems to be no reason why several companies couldn't form an oligarchy or democracy under the mechanics described.
Even among The Empyrean Order we are considering the idea of making our original settlement a haven for all good aligned groups rather than just a TEO settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In addition, Nihimon of The Seventh Viel has been very involved in helping maintaining lists of public resources some of us refer to as The Nihimonicon.
It also goes by the name of Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links :)
Hey Guys, thanks for starting this thread (first post here).
I'm an avid PvP'er, and it seems like this is a PvP-focused game with heavy restrictions on... PvP.
What if I want to spend a lot of my time just out in the wilderness, searching for people to kill and then killing them? It seems like this will really hurt me in this game (rep, alignment, Calista, etc.) is there an option for pricks like me? Like a PvP server?
I know about the factions, but still, it doesn't seem like that'll provide a significant amount of PvP, and I don't want to lose all my gear. What's a hardcore PvP'er to do in the world of Pathfinder Online?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another great question. First off, this is a single server game like EVE so there will be no PvE or PvP server. The intent is to create a game where both co-exist and even enhance eachother. PFO is about PvP in the same way American football is about tackling. It's really just one of many elements that creates a much grander whole.
As such what is considered sanctioned PvP is a lot more limited than in some other titles such as EVE or Darkfall, but no fears, there are still lots of ways to kill people. In Pathfinder you can kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason but it carries penalties if you do so outside of what we are now calling "sanctioned PvP". Those penalties are going to increase the more you do it, so finding the balance between "I want to kill people as I wish" and "I don't want to take too many penalties" will be something each player must do for themselves.
However you can take part in an unlimited amount of sanctioned PvP without taking any penalties at all. Some may carry alignment drift but that's more a consequence than a penalty. Sanctioned PvP includes:
Wars and Feuds- Settlements and companies generate things called influence and development indexes they can use for many purposes. One of those purposes is declaring wars and feuds against rival companies and settlements, making all PvP vs. that group sanctioned.
Factional PvP- I see you mentioned it but I'll recap this for others who may have the same question. Players can join various NPC factions. Past a certain rank, or while wearing a "for the cause" flag they can attack high ranking and flagged members of opposing factions sanctioned targets. Some factions are likely to have many enemies and a player can join multiple non-opposing factions.
Stand and Deliver- Players can issue a stand and deliver against anyone. Players who receive an SAD will be required to either turn over a portion of their goods or coins (The amount hasn't really been specified yet) or refuse the SAD. If they refuse, they are considered a sanctioned target.
Bounties and Assassinations- Players who have been killed in unsanctioned PvP may put out bounty contracts available to players/groups of their choosing. Collecting that bounty will be considered sanctioned PvP. Also anyone can put out an assassination contract on any other player. This will be an expensive/non-trivial process primarily used to sabotage the development indexes of settlements and lay low their greatest champions, but it is sanctioned PvP.
I may have missed a few, but as you can see, there are a lot of options available. Also there has been mention of areas where PvP penalties may be reduced or removed.
"However you can take part in an unlimited amount of sanctioned PvP without taking any penalties at all. Some may carry alignment drift but that's more a consequence than a penalty..."
So even sanctioned PvP can hurt your alignment? Also, I read that lower your alignment towards Evil/Chaotic IS a penalty in some respects (as in you lose opportunities to go certain places, etc).
It just seems the PvP here is very limited and punishing for a PvP-focused game (if you want to call it that).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For what it's worth, the idea that certain alignments will carry a heavy disadvantage is outdated. Reputation is the big concern in that regard at this point.
This is a very hot topic that has generated a ton of debate in the community though. I'd rather keep this topic strictly for asking and answering questions. The most current thread on PKing is this one I believe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"However you can take part in an unlimited amount of sanctioned PvP without taking any penalties at all. Some may carry alignment drift but that's more a consequence than a penalty..."
So even sanctioned PvP can hurt your alignment? Also, I read that lower your alignment towards Evil/Chaotic IS a penalty in some respects (as in you lose opportunities to go certain places, etc).
It just seems the PvP here is very limited and punishing for a PvP-focused game (if you want to call it that).
