It's 3am, do you know where your settlement is?


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 767 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

@ Wexel Daventry

Take heart. The issues and philosophies that steelwing talks about are really on the large scale. It is important that we have a view of that level of the game. We need to hear about things like this to "wake up" to some of those realities. Remember that there will be much, much more activity going on at the lower levels. There has to be to support all of the high fa-looting activity that he describes. In fact, there is such "wider" activity in EVE too. Even though there will be a smaller High Sec area in PfO.

I am quite sure that PfO will be much like EVE in a territory control and conquer sense. I am sure that GW will allow some of what steelwing describes as strategy and tactics. I am not so sure that the same WAYS that he describes doing those things will be the ways that GW wants us to do them.

I think that Steelwing has made it clear (multiple times) that he is just describing what works for his and other EVE groups in EVE and may work in PfO. He has never claimed that the whole River Kingdoms play area will be like that. Nor does anyone except GW know what will be "ok" operating style until more info is released or the game goes live.

There is no reason to believe that it will be impossible to play the way that you seem to want to.

None of this is to allude that it will be very safe or efficient to adventure/gather/transport alone.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bringslite

Thanks for bringing the light! I agree and am sure GW is taking it all into account. We will get a good game with many facets and intricacies and be proud to have help it come to reality.

@Steelwing

I know you only describe your possible plans and your group's standard procedure. I have no problem with you or them and feel you bring valid and interesting views to the forum that we should consider even though the picture you paint is not the one I hope we end up with.


Bringslite wrote:

@ steelwing

Exactly how many new game codes do you think your group will be willing to purchase when your CE alt accounts get banned?

The world (Golarion) will be a much smaller universe than EVE's. It will far easier to associate, evaluate, and subsequently ban people or groups for play styles the GW does not like in PfO. It is quite clear that a great many of the approaches that you have described are outside the play style that GW wants.

There may well be ways to try the things that you have laid out or other ways to do them. It certainly does not mean that they will not be opposed, by players and sometimes by the OWNERS.

Remember, very little is defined exactly for us yet. The things that you think will work would wreck the game play that has been described.

I don't think it would fly for very long.

Game codes are cheap and I don't think unless you are blanket bannign all CE low rep groups that it will be that easy to associate them with anyone. I especially do not think we will be the only ones using such groups by any means.

Your second paragraph however is how to approach things. Do not rely on rules and mechanisms to keep you safe. Rely on yourselves. A settlement controlling a hex that is important to you. Get a posse together and take their control away. Do not sit and wring your hands and ask Goblinworks to do it for you.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Your second paragraph however is how to approach things. Do not rely on rules and mechanisms to keep you safe. Rely on yourselves. A settlement controlling a hex that is important to you. Get a posse together and take their control away. Do not sit and wring your hands and ask Goblinworks to do it for you.

On that I completely agree. I would hope that my 10 well trained guards can make short work of your 20 man poorly trained ambush/roadblock. (just using your example of the low rep CE alts)

That is IF the are all online and in my way at the time, if and when, I move through that hex. (less chock points than in EVE)

If the settlements I am trading with are not keeping that hex clear. (they have a real incentive to do so)

I am not sure that anyone always issuing a maximum SAD (just to provoke a fight) will be anymore "kosher" than say the 1gp SAD for timer insurance.

Seems like a mostly "miss" rather than "hit" tactic.


Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Your second paragraph however is how to approach things. Do not rely on rules and mechanisms to keep you safe. Rely on yourselves. A settlement controlling a hex that is important to you. Get a posse together and take their control away. Do not sit and wring your hands and ask Goblinworks to do it for you.

On that I completely agree. I would hope that my 10 well trained guards can make short work of your 20 man poorly trained ambush/roadblock. (just using your example of the low rep CE alts)

That is IF the are all online and in my way at the time, if and when, I move through that hex. (less chock points than in EVE)

If the settlements I am trading with are not keeping that hex clear. (they have a real incentive to do so)

I am not sure that anyone always issuing a maximum SAD (just to provoke a fight) will be anymore "kosher" than say the 1gp SAD for timer insurance.

Seems like a mostly "miss" rather than "hit" tactic.

The reason for provoking the fight though is meaningful PVP not just random and for the lolz killing. If the maximum SAD is the only way that we can come at that killing then that is what we will do. Give us a means to control that hex that goblinworks prefer we use then we will use it.

