Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

All posts created by Flari-Merchant

Flari-Merchant
A question(with a lil bit of a parameter set :p) for GW:
When you look at the last year or so of participating player base(hangers-on) and how they play and what they say they want, do you see PVP enthusiasts or PVE/Crafting/Gathering/Merchant type PVP enthusiasts?
Flari-Merchant
goldenradish
Read through the email..

It's really unfortunate that goblinworks is continuing down this demonstrated path of failure. It's not really that hard to understand: The existing and outlined future feature set has not and will never gather a sufficient population to make this game a financially viable product or service.

Attempting to "finish" the feature set that has not gathered a sufficient population in an attempt to make this game a financially viable product is just throwing good time & money after bad. I see no logic in it, and I will tell everyone I know to stay away until someone else purchases/licenses the Pathfinder intellectual property and makes a product worthy of the Pathfinder name.

You know how to make a financially viable product or service, and yet deliberately choose not to? Why would anyone continue to support such a path? smile The lack of financial responsibility is frankly astonishing to me.

Disagree and probably for reasons that you won't like.

We all have our own ideas on what we think would be best for a "Road Map" and priority features. I for instance feel that absolute focus should be on day to day play and experiences, leaving all of the settlement management stuff for the far end of the Road Map. With the exception of a massive overhaul(or shut it down for the nonce) on the feuding system, ASAP. Lots of focus on tools to make quests and PVE content: contracts, quest design tools, GM RP events, etc.., etc… I feel that serious focus should be on what will RETAIN new players(and I suppose more attractive to PFRPG players), first, yet that is largely subjective. BUT as Lisa and Bob always have to point out, there are limits to what they can do and what is possible so some calls have to be made.

Something is being planned that is pro active and forward thinking beyond waiting for the "White Knight" investor. For that alone I support this and wish them the best.
Flari-Merchant
Bravo! A Plan and a Road Map.
Please publish that somewhere on the site here. Wonderful news!
Thank you, Guys!
Flari-Merchant
Duffy Swiftshadow
Even if they fix it up now, if things pickup with new investment it will just spiral back out of control again, so it's still kinda of a neutral tweak in the end. So ya know, w/e.
Probably true. What feuds ended up being really are acts of war so it would probably be best if they were a Settlement level function.

There must be some fairly easy way to take Influence either out of Company Mechanics or to make it for other purposes that are NOT feuding. A single Company that is JUST FOR PVP for each settlement or Alliance. A perma feud, or rather simply non PVP rep penalty for those groups to fight each other. Still of course, some rewards for PVP would be nice incentive also.
Flari-Merchant
Duffy Swiftshadow
Mistwalker
I am not seeing how removing non-active accounts from influence makes the game more fun right now.

This will probably make it so that there is no high level training available anywhere - likely there won't be any settlement that will have enough resources to constantly keep it up near 20 (where a fair number of folks are playing right now, especially with crafters). Crafting times will get longer.

There are so many other things that I feel have a higher priority than this.

It's really only being brought up because Siege Warfare is another system that gives disproportionate power to existing groups. So if they're gonna insist on piling on the bad systems, if they can clean up the bad system a little bit might make it worthwhile.
That was the idea'r. What I had not considered was the impact on the smaller groups that have not so much influence banked up. I am not exactly sure if that is a significant number or not. What I was thinking is that it would be more fair than letting groups with MANY holdings and Faux Influence to keep on trucking and piling the Bulk higher.

It isn't a move to Solidify Forever The Big Group Advantage(muahaha!) as some might think. It would be as impactful to my own group as any other. Still, I would not mind seeing how Influence works with honest numbers and without being falsely inflated. Most times when a game Dev Co sees an exploit they order it stopped. They make it not work anymore. They remove the advantages given by it as much as they can. The game goes on…

It seems like there are so many of players still engaged that have multiple accounts that it would be workable somehow.