I think the problem is you're putting the cart before the horse. Calling it a PvP game or a PvE game is just redundant conceptualization. It's USEFUL for answering such specific questions as, "I prefer human opposition than AI because there is more dimensions available to this gameplay". So it might be a game I can extract so much fun out of... next question etc.
It is a pvp game in terms of categorization because it is open-pvp. But here's the difference the design aims are for consequences beyond win/loss states (which include reward/cost measurements to them and/or link to eg territory/resource acquisition). These are a part of game too to a degree (see threading, see POI etc) but there's another dimension which is SOCIAL consequences. I think this must be some sort of new innovation because people just hit a road block at this point concerning pvp? Without appearing to be dismissive (please point out if I am) if PFO is adding SOCIAL consequences for "killing" to simulate alignment change ie "how the world and it's denizens and deities react to you BASED OFF YOUR ACTIONS" (which feeds into such things as skills that have alignment factors or social groups built around such both figuratively and literally ;)) and a sort of simulation of civilization of variable centralized authority and justice setting rules in areas of the from high-low and anything inbetween, then maybe you appear to understand that pvp is one cog within that. ATST: In terms of INTERACTION with your avatar to the game world and other players YES - IT'S A BIG COG (because combat is a big form of interaction in mmorpgs), but in terms of the systems of the game itself that your avatars are themselves fitting into it's not such a big cog and it's part of GW "meaningful interaction" (Which AIMS to include SOCIAL INTERACTION as well as combat interaction) along with cooperation and organization equally than JUST pure conflict > PvP > alignment/reputation/feud/war/assassination/sad/guarding/roles etc etc. Which itself you see still has a ton of varieties.
For pure combat-pvp interaction per second other games specialise in that eg FPS as they are intended to be DEEP combat systems ONLY (or as good as). Maybe if that is more confusing than clear another way to look at it is if in GTA you get your police level to 5/5 then you have the swat team on your ass in no-time. I guess PFO is introducing something a bit like that to the world to simulate a livable and dangerous place for all avatars wandering it's streets and wilds?!
Verbose, but just focus on that "social dimension" bit best eg GTA I think? :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What's a hardcore PvP'er to do in the world of Pathfinder Online?
There's nothing to say every action you take in-game needs to be one which will endanger your desired alignment or reputation. There will be mechanisms--and, in my opinion, it's hard to see that all of them will be unpleasant to you--to reverse any motion in a direction you don't like, whether up or down, so you'll be able to play mix-and-match to keep your scores where you like them to be.
For what it's worth, the idea that certain alignments will carry a heavy disadvantage is outdated. Reputation is the big concern in that regard at this point.
This is a very hot topic that has generated a ton of debate in the community though. I'd rather keep this topic strictly for asking and answering questions. The most current thread on PKing is this one I believe.
OK, it's good to hear alignment is no longer a negative effect. Thanks for answering my questions, I'll leave the PvP debate to the other threads now. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Qallz: I must have been on something when I wrote the above. Hope it helped, in any event. Coincidentally this lecture just popped on EVE's ideas concerning "social" (11min mark specifically) if you're up for watching it: Video: 3 pillars for making EVE Online a compelling sandbox
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"However you can take part in an unlimited amount of sanctioned PvP without taking any penalties at all. Some may carry alignment drift but that's more a consequence than a penalty..."
So even sanctioned PvP can hurt your alignment? Also, I read that lower your alignment towards Evil/Chaotic IS a penalty in some respects (as in you lose opportunities to go certain places, etc).
It just seems the PvP here is very limited and punishing for a PvP-focused game (if you want to call it that).
Qallz, first welcome.....I haven't seen you around before.
As one of the most vocal proponents of PVP (I believe that is a safe claim to make), I am confident that PFO is moving in a direction that is opening up plenty of PVP opportunities.
These opportunities can range for from heavy consequences:
"I am the Nightrider. I'm a fuel injected suicide machine. I am the rocker, I am the roller, I am the out-of-controller!"