Road hexes will be highly strategic as any military officer will tell you. They enable armies and goods to travel fast. In a game of territorial domination control of transport and access is often as important or even more important than the actual sacking and razing.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Your second paragraph however is how to approach things. Do not rely on rules and mechanisms to keep you safe. Rely on yourselves. A settlement controlling a hex that is important to you. Get a posse together and take their control away. Do not sit and wring your hands and ask Goblinworks to do it for you.

On that I completely agree. I would hope that my 10 well trained guards can make short work of your 20 man poorly trained ambush/roadblock. (just using your example of the low rep CE alts)

That is IF the are all online and in my way at the time, if and when, I move through that hex. (less chock points than in EVE)

If the settlements I am trading with are not keeping that hex clear. (they have a real incentive to do so)

I am not sure that anyone always issuing a maximum SAD (just to provoke a fight) will be anymore "kosher" than say the 1gp SAD for timer insurance.

Seems like a mostly "miss" rather than "hit" tactic.

The reason for provoking the fight though is meaningful PVP not just random and for the lolz killing. If the maximum SAD is the only way that we can come at that killing then that is what we will do. Give us a means to control that hex that goblinworks prefer we use then we will use it.

Road hexes will be highly strategic as any military officer will tell you. They enable armies and goods to travel fast. In a game of territorial domination control of transport and access is often as important or even more important than the actual sacking and razing.

Mostly I am only trying to reassure the everyday traveler that if she uses her "grey matter" she can be quite successful. All of this "top end" strategy back and forth is discouraging to the more casual audience.

Honestly, my experience in full PVP sandboxes is limited to UO and DFUW. If PfO is 3x more dangerous than those games and I am only 1/3 as successful in PfO at accumulating wealth, (my version of happiness for this toon) I will be satisfied.

For myself, I am not concerned. EVERY SAD will mean a fight. I will win some and I will lose some, but I will still prosper or I will find some other way to do business. There is no use in localizing trade or caravan mechanics if it is impossible, so I highly doubt that it will be impossible.

If the reasoning is meaningful PVP, then I get that. I could be wrong and that may be a legit way to use SAD. I still doubt that using CE alts (because they have nothing to lose) is in the spirit of GW's vision.

Yes, some of the routes will be very strategic. I am sure that there will be at least as many parties interested in keeping them clear as in blocking them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:


Mostly I am only trying to reassure the everyday traveler that if she uses her "grey matter" she can be quite successful. All of this "top end" strategy back and forth is discouraging to the more casual audience.

I totally believe there is a place in PfO for the casual player and I would hasten to say that we are in no way trying to drive out the casual player.

What I am trying to do is give a perspective on how a highly organised group will look at things as I think that it is an important viewpoint for the crowdforging process. Not I hasten to because highly organised groups are more important but purely because you need that perspective in order to see a full picture of how certain implementations will affect game play. The flip side of the coin being the casual small group point of view.

If casual players approach the game with the right frame of mind, which I would say is "while we normally run as small groups we are willing to join together when necessary to accomplish something" then they will be able to do a lot in game. One of the things that worries me is the first reaction of some on the forum tends to be "Lets have a mechanic to prevent that" rather than "thats ok if they do that we will just band together and stop them doing that before going on our separate ways again"

It is often said that in Eve if hisec players were to actually cooperate they could make suicide gankers etc lives so difficult that the practise would diminish. Eve hi sec players unfortunately also prefer to stick to not cooperating and instead demand CCP makes changes to stop it. Then when CCP does make changes to help they still don't use them to advantage. Two recent examples being the mining barge buff which should make them so costly to suicide gank it is no longer worth it if you fit them correctly, the other being crime watch which makes the suicide ganker a free kill to anyone for 15 minutes afterwards. It is not uncommon to see one of these red flashies hanging around outside a station with thirty or forty hi seccers flying around but will they band together and kill him?

Goblin Squad Member

GarinT wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Pathfinder Online has always been first and foremost a game of settlement warfare and territorial domination. That is the game that we will be playing should we come.

When I discovered the kickstarter project just before it ended and got my credit card out, the description on the Goblins Works page described it thusly (And still says on GW's home page)

An exciting new era in gaming begins with Pathfinder Online, a next-generation Massively Multiplayer Online fantasy roleplaying game currently in development from Goblinworks in partnership with Paizo Publishing!

