|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Drakhan Valane wrote:
I have to argue against the "too easy" argument. One man's "Not too easy" is another's "frustratingly difficult."
Right but the problem is it makes something undesirable that should border on impossible "too easy". Something I'd rather not seen done at all. I don't care if it's frustratingly difficult to do stuff like that.
Is the problem that everyone on one side is capable of hitting the same individual on the other? Or is it simply that /assist makes it too easy?
Too easy. A raid assist window makes it possible for someone to pick a target from among dozens of opponents and have enough people respond quickly enough that they are almost insta-dead. Faster than they may even get a chance to use a guard ability.
The part I hate most about this all is how it's really unique to MMO combat. In an actual conflict one arrow or spear thrust can kill so focusing all your firepower on a single soldier would be idiocy.
I think target assist should never even be implemented and formations should be most effective when using formation maneuvers which should focus more group vs. group style attacks and defenses.
Andius, would you have a problem with /assist if the character using it still had to have a clear line-of-sight to the target in order to do anything, and would hit obstacles in the way if they didn't? The main reason I don't have a problem with /assist is because in the real world humans (and dogs) are very adept at following others' gazes to see what they're looking at. There are myriad clues we give via body language, gestures, and eye contact that simply can't be modeled (yet) in any game.
I don't think it adds anything to combat. I absolutely hate games where group PVP becomes a matter of targeting the raid assist target and throwing off your biggest attack. I'd rather have a total mess but a well done formation system sounds even better.
There is nothing fun about spamming your biggest attacks and just hoping you don't get called as a high priority target.
I don't think a "lock current target" with auto facing or even a tab between targets option added to a ESO like combat system would detract from my experience. I actually think those attempting to rely on the tab between targets option would be disadvantedged against me after having used the alternative a bit.
Target assist and selecting healing targets through the party menu is another matter. Those prevent an advantage so stong that any competitive player will be expected to use them.
Having played ESO I now see tab targeting as such an inferior system it will be hard to go back to. I think anyone else who's tried it can back me up on this. It's not a twitchy system. Aiming is so easy you don't even really think about it. It's simply a more fluid more immersive system. You see your targets, you decide which one you want to attack, and you start attacking them. It's really that easy. Seriously, my gf plays on a laptop with no mouse and is a total badass.
Yeah there is no raid assist and you can't just click the raid assist to pick a target or watch and click healthbars to heal people. I don't see those as features. I see them as ways to make a crappy non-intuitive combat system more playable.
Eh. ESO can be tactical as opposed to spammy if you play it tactical as opposed to spammy. Same way as Guild Wars. When I'm playing I'm trying to make sure I snare the right opponents, taunt the right opponents, and place my heals right so my girlfriend can roast things without getting beat on, while she's spewing out tons of damage and pushing opponents away from me when I need a moment to heal up.
I'm sure it would be much less tactical if I just min-maxed my tanking abilities but I'm pretty happy given we are 2-manning group content 4 levels higher than us.
Well we know once you reach a certain faction rank you can't ever remove that flag. If banditry raises your ranks fast enough and the perks of high banditry faction are good enough, a lot of people will do it.
Though you're right in seeing the potential for people to intentionally lower their rank to avoid that. How often that happens will be a factor of the ease of lowering your rank, and the level of perks lost by doing so.
I'd really like to see most bandit/bandit hunter skills under these factions require meaningful training time and require you to be flagged "for the cause" to use. That way you are either flagged or giving up a set of skills you've invested meaningful time into. Or if you haven't invested meaningful time you're a really crappy bandit/bandit hunter.
Beyond that all members of a caravan or anyone issuing a SAD should be required to flag themselves.
Personally for me, being open to PvP by opposing faction members is actually a perk in itself if I feel like the conflict with that opposing faction is meaningful.
The thing that can keep bandit population down is that it can never be a highly profitable profession no matter how hard this game tries to make it one. Preying off the players not sneaky/strong enough to make it past you does not generate money nearly as fast as trading in highly profitable forms of cargo because the merchants not sneaky/strong enough will learn from their mistakes, seek a new profession, or leave the game. Nobody will play the role of easy prey long term.
