A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 1,127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Steelwing's Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
My Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Andius exiles Xeen.

Definitely something to consider. There is a risk every time that they walk your roads and attempt such things if you are vigilant though.


Andius wrote:
Steelwing's Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
My Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Andius exiles Xeen.

This is a provable case of exploiting and can easily be reported and seen as such.

The other side of the coin is that if your system comes into play you have

UNC get exiled

UNC raid your outposts and are now free kills for anyone without concern to you because people killing them will not increase your corruption. The devs seem to have been fairly explicit about who can respond to a raid and it is the management company of the outpost and the settlement members if the settlement if the settlement has made it a criminal offence. Your rule change alters this


It should also be noted that the crime of trespassing increases your corruption. So they don't actually need to SAD just come into your territory.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Definitely something to consider. There is a risk every time that they walk your roads and attempt such things if you are vigilant though.

If they're smart, they'll do it ungeared in fairly concealed area, just passing the same copper piece back and forth.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Steelwing's Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
My Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Andius exiles Xeen.

Thanks for the clarification, I'm sure everyone gets it now.

So bottom line is that you will likely have a very large list of "exiles" and your supposed NG settlement will be drenched in rivers of blood.

And I'm supposed to be the CE sociopath?? Bloodhaven Brighthaven I thought had a more welcoming posture. I'm certainly waiting to read Lifedragn's response to this whole "exile and kill" policy.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

While Bloodhaven sounds like awesometown, no, Brighthaven will not be having a long list of Exiles just to murder people. That goes against the very foundation of the principle under which Brighthaven has been proposed. Please stop posting such unfounded things, Bluddwolf.

Goblin Squad Member

Yes we will trespass/exile everyone intentionally trying to sabotage us. Pretty sure that's a policy we will share in common with every other territory holding organization.

No I haven't talked that one over with Lifedragn, or anyone else, but I also haven't directly addressed the topics of "can our members kill someone who attacked them first", or "Will Brighthaven defend itself if we come under siege?"

We've never sold our selves as pacifists who won't protect ourselves from hostile forces though, as you seem to think every good aligned group should.

Some things just go without saying.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:


Actually, he said, "Also any crime committed to an exiled player in your territory does not generate corruption / unrest." I interpret that as being crimes AGAINST the trespasser, not crimes BY the trespasser.

The wording seems inaccurate. I believe his intention is that you can legally take actions against trespassers that would be crimes if done against anyone else. Murder would still raise unrest, but killing trespassers would not be murder.

@Steelwing

Quote:
The very first one I pointed out that NRDS is perfectly viable without these mechanics.

This is what I still don't see. You point out that other groups intend to go NRDS and jump to the conclusion that it therefore must be viable. Arguing that you can play NRDS regardless of mechanics is trivial, you may as well claim that pacifism is a viable choice.

Andius' implicit argumentation is that NBSI (in an isolated perspective) has intrinsic security benefit and every (rational) settlement would go NBSI unless NRDS offers rewards to balance the risks.

Another unspoken assumption is that NBSI/NRDS should be balanced because it would make the game more interesting for a wider range of players than an all-NBSI world. If meaningful interaction is the goal, making it rational to kill strangers by default seems like the poor game design.

Your argument comes across to me as wanting minimal rewards for NRDS because you already made your choice to play NBSI.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:

The other side of the coin is that if your system comes into play you have

UNC get exiled

UNC raid your outposts and are now free kills for anyone without concern to you because people killing them will not increase your corruption. The devs seem to have been fairly explicit about who can respond to a raid and it is the management company of the outpost and the settlement members if the settlement if the settlement has made it a criminal offence. Your rule change alters this

If someone trespasses in your lands you can kill them all you want UNLESS they're raiding your outposts?

Goblin Squad Member

Nah the point he's making is that other groups could jump in and help without raising corruption/unrest.

Provided they are willing to take the hit to the reputation and alignment hits I didn't mention at all.

It's a really, really, really bad point but I knew that that was what this topic was going to be filled with to begin with. Horrible points from Steelwing, Xeen, and Bludd because my name is a the top. They are nothing if not predictable.

The nice part is the favorites and positive reviews from most people other than those who would oppose me if I suggested we have the default color of the daytime sky be sky blue, because they simply like to disagree with me.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:

The other side of the coin is that if your system comes into play you have

UNC get exiled

UNC raid your outposts and are now free kills for anyone without concern to you because people killing them will not increase your corruption. The devs seem to have been fairly explicit about who can respond to a raid and it is the management company of the outpost and the settlement members if the settlement if the settlement has made it a criminal offence. Your rule change alters this

If someone trespasses in your lands you can kill them all you want UNLESS they're raiding your outposts?

