A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

951 to 1,000 of 1,127 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
And what's even funnier...Valtorious is my Paladin's name which is what I originally was going to play.

Come to think of it, if you look at Xeen's posts before he joined UNC and then those after, he has been twisted into a very different character as well.

I have been corrupting MMO players into a life of piracy / banditry since 2002.

Lol. If people have a distaste for one another because of people's dispositions on the forums, it's understandable. But I just want to make sure that people aren't assuming that anyone is a jerk in real life because they am going to try and take away their imaginary gold through banditry. It would be the equivalent of associating the people who are going to take other people's settlements with sociopath/psychopaths or painting anyone who wanted to play a Paladin as a hysterical virgin.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valtorious wrote:
Personally speaking, I just question the wisdom of labeling a person with a -3,0000 rep because he has unlawfully mined a resource that isn't his a few dozen times in the same way we would label a murderer with a -3000 who has killed a couple of noobs. That's basically it...and all of my fears are predicated by not exactly knowing what and what won't constitute rep hits. I have read the blogs and have the big picture in mind...and honestly I think my bandits rep will probably be fine...but we'll see.

I don't think I've seen anything at all that suggests a player will take any reputation losses for mining a resource, even if it is in someone else's territory. Yet we're worried about someone taking rep hits for it and getting the same label as a murderer. I think this might be one of those assumptions that Ryan was cautioning us about, and the building of expectations on top of assumptions.

To my knowledge, the latest info on Rep was in the 18 December blog post. There they specified killing unflagged characters and abusive behaviour as the two ways we might lose reputation. Nothing else has been raised at this time (as always, if my facts are wrong, I welcome corrections).

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
Personally speaking, I just question the wisdom of labeling a person with a -3,0000 rep because he has unlawfully mined a resource that isn't his a few dozen times in the same way we would label a murderer with a -3000 who has killed a couple of noobs. That's basically it...and all of my fears are predicated by not exactly knowing what and what won't constitute rep hits. I have read the blogs and have the big picture in mind...and honestly I think my bandits rep will probably be fine...but we'll see.

I don't think I've seen anything at all that suggests a player will take any reputation losses for mining a resource, even if it is in someone else's territory. Yet we're worried about someone taking rep hits for it and getting the same label as a murderer. I think this might be one of those assumptions that Ryan was cautioning us about, and the building of expectations on top of assumptions.

To my knowledge, the latest info on Rep was in the 18 December blog post. There they specified killing unflagged characters and abusive behaviour as the two ways we might lose reputation. Nothing else has been raised at this time (as always, if my facts are wrong, I welcome corrections).

.

No doubt...but what I said was towards the end of a long discussion. I said way back in these threads some where it all hinged on what and what won't constitute rep hits.

Edit: And I do think I read in one of the blogs that a way to lose rep was to break the laws of a settlement. I'm pretty sure, but not 100%

Goblin Squad Member

This might help clear some of it up.

Ryan Dec. 18th, 2013 wrote:
A long time ago (or at least it feels like a long time ago), we laid out our plan for the Reputation and Alignment systems in Pathfinder Online. While the core of this plan has not changed, some of the specifics have. In today's blog, Lee goes over the plans again as there have been a lot of discussions about them and some minor tweaks since we last presented them.
Lee Dec. 18th, 2013 wrote:
When a character attacks a character who was not Hostile, the character making the attack gets flagged as an Attacker. If the character with Attacker hits their target again in the next thirty seconds, they become Hostile, and lose Reputation. Note that Reputation is lost on striking a target twice rather than on death; this means Reputation is lost when your intention to kill someone is made clear rather than if you are successful.

Consequently, this makes my suggestion for a SAD "placeholder" useless. You will still lose Rep anyway, unless you can fell your opponent with one blow.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Valtorious,

We do know that SADs, Raiding Outposts / POIs, Feuds, Faction targets, and Wars do not cost Reputation.

What we are waiting to hear about are caravans. If that system also allows for raiding similar to outposts, where ambushes cause hostility but not reputation loss, then we can virtually count on not being low rep.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Consequently, this makes my suggestion for a SAD "placeholder" useless. You will still lose Rep anyway, unless you can fell your opponent with one blow.