Edit: How is letting it continue a better option than putting an end to it?
Flari-Merchant
Time to pound out a script that puts abandoned and inactive characters out of the equation for influence cap. Outside of wiping or closing the game down, there will never be a better time to do this. Give us a month of warning and run the script.

Just get it over with. There are no more free trial accounts to abuse the Influence System. Do it to see how the system functions without being unduly exploited. Then we can better judge how badly the system works when it is properly used.

PLEASE JUST DO IT.
Flari-Merchant
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Maybe I am missing something…

So my understanding was epow/epro was in there in addition to the keywords. I also thought that one major keyword had already been worth something like four minor keywords anyway before factoring epow and epro.

So if that is the case, shouldn't the keyword differences be enough before adding epow and epro?

If I am wrong, then maybe I need a refresher on how it fits together.
One of the main problems, IMO with striping out Epow and epro that I can see: HoTs and DoTs and buffs/debuffs are built to affect things in percentages of either total or remaining(current) values. Take away the 'E" and suddenly your T1 "spells" are much more effective. There is an iota of balance built into the system that would be set wonky.
Flari-Merchant
The worrying about Blobs and about conflicts being largely about superior numbers is kinda going down a rabbit hole instead of facing the real issues. Though there probably are some issues that are needing tweaks or work there.

One of the REAL ISSUES is why would a group abandon a perfectly good Holding rather than fight for it? Why is a Holding so without value? That is partly what Bob and GW are trying to address with siege mechanics, IMO.
Flari-Merchant
You are a Troll
I have never had a problem with the epow/epro system; it has always worked just fine/as intended for me. If you want beneficial effects to work when you are wearing T3 armor, then get some T3 buffs slotted. Meaningful choices - suck it up.
It may or may not be a problem, depending on how each person typically develops their character in a given game. This game is largely player choice. It is far easier to get yourself into T3 armor than it is to get your better expendables there at nearly the same time. This creates a gap. It is all down to how WE choose to spend xp, but it is unbalanced because of human nature in skilling up. The average player does not think that way. they expect the building to flow fairly equally across all areas of progression.

It is not normal that once I qualify for +3 T2 armor, I also am one cheap(relatively) feat from +3 T3 armor.
Flari-Merchant
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Bringslite of Staalgard
You can't have everything guys. You can't have a shallow power differential curve and then have numbers not make a big difference. Welcome Blob Power or another way to say it, power through numbers. Law of The Jungle.

Are you SURE you really want this? I am asking cause then you will see a lot more permanent feuding tactics, other unscrupulous acts done just to troll or wear people out, attrition via toxicity, and griefing people out of the game, and no holds barred ganking being normalized behavior.

If you truly want that ultra no holds beatdown dog eat dog kind of game then so be it but don't use that as an excuse for people to embrace and normalize blob behavior. It will apply to a lot more than that. If all the real complaints and issues concerning limited (if any) ways to counter even a slight numbers advantage are only going to be met with a "Man Up!" Response, then you can bet people who complain about all the other stuff mentioned above and in previous posts will also be dismissed with that same "Man Up!" Response.
No, I don't want perpetual motion machines made of overwhelming numbers. There have been some interesting ideas that do take less coding than rebuilding or removing Epow and Epro though. I don't much like the concept because it leaves weird gaps between armor, weapons and spells and how a player manages T2 or T3… let's say armor and the ability to get realistic buffing/debuffing or healing/damage utilities/expendables. It does not work well with how characters progress.

Problem is though, it is REALLY tied up into how a lot of things work in combat mechanics and how they are already built.

I am not really a big fan of nerfing groups that manage to pull more players together than others, either. Nor am I a devotee of "it's purely ALL about numbers of attackers". We seem to be falling back into the same old way of discussing "fixing" things with complicated new mechanics. It just highlights that there really are a ton of balancing issues to be worked on.

BUT, if they are unable to fix most of those things right now, maybe a few drastic things(which are very serious non viable systems) to change up how/what they have built is a better way to look at things.