If they have the criminal flag you can kill them all you want regardless of what they are doing. The point is however they won't have the criminal flag to visitors to your lands and for those people to kill them is still a crime.

The point I was making about raiding is even in these circumstances it is not legal for outsiders to interfere in the raid.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Nah the point he's making is that other groups could jump in and help without raising corruption/unrest.

Obviously we should start banning people for helping others. Obvious exploit. (/sarcasm)

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
The point I was making about raiding is even in these circumstances it is not legal for outsiders to interfere in the raid.

Why should this be so? Why are people not allowed to help others? Doesn't this drive people away from each other? "I would have helped you out, but the game rules prohibit it. Sorry."

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What if we thought of the "No Trespassing" law more as a "Trespassers Be Warned" checkbox option for settlement managers?

Non-members enter the settlement's hex (or the controlling company's hex for POI) and gain a Warned debuff that removes rep and alignment consequences for ONLY that controlling group should they feel the need to ghost you; full consequences still apply to any characters not a member of the controlling group of that hex. Being in that area isn't a crime, you're just being warned to stay well-behaved by that debuff.

  • Unrest isn't affected (so warned visitors can come and go freely for trade, training, events, etc.)
  • Visitors are not a criminal free kill to just anyone.
  • Any settlement members in the settlement hex can deal with Reddish-acting visitors the moment they get out of line, giving them enough sense of security to open up to well-behaved visitors.
  • In POI hexes only members of the controlling company can take advantage of the debuff; the company may be sponsored, but that settlement is a hex or more away. This also keeps with GWs current raiding design.
  • Favored non-member individuals, companies, or settlements can be switched to Invited status so they no longer get the Warned debuff.
  • Doesn't interfere with NBSI desires (except contracting out enforcement which is one easily worked-out corner case if the whole was accepted)


randomwalker wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:


Actually, he said, "Also any crime committed to an exiled player in your territory does not generate corruption / unrest." I interpret that as being crimes AGAINST the trespasser, not crimes BY the trespasser.
The wording seems inaccurate. I believe his intention is that you can legally take actions against trespassers that would be crimes if done against anyone else. Murder would still raise unrest, but killing trespassers would not be murder.

Once more I repeat. It is legal for a settlement member to kill a trespasser because they have the criminal flag to them. It is not legal for outsiders to do it as the trespasser is not criminally flagged to them. An outsider killing the trespasser therefore is still a crime

randomwalker wrote:


@Steelwing
Quote:
The very first one I pointed out that NRDS is perfectly viable without these mechanics.

This is what I still don't see. You point out that other groups intend to go NRDS and jump to the conclusion that it therefore must be viable. Arguing that you can play NRDS regardless of mechanics is trivial, you may as well claim that pacifism is a viable choice.

Andius' implicit argumentation is that NBSI (in an isolated perspective) has intrinsic security benefit and every (rational) settlement would go NBSI unless NRDS offers rewards to balance the risks.

Another unspoken assumption is that NBSI/NRDS should be balanced because it would make the game more interesting for a wider range of players than an all-NBSI world. If meaningful interaction is the goal, making it rational to kill strangers by default seems like the poor game design.

Your argument comes across to me as wanting minimal rewards for NRDS because you already made your choice to play NBSI.

NRDS is perfectly viable with no mechanics at all can you explain why you think it is not. My point about other groups is they seem perfectly happy they can do NRDS without asking for any new mechanics.

As to NBSI/NRDS they both currently have advantages and disadvantages why do you feel that NRDS should have even further advantages.

For example while NBSI offers greater security (advantage) whereas it also means more corruption as anyone entering your territory that is not blue gives you a corruption hit on you.(disadvantage)

NRDS the advantages and disadvantages are reversed. So there is already the trade off implicit in the system. NRDS also has the advantage of greater tax raising power which means more money and in a game like this money = power.

NRDS is perfectly viable as the system stands and offers plenty on the plus side which I think any of the Aeternum officers will confirm as they I would assume made the choice to go NRDS rationally. Believing it to be non viable is supposition on your part as much as that it is on my part that it is viable.