This not correct. If a SAD is rejected, the bandit has up to 5 minutes to attack without reputation loss. The only other time a SAD can result in reputation loss is if the SAD is accepted, and the bandits attack the traveler during the 20 minute "victimized" timer. In that event the bandit will lose 2x the amount of reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Valtorious,

We do know that SADs, Raiding Outposts / POIs, Feuds, Faction targets, and Wars do not cost Reputation.

What we are waiting to hear about are caravans. If that system also allows for raiding similar to outposts, where ambushes cause hostility but not reputation loss, then we can virtually count on not being low rep.

Can you show where that bolded part is confirmed? Otherwise it is an assumption from an "iffey" comment.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Consequently, this makes my suggestion for a SAD "placeholder" useless. You will still lose Rep anyway, unless you can fell your opponent with one blow.
This not correct. If a SAD is rejected, the bandit has up to 5 minutes to attack without reputation loss. The only other time a SAD can result in reputation loss is if the SAD is accepted, and the bandits attack the traveler during the 20 minute "victimized" timer. In that event the bandit will lose 2x the amount of reputation.

In another thread about the "dying state", I suggested that a bandit could knock his target there, revive him and the target might be more willing to give up some loot. The reason that I suggested it was since there will be no SAD mechanic for awhile (but there might be a rep counter) a bandit could have an avenue to get lootz and not lose rep.

Rereading the blog, I see that wouldn't work.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Consequently, this makes my suggestion for a SAD "placeholder" useless. You will still lose Rep anyway, unless you can fell your opponent with one blow.
This not correct. If a SAD is rejected, the bandit has up to 5 minutes to attack without reputation loss. The only other time a SAD can result in reputation loss is if the SAD is accepted, and the bandits attack the traveler during the 20 minute "victimized" timer. In that event the bandit will lose 2x the amount of reputation.

In another thread about the "dying state", I suggested that a bandit could knock his target there, revive him and the target might be more willing to give up some loot. The reason that I suggested it was since there will be no SAD mechanic for awhile (but there might be a rep counter) a bandit could have an avenue to get lootz and not lose rep.

Rereading the blog, I see that wouldn't work.

I'm not sure the order things are going to be implemented in either and I'm not to worried about it. I would rather be a part of play testing this game and being part of making it awesome. I'm not all that concerned about how great I'm doing character wise in the early stages.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Valtorious,

We do know that SADs, Raiding Outposts / POIs, Feuds, Faction targets, and Wars do not cost Reputation.

What we are waiting to hear about are caravans. If that system also allows for raiding similar to outposts, where ambushes cause hostility but not reputation loss, then we can virtually count on not being low rep.

Can you show where that bolded part is confirmed? Otherwise it is an assumption from an "iffey" comment.
Dev Blog: Raiding wrote:

When an Outpost is raided, the management company and associated PoI owners are notified. Any characters within the area of the Outpost (that aren't allied with the Outpost owners) are marked as Criminal and lose no stacks of Criminal until they leave the area.

The intention is to encourage short-term, regular PvP on the outskirts/frontiers of civilization. Raids are valuable to the raider, threatening to the defender, but resource-light enough for both to keep raids frequent and fun. We wanted to ensure that there were structures in game that positively encourage player versus player combat on both a macro and a micro level. Outpost raiding has implications for the Outpost, its PoI, and any affiliated settlement, making it a valuable tool for everyone from bandits to those embroiled in full-scale war. While an outpost is unlikely to change hands unless its affiliated PoI supports such a change, it can provide valuable resources to a canny raiding party. This should allow them to further their own goals in Golarion by methods which suit their play styles.

By every definition of "meaningful human interaction" GW has stated, the bold makes it clear. Raiding outposts and POIs will not result in reputation loss. Raids are being encouraged by GW.

