Goblinworks Blog Alpha 12.1 Release Notes


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
CEO, Goblinworks

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This will be the link to the blog when the blog goes live

Goblin Squad Member

Very interesting.

Goblin Squad Member

12.1, eh? You've already patched the next patch :-).

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

F5
F5
F5
F5
F5
F5
etc.

Goblin Squad Member

I didn't think 11.0 was fully patched in yet.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
12.1, eh? You've already patched the next patch :-).

Well the concept of a number zero did not enter Europe until the 11th Century CE (hence the reason our year system goes directly from the Venerable Bede's ante incarnationis dominicae tempus (BCE) to Anno Domini (CE) without an intervening zero).

It could be worse, we could still use anno mundi wherein dates before the creation of the world 7000 years ago are not just un-numbered but are in fact rendered meaningless (as how could you have date before the world and time itself was created).

Soooo .... presumably as this is a game based on Medieval Europe it predates the Arabic introduction of zero and the first iteration of a patch may well be 12.1.

Goblin Squad Member

F5

CEO, Goblinworks

It might be a while for the blog to go live. We're building some new process steps today.

Goblin Squad Member

Neadenil Edam wrote:
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
12.1, eh? You've already patched the next patch :-).

Well the concept of a number zero did not enter Europe until the 11th Century CE (hence the reason our year system goes directly from the Venerable Bede's ante incarnationis dominicae tempus (BCE) to Anno Domini (CE) without an intervening zero).

It could be worse, we could still use anno mundi wherein dates before the creation of the world 7000 years ago are not just un-numbered but are in fact rendered meaningless (as how could you have date before the world and time itself was created).

Soooo .... presumably as this is a game based on Medieval Europe it predates the Arabic introduction of zero and the first iteration of a patch may well be 12.1.

Time didn't exist before clocks you dummy.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
T7V Avari wrote:
Neadenil Edam wrote:
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
12.1, eh? You've already patched the next patch :-).

Well the concept of a number zero did not enter Europe until the 11th Century CE (hence the reason our year system goes directly from the Venerable Bede's ante incarnationis dominicae tempus (BCE) to Anno Domini (CE) without an intervening zero).

It could be worse, we could still use anno mundi wherein dates before the creation of the world 7000 years ago are not just un-numbered but are in fact rendered meaningless (as how could you have date before the world and time itself was created).

Soooo .... presumably as this is a game based on Medieval Europe it predates the Arabic introduction of zero and the first iteration of a patch may well be 12.1.

Time didn't exist before clocks you dummy.

It could if you posit some form of divine creator with a pocket watch.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mind blown dude.

Goblin Squad Member

God /is/ a pocket watch.

Goblin Squad Member

Or version 12.0 could be the one that failed the smoke test last week. Rather than risking confusion between 12.0 (14 Nov) and 12.0 (19 Nov), they used a new number, 12.1, for the 19 Nov build.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Or version 12.0 could be the one that failed the smoke test last week. Rather than risking confusion between 12.0 (14 Nov) and 12.0 (19 Nov), they used a new number, 12.1, for the 19 Nov build.

Far to logical to possibly be true :D

Grand Lodge

I've always interpreted time itself as being more a perception sentient being experience as a consequence of change and entropy. We know that change and any given chemical process requires a time to catalyze but as we begin to approach sub-molecular understanding our basic conceptions of what "when" means has begun to fail us, requiring us to pair down further and further near infinity to try and label or measure the observed changes. To me the idea of time springs from our analysis of what we've come to understand as measurement of units; something of an artificial concept comparative to the relative nature of relationships between what we perceive as independent bodies. All matter was once part of what we understand as a single point/unit/entity, and through rapid (Or not) expansion and change we define the changes as having been either further away from our present observations or closer to our own point of observational origin (Which is really itself an illusion owing to the fact that "Now" paradoxically has no frame of reference aside from a swelling mass us assigned units our scientists have invented).