If I came on and made a post stating we need extra mechanics to make NBSI viable then I would soon get shouted down. Once again though it is only supposition that it is or is not viable. It may well be extremely difficult depending on what laws we can set. If for example we cannot just set all non blue as trespassers (which as we know nothing as yet about settlement laws is quite possible) then it will be extremely difficult to implement NBSI and extremely easy to go NRDS. Guess what though you won't find me on here crying out for new mechanics we will just find a way to do what we want.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
The point I was making about raiding is even in these circumstances it is not legal for outsiders to interfere in the raid.
Why should this be so? Why are people not allowed to help others? Doesn't this drive people away from each other? "I would have helped you out, but the game rules prohibit it. Sorry."

Ask the devs wasn't me that made up that mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:
It's a really, really, really bad point but I knew that that was what this topic was going to be filled with to begin with. Horrible points from Steelwing, Xeen, and Bludd because my name is a the top. They are nothing if not predictable.

While I disagree with most of the points Steelwing actually made points and did not resort to ad hominem bs. I respect that. I also have to admit that I have an inherent positive bias ( kind of) regarding Steelwing for this. It was a great early Christmas present.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
The point I was making about raiding is even in these circumstances it is not legal for outsiders to interfere in the raid.
Why should this be so? Why are people not allowed to help others? Doesn't this drive people away from each other? "I would have helped you out, but the game rules prohibit it. Sorry."

Here is the quote from the blog with the relevant part bolded

"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."

So not only can outsiders not jump in and help but they get the criminal flag if they do not exit the area

Goblin Squad Member

The point you are missing is that what you are effectively freaking out about is the light penalty to the settlement is removed if you assist the settlement.

Do you honestly think anyone will care about that when the major alignment and reputation penalties to themselves are not effected at all by this suggestion?

If this is the best criticism you can come up with then that speaks incredibly well for how solid these ideas are.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I think that that position should be revisited. By posting on this forum, I'm addressing the devs. That's the point of crowdforging. We advocate for our positions.


Andius wrote:

The point you are missing is that what you are effectively freaking out about is the light penalty to the settlement is removed if you assist the settlement.

Do you honestly think anyone will care about that when the major alignment and reputation penalties to themselves are not effected at all by this suggestion?

The penalty to themselves is their choice to take by performing an illegal act. The penalty to your settlement is yours to decide on taking by enforcing the law or not. Simple as that.

If we come in game we will be NBSI. We will take a penalty hit for everyone coming into our hexes. That is quite right and proper. If I was on arguing that we should be exempt from this penalty you would soon be shouting me down.

You can not set people to be a free kill for everyone in your hexes despite what you would like because that is what it would amount to. There are plenty of ways to make the kill reputation and alignment neutral for the perpetrator....even a SAD would do it.

You have laws or you don't it really is that simple

Goblin Squad Member

That 'any characters within the area of the Outpost (that aren't allied with the Outpost owners) are marked as criminal' also means that calling in heavy artillery fire support does not have to concern themselves with collateral damage: a raid will not be able to effectively use newbs as meat shields -vs- fireball.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
And I think that that position should be revisited. By posting on this forum, I'm addressing the devs. That's the point of crowdforging. We advocate for our positions.

Which is fine for you to do. As I explained to Andius the other day I base my opinion on what the devs tell us. No more and no less. I do not presume to guess at what information they may or may not have that they havent told us or what they may change in the future.

When they change information or come out with new stuff I revise my opinions. At the moment the quote I posted is the position and I will wait till they change it to revise my opinion of the dev's intent.

Until they do change it however it is plain they are not supportive of vigilante action.

Goblin Squad Member

Vigilantism is very prone to injustice.


Being wrote:
That 'any characters within the area of the Outpost (that aren't allied with the Outpost owners) are marked as criminal' also means that calling in heavy artillery fire support does not have to concern themselves with collateral damage: a raid will not be able to effectively use newbs as meat shields -vs- fireball.

This maybe why they made that rule.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

Nah the point he's making is that other groups could jump in and help without raising corruption/unrest.

Provided they are willing to take the hit to the reputation and alignment hits I didn't mention at all.

It's a really, really, really bad point but I knew that that was what this topic was going to be filled with to begin with. Horrible points from Steelwing, Xeen, and Bludd because my name is a the top. They are nothing if not predictable.

The nice part is the favorites and positive reviews from most people other than those who would oppose me if I suggested we have the default color of the daytime sky be sky blue, because they simply like to disagree with me.

The funny thing is, you do exactly what you accuse us of.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
If we come in game we will be NBSI. We will take a penalty hit for everyone coming into our hexes. That is quite right and proper. If I was on arguing that we should be exempt from this penalty you would soon be shouting me down.