Then there is the Dev Blog Sections: "Going - a - Viking" and "Hostility" which further make it clear that raiding outposts and POIs, generate hostility but not reputation loss, so long as the bandits do not strike and kill any PC defenders within the first two strikes ( a systematic improbability without alpha strike). But, once the PC defenders hit the raiders a second time, the hostility is recipricol and neither side will lose reputation or suffer alignment shifts. The only way for a Chaotic alignment shift is if raiding is made illegal within the settlement. In that event then a chaotic alignment shift will apply and a criminal flag will also apply. However, as the Dev Blog states, the trade off for he settlement is that it exposes the settlement to corruption / unrest if raiding is made illegal and they can not effectively police the outer perimeter of their hex.

Unless a Developer steps in and says this interpretation is incorrect or that the information in the Dev Blogs have since been altered, I stand by this interpretation.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Valtorious,

We do know that SADs, Raiding Outposts / POIs, Feuds, Faction targets, and Wars do not cost Reputation.

What we are waiting to hear about are caravans. If that system also allows for raiding similar to outposts, where ambushes cause hostility but not reputation loss, then we can virtually count on not being low rep.

Can you show where that bolded part is confirmed? Otherwise it is an assumption from an "iffey" comment.

In a thread (for "The Window Is A Wound, The Road Is A Knife" I think) a dev said it's hypothetically possible to raid an outpost without losing rep if you don't attack any PCs there while non-hostiles. You will be flagged criminal so they can choose to attack you and then you can try to kill them back without losing rep.


Proxima Sin wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Valtorious,

We do know that SADs, Raiding Outposts / POIs, Feuds, Faction targets, and Wars do not cost Reputation.

What we are waiting to hear about are caravans. If that system also allows for raiding similar to outposts, where ambushes cause hostility but not reputation loss, then we can virtually count on not being low rep.

Can you show where that bolded part is confirmed? Otherwise it is an assumption from an "iffey" comment.
In a thread (for "The Window Is A Wound, The Road Is A Knife" I think) a dev said it's hypothetically possible to raid an outpost without losing rep if you don't attack any PCs there while non-hostiles. You will be flagged criminal so they can choose to attack you and then you can try to kill them back without losing rep.

From what the husband has told me attacking npc's should have no impact it is only when you kill the weaklings that you get hit with rep loss


Ok I am going to the bathroom for a while I will come back when the blood stops flowing *sighs heavily and points out someone was only going to take part in the talking head thread*

Goblin Squad Member

Whew! That is a lot of ANSWER. I suppose that makes sense. I was guessing that those structures would have player or "weakling" guards. An assumption of my own. So, as long as it is empty of "weaklings". Got it. ;)


Bringslite wrote:
Whew! That is a lot of ANSWER. I suppose that makes sense. I was guessing that those structures would have player or "weakling" guards. An assumption of my own. So, as long as it is empty of "weaklings". Got it. ;)

If we are attacking their outpost their is unlikely to be pc guards from the dev blogs

If we are attacking a POI there maybe player guards but they are obviously weaklings because only a fool attacks the strong.

Think of it as evolution in action and if you are one of the dispossessed frankly consider it as a lesson in where you fit in the golarion universe

Goblin Squad Member

Mrs Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Whew! That is a lot of ANSWER. I suppose that makes sense. I was guessing that those structures would have player or "weakling" guards. An assumption of my own. So, as long as it is empty of "weaklings". Got it. ;)

If we are attacking their outpost their is unlikely to be pc guards from the dev blogs

If we are attacking a POI there maybe player guards but they are obviously weaklings because only a fool attacks the strong.

Think of it as evolution in action and if you are one of the dispossessed frankly consider it as a lesson in where you fit in the golarion universe

No. You do not attack the enemy where he is strongest. Not unless you have a very good reason. You also do not do everything that the Developers or players assume that you will. Unless you want to be predictable.


Bringslite wrote:
Mrs Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Whew! That is a lot of ANSWER. I suppose that makes sense. I was guessing that those structures would have player or "weakling" guards. An assumption of my own. So, as long as it is empty of "weaklings". Got it. ;)

If we are attacking their outpost their is unlikely to be pc guards from the dev blogs

If we are attacking a POI there maybe player guards but they are obviously weaklings because only a fool attacks the strong.