That being said back on topic- I'm assuming that the failed smoke test revealed some critical instability, and that being the case trying to debug a potentially fatal flaw the best step going forward would be to try to iterate the functional parts of the system into something other than it's original form.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Take your logic and jog on before I sock you in the gabber m8

Goblin Squad Member

KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:

I've always interpreted time itself as being more a perception sentient being experience as a consequence of change and entropy. We know that change and any given chemical process requires a time to catalyze but as we begin to approach sub-molecular understanding our basic conceptions of what "when" means has begun to fail us, requiring us to pair down further and further near infinity to try and label or measure the observed changes. To me the idea of time springs from our analysis of what we've come to understand as measurement of units; something of an artificial concept comparative to the relative nature of relationships between what we perceive as independent bodies. All matter was once part of what we understand as a single point/unit/entity, and through rapid (Or not) expansion and change we define the changes as having been either further away from our present observations or closer to our own point of observational origin (Which is really itself an illusion owing to the fact that "Now" paradoxically has no frame of reference aside from a swelling mass us assigned units our scientists have invented).

I hate you.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:
I've always interpreted time itself as being more a perception sentient being experience as a consequence of change and entropy. We know that change and any given chemical process requires a time to catalyze but as we begin to approach sub-molecular understanding our basic conceptions of what "when" means has begun to fail us, requiring us to pair down further and further near infinity to try and label or measure the observed changes. To me the idea of time springs from our analysis of what we've come to understand as measurement of units; something of an artificial concept comparative to the relative nature of relationships between what we perceive as independent bodies. All matter was once part of what we understand as a single point/unit/entity, and through rapid (Or not) expansion and change we define the changes as having been either further away from our present observations or closer to our own point of observational origin (Which is really itself an illusion owing to the fact that "Now" paradoxically has no frame of reference aside from a swelling mass us assigned units our scientists have invented).

^^^=/=F5

Goblin Squad Member

KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:

I've always interpreted time itself as being more a perception sentient being experience as a consequence of change and entropy. We know that change and any given chemical process requires a time to catalyze but as we begin to approach sub-molecular understanding our basic conceptions of what "when" means has begun to fail us, requiring us to pair down further and further near infinity to try and label or measure the observed changes. To me the idea of time springs from our analysis of what we've come to understand as measurement of units; something of an artificial concept comparative to the relative nature of relationships between what we perceive as independent bodies. All matter was once part of what we understand as a single point/unit/entity, and through rapid (Or not) expansion and change we define the changes as having been either further away from our present observations or closer to our own point of observational origin (Which is really itself an illusion owing to the fact that "Now" paradoxically has no frame of reference aside from a swelling mass us assigned units our scientists have invented).

Then there is John Wheeler's famous suggestion that there is only one electron in the universe and it simply moves forward through time before reversing and coming back to the past as a positron and them eventually moving forward as an electron again ad infinitum, later picked up on by Richard Feynman and Yoichiro Nambu.

KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:


That being said back on topic- I'm assuming that the failed smoke test revealed some critical instability, and that being the case trying to debug a potentially fatal flaw the best step going forward would be to try to iterate the functional parts of the system into something other than it's original form.

In keeping with the Physics sidetrack - this would be akin to the point in the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum formalism where, upon observation, the wave function collapses and a single reality is actualized from what were previously just statistical likelihoods.

Goblin Squad Member

Whoohoo! It worked (reading)

Goblin Squad Member

Blog wrote:
Expendables (including Consumables) now set to cost 0 Stamina. This wasn't originally by design, but seems like a good idea to make them more valuable in that you can recover Stamina while using them; you're still paying Power (for the Expendables) or using up a Consumable (which no longer costs Power).

Brilliant! I love it!

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Time to high-tail it back home to Tavernhold while I'm still able to move....

Goblin Squad Member

I will be the bestest Freeholder evah!

But first... time to shift some goods around.


I've read two or three things so far that I directly contributed to being changed. Cool stuff!

I suspect folks that want to use shields will still want some kind of defense bonus there as well.

I look forward to putting my medium armor back on and seeing if it is a worthwhile tradeoff from Heavy.

Goblin Squad Member

sspitfire1 wrote:

I've read two or three things so far that I directly contributed to being changed. Cool stuff!

I suspect folks that want to use shields will still want some kind of defense bonus there as well.

I look forward to putting my medium armor back on and seeing if it is a worthwhile tradeoff from Heavy.

Yeah though there seems quite a bias built in right through the game towards heavy armor. T2 medium armor is actually harder to make than T2 heavy for example.


Neadenil Edam wrote:
Yeah though there seems quite a bias built in right through the game towards heavy armor. T2 medium armor is actually harder to make than T2 heavy for example.

lol Figures. I'm sure we'll be getting that, uh, looked in to somewhere in the near distant future.