To no consequences [Faction Warfare, perhaps]:
"The path of the righteous man is beset of all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil me. Blessed is he who, in the name of the charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
And of course, all of the PVP that falls in between those two examples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Qallz: I must have been on something when I wrote the above. Hope it helped, in any event. Coincidentally this lecture just popped on EVE's ideas concerning "social" (11min mark specifically) if you're up for watching it: Video: 3 pillars for making EVE Online a compelling sandbox
Hey Avena, yea, I did read that post even though it was text-blockey, lol. And it did help, thanks. And thx for the vid, I'll go watch it.
I can honestly say I never gave EVE online a fair shake. Reason being, even though it was obviously a pretty sweet game, I'm a Fantasy guy, and don't really have any interest in Sci-Fi MMO's. :)
Does sound like it's contributed a lot of great ideas to the MMO genre as a whole though.
Qallz, first welcome.....I haven't seen you around before.As one of the most vocal proponents of PVP (I believe that is a safe claim to make), I am confident that PFO is moving in a direction that is opening up plenty of PVP opportunities.
These opportunities can range for from heavy consequences:
"I am the Nightrider. I'm a fuel injected suicide machine. I am the rocker, I am the roller, I am the out-of-controller!"
To no consequences [Faction Warfare, perhaps]:
"The path of the righteous man is beset of all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil me. Blessed is he who, in the name of the charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
And of course, all of the PVP that falls in between those two examples.
Hey man, thanks, yea, I'm new here, but have been an avid D&D fan and Fantasy-MMO fan for years. Good to see someone else fighting the good fight in favor of more PvP (can't get enough PvP).
Yea, I've never really played a game with consequence PvP, so that should be interesting. I just hate the idea of losing gear that I worked so hard for just cuz I like to PvP (with low rep + Death Curse).
If there's not enough sanctioned PvP=low rep, and if I have a low rep, people can easily put a Death Curse on me and steal my gear...it's BS. lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have a question, I could not really find a all-round answer looking at Pathfinder wiki.
Q: How does magic "work" in Pathfinder? I mean what's the framework for it's existence and use and interaction?
I was reading a bit more about magic systems in different lores and out of pure curiosity was interested in learning more about Pathfinder's thinking /philosophy to the subject. This gamasutra article is great fun to read summing up various fictions' approaches. I can't say I agree with all or even half of it but it's a useful collection to go through and one of the commentators nails the "Tolkien ideas behind magic" admirably. Shame there was no mention of imo very good system "The Winds Of Magic" used in the Warhammer IP. edit: Bart Stewart pops up again and worth reading his comment at the end as he's a genuine magician. ;)
Tolkien explanation c&p:
As a diehard fan of Tolkien, I can provide more insight regarding how magic works in his setting. And, Tolkien being Tolkien, nothing is random at all in how he designed it.
Basically, you first have to understand that, in Tolkien's mythology, everything started when Illuvatar (the creator of everything) and the Ainurs (minor gods and other powerful spirits, such as the Balrogs, the Istari, Sauron...) sang a song that described the history of the world to come, with everyone having a voice in this song.This is the core idea: your voice in the song. As history and the world itself are controlled through this song, by changing the lyrics, you can influence the fabric of the world. But of course, as there are thousands of voices singing at the same time, not everyone can be heard. The more important your voice is in the song, the more influent you are on the world, and the greater your magical powers are. The Valar, the minor gods, are like the lead singers, the ones who make the song itself, so they have huge powers, and effectively shaped the world. Meanwhile, a random human who lived his whole life in his village, without doing anything particular, will have little to no influence, and his voice will be lost in the chorus, so no powers for him.
So basically, magic is direct influence on the world. Every being is given, through its nature and its destiny, a set amount of influence, that can be expressed in any way said being sees fit. Some can do some small tricks, while others can do pretty much whatever they want.The mages are a special case. This word is only used for a limited number of characters, which are also caled the Istari: Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast and the two blue ones no one cares about. They fit the traditional role of mages, while actually being Maiar ("minor minor" gods). Their powers are huge, but they have been "trapped" inside an "enhanced" human body. Basically, these are lead singers that are forced, for a little while, to whisper.