Pathfinder Online is a hybrid sandbox/theme park-style MMO where characters explore, develop, find adventure and dominate a wilderness frontier in a land of sword and sorcery. The Pathfinder world is high fantasy in the tradition of epics like The Lord of the Rings, Conan, the Wheel of Time and Game of Thrones.

Warfare and Domination seemed to be just part of the game concept, not the only reason behind the game. This is why I feel so disheartened aboout the game.

It's also largely a case of to a hammer everything looks like a nail but to a wrench it looks like a bolt. It's a salt water/fresh water clash where the EVE people and TT people start mixing but I think the probability is there will be pools of both in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
GarinT wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Pathfinder Online has always been first and foremost a game of settlement warfare and territorial domination. That is the game that we will be playing should we come.

When I discovered the kickstarter project just before it ended and got my credit card out, the description on the Goblins Works page described it thusly (And still says on GW's home page)

An exciting new era in gaming begins with Pathfinder Online, a next-generation Massively Multiplayer Online fantasy roleplaying game currently in development from Goblinworks in partnership with Paizo Publishing!

Pathfinder Online is a hybrid sandbox/theme park-style MMO where characters explore, develop, find adventure and dominate a wilderness frontier in a land of sword and sorcery. The Pathfinder world is high fantasy in the tradition of epics like The Lord of the Rings, Conan, the Wheel of Time and Game of Thrones.

Warfare and Domination seemed to be just part of the game concept, not the only reason behind the game. This is why I feel so disheartened aboout the game.

It's also largely a case of to a hammer everything looks like a nail but to a wrench it looks like a bolt. It's a salt water/fresh water clash where the EVE people and TT people start mixing but I think the probability is there will be pools of both in the game.

If you think it is bad for this game wait and see if CCP ever release the World of Darkness MMO. The collision between Eve players, vampire the masquerade players and angst ridden teenage sparkly vampire of the twilight genre fans should provide forum drama of epic proportions

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:


If you think it is bad for this game wait and see if CCP ever release the World of Darkness MMO. The collision between Eve players, vampire the masquerade players and angst ridden teenage sparkly vampire of the twilight genre fans should provide forum drama of epic proportions

I have already said I would make a character in WoD just to watch that in person. Talk about entertainment.

Goblin Squad Member

ohhh lordy WoD is going to be great. totally cut throat ruthless fun. Be a prince call a blood hunt and perma death someone. unfortunately they keep delaying the project with Dust and other things.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:


2) Even if they can tell assume we have 20 CE alts and a settlement of 500. Who are they going to ban? Can't see them banning the entire settlement can you? With no way to tie those CE people to us in general or anyone in particular the best they can do is ban the ce alts which are low rep low training anyway so we just start a new account

You'd be surprised.


Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Steelwing wrote:


2) Even if they can tell assume we have 20 CE alts and a settlement of 500. Who are they going to ban? Can't see them banning the entire settlement can you? With no way to tie those CE people to us in general or anyone in particular the best they can do is ban the ce alts which are low rep low training anyway so we just start a new account
You'd be surprised.

I would...show me a quote saying it is not allowed to have a Chaotic evil character?

Show me a quote saying it is not ok to have a low rep character?

Show me a quote saying that low rep chaotic evil characters are not allowed to attack people.

Why should those characters be banned?

Controlling a hex is meaningful PVP it is not killing for lolz why are you opposed to meaningful pvp?

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Being wrote:
Serensius wrote:
Seems like traveling pretty much anywhere is going to be prohibitively dangerous. Ryan Dancey said in a recent thread (can't remember which) that he expects most settlements to have a Not Blue Shoot It (NBSI) policy. In other words, most places will be off-limits simply because you risk getting jumped as soon as you enter someone else's territory.
It was stated long ago (so caveats: many things change) that road hexes cannot be claimed by settlements. We will be able to travel, we may however not be able to do much but travel unless we attach to a settlement with some room.
Just because there is no mechanic to claim a hex whether road or otherwise do not for a moment think that settlements will not choose to exercise control over those hexes they consider strategic. I would expect road hexes to be in that category certainly

In Fallen Earth (many years ago) the clan I was in used to take over small NPC towns and effectively create a road block. Not only would the NPC mobs on the outer perimeter shoot at anyone trying to pass through or pass by, but if they did manage to break through, then they were faced with 40+ PVP flagged outlaw bikers.