Goblin Squad Member

sspitfire1 wrote:
Neadenil Edam wrote:
Yeah though there seems quite a bias built in right through the game towards heavy armor. T2 medium armor is actually harder to make than T2 heavy for example.
lol Figures. I'm sure we'll be getting that, uh, looked in to somewhere in the near distant future.

Well it was the same with T1, the first armor you can manage to make at any tier is a heavy banded.

CEO, Goblinworks

Release 12.1 should be live tomorrow after server downtime.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm pretty concerned about the new encumbrance system. The release notes state that heavy armor will reduce encumbrance to 67%. With nothing in my inventory except my slotted gear, I am at about 67% of the first encumbrance bar. Does this mean that wearing heavy armor will automatically impose movement penalties?

Yes, I know there are encumbrance feats sold by the Commoner trainer. I've got them both up to the highest available level. You shouldn't have to buy these out-of-role feats to be a fighter.

Under this system, if I go out to fight escalations - which is the function of fighters after all - I will have to crawl back to town after only 5 or 6 fights unless I want to simply discard all of the loot. This will certainly change my mind about banditry - it will be a public service. They can come rob me, and an hour later when I'm done fighting, I can catch back up to them as they're still inching out of the hex. Weeks later, we'll still be taking turns heading back to the bank 10 items at a time while the other stands rooted by the weight of the backpacks.

Goblin Squad Member

Well looks like Strongback is going to be for all classes, they are doubling encumbrance until bags are in (which is where you are going to get a lot from)....I think you will be fine at that point.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or perhaps Ulf, if you go the Heavy path, you need a squire .... or two ...

You know, the cooperation idea?

And you could shift out of the armour after battle to move a bit faster....

Goblin Squad Member

I note to my sorrow that there wasn't any new Rogue features...

*sit and bawls until it is water in all the rivers again*


Schedim wrote:

I note to my sorrow that there wasn't any new Rogue features...

*sit and bawls until it is water in all the rivers again*

Aww, now there there, Schedim. Take solace in what this must mean! Rogues are clearly already the most OP role in the game! They don't need any new features.

Goblin Squad Member

Schedim wrote:

Or perhaps Ulf, if you go the Heavy path, you need a squire .... or two ...

You know, the cooperation idea?

And you could shift out of the armour after battle to move a bit faster....

The cooperation idea is great - we'll take our max party size of 6, include a squire for the tank fighter, another for the healer (clerics use heavy armor too, after all), let the wizard carry his own stuff, and have a third Commoner Freeholder to actually do the node harvesting. There's no room for a rogue, but as you've noted, there's no function for one either so that works out.

As we wander the countryside, we'll pause, change our armor, slot our feats, and have some ranged attack pull aggro to us. Once everything we can reach is dead, we'll take our armor back off, hand our loot to the squires, move to the next hill, put our armor back on.... Periodically we'll find bandits who will shoot us as we're healing from the fights. We'll have made them happy by taking our armor off. If they time it right they can start combat while we have no feats slotted at all. Since you can't change equipment during combat, they'll get our armor off our husks, although I suppose we may keep the weapons in place.

Any system which requires a complete change of equipment more than once leaving town and once returning is going to get very old very quickly.

Goblin Squad Member

Ulf, you just don't get it, this means Hvy armour isn't the best thing since sliced bread. to use it you have to make sacrifices. If you don't want to do it, then use an another armour!

In your argument I smell the " I want to be able to do anything, all the time without consequences" argument that I think will never be the case here.

Perhaps Hvy Armour will be used only by those having a supportive company, or close to home or not bothering with loot.

For raiders and looters, fast legs and lighter Armour is the thing.

.... and I didn't know there was only allowed one party at the time in this game... ;-)

Goblin Squad Member

Yes, it's totally unreasonable for me to want a fighter to be able to fight. My points are:

1) Heavy armor is already heavy. It weighs 10 arbitrary encumbrance units, compared to 7 and 4 for medium and light.
2) Wearing it reduces your total allowable encumbrance.
3) Taking up more space and also reducing the size of the space is essentially a double penalty. If I could ordinarily carry 60, but wearing my armor takes me to 10/40, then the armor essentially weighs 30, not 10. That makes it unreasonably heavy, and since it's a percentage loss, the offsetting encumbrance feats will not be effective.
4) After the armor, there are the slotted weapons and shields, meaning that my actual base encumbrance is more like 20-25/40. They might as well go ahead and impose the movement penalty for heavy armor instead, because essentially this will ensure that anybody who's wearing this will be at least half encumbered.