Here's the kicker though. What's stopping people of any profession of robbing people when the opportunity arises? Like you are out adventuring / exploring / gathering and you see someone who looks weak so you SAD them and take their stuff. Full time banditry will never be viable for players looking to compete on a serious level but part time banditry is something everyone can benefit from. So why wouldn't they all do it?
Factions do answer that. Because if you join a bandit faction you are a constant target for members of opposing factions. Plus you give up the bonuses you could get from following the opposing faction.
That part I like. I just think grouping all bandits and all merchants together is overly simplistic, and leads to a less authentic/interesting world.
Why would a slave liberating freedom fighter be an automatic enemy to a good aligned merchant but a slaver's strong arm is an automatic ally?
I acknowledged that in a Red vs. Blue system where you are forced to pick between one merchant faction and one bandit faction 90% of bandits will attack all of the merchants they come across. The opposite is also true.
That is not to say that 90% of players would continue to behave the same way outside a RvB system. To give a glimpse into my own thinking:
In a RvB system where my choice is protect merchants or rob them, the clear choice to me is to join the merchant faction. Beyond that, once I have done that, I have great reason to assume anyone flying a bandit flag is a threat to regular, decent, non-slave trading merchants. As a product of that I'm going to switch from an innocent until proven guilty mentality to a guilty until proven innocent mentality for anyone flying a bandit flag. So I'll kill them unless I have a good reason NOT to. That's the RvB mentality that the system really kind of pushes me into adopting.
In the system I described, that mentality would only really apply to people flying the general bandit flag for me.
In what way would your proposal limit merchants? If a guard was in sub faction, woukd he only be able to freely defend those members if his sub faction? I have zero expectation that you have that in mind.
To answer your question. Yes. I'm not sure why you wouldn't expect that answer. If a guard wants to guard shipments from all 3 factions he should join all 3 factions.
Beyond that I would say that any caravan running goods restricted to a sub-faction of merchants should be forced to adopt the flag of that sub-faction. The smuggler faction should come with a skill that allows them to turn those flags into hidden flags (They show as general merchant faction flags unless you uncover their hidden status with the appropriate checks.)
I mean really. Why would anyone assume general merchant's guards would defend slave and contraband shipments?
Also it gives purpose to chaotic evil traders, as they would be the main ones who could join the slave and smuggler factions at the same time, allowing them to flag slave shipments as general merchant shipments with their smuggle ability. They would also be the only players who could run any type of cargo regardless of legality or morality.
I wouldn't count on players adding much depth to a red vs. blue bandit vs. merchant system.
In 90% of cases all merchant faction members will attack any bandits, and bandits will rob any merchant. These RvB systems tend to encourage that kind of mentality whether they mean to or not.
Beyond that it sounds as though they are being set up as opposing factions. I don't think players should be forced to make an either or choice when it comes to this.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Are these necessarily going to just be 2 factions? If so that really takes a lot of depth out of the system IMO.
I'd like to see a few of each faction type.
For instance there would be a merchant faction that deals in strictly legal goods. A merchant faction that has skills related to smuggling. A merchant faction with skills related to the transportation of slaves.
Then there might be a bandit faction that preys on any merchants. One that will only prey on slave traders. A lawful one that only goes after smugglers.
So for for me I might join the regular merchant faction or maybe even the smuggler faction. Maybe both. But also belong to the bandit faction the exclusively targets slave traders.
A lot less cookie cutter, a lot more depth.
Plague escalation cycles would be AWESOME. Those would be fun to see spread over the top of other escalation cycles too though. You could have people running around curing victims, providing needed supplies, or on the evil side just killing the infected and burning the bodies.
One thing though, as awesome as it would be to let's the paladins/clerics/druids magic away all the disease some plagues should require physical medicine. Just imagine the fun when people start trying to rob incoming medical supplies.