There was no mechanic that could have stopped this. Travelers had four choices: Pay a toll, give the town a wide berth, try to make it through or bring enough force to chase us off.

No one ever chased us off. Eventually most just avoided the town during our street party.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Steelwing wrote:


2) Even if they can tell assume we have 20 CE alts and a settlement of 500. Who are they going to ban? Can't see them banning the entire settlement can you? With no way to tie those CE people to us in general or anyone in particular the best they can do is ban the ce alts which are low rep low training anyway so we just start a new account
You'd be surprised.

I would...show me a quote saying it is not allowed to have a Chaotic evil character?

Show me a quote saying it is not ok to have a low rep character?

Show me a quote saying that low rep chaotic evil characters are not allowed to attack people.

Why should those characters be banned?

Controlling a hex is meaningful PVP it is not killing for lolz why are you opposed to meaningful pvp?

You are abusing game mechanics in order to gain an edge. Banning the alternate characters would have no effect. Therefore, they would ban the characters receiving the benefit. They have said they will ban those who try to bend and break game mechanics in their favor.


Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Steelwing wrote:


2) Even if they can tell assume we have 20 CE alts and a settlement of 500. Who are they going to ban? Can't see them banning the entire settlement can you? With no way to tie those CE people to us in general or anyone in particular the best they can do is ban the ce alts which are low rep low training anyway so we just start a new account
You'd be surprised.

I would...show me a quote saying it is not allowed to have a Chaotic evil character?

Show me a quote saying it is not ok to have a low rep character?

Show me a quote saying that low rep chaotic evil characters are not allowed to attack people.

Why should those characters be banned?

Controlling a hex is meaningful PVP it is not killing for lolz why are you opposed to meaningful pvp?

You are abusing game mechanics in order to gain an edge. Banning the alternate characters would have no effect. Therefore, they would ban the characters receiving the benefit. They have said they will ban those who try to bend and break game mechanics in their favor.

Using the CE low rep character is a last resort because Goblinworks have made it difficult to exert control any other way. There will however be no way of tying either the sadding bandits nor the ce reps to any settlement. If goblinworks decides to start banning the settlements that seem to gain ....guess what unscrupulous people will send their sadding bandits and ce alts to work on "behalf of other settlements"

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have made your intentions to break the system quite clear. Either play the game the developers are building, or leave. Frankly, I'm tired of your superior attitude and that you can outsmart the company and talk down to the CEO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
You have made your intentions to break the system quite clear. Either play the game the developers are building, or leave. Frankly, I'm tired of your superior attitude and that you can outsmart the company and talk down to the CEO.

It is a game of territorial control...I am playing that game. I did not say we would be using our alts to get other settlements in trouble. I said that unscrupulous players would. If goblin works starts banning settlement players because CE players or bandits seem to be working to advantage a settlement guess what griefers are going to do.

I am playing the game the developers are building, I am planning on territorial domination. If you are not playing that game then it is you that is not playing the game they are building not me.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

If your settlement wants to control a hex they can't claim, they should use every means they (as characters) can. If that means contracting out murderers or bandits to raid passerbys, they should do so with all the alignment repercussions that entails. If your intent is to get rep and alignment free murders and such, you're abusing the system.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
If your settlement wants to control a hex they can't claim, they should use every means they (as characters) can. If that means contracting out murderers or bandits to raid passerbys, they should do so with all the alignment repercussions that entails. If your intent is to get rep and alignment free murders and such, you're abusing the system.

Which is entirely what we suggested we would do use bandits with SAD's and Chaotic evil low rep characters. Where have I suggested opting out of rep and alignment for killing these people?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

I would presume you aren't in a CE settlement. You don't seem the type to forgo the perks of Lawful settlements. If you're using CE characters to enforce things for a Lawful settlement, there's a problem.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
I would presume you aren't in a CE settlement. You don't seem the type to forgo the perks of Lawful settlements. If you're using CE characters to enforce things for a Lawful settlement, there's a problem.

Is everyone going to have all their alts be part of the same settlement? I suspect not. If we choose to hire a mercenary company of CE characters why should we not do so? Why does hiring a company that is largely alts of people in our settlement change that?