Shouting you down for petitioning for the removal of a broken mechanic that hasn't been confirmed? Certainly not.

There are four uses of the word trespass in the blog:

Quote:
Characters with low reputations may also find they're not wanted in certain places. Settlements can set a minimum reputation to enter the city; players who don't meet the requirement are warned, and become trespassers if they continue to enter. Settlements may also be selective about permitting players with low reputations to join, since maintaining a high minimum settlement reputation is key to building several prestigious and useful structures.
Quote:
Trespasser: Entering a settlement city that has forbidden you entry (due to too low reputation or other mechanics) applies the Trespasser flag, which persists while you're in the area and briefly after leaving. This might also be applied for entering other areas where your simple entry is sufficient to allow you to be attacked and driven off.
Quote:
One thing that we're deeply committed to at Goblinworks is building a game that has a low tolerance for "griefing." Loosely defined, griefing means taking actions within the game that are designed to harass another player to elicit bad feelings without any other reasonable purpose. Griefing encompasses a wide spectrum of behavior, and there will be players who feel that they have been subjected to griefing while their opponents feel they're engaged in legitimate gameplay. An example is a group who attacks and kills trespassers in a certain area to deny access to that territory to other players. The people trying to get in might feel it's unfair that they keep getting attacked and killed, whereas the attackers feel completely justified in defending their territory. Goblinworks will be creating an organic, evolving policy on griefing to identify practices that we consider abusive. We will take severe action out-of-game against regularly abusive players, while less flagrant issues will be dealt with in-game by way of an innovative bounty system designed to deter unwanted aggression.

And here is a clarification of what corruption is:

Quote:
Corruption: Corruption measures how much inefficiency there is in your settlement, decreasing income from taxes and other fees. Corruption starts high for Chaotic settlements and low for Lawful settlements, but as laws are broken in the settlement its Corruption increases. So a Lawful settlement that enforces its laws poorly can end up with more Corruption than a Chaotic settlement (which is required to set fewer laws).

I think it's safe to say it is as of yet TBD whether trespassing will actually increase corruption. I would say it shouldn't because simply sneaking low rep / exiled rogues over a remote edge of the hex border and then leaving is a really broken way to sabotage a settlement. If it's in, I can guarantee it will quickly be nerfed to the point that it has very little effect, or removed completely within short order.

If the corruption/unrest mechanics are to be meaningful than they will primarily pertain to actions like raiding outposts, SADing caravans, enslaving NPC laborers etc, completing assassination contracts or hell, at least making it inside the settlement walls as a trespasser.

If all it takes to bottom out a hex's corruption/unrest is Bluddwolf and Xeen hopping back and forth over the border, and we have to hunt them down in some hidey hole because they are sitting there without gear SADing eachother for the same copper piece over and over and over, then corruption will either have to incur a meaningless penalty, or everyone will go chaotic because you've created a situation where you can do a settlement serious damage with almost no risk and little effort.


Corruption is caused by breaking laws

Trespassing is breaking the law of the settlement which says you may not enter

Therefore quite rightly trespassing should cause corruption.

I would expect them to deal with the hopping back and forward issue not by nerfing the penalty but by making it only apply once in a given time period (possibly 8 hours or so)

The mechanic seems perfectly reasonable to me. The more people you exclude the more chance you have of getting corruption from people breaking the laws. I am perfectly fine with that. You are the only one who seems not to be.

The blogs implication is that trespassers can be freely dealt with by settlement members therefore I think it safe to assume that it will also apply a corruption hit.

So in a raid you will get a corruption hit for the crime of trespassing (assuming they are barred) and another corruption hit for the raid. Luckily killing them once will deal with both crimes.

It still remains a bad idea to make people you exile a free kill for all on your lands which is effectively what your mechanic does.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I cant wait to hop back and forth over the border and then SAD Bludd every time so I can completely waste my time playing PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
I cant wait to hop back and forth over the border and then SAD Bludd every time so I can completely waste my time playing PFO.

I knew that would appeal to you. ;)

Steelwing wrote:

I would expect them to deal with the hopping back and forward issue not by nerfing the penalty but by making it only apply once in a given time period (possibly 8 hours or so)

The mechanic seems perfectly reasonable to me. The more people you exclude the more chance you have of getting corruption from people breaking the laws. I am perfectly fine with that. You are the only one who seems not to be.