I'm assuming even if there are not ways to mechanically disallow outsiders from bringing their feuds within our borders that we will have other methods available to us ranging from limitations on their rights within our borders to a full blown declaration of war depending on the severity and consistency of the disruptions they cause to peace within or borders.
I'm sure Brighthaven's leadership will pursue the full extent if the diplomatic tools available to them in resolving these situations before bringing out embargoes or threat of force, but in the end I am sure we can find a way to enforce the policy that outside conflicts are to be left at or borders. We are a sovereign entity and I see no reason to tolerate such disruptions to peace and commerce within our own territory.
The policy which I have always believed we should take is that all outside feuds brought into Brighthaven should be treated as crimes. Whether this is against a member company of Brighthaven or an unaffiliated neutral the only players we should accept being killed within our borders outside self defense / defense of others are the official enemies of Brighthaven itself.
I think the law of give and take only applies to games to keep things balanced. Not all people have "dump stats" even if they are incredibly gifted in one or more attributes. I'm sure you've all met at least one person who is physically fit, intelligent, wise, and charismatic. Given with real life your options are play the game or die, that's not a problem, where in PFO if someone got 14-20 on all their stats and someone else got 6-12 people would start rage quitting due to imbalance.
But with cosmetic abilities there is no need for balance and that law need not apply.
There is not give and take between Natalie Portman and Rosie O'Donnell's appearances. One of them is quite simply more visually appealing to 99.9% of people who aren't pretty much blind.
I think it's very reasonable to say to people, if you want your character to have exceptional traits like being unusually tall, certain eyecolors, certain desirable names, (such as surnames associated with iconic characters) , certain racial subtypes etc. available to them in character customization you need to pay for it in skymetal bits.
So yeah, I'm going to up my character's height slider to 6'7", make his human half Ulfen, and I'm not going to take a warty nose or make him 500 lbs. to do so. A lot of people might think my character looks cooler than one who used no skymetal but you have no disadvantage stat-wise, and you can go make your 7 foot tall Greek God if you pony up the skymetal for it.
I've mentioned this before but in real life I'm 6'7" (2 meters) tall. That's a strong part of my identity and I really enjoy bringing it to avatars that are meant to be somewhat reflective of myself.
The problem with height sliders though, is apparently everyone wants to be tall, and max height becomes average height. In real life when I see someone else near my size I'm like "Woah! That guy is almost as big as me!!!" Because that doesn't happen often. In game I become desensitized to it and start to think of my character as average height.
I really would like to see an attempt made to keep exceptional features exceptional. What I mean by this... there should be features available for character customization that you have to pay for, and the higher the % of characters with those features the more expensive they should get.
I'd really love to see a population not solely made up of characters who are 7 feet tall featuring the bodies of Greek gods, but I don't see why there shouldn't be at least a few characters like that.
As Lifedragn has stated there isn't really a peon role. Basically we will aim to give access to information as you need access for information, and make sure there are appropriate screening processes in place to weed out those who would misuse information from those who are receiving it.
A great example would be our military. They are going to need to know a certain amount of sensitive information just to do their job. Being in military channels / seeing military channels on our mumble and hearing orders be given during a battle is something we'd prefer our enemies not be able to do once the game goes live.
So screening will probably be part of the process of entering into our regular military. If you aren't involved with the military, we may never give you that information, primarily because you don't need it. Even if you are in the militia, you'll probably be lead by a military commander who has a good idea of the whole situation, and relays the orders specific to your militia unit to you. Not only is that more secure, it allows you to focus better on what you need to be doing.
I imagine there might be similar processes in place for things such as trade caravans. You won't generally get info on them unless you are in them, and getting into the more secure ones may require a certain level of screening.
These screening processes themselves will aim to strike a balance between overly easy access to information, and unreasonable barrier to entry. I imagine the hoops we ask you to join will be quick easy things for a real member, that might be kind of a pain in the butt for a spy. Such as a voice interview, or a certain period of active playtime within TEO.
The wide open recruiting done on these forums certainly allows for negative influence to make its way into a group. Information that may affect the security of the organization tends to remain with leadership and proven members and is not always available to the membership as a whole. Right now we do not really have anything that could affect such security, but we can expect to see these policies play out as we march to OE and the game mechanics that would require them fall into place.