Think of it as evolution in action and if you are one of the dispossessed frankly consider it as a lesson in where you fit in the golarion universe

No. You do not attack the enemy where he is strongest. Not unless you have a very good reason. You also do not do everything that the Developers or players assume that you will. Unless you want to be predictable.

Of course not predictability is the hallmark of a failed operation. We will do what we need to and we will win our conflicts.

Goblin Squad Member

Mrs Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Mrs Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Whew! That is a lot of ANSWER. I suppose that makes sense. I was guessing that those structures would have player or "weakling" guards. An assumption of my own. So, as long as it is empty of "weaklings". Got it. ;)

If we are attacking their outpost their is unlikely to be pc guards from the dev blogs

If we are attacking a POI there maybe player guards but they are obviously weaklings because only a fool attacks the strong.

Think of it as evolution in action and if you are one of the dispossessed frankly consider it as a lesson in where you fit in the golarion universe

No. You do not attack the enemy where he is strongest. Not unless you have a very good reason. You also do not do everything that the Developers or players assume that you will. Unless you want to be predictable.

Of course not predictability is the hallmark of a failed operation. We will do what we need to and we will win our conflicts.

I have no doubt that you will succeed more than you fail. Part of ensuring that is setting the situation so that you almost certainly CAN'T fail. That is real strategy. There is an obvious drive in Steelwing (and probably yourself) to squeeze advantage from all available sources. Nothing bad about that.

It is all flag waving though, until the rubber hits the road or the plans hit the rules and the opposition.


heh Steelwing is just a cuddly panda he called me in because he felt he wasn't being blunt enough in his explanations and he knows I have a soldiers knack for simplicity

Goblin Squad Member

We are not debating the philosophy of different warfare styles. According to an ancient wise man named Sal Bandini, you always attack an enemy where he is strongest. He never expects it and that is where all the action is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DFL0F0nKvo

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:

We are not debating the philosophy of different warfare styles. According to an ancient wise man named Saul Bandini, you always attack an enemy where he is strongest. He never expects it and that is where all the action is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DFL0F0nKvo

Almost all threads get derailed eventually. What was the topic before the horns and flags?

Ah, my question and that was answered. What was it before that....?


Saul Bandini was obviously claiming to be an ancient wise man erroneously and instead of that have been laying claim to being an ancient idiot. I suspect that the day he dies that the avaerage IQ of the human race must have jumped a huge number of points

Goblin Squad Member

@Bludd, as others have said before me SAD is not the mechanic we want to defend our settlement. SAD's intended to take a portion of the person's wealth and/or items, whereas in policing the land you want to be able to stop someone from freely running around your place.

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps a "Marshal" will come to town and clear all of that up pardner. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
@Bludd, as others have said before me SAD is not the mechanic we want to defend our settlement. SAD's intended to take a portion of the person's wealth and/or items, whereas in policing the land you want to be able to stop someone from freely running around your place.

They won't so freely run around if the expect that you will stop them, and make demands for 75% of their inventory, and if they refuse you will kill them.

I'm not saying you do this to everyone. You do this to those you suspect are up to no good.

Now I fully support the Marshall system Tork / Stephen have in mind. I am confident it will be a well balanced system, with appropriate costs and preventions from it being misused or consequences for its misuse.

The problem I saw with the OP system of Exile was that it had no costs, trade offs or offsets. It was a free-bee "I get to tag you and kill you, with no consequences" button.

I'd be O.K. with that as well, if everyone had a similar ability in the supposed "lawless" wilderness hexes. Or does it make sense that an NRDS settlement policy would be more FFA PVP than the wilderness?

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:

1) We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on settlement C so that we can foment a war between the two. We can then persuade B that because they are weaker than C they will lose unless they decide to join our alliance.

2) We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on settlement C so that we can foment a war between the two. We can then wait until the two have destroyed the best part of the reserves then step in and take both settlements.

3) We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on bandits so that we can persuade settlement B they need to hire our mercenaries to protect them.

Mildly hilarious derailment, but consider that everyone will be attempting to do this, as it's the smart money and mercenaries get paid, and then get out, heading for the next battlefield.