This theme is made obvious by the character of Tom Bombadil, who, by singing, can do pretty much anything he wants. Here's how he's described:
"Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
None has ever caught him yet, for Tom, he is the master:
His songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster."
And at some point, when rescuing the Hobbits from Old Man Willow, he explicitely says:
"'Old Man Willow? Naught worse than that, eh? That can soon be mended. I know the tune for him. Old grey Willow-man! I'll freeze his marrow cold, if he don't behave himself. I'll sing his roots off. I'll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away."Otherwise, back on the core subject. I would disagree with your choice of words in this sentence:
"As game developers, my opinion is: the more logical the magical systems in our games, the better. "
I'd replace the word logical by the word consistent. Logical is too rooted in reality.
When creating a magic system, one should first break the rules of logic, then build a brand new set of rules, consistent with each other.
Then, you can give your players a double level of comprehension. The basic level, the one that will directly influence the player's experience, while the deeper level is reserved for those who want to know more, who want to spend hours reading about your setting's lore.A simple example is how magic works in The Elder Scrolls setting.
Basic level of comprehension? I learn a spell, I can cast it, it costs me some magicka, which will come back with a potion or some rest. Easy, simple, nothing too tricky. Spells are divided in several categories, depending on what they do (restoration for healing spells, destruction for attack spells etc), and mages seem to specialize in one or the other category. The more I use magic, the better I am at it.
Deep level of comprehension? Magicka flows through the sun, which is actually a hole in the fabric of reality through which we can see in another dimension from which magic is originated. This energy is everywhere, and mages are those who learn how to master it.
Very deep level of comprehension? Just have a look at this: http://i.imgur.com/Bgyo5w2.png
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The origin of Pathfinder magic is D&D magic, and the origin of that was influenced by Jack Vance's Dying Earth novels, but the reason that fire & forget idea was used probably had more to do with making a poorly-defined force into a finite resource.
In-character there could be as many different explanations as there are spellcasters, but maybe we could try justifying it using a very loose 'comic book science' explanation that works for the narrative in general. We could say it's a matter of brain architecture; connections in the brain are linked in such a way that they set up a sort of capacitor for the spell energy. That applies to both intelligence and wisdom casters, with the main difference being how the circuits are forged and charged. Charisma-casters make different brain circuits that channel spell energy in a more immediate fashion and more often, but the semi-permanence of the networks makes them take up more neural connections and makes them much harder to rewire. All casters eventually get tired and thus have limits to how often they can store & release spell energy or quick-channel it through fewer but more stable connections.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah should have twigged: Vance was mentioned in reference to D&D in the article and of course Pathfinder developed out of 3.5. Got it.
Is there unifying theme say with the fact Golarion is a material plane that interacts with the deities who themelves manifest as eg some things like god/goddess of some property that associates in affiliated material things or qualities eg:
- Anger
- Fire
- Bull
- Deity R
- Red
- Magic associated with destruction/fire and requires igniting compononents usually eg Sulphur?
- School of idk Fire Magic let's say (as that's expedient for combat spells)?
etc etc?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of it will primarily serve to make the game mechanics work, just as 'Vancian' magic was a convenient way of making spells a finite resource. Looking at the stories in Golarion's mythos, it's apparent that the deities are not universe-creating omnipotent beings like Earth's modern monotheisms claim. They're extremely powerful but still limited individuals. They can be bound (Rovagug) or even die (Aroden), and less-powerful beings might join their ranks (Sarenrae was an Empyreal Lord before becoming a full deity, and Cayden Cailean was originally human).
There's a Socratic dialog called Euthyphro's Dilemma which basically comes down to: "Is something good because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is good?" On Golarion, the deities don't define the alignments, they are defined by them. If Sarenrae, the goddess of healing, suddenly started practicing and promoting murder, that would change her, not the moral status of murder. I think the other aspects of their 'divine nature' would be similarly changeable.
The death of Aroden, the first of the ascended gods, at the end of the Age of Enthronement 100 years ago was extremely unexpected. His death was not prophesied, and once he died, most of the other prophecies in the world started to go bad as well. Many of Pharasma's priests have lost their faith or have gone mad as a result, but those who remain, are finding that Pharasma's hold over prophecy is becoming less important, while her domain over death, birth, and fate, are growing stronger. It's a time of change for Pharasma and her faith.