How many "squires" do you suppose there will be? I am planning ultimately to use a commoner build, so perhaps the heavy armor won't affect me directly after EE. But do you really a large number of the available players are going to want to be Nodwicks? I see lots of people saying they'll use their DTs for crafting and gathering, but very few who want that to be their primary role.

Goblin Squad Member

<Flask> Ulf Stonepate wrote:
Yes, it's totally unreasonable for me to want a fighter to be able to fight.

*eye roll*

You still don't get it, you can fight without max armour. You just have to sacrifice something to get something.

But I guess it hurts in the min/maxer gene...

Goblin Squad Member

I do agree that it's harsh to put in encumbrance while auto loot is on. It can turn adventuring into an inventory nightmare pretty quick.

Goblin Squad Member

There is a universal Rule:
Everything is Give AND Take

Everyone has to deal with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is an EVE analogy.

Not adding encumbrance to a degree that would prevent people from being able to forage and carry tons of stuff while also wearing heavy armor - would be analogous to somebody in EVE mining asteroids with a battleship.

Instead, what you have are mostly non-offensive mining ships doing the mining that hope they can get away if attacked, or rely upon friendly combat ships in the system to come and help.

Having sheep makes a much more interesting experience for both sheep, wolves, and shepherds. IMHO

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with the Autoloot effect, it really really has to be changed in some way or another. I thought the Spoil token system (as outline in a blog post somewhere) was a adequate compromise.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Avari wrote:
I do agree that it's harsh to put in encumbrance while auto loot is on. It can turn adventuring into an inventory nightmare pretty quick.

This is a good point.

@Ulf,

Fighters in heavy armor, are fighters. They are not going to be fighters in heavy armor and pack mules.

Goblin Squad Member

<Flask> Ulf Stonepate wrote:
3) Taking up more space and also reducing the size of the space is essentially a double penalty.

They could have left out the reduction in overall Inventory and just used Encumbrance to accomplish their Design Goals, but then it would have been even more punishing for you to carry a backup set of Heavy Armor.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Ryan,

I'm glad to see that the issue of Escalation Growth and Power will be tailored to population size.

It is also good to see some content being available for small groups. The reality is, with different time zones, and or available play time schedules, content that requires several groups of 6 are out of reach for most player groups.

Goblin Squad Member

Quote:
Renamed "Commoner" to "Freeholder".

This is great. "Commoner" was a little too... "basic".

Quote:
Changed base stats of Medium armor so it's a (hopefully more desirable) synergistic hybrid of Light and Heavy rather than an exact midpoint of bonuses and penalties. Specifically, its base armor improved by 3, its crit resistance improved by 4, its spell penalty was reduced by 10, its Reflex penalty was reduced by 5, and its encumbrance penalty is closer to light than to heavy armor.

Spell Penalty?? Is this new? I see a reference to "spell penalty" in the "Alpha 9.1 Update" blog, but it's only mentioned as a piece of future tech. Can we get a little more information on how this works, and what the values are for the various armor types?

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:
Well looks like Strongback is going to be for all classes...

Are you suggesting that all Roles will want Strongback, or that Strongback will no longer be specific to the Freeholder (formerly Commoner) Role? I don't see any evidence of the latter and as long as it will break my Wizard Dedication Bonus, I'm quite sure I won't be taking it.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

This is great. "Commoner" was a little too... "basic".

I don't like this change. Why not change Cleric to Priest?

I like the idea of playing NPC classes. I could see how it might be confusing to an MMO player who thinks in terms of Common and Uncommon and Rare and whatnot but the idea of Commoners, Experts and Aristocrats gives the game more tabletop authenticity. I don't like it when that aspect is removed.

Who named this?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's all about the subtle cues that turn individual roles into something more or less than others. The game mechanic can't function if a majority of people don't want to play one of the key roles because they feel like they'd be something "less" than if they played a different one.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
It's all about the subtle cues that turn individual roles into something more or less than others. The game mechanic can't function if a majority of people don't want to play one of the key roles because they feel like they'd be something "less" than if they played a different one.

Well as a member of the community I'm voicing my opinion that the title 'Commoner' appeals to me due to its tabletop authenticity. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm less likely to embrace a character with an arbitrarily titled role vs a Pathfinder authentic one.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Freeholder is a bit sexier. I'll always vote for sexy.

1 to 50 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog Alpha 12.1 Release Notes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.