As the resources in the Hexes between the Settlement get sucked up faster than they can replenish, as the PoIs are destroyed in pitched battles, as the Settlements burn in siege and counter-siege, the winners stand atop the rubble, gazing out across a landscape covered in corpses, carrion-eaters and smoke from fires burning in the remains of once pristine forests, turn to each other and say.

"Thank the Gods we won!"


HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:
Steelwing wrote:

1) We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on settlement C so that we can foment a war between the two. We can then persuade B that because they are weaker than C they will lose unless they decide to join our alliance.

2) We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on settlement C so that we can foment a war between the two. We can then wait until the two have destroyed the best part of the reserves then step in and take both settlements.

3) We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on bandits so that we can persuade settlement B they need to hire our mercenaries to protect them.

Mildly hilarious derailment, but consider that everyone will be attempting to do this, as it's the smart money and mercenaries get paid, and then get out, heading for the next battlefield.

As the resources in the Hexes between the Settlement get sucked up faster than they can replenish, as the PoIs are destroyed in pitched battles, as the Settlements burn in siege and counter-siege, the winners stand atop the rubble, gazing out across a landscape covered in corpses, carrion-eaters and smoke from fires burning in the remains of once pristine forests, turn to each other and say.

"Thank the Gods we won!"

Why do you consider it a derailement when the question being answered was why do it and I supplied some answers to that question?


This was the statement I was answering in case you do not wish to go back a couple of pages

Being wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Being wrote:
Feuds, Caravans, Outposts/POI defenders and aggressive raids and even small gang and individuals constitute settlement warfare. They are not left out of the wars, they make the wars.

They are not left out, but they are also not always bound within the settlement vs. settlement conflict.

There are and will be groups that function outside of the larger settlement vs settlement or nation vs nation conflicts.

Well, of course. The game is not intended to only be PvP (unless I am mistaken). But in terms of active PvP, why will gangs and individuals engage in PvP outside the auspices of settlement or company conflict?

Goblin Squad Member

I can't know for sure, but I got the impression HalfOrc meant that his own comment was the derailment.

Goblin Squad Member

That I did.


My mistake then

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
It is not throwing away the game in the least the example I gave is one of perfectly meaningful pvp not wanton and wholesale murder. It will be whether we join the game or not a part of settlement conflict.

The issue I am attempting to point out isn't that your people might engage in meaningless slaughter, Steel. My intent is not accusatory.

I take you at your word that your organization will do it's best to work within the rules. Yet leaving it possible for your organization to field irregulars without game-integral ties, who can engage in PvP outside the auspices of settlement or company conflict, also entails opening the gate to those who will engage in wanton slaughter.

That 'gate' could be closed by requiring allegiance and consequence to a responsible settlement (or company-with-investment) in order to engage in PvP at all. Unless you have a stake, the character cannot damage another player, but can be damaged if an invested character finds sufficient reason to sacrifice some of their reputation.

If the only reason to leave that gate open is to provide invested organizations with the means to conduct asymmetric operations will it be worth it? If a settlement is allowed the means to suppress freedom of travel/access, for one example, within hexes that their settlement(s) cannot own, would the reward to the game be worth the risk that the same lack of regulation will allow irresponsible predation?

What is lost if characters who are not affiliated with a company that has something to lose are denied both martial and economic PvP?

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
What is lost if characters who are not affiliated with a company that has something to lose are denied both martial and economic PvP?

This reminds me of the New York City High School system. A student in middle school gets to select 12 choices for high schools. If that student is turned down by all 12, he or she goes into the second round. The student then chooses another group of schools, a shorter list of 6 - 10. If turned down again, the student is assigned to the closest high school to his or her residence (zone school). There the student must remain for at least one year, after which the student can select 3 schools to move to. The student also has the choice to finish schooling at zone school, school has no choice.

Unless there is some system in PFO to force a PC settlement to accept unaffiliated characters, it runs the risk of having unaffiliated characters trapped in that state. The reason fur being rejected could be that there is no PC settlement that caters to the unaffiliated's alignment or class needs. Early on, when there is only 15 settlements, alignment might be more the issue. Later on in OE, it could be an issue of uncommon classes not getting support.