What about alignment? I've heard that you can only have people in your company/settlement etc. within 1 alignment step, is that true?
It makes sense for the tabletop game, but for an MMORPG? No way. It'll be like the first day of launch on multi-server MMO's, where people are trying to figure out what server their friends chose, except it'll happen forever, and with alignments instead of servers. People who choose alignments that are too far off won't be able to play together. What do you think great Andius?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Although I believe older blog posts did have that 1-step alignment idea, more recently they have said "Good and evil characters are not constantly at each other's throats over matters of philosophy in Golarion. Indeed, killing creatures based on alignment alone is sanctioned by few." It seems that in general, they want alignment to be a meaningful part of your character, but not a restriction. Hopefully this means stepping away from alignment restrictions on settlement choice, at the very least, because as a structure with thousands of people in it you need all types of people to function.
I hope that the scenario you suggested doesn't come about; in other words, I hope that if one friend wants to play LE and the other wants to play CN, they can find a place that both of them can belong to. There are going to be many companies within each settlement, so maybe a compromise is for them to pick separate companies of different alignments that work together frequently within a settlement. On the other hand, they could simply join lax companies which aren't strict on how they spend their time, and both can just group outside the purview of a company function (maybe bringing some other company members to join them). Hopefully, even if people are restricted by alignment as to what companies they can join, they can still find ways to play together effectively and in a fun way.
Edit: Here's a link to the latest blog post dealing heavily with alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is just my speculation, but I expect the Alignment Restrictions between Characters and Settlements will end up being organic rather than arbitrary. By organic, I mean there probably won't be a hard limit, but people won't do it because it won't make sense. For example, a Paladin won't live in an Evil Settlement because he won't be able to get any of the benefits he'd get if he lived in a Settlement that could build the Lawful Good Settlement Structures that are intended to benefit Paladins.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always believed that there should be no restrictions from the dev side about who can join settlements. The settlement charter might delineate who can and can't be there, or players won't want to be around others who are too different from them because it's not any fun.
In the River Kingdoms Guide nearly every state is a form of Neutral ruled by and populated by the full spectrum of alignments just like real life cities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Opinions aside, the latest information I could find is only about a month old, and backs up the idea that there may be alignment restrictions for settlements:
If they so wish, companies may become "sponsored," forging a powerful alliance with a settlement. Sponsored companies effectively become part of that settlement, affecting its Reputation and following its alignment just like the rest of the settlement's population.
However let me also note that in the past they also said that in PFO 1 step may also be a diagonal step as opposed to the tabletop where 1 step is always straight. So if you're chaotic evil you could still live together with your lawful good buddy in a true-neutral settlement.
It's just that evil can't join good settlements and chaos can't join lawful settlements, or the other way around. That is ancient information but I can't remember reading anything that disputes it more recently.
They should just give settlement leaders 9 check-boxes, how simple would that be?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can't think of any topics specifically discussing the limitations settlements should have in terms of recruitment due to their alignment, and what should determine their alignment. However you could start such a topic, or it wouldn't be off-topic to discuss in this thread which deals a lot with balancing alignments on a settlement level.
I remember the old "All of One or None of One" being a settlement management choice thrown out as well in the forum. But that has never been officially stated. "All Chaotic" or "No Evil" and the like.
There was the following statement from Tork in a thread where he implied they were reworking the alignment and settlement issue subsequent to blogs on the subject.
Here is the quote
Settlements and VCs will choose their permitted alignments and there may be many who choose to allow CE players to join.hmm can you clarify this Tork....currently I think our understanding is that the only settlements that CE can actually join are CN,CE and NE.
The above however sounds almost as if you have ditched the one step alignment requirement for being a member of settlements
Nein. I cannot ;) Well, I can try... The choice of alignment for settlements/VCs is possibly slightly more fluid than simply 1 step. It is possible that we will need to allow a settlement to choose which of the 9 alignments they permit, and to allow them to be much more permissive. I'm still playing with this a bit (as I battle with VC/settlement relationships) but a single step restriction is potentially going to be too harsh - particularly early on in the game's life.