Right. I think the important balance we want to strike is between having an inclusive community that doesn't make you jump through a ton of hoops if you want to join and a community that can keep it's sensitive information of of the wrong hands.
Right now in these pre-game phases the best way to do that is keep sensitive information restricted to our highest ranking members except on a need to know basis. As those need to know situations increase as they surely will post launch, you will see additional security measures be implemented.
The Explorer's League is one of the largest sub-guilds within TEO and there are more than one among us whom live a druidic lifestyle.
Ultimately what paths we take lie with the will of our membership and the council, but I find it unlikely TEO will turn a blind eye to it's effects on nature. I can name at least one council member who would not support such a course for us.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
That's kind of cool. It will be nice to get some of that functionality early on despite the fact that I feel like core classes, then classes from the advanced player's guide should definitely be higher on the priority list.
NPCs automatically die if there hitpoints go below 0 from lethal damage right? But players I know can be incapacitated from lethal damage as long as they don't go over (or actually under) the maximum negative hitpoints.
The only real difference between lethal and non-lethal vs. a player is a player brought down by non-lethal damage doesn't bleed out.
I figured for now, things could work the same way, and there wouldn't be any real need to implement non-lethal damage at this point.
I think it's important to note that it does not say their objective is to end everything permanently. Nature is filled with disasters such as plagues, fires, floods, volcanoes etc. that bring about massive destruction.
The destruction is almost always followed by regrowth, and/or new forms of life. Creatures living on the bottom of the ocean probably don't enjoy giant volcanic eruptions. Those living on the islands of Hawaii might not either when it wipes out their habitat. Yet without them, they would have no habitat at all.
The end of one thing makes it possible to bring about the beginning of another.
I'd also note that those volcanoes focus exclusively on spewing magma out of the ground. Within themselves there is no balance, it is all destruction. They are part of a greater whole that brings about balance though.
I would say the same of blight druids.
I actually have a very different take on blight druids than most people I think.
The first thing I'd like to point out is that there are no additional alignment restrictions. That means while blight druids can be NE they can also be TN, CN, LN, and even NG.
The next thing I'd like to point out is the first line:
"The devoted servants of nature corrupted, ruined, and destroyed, blight druids are the caretakers of lands ravaged by natural disaster."
It does not say:
"Blight druids corrupt, ruin, and destroy nature."
It does say:
"...blight druids are the caretakers of lands ravaged by natural disaster."
However. I think it is also important to note the domains allowed to the blight druid:
I see nothing here that would lead me to draw the conclusion that blight druids are less committed to the preservation of nature and the natural world than any other druid. In fact I would challenge that a blight druid would indeed seek to corrupt, ruin, or destroy nature. They simply champion it's lesser loved aspects.
Obviously, the death domain gives necromancy spells though. Based on that I would say one need not assume all druids and druidic orders hate the undead. However there is nothing saying they don't either. Clearly this order does, and blight druids belonging to this order would likely keep the familiar or take the darkness or destruction domain.
What about the other part to my question. Could members of other organizations join in without renouncing their loyalty to their primary organization?
Basically is this a traditional group such as TEO, TSV, or Pax that is looking to attract a following primarily loyal to it, or is it one such as The Guide Program which members of organizations like TEO, TSV, or Pax would be welcome to join?
If it's the latter, a Druidic type organization of this sort is something I've been waiting to see and fully support.
No. I didn't. That's awesome to hear though.
I'm sure a lot of people who played the tabletop or regular D&D know these terms. Or those of you who have played Darkfall you might be familiar with the terms kill, revive, and gank. Though there is no parallel to stabilize in Darkfall.
This proposal could be framed. As translating the table top kill mechanic into an MMO.
This proposal could also be framed as translating the Darkfall kill mechanic into the Pathfinder setting.
It is either and both at the same time.