There is at least one TEO member who is also planning on being part of the Dark Omen group (blaeringrs group). Does that mean TEO shouldn't be able to hire that assassin?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

It has nothing to do with "alts." It has everything to do with having a Lawful settlement enforcing its territory by Chaotic means.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
If your settlement wants to control a hex they can't claim, they should use every means they (as characters) can. If that means contracting out murderers or bandits to raid passerbys, they should do so with all the alignment repercussions that entails. If your intent is to get rep and alignment free murders and such, you're abusing the system.

Wait a sec.... How is that abusing the system? That is exactly how the system is set up. If a lawful aligned settlement needs something done, but wants to keep its leader's hands clean, hiring those that don't care about getting their hands bloody will take the job.

This is even supported in the River Freedoms. Kings may not be able to block roads or rivers, but they can hire bandits to collect "tolls" for them.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

It's not abusing the system if it's a Chaotic or perhaps even Neutral settlement doing it. But a settlement can't be lawful if they're flaunting the very laws they uphold.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
It has nothing to do with "alts." It has everything to do with having a Lawful settlement enforcing its territory by Chaotic means.

Can a settlement hire mercenaries?

Can a settlement only hire mercenaries of the same alignment?

I think the answers to that are obviously yes for the first and no for the second.

If you think the answer to the second is yes can you give me your thoughts on the tie up between blaeringr's group and TEO a putatively neutral good organisation allying with assassins that have to be evil. (Yes I know this was talked about quite a while ago between blaeringr's group and TEO) but I know for a fact that blaeringrs group have at least one player in common definitely and quite probably two.


Also TEO has another member shared with the bloody hand so another tie up with a bandit assassin group

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Also TEO has another member shared with the bloody hand so another tie up with a bandit assassin group

You keep mentioning these things like they matter.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
It's not abusing the system if it's a Chaotic or perhaps even Neutral settlement doing it. But a settlement can't be lawful if they're flaunting the very laws they uphold.

A settlements laws apply only in the hexes it controls mechanically. A settlement may also exert control by force projection on hexes it does not mechanically control such as road hexes and monster hexes. It is the latter hexes we are referring to here. Mechanically they are wilderness hexes of no overall control. A settlement may make them safe for favored individuals by extending their control to encompass them

Goblin Squad Member

Just because they might have an alt with another group doesn't automatically tie that group with their main's group. They can be independent from each other.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
It's not abusing the system if it's a Chaotic or perhaps even Neutral settlement doing it. But a settlement can't be lawful if they're flaunting the very laws they uphold.

Well you are thinking of alignment in PFRPG TT terms, and not as a game mechanic in PFO.

Remember, alignment is not a "Sacred Cow" in its application, only that there will be alignment. The fact that it is meaningless in an RP sense is irrelevant.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Also TEO has another member shared with the bloody hand so another tie up with a bandit assassin group
You keep mentioning these things like they matter.

They matter because you are suggesting it is wrong for us to do it whilst making no comment on TEO doing exactly the same

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure it is. I legally claimed that road as far as my laws say, the result is that I own it and i dont want trespassers.

Anyway I dont see the issue, If people have an issue with it, the simple way to deal with it is to get a group of people together and fight them for the hex. make it so that its not worth it for them to maintain control of that hex. If you cant do that, make sure they have to put serious effort into keeping it. that will weaking the settlement trying to control that hex. you then force them into a choice of "do i keep fighting for that hex or invest enough resources where i can become vulnerable to having my settlement attacked."

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Also TEO has another member shared with the bloody hand so another tie up with a bandit assassin group

The Bloody Hand is now part of Golgotha (Pax), not TEO but then again who can keep track any longer.

I can say for the record, I am not a member of TEO.


Banesama wrote:
Just because they might have an alt with another group doesn't automatically tie that group with their main's group. They can be independent from each other.

I really am not suggesting they can't I am pointing out to Drakhan Valane (A teo member) that what he is condemning us for doing his own group are doing.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Also TEO has another member shared with the bloody hand so another tie up with a bandit assassin group
You keep mentioning these things like they matter.
They matter because you are suggesting it is wrong for us to do it whilst making no comment on TEO doing exactly the same

I don't care what you do with your alts. I care about a Lawful Settlement using CE characters to institute unlawful control.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Also TEO has another member shared with the bloody hand so another tie up with a bandit assassin group
You keep mentioning these things like they matter.
They matter because you are suggesting it is wrong for us to do it whilst making no comment on TEO doing exactly the same
I don't care what you do with your alts. I care about a Lawful Settlement using CE characters to institute unlawful control.