The difficulty with this from a settlement's perspective, however, and the reason they are probably going to want to choose a limited selection of alignments (if they end up with the choice) is that there are factional consequences. A settlement's alignment will CERTAINLY determine the kind of factional alliances and therefore the kind of factional buildings they can have in their settlement. If lets say 40% of the players want to be clerics of Sarenrae (I dont think is the case by the way I'm just using it as an example!) then it makes sense for settlements who want to attract high populations and become centres of trade to build a shrine to Sarenrae - for which there will be settlement alignment requirements.
Here is the thread for those who wish to see the context
Thread context
Hi all i have started to follow the development of the game since the tecnology demo, during the kickstarter campain i had no savings for take an access to the game in the EE. I have read this summer there would be another campain but after that there was no news about that :
What are your prediction about? Do you think they will give a chance to donate agoing maybe the next month?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hi all i have started to follow the development of the game since the tecnology demo, during the kickstarter campain i had no savings for take an access to the game in the EE. I have read this summer there would be another campain but after that there was no news about that :
What are your prediction about? Do you think they will give a chance to donate agoing maybe the next month?
Fingers-x, we'll get the juicy dev weekly/fortnightly blog this Wednesday and hopefully the devs are happy they have hit Milestone 3.
This is significant I think as it could be a good time to "show" more of the game atst as open up backing options?! Let's see what they say on Wednesday.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, Ryan has said a number of times there will be a "Fulfillment Period" for everyone that missed the original Kickstarter. It will have some options like the KS, but not as many nor as good perks as the original, and month one of EE is full. The best you (and I) can do is get in EE in month two.
Still, it should be coming up pretty soon. The sooner they get it posted (it should hit GW web site and Paizo about the same time I'd guess) the sooner they can make a lot more early cash from PFO hopefuls.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do participants in Kickstart 1 get a place in EE or only Kickstart 2?
Some Kickstart 2 have ways of pulling in friends(6x), how many Kickstart bidders is that? SOme bought in at that level post Kickstart.
Some (Kickstart 2) have access to alpha testing. There are 8,732 backers. The quoted figure is 4,00 a month, but I expect it will start lower than that after alpha testing. Then again EE is 13 to 16 months. What does it matter is you start in month 1 (with its issues) or month 5 and smooth PvE.
Some blogs indicate settlements are near OE. the mechanics which can be tested with PvE will be initial focus. As the PvP is rolled out player economics will start to matter 9neeed to god to PvP store to buy GOOD products. Initially goods will be mundane and available from NPC stores.
R
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lam: A fair bit of static in your post I'll try to answer your questions through if I can hear them well enough:
1. No, The Tech Demo ks was independent.
2. Yeah, so at the x6 pledge level you can see the number of pledgers for that which you'd multiply by x6 to get the total number of accounts open to be in EE.
3. I can't remember the details now on what happened there. It was first come, first served then at a point "all pledges get in", but then what you say seems to quite possible? No idea atm.
4. There will be plots of 15 hexes that can be claimed in "Land Rush!" poll during EE. OE comes about when EE is feature complete but not feature developed as it were ie stubs. OE will also be about timed around full territorial conflict as another barometer which is what I think you refer to in PvP. THere will be PvP in EE but the smaller scale stuff no doubt. Yeah at NPC towns and starter levels I think basic stuff can be got there which are safe areas.
I think that's as accurate as I can manage to remember or understand without making leaps of guessing and falling down a chasm!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
New Q.
I have been researching so many online games. Is there a concept of a time of exposure. At other items the settlement can not be attacked but also nothing happens. This was a concept to supporting CC and settlements being in time zones.
They can only be attacked in their time. They can only attack other in their time. But production, skill gain, ... other time dependent activity only happens while exposed. If protected 8 hours a day -- it takes 4 days to get what others get in 1 day.