When your HP hits 0 you are put in a helpless state on the ground. You are unable to take any actions (Unless abilities are added that allow you to do so). From this state you will either slowly bleed to death or be able to revive after a certain period of time. Obviously in the tabletop you slowly bleed to death, in Darkfall it's been done both ways at different times. From personal preference I would say slowly bleeding to death was the better of the two mechanics both in PvE and PvP.
One essential competent of this mechanic is the ability to "release" from the incapacitated state. This allows a incapacitated character to let themselves to die to prevent incapacitation griefing.
If you slowly bleed to death after being incapacitated, stabilize would be a mechanic that stops that process, meaning your character would no longer be slowly dying but either paused between dying and healing or slowly healing.
This would probably be a function of the heal skill as well as healing magic.
This brings your HP back up above 0 allowing you to take actions again. In Darkfall everyone has this skill by default, but it could be made a function of the heal skill and healing magic within PFO. There are merits to both sides of that debate IMO.
Coup De Grâce
This would allow you to instantly kill an incapacitated player. It functions identically to the "gank" skill in Darkfall.
This allows for:
• Friendly duels and training exercises.
The major upside of the SAD mechanic, and why it belongs in the game is that is that this game has loot drop. Loot drop means people will run around attacking other players for loot. Plain and simple it's going to happen.
The SAD gives people a reason to ask for loot rather than the general kill and then loot you see in other titles.
I think a simpler way though, would be to make it so that like in Darkfall and Pathfinder Tabletop you can be incapacitated without dying. Unlike Darkfall, they should be able to loot you in this state, and it should have lesser consequences than simply ganking you.
That's what I originally proposed before the SAD system was ever created, and I think it would be much simpler for the developers to execute and the players to understand. It's also one of those rare instances where the table top mechanics translate extremely well into an MMO environment as Darkfall has already proven.
As far as I understand SAD at the moment you can use it to walk up to anyone in the game and demand up to (undetermined and potentially unlimited) amount of money. If they refuse, you can kill them without consequence. It's undetermined if there will be good-evil rep slide for this action. Really all that's known is it will be a chaotic action, and that if you happen to be in a settlement where it's against the law it grants you a criminal flag.
My concern is that this could potentially become a tool where players can walk up to anyone in the game and demand ridiculous sums of money with no real expectation of getting paid. Basically it becomes the method those seeking to kill whomever they desire can use to do so. When you've got 5 level 10-20 guys and you come across 1-5 level 1-9s revealing yourself before the attack is not a major drawback. That only becomes an issue when people are actually seeking out competitive targets which will be the opposite of what most bandit groups actually do.
Should this be the case that is frankly a tool too powerful to be allowed in this game, and certainly too powerful to allow one side of an alignment axis unlimited consequence free use of, while only allowing the other rare usage of it.
My other concern is even used for it's primary intent, to attempt to extort money from others, that this is the only non-conditional way to engage anyone in PvP without consequence. With a short delay, you can walk up to anyone or demand money or death. With other mechanics:
• They must belong to a specific group you have paid influence to get kill rights for.
These are MUCH stronger conditions then "You must reveal yourself and wait for them to accept or refuse your demand of coin."
I'm not saying the SAD doesn't belong in game. I like general idea of the SAD. But we need the limitations and downsides spelled out. Here are the questions we need to know:
• Just how much will you be able to extort through SADs? Will it be a set cap or based on the targets carried or total wealth?
Or really. To sum it all up, how are you going to stop the SAD from being such a powerful mechanic that everyone goes chaotic and everyone uses it constantly to engage in PvP whenever and wherever they want as though there were no reputation system at all?
It would be a pretty poor design if anyone could block movement of anything, simply by standing in the way. If there are such conditions of "collision" programing, the offender should at the least provoke "hostility".
The solution is Mortal Online's shove option which lets you push people out of your way without harming them. But it's been stated in another thread we are unlikely to have collision detection because of technical limitations.
I'd like to point out the answer to my problem given at the same time as the outlaw flag was the champion flag.
At the time, and still to date, a good aligned character carries the highest penalty to kill in terms of drift toward evil, and a high reputation carries the highest penalty to kill in terms of drift toward low reputation.