Alignment is merely a mechanic. The principle of hiring mercenaries of differing or even opposite alignments has in no way been said to be an exploit.


Bluddwolf wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Also TEO has another member shared with the bloody hand so another tie up with a bandit assassin group

The Bloody Hand is now part of Golgotha (Pax), not TEO but then again who can keep track any longer.

I can say for the record, I am not a member of TEO.

I wasn't implying bloody hand were part of TEO. I was merely saying that a registered member of TEO is also a registered member of the bloody hand. I will not mention the guys name as I assume he is a spy for one or the other and his allegiance is not clear to me

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Also TEO has another member shared with the bloody hand so another tie up with a bandit assassin group
You keep mentioning these things like they matter.
They matter because you are suggesting it is wrong for us to do it whilst making no comment on TEO doing exactly the same
I don't care what you do with your alts. I care about a Lawful Settlement using CE characters to institute unlawful control.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that a lawful settlement may have pragmatic reasons to employ chaotic tactics and therefore chaotic aligned individuals. They of course would not advertise this, in order to keep their hands clean, but it will be done and should be done.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Also TEO has another member shared with the bloody hand so another tie up with a bandit assassin group
You keep mentioning these things like they matter.
They matter because you are suggesting it is wrong for us to do it whilst making no comment on TEO doing exactly the same
I don't care what you do with your alts. I care about a Lawful Settlement using CE characters to institute unlawful control.
Alignment is merely a mechanic. The principle of hiring mercenaries of differing or even opposite alignments has in no way been said to be an exploit.

Just because it hasn't been said doesn't mean it won't be said. Mr. Dancey has stated repeatedly that he doesn't look kindly on the defence of "well, it was strictly forbidden, so I did it."


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Also TEO has another member shared with the bloody hand so another tie up with a bandit assassin group
You keep mentioning these things like they matter.
They matter because you are suggesting it is wrong for us to do it whilst making no comment on TEO doing exactly the same
I don't care what you do with your alts. I care about a Lawful Settlement using CE characters to institute unlawful control.
Alignment is merely a mechanic. The principle of hiring mercenaries of differing or even opposite alignments has in no way been said to be an exploit.
Just because it hasn't been said doesn't mean it won't be said. Mr. Dancey has stated repeatedly that he doesn't look kindly on the defence of "well, it was strictly forbidden, so I did it."

Are you really planning on checking every mercenary for alignment. Remember this finding out someone's alignment will take a spell.

Are you saying good settlements cannot hire assassins?

Are you saying lawful settlements cannot hire barbarians as scouts?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The argument has been misdirected and is being obfuscated. The issue was on whether it would be play as the game is intended to use unacceptable SADs or CE low rep to close a "highway hex" to unwanted passage. There is no argument that trying to control a hex by force is out of bounds.

The feeling that I am getting from this is that you are denying that you wrote this:

Steelwing wrote:
Where the settlement mechanics allow us to set NBSI we have no problems. Outside that area where we believe we can control we make use of unacceptable SAD's. If that fails we have a squad of CE low rep alts to take out the people. It is no huge problem

There is no definite answer to the question (yet). I expect from all of the many posts and blog entries from the Devs that it is not "play as intended" for PfO, even if it would be in EVE.

Time will tell.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Just because it hasn't been said doesn't mean it won't be said. Mr. Dancey has stated repeatedly that he doesn't look kindly on the defence of "well, it was strictly forbidden, so I did it."

Are you really planning on checking every mercenary for alignment. Remember this finding out someone's alignment will take a spell.

Are you saying good settlements cannot hire assassins?

Are you saying lawful settlements cannot hire barbarians as scouts?

In my opinions, no, a Good settlement should not be able to hire assassins. Lawful settlements should be able to hire barbarians as scouts. Barbarians can be neutral. Also, scouting is not a chaotic act.