The problem with denying access to PvP for the unaffiliated is that you are denying the core of PFO to them. Remember, Ryan had said, the PvE content will be extremely limited.

Goblin Squad Member

Extremely limited compared to a theme park, mind. I'd expect it to be a more diverse experience than EVE's PvE, for example.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Being wrote:
What is lost if characters who are not affiliated with a company that has something to lose are denied both martial and economic PvP?

<elided Bluddwolf's two paragraphs comparing the proposal to a particular school system>

The problem with denying access to PvP for the unaffiliated is that you are denying the core of PFO to them. Remember, Ryan had said, the PvE content will be extremely limited.

I'm not denying them anything: they are making a meaningful choice to exclude themselves by not investing in the community.

Is there a parallel in the New York City School system?

Does the New York City school system have anything to gain by incentivizing students to invest their time in the community?

Don't we have good reason to incentivize investing in our settlements?

We already know (by inference) the game needs a way for the unaffiliated to join together to create a settlement. That means the unaffiliated will be no more trapped in that state than the rest of us.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Being

The main point I made was

Bluddwolf wrote:
Early on, when there is only 15 settlements, alignment might be more the issue. Later on in OE, it could be an issue of uncommon classes not getting support.

It is not a matter of what annunaffiliated is or is not investing in the community, it is whether or not the community is offering what the unaffiliated needs.

I can see the possibility that not all alignments will be supported by the initial 15 EE PC settlements.

I can see upper tier training for certain classes not being available later on in OE, when the non core classes are added.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

If the initial 15 settlements are jerkwads that are trying to monopolize their power over creating new settlements, GW will fix it. It is not in their interest to allow settlement creation to be stifled in that way.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

If less than 7% of the total organized population is in a given alignment, it might not be best to go through lots of extra work to make it 'supported'. If more than 7% of the total population is in a given alignment, then they should get at least 7% (1 out of 15) of the settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
What is lost if characters who are not affiliated with a company that has something to lose are denied both martial and economic PvP?

As others have said, blocking characters from initiating PvP is blocking them from most of the game.

I'd rather see some sort of incentives for joining companies and player settlements (like increased rep gains for both), and increased Influence gains for companies sponsored by player settlements.

And if carrots aren't enough, grouping characters that aren't in a company into a settlement's <null> company might ensure that they are exposed to company conflict.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
If less than 7% of the total organized population is in a given alignment, it might not be best to go through lots of extra work to make it 'supported'. If more than 7% of the total population is in a given alignment, then they should get at least 7% (1 out of 15) of the settlements.

Settlement alignments will be distributed by the alignments of those with the strength to hold them nothing more. There is no entitlement to have your alignment supported purely based on numbers. Some alignments such as chaotic ones are going to working with two major downsides for having settlements available.

1) Chaotics are (as described by the devs) likely to have lower DI than lawful settlements

2) Min maxers will not choose chaotic alignments due to the in built suck and are more likely to go for one of the lawful alignments. Min maxers are the ones most likely to be running settlements.

Conclusion (yes its opinion) Most settlements will be lawful

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Being wrote:
What is lost if characters who are not affiliated with a company that has something to lose are denied both martial and economic PvP?
As others have said, blocking characters from initiating PvP is blocking them from most of the game.

True. Yet the 'blocking' is a matter of their own choices.

Urman wrote:


I'd rather see some sort of incentives for joining companies and player settlements (like increased rep gains for both), and increased Influence gains for companies sponsored by player settlements.

One enticement could be the ability to initiate martial and economic PvP... after you have something to risk that you could lose if you are a total jerkwad.

Urman wrote:


And if carrots aren't enough, grouping characters that aren't in a company into a settlement's <null> company might ensure that they are exposed to company conflict.

It isn't that I want them exposed to conflict, I want them to be invested in what they do in the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Urman wrote:
Being wrote:
What is lost if characters who are not affiliated with a company that has something to lose are denied both martial and economic PvP?
As others have said, blocking characters from initiating PvP is blocking them from most of the game.
True. Yet the 'blocking' is a matter of their own choices.

Their own choice could be blocked if there is no PC settlement that can take in their alignment.