I'm of the opinion that you should have to put something on the line, and actually do something meaningful to advance yourself and harm your opponents. Apparently we are in disagreement there?

Slipping over someone's border is not meaningful unless you actually do something on the other side, be that rob someone, raid an outpost, or at least smuggle some illegal drugs to the market. So Bluddwolf is hiding in a cave somewhere on an otherwise uninhabited mountain on our norther border his boxers. So what? Unless he's actually going to be able to accomplish something up there, why should we even care? How does that make our settlement more corrupt?

It also poses no risk. You need weapons and armor if you intend to rob someone or raid something on the other side of the border. You need drugs if you are going to smuggle them to market. You run the risk of losing those things. What equipment do you need that you stand to lose to cross a border?

Inflicting damage on a settlment should take more than running around naked in a low priority area.

Risk vs. reward. It's not just for gatherers and merchants anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:


I'm of the opinion that you should have to put something on the line, and actually do something meaningful to advance yourself and harm your opponents. Apparently we are in disagreement there?

Slipping over someone's border is not meaningful unless you actually do something on the other side, be that rob someone, raid an outpost, or at least smuggle some illegal drugs to the market. So Bluddwolf is hiding in a cave somewhere on an otherwise uninhabited mountain on our norther border his boxers. So what? Unless he's actually going to be able to accomplish something up there, why should we even care? How does that make our settlement more corrupt?

It also poses no risk. You need weapons and armor if you intend to rob someone or raid something on the other side of the border. You need drugs if you are going to smuggle them to market. You run the risk of losing those things. What equipment do you need that you stand to lose to cross a border?

Inflicting damage on a settlment should take more than running around naked in a low priority area.

Risk vs. reward. It's not just for gatherers and merchants anymore.

You are looking at the wrong side Andius

You as a settlement want to exile someone? Then the consequence of that action is that if you do not enforce that exile by keeping them out you take a hit.

It is risk vs reward for the settlement. It is the settlement taking the exile action. It is the settlement that faces the consequence of that action.

Am I suggesting the hit should be as big for simply trespassing? No but it still should be there.

The settlement is the one in the position of power here not the individual so it is rightly where the risk vs reward lies.

The player trespassing also has risk vs reward...they can trespass but they risk being killed by any settlement member.

I suggested that the hit only be taken once every few hours which precludes most abuse. Why do you feel you should be able to exclude people without any consequence? This will hit our settlement more than an NRDS one like you claim to want so why do you have a huge issue with it and I find it fine?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

If someone is trespassing and no one knows, how can it cause corruption? If it does have an effect, then you should be told precisely where that person is (or was as of the time of the report). If exile is made unenforceable by making it too difficult to enforce, then it shouldn't even be an option. No one would use it. Exile should be meaningful, and not just to those who want to break your laws.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
If someone is trespassing and no one knows, how can it cause corruption? If it does have an effect, then you should be told precisely where that person is (or was as of the time of the report). If exile is made unenforceable by making it too difficult to enforce, then it shouldn't even be an option. No one would use it. Exile should be meaningful, and not just to those who want to break your laws.

It is the job of the settlement to enforce its laws. If you can't enforce it dont create the law. It isn't difficult.

You will not be notified of the location of anything else you declare a crime either.

We don't believe we will have a problem enforcing NBSI and ensuring we find trespassers and deal with them. It is up to your settlement to work out how to do it should you want to set such a law

Goblin Squad Member

I must of missed it, what is the required action on the part of the individual to be exiled?

Also, settlements or companies can set characters or companies, even whole settlements to whatever setting they wish. Red, Blue, Grey doesn't matter as far as the reputation and alignment system is concerned.

So just because someone is set to "Red" does not necessarily mean they are a free target. They also have to have an active criminal, hostile, feud, war, faction, bounty, assassination or death curse in order to avoid the PvP consequences you cherish so much.

I don't see in the exile mechanic you propose the requirement that any of these sanctioned PvP flags or conditions be in place. No requirement that they actually had done anything in game to be exiled.

What would prevent any settlement from just setting every settlement and their citizens to "Exile" and now they can circumvent all systems and be NBSI, but claim they are not, because everyone is an exile.

Could you just place the exile flag on someone without notice? Maybe because they discovered a harvest node, and you want that for yourself? Now, they are a free kill for everyone?

You are welcome to visit, but on a whim we can kill you without consequences. That sounds NBSI to me.

Goblin Squad Member

The risk the settlement takes is claiming territory. The reward is the ability to exile people from it.

51 to 100 of 1,127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.