There is nowhere that in any blogs that have even so much as implied that trying to control a hex by force is out of bounds. Indeed the very fact that we are expected to fight over resources of which the richest would be in monster hexes definitely implies that trying to control a hex by force is expected play


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Just because it hasn't been said doesn't mean it won't be said. Mr. Dancey has stated repeatedly that he doesn't look kindly on the defence of "well, it was strictly forbidden, so I did it."

Are you really planning on checking every mercenary for alignment. Remember this finding out someone's alignment will take a spell.

Are you saying good settlements cannot hire assassins?

Are you saying lawful settlements cannot hire barbarians as scouts?

In my opinions, no, a Good settlement should not be able to hire assassins. Lawful settlements should be able to hire barbarians as scouts. Barbarians can be neutral. Also, scouting is not a chaotic act.

Surely only the right type of barbarian by your agrument. Lg settlements ng barbarians. ln settlements tn barbarians.

Though can I suggest you talk to your leadership with these attitudes. It would be much better to as the bible would say "take the mote out of your own eye before trying to remove the beam from your brothers". Get TEO to agree they won't be doing this and I will take your views more seriously

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
There is nowhere that in any blogs that have even so much as implied that trying to control a hex by force is out of bounds. Indeed the very fact that we are expected to fight over resources of which the richest would be in monster hexes definitely implies that trying to control a hex by force is expected play

Hmmm. Did I write that poorly? I do not think that trying to control any hex with force is an incorrect way to play. I think that if you read more closely what kind of things have been written about how we use the tools they give us, you will see that some of your tactics from EVE will not be ok.


Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
There is nowhere that in any blogs that have even so much as implied that trying to control a hex by force is out of bounds. Indeed the very fact that we are expected to fight over resources of which the richest would be in monster hexes definitely implies that trying to control a hex by force is expected play

Hmmm. Did I write that poorly? I do not think that trying to control any hex with force is an incorrect way to play. I think that if you read more closely what kind of things have been written about how we use the tools they give us, you will see that some of your tactics from EVE will not be ok.

We intend to enforce rule by and in order of preference

a) Direct control by our troops
b) Sad's by contracted bandits
c) Mercenary units willing to take the alignment and reputation hits

Which of these is it you are specifically object to?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Though can I suggest you talk to your leadership with these attitudes. It would be much better to as the bible would say "take the mote out of your own eye before trying to remove the beam from your brothers". Get TEO to agree they won't be doing this and I will take your views more seriously

So I'm not allowed to have opinions if I'm in an organization now? Wow.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
There is nowhere that in any blogs that have even so much as implied that trying to control a hex by force is out of bounds. Indeed the very fact that we are expected to fight over resources of which the richest would be in monster hexes definitely implies that trying to control a hex by force is expected play

Hmmm. Did I write that poorly? I do not think that trying to control any hex with force is an incorrect way to play. I think that if you read more closely what kind of things have been written about how we use the tools they give us, you will see that some of your tactics from EVE will not be ok.

We intend to enforce rule by and in order of preference

a) Direct control by our troops
b) Sad's by contracted bandits
c) Mercenary units willing to take the alignment and reputation hits

Which of these is it you are specifically object to?

None.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Though can I suggest you talk to your leadership with these attitudes. It would be much better to as the bible would say "take the mote out of your own eye before trying to remove the beam from your brothers". Get TEO to agree they won't be doing this and I will take your views more seriously
So I'm not allowed to have opinions if I'm in an organization now? Wow.

That is not what I said at all. I merely suggested that if you felt this is an issue and it is your right to think so then perhaps you should work at convincing your own organisation it is something they shouldn't do before you start lecturing others on it. That way no one can turn around and say "we are not doing anything differently to what your organisation plans"

Example if I may...banditry...not a lawful act I am sure we can agree but a chaotic and evil one? "Digs in his big box of quotes"

One of the TEO leaderships opinion on it is

start of quote

Re: Banditry

Postby Andius » Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:45 pm
One thing I'd like to talk about since I saw someone mentioning TEO members tagging themselves as outlaws.

Can we do that?

Yes. I'm going to be very pissed if TEO members start robbing random players but you may certainly go outlaw and rob our enemies. Same goes for enforcer. No killing chaotic good bandits but if you put it on with the intention of protecting the general populace from abuse by the forces of chaos then have at it

end of quote

51 to 100 of 767 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / It's 3am, do you know where your settlement is? All Messageboards