If all settlements are Lawful based, then there is no PC settlement for Chaotuc aligned characters to join.

Goblin Squad Member

Oh no! Then the alignment system will be meaningless except as a piece of gear to further your intended game role!

Kids will just be core neutral or lawful and play chaotic all they want. The ones that care would just write their "real" alignment at the top of their bio sheet.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

Oh no! Then the alignment system will be meaningless except as a piece of gear to further your intended game role!

Kids will just be core neutral or lawful and play chaotic all they want. The ones that care would just write their "real" alignment at the top of their bio sheet.

Ryan has already said, Alignment a funneling mechanic. It has nothing to do with the alignment system you may be familiar with in TT or in a traditional role playing sense.

Are any of the cities in Golarian restricted to the one step rule of PFO's alignment funnel?

So as you say, players will select the alignment that gives them the most benefit, and play their characters however they intended to play them. If the need arises, they will grind whatever activity needed to recover alignment. I guess that is the hybrid aspect GW has been talking about, we will have the Theme Park grindiness when it comes to alignment, and probably reputation as well.

CEO, Goblinworks

Proxima Sin wrote:
Kids will just be core neutral or lawful and play chaotic all they want. The ones that care would just write their "real" alignment at the top of their bio sheet.

The characters' alignments will reflect how they are played, yes. That's the system working as designed.

CEO, Goblinworks

Bluddwolf wrote:
Are any of the cities in Golarian restricted to the one step rule of PFO's alignment funnel?

I suggest the answer to this is a qualified "yes".

Pathfinder inherited D&D's system of classifying towns and cities with an alignment. Those alignments generally reflect the disposition of the city's residents and its leadership.

There is no hard coded rule about city leaders being within a boundary for alignment but there is the clearly implied (but not mechanically present) idea that if the city and its leaders don't actually reflect the alignment of the city, the city's alignment is wrong.

Your character can go to a Settlement that doesn't match your character's alignment. Your character can live and work there. You'll probably be able to have storage there. You might be able to set your respawn point there. Your character will be a "resident" if you want to. (And assuming the people who lead that Settlement allow it).

That's really no different from Pathfinder tabletop at all.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
It is not a matter of what annunaffiliated is or is not investing in the community, it is whether or not the community is offering what the unaffiliated needs.

I don't believe there is an alignment restriction on hiring characters. This should take care of the 'blocked off from all/most content'. We know there will be considerable work to be done handling escalations and gathering. These escalation-management chores could be commissioned by settlements/well-to-do companies interested in recruiting new characters, and the new characters gain opportunity to learn whether they will fit into that settlement, earn their place in the pecking order, and create avenues of advancement for themselves. Plus there are the factions, whose roles we do not yet know.

I doubt all settlements will be lawful, despite Steelwing's reasoning. There are going to be people who don't min-max and Ryan has stated before he expects a large population of chaotics.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Ryan

You have of course danced (no pun intended) around the core issue of sponsorship. What happens if most or all of the few PC settlements set their core alignment to Lawful?

Even if there is one or two NG or NE (less likely) settlements, first they woukd be better off just joining the appropriate lawful settlements. Secondly, they would not want to become the only place for the "chaotics" to go to.

Now I expect your answer might be to "just start a chaotic settlement", but you have spent a good deal if time making it clear your bias against chaotic settlements, who is really going to want to invest in a settlement that will suck, be design?

@ Being you are quite wrong in supporting Ryan's assumption that most characters will be chaotic good or neutral good, as he had said in a post previously. Most players might play their characters that way, but they will set their core alignments to one of the Lawfuls.

Then players will play their chaotic ways, and when the need arises they will grind the lawful axis for a bit, to get back to core. There is the Sand Box / Theme Park hybrid. Alignment is the first grind element in PFO.


Isn't the trade off, that lawful settlements get higher corruption AND have to set more laws.

Which effectively means, it might be very easy to cripple a lawful settlement, by using guerilla tactics.

Goblin Squad Member

Cirolle wrote:
Isn't the trade off, that lawful settlements get higher corruption AND have to set more laws.

They start lower but gain it more easily.

951 to 1,000 of 1,127 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.