The champion flag removed both of those penalties for killing the flags wearer, and in exchange gave us higher reputation gains, higher good alignment gains, and added protection against critical attacks, but would remove itself if we attacked good or neutral targets with no flags.
I still believe there should be a way for good/high rep characters to sacrifice the protection of their status to gain more ability to fight for the common good either through faster rep/alignment gains or access to additional targets. Protection is not a good reward for PvPers.
Monty Wolf wrote:
Gold sellers and exploiters are also rampant in every mmo ever. Should we just give in to them? Don't give in to botters either.
This is giving into botters the same way PLEX gives into gold farmers. Really the exact same way, they undercut the gold farmers and give you a legal way to buy in-game currency in a way that profits their company and won't get you banned. PFO's own version of PLEX has already been confirmed.
This makes a simpler, easier way to multi-box that profits GW and won't run the risk of getting you banned.
Literally the exact same solution to a different problem.
Tyranny is a cruel or oppressive implementation of the law.
It's strongly associated with the lawful evil alignment and therefore largely opposed by both good and chaos, or really just about anyone not a part of it/benefiting from it.
RHMG Animator wrote:
True but it seems as though they have already expended a fair bit of effort into building a tab targeted combat system.
This system does provide for that if you want to do so.
I still feel like the absolute best method is to give each alignment the best line up of abilities for someone truly wishing to play that alignment. For instance good having abilities they can use to render aid to others and evil having abilities they can use to benifit themselves or their group at the expense of others. Make those abilities nice enough that everyone will want at lest a couple and reserve the best ones for the more extremes of each alignment.
Then open up settlements to ranges on the -7500 to 7500 system. True Neutral can have access to every alignment on the 9 point system but be blocked to anyone who's to one of the far sides of either axis. So True Neutral only gets the most extreme abilities for extremely neutral characters.
I think Nihimon's suggestion would benefit TEO the most as our population of players planning on LN/CN is very small, but I think mine makes the most sense. Why would a +7500 lawful paladin join an order that says "Law and chaos are not concepts worth any real concern, morality is the only thing with which we should concern ourselves." I would say simply affiliating themselves with such a group would lower you from +7500 lawful, which should make you a paragon of lawfulness.
Since the initial crowdforger pole crowdforging has mainly taken place in the form of player feedback on the forums. What other forms can we expect to see crowdforging take, and what other kinds of crowdforging processes could you see yourselfs implementing as we approach and move in to the EE period?
@Bluddwolf. My apologies if I missed it but my main concern with that system is the main objective seems to be ending the war. If your intent is just to flag the opponents as hostile for free kills I don't see the value in pursuing the end of the war.
If you implemented something in that system that incentives you to win and stings when you lose it could be workable once the objectives were a bit more refined. It would be more difficult to implement than the currently planned system but if the objectives were very well created and added much fun I could see it being a good system at some point.
It would go a long way to prevent the problem I've brought up in that if you war-dec the whole server, and there is a bit of a sting each time you lose, you'll have no time to win most of those wars, and get a lot of stings when you end up losing them all. I would also suggest that rather than wins/losses bringing a resolution to the conflict you just continue to get hit with the victories/defeats as long as you maintain the war.
While that's very true, those are the costs of actually waging a war with an objective of victory.
In Darkfall, back when there was some form of alignment and war were cheap there were groups who declared war on every company in the game simply to bypass the penalties for killing them. They never actually pursued them as real wars until limitations on how many wars they could participate in at once were implemented, and then they simply picked the factions with the most newbs and fewest vets to back them up, and vet groups held off from warring with them because they wanted their war decs for more serious conflicts. Goblin Preservation Society and Fallen Lords are the prime examples of groups who did this.
These factions were viewed as jokes, non-factors, or minor annoyances by all the major alliances, but they did do a considerable amount of harm to the newbs of the community.
So if we were to remove the influence cost is there any way you would propose making sure wars and feuds are not frequently declared by factions with no intent of waging an actual conflict with an actual objective?