I am not sure where this came from (Darkfall discussion lurking, maybe)
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no idea if such a concept is going to be implemented for PfO, but I will comment on it. I like the idea, because it allows small organizations to maintain a reasonable hold on their land against bigger organizations, while also giving a bigger organization the edge. However, I could see the potential for shenanigans to be had with such a system.
For example, setting up unoccupied "buffer" towns around your real city, which are only attackable for 1 hour a day. Then you simply have a large patrol move from town to town each hour, making sure nobody but a huge and well organized group has a reasonable chance of getting through to your settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lam,
The latest I heard settlements will have PvP time windows, "time of exposure". Each settlement can decide when and for how long it will be open for attacks. The PvP window settings will affect how much the settlement can develop, with a settlement that is set to the minimum PvP window (safest setting!) being unable to develop beyond a certain level.
This might mean that a settlement that plays it safe will not, for example, be able to construct the best buildings and craft the best items.
There has been talk of a similar system for player-owned structures (Points of Interest) on a smaller scale than the settlement level.
You can read more about it here, scroll down to the heading "Settlement PvP Window".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is there a concept of a time of exposure. At other items the settlement can not be attacked but also nothing happens.
It's not quite like that...
At its heart, the PvP window is a limited span of time each day during which a settlement's NPC defenses are lowered, making it easier for enemy players to attack the settlement. This window of vulnerability is set by the rulers of the settlement so they can make sure it matches up with the time their people are most likely to be online. The larger the PvP window is, the higher the settlement's Development Indexes can grow.
While the PvP window is closed, the settlement is defended by a large number of NPC guards from one of the major alliances in the game: Hellknights for LN, LE, NE, and TN towns, Knights of Iomedae for LG, LN, NG, and TN towns, or the League of the Wood for CN, CE, and NE towns.
[Edit] Just noticed Wurner provided the same link...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Next QnA, alts and destiny's twin
I think that there can be many quotes from the blog, with changes over time. I stared toward end of second Kickstart and was not, initially, aware of what was before (following initial links in my Kickstart to latest blog post). Later posters taught me to go back before 2012. Now I am not sure how much of the early concepts have changed as development met possible.
So, what is an alt? Is it an alternate character played by same player?
Can players play multiple alts at same time? timeshared? or are alts frozen in time and experience while character most front plays? If player logs off, which alts advance?
I think Destiny is a kind of atl, but gains experience while main character does also. Yes?
Can I switch to DT to do anything? If DT is active does my main character (MC) gain skill? Can I play and do things with a crafter DT while MC is more military or administrative? What other combinations are there?
Can I play DT and MC at same session? Can I play other alts at same time?
Some point out that I can play two accounts on separate machines at same time, so this is not a really protected thing.
Can I give the play of the DT to another member of my household at the same time (e.g. 20' something daughter who was playing ADnD at age of 6 but got busier with other things later)?
OR should I just take all of this into a new thread ("DT and alts")? Do we (Kickstarters) know how this will be implemented?
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Next QnA, alts and destiny's twin
So, what is an alt? Is it an alternate character played by same player?
Yes.
Can players play multiple alts at same time? timeshared? or are alts frozen in time and experience while character most front plays? If player logs off, which alts advance?
Experience accrues for characters over real time IF enabled by the purchase of said time (or by other arrangements)whether actively in-game or not.
I think Destiny is a kind of atl, but gains experience while main character does also. Yes?
Yes.
Can I switch to DT to do anything? If DT is active does my main character (MC) gain skill? Can I play and do things with a crafter DT while MC is more military or administrative? What other combinations are there?
Yes, yes, and TBD.
Can I play DT and MC at same session? Can I play other alts at same time?
Yes.
Some point out that I can play two accounts on separate machines at same time, so this is not a really protected thing.
Correct.
Can I give the play of the DT to another member of my household at the same time (e.g. 20' something daughter who was playing ADnD at age of 6 but got busier with other things later)?
Not yet known, but probably since otherwise would be unenforceable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Correct.
Some point out that I can play two accounts on separate machines at same time, so this is not a really protected thing.
Don't forget you'll also be able to play with two characters on the *same* account at the same time as well. It appears they'll try to avoid *requiring* second accounts in PFO.