|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Like anything, the balance between threaded gear vs crafting market will probably evolve through crowdforging.
I'm assuming that threading items is a good compromise to have at first, to attract people from other MMOs. Once the population reached critical mass and players get used to the idea of:
Then I think the threading mechanism could be slowly throttled down, to increase market opportunities (if need be).
I don't know if it's been answered somewhere else, I didn't find anything.
Here's the scenario, I have a fighter with 12 Int going on level 4. I wish to get Combat Expertise as a bonus feat, which requires Int 13. So can I increase intelligence first (level 4 increase) and then select Combat Expertise or do I need to meet the requirement prior to leveling up?
Fulfillment tool shieldmate tooltip wrote:
Invite a friend with another Pathfinder Online account to be your shieldmate. Once the invitation is accepted, both accounts unlock a special bonus: All characters on both accounts gain the Shieldmate Mark. Any time two or more characters with the Shieldmate Mark are in a group, all characters with the Shieldmate Mark in that group gain a minor combat enhancement. You can only offer or accept one shieldmate invitation.
That pretty much confirms what Nihimon just said. Your whole account gets the Shieldmate Mark when you either issue an invitation that has been accepted OR you accepted an invitation yourself.
To get the party bonus, two characters need to have the Shieldmate Mark (it doesn't need to be you, nor a player from the account you invited).
I would much prefer an in-game mechanism. Once a leader quits, that mechanism could be used to replace him. And if he doesn't quit but does a bad job, you can always challenge him.
Let's say any form of challenge lasts for a week. If within a week, the current leader does not show up, he simply forfeits his position. Challenges could be 1v1 fights, elections or whatever imaginative system the devs can think of.
That's what I'm saying, all games pretty much offer the same bland structure. I'm merely suggesting to jazz it up a bit. But unlike previous games, I don't want this to set in stone for eternity. I want options for members to do something about leadership when they feel it's necessary.
I always felt the EVE system was lacking too. Having to manually track incomes/expenses to figure out monthly profits. Then for a 5% dividend, figuring out how each individual shareholder received and manually transferring that money to them. It was just too painful so people didn't bother.
That's exactly how public companies work in real life. Hostile takeover are rare though because companies try to limit the number of available shares on the market vs the ones they already control. Issuing new shares is a good way to inject more money but also dilutes equities, it's a trade off they have to manage.
I see trade hubs being good candidates for this model. A settlement that doesn't want to accept too many strangers could finance (with or without partners) the construction of a trade settlement to redirect customers elsewhere. That settlement could then focus on trade infrastructures, giving dividends every so often to the shareholders and using the extra cash to lower taxes so they attract more people. If that settlement ever gets attacked, the shareholders will have to step in to defend their interests.
Mercenary settlements could also be good candidatess. They don't care who owns them, as long as they have someone to fight against for money. If a targeted settlement decides to reverse the tide by buying shares from the mercenaries, then why not?
In any case, I wouldn't set the settlement governance at creation to never change it again. I would allow any leader to switch to any system, provided they have the right to do it. A democracy could't turn into a dictatorship unless the majority votes for the change. A dictator could always change to democracy (because he's all powerful) but that would erode his control over the settlement.
This totally falls into the "nice to have" bin but I'd like to see different governance styles for settlements.
An obvious one would be total dictatorship. The settlement leader can set any law/rule/tax/war he wants, whenever he wants. He may of course appoint people below him with specific roles but overall, the membership has nothing to say on anything. It would also be nice to have a failsafe mechanism for members to challenge the dictator and possibly dethrone him (in direct 1v1 combat or maybe XvX).
Another system would be direct democracy. Giving a single vote to each member and passing every law/rule/tax/war under vote. This would involve each and every member but would cause long delays (I wouldn't expect votes to happen at a precise instant but having like a 24h window where people can cast their vote).
The last idea I had was to manage settlements like a business. Any player (member of the settlement or not) could buy equities. They could then vote for a board of administrator that would lead the settlement. The board would be elected but they would have to appoint any "executive" to do the day to day management.
As a side note, I wouldn't bind any of those systems to a specific alignment. As see a LG paladin organization setting a dictatorship system so they act with a military chain of command just as much as I see a CE settlement setting a direct democracy so anyone can decide to add/remove laws whenever they feel like it.
I believe such systems wouldn't be too hard to implement (mostly iterations over the basics) and could add a lot of meaningful interactions. Like crafters in a democracy organizing a lobby to lower taxes, minions in a dictatorship preparing a revolution in secret, two big neighboring settlements investing money to finance a 3rd "trade" settlement they could then control remotely.
Tork Shaw wrote:
Someone covered this a wee bit further down - apologies for not crediting them: This only covers the core level spell-set. Its very likely that rarer spells will appear only as drops/faction rewards/other rewards, but for new players the acquisition of what you might call 'base' spells and expendable abilities should be as simple as it is for a Pathfinder wizard. Note that in the Pathfinder TT game only non-core spells are difficult to come by. Wizards can take any core spell (level appropriate) they want when leveling up. We will end up with a similar paradigm in PFO except that it may be possible to buy scrolls of unusual spells on the auction house as well as having to earn them yourself.
Maybe that's the part I was missing, the expendable analogy with scrolls.
In TT, the first time you get a scroll, you can scribe it in your spellbook. This consumes the scroll. After that, you can decide to use that spell as many times as you want, provided they all fit in your daily alotment. BUT, if you happen to find a second scroll of that spell, it gives you an EXTRA use of that spell if you ever need it.
I was previously under the impression that further copies of an expendable was useless. If they indeed work like scrolls, giving you an extra use of that actions, then I see the economic potential.
I might be wrong but I remember something about having enough staminna for 3-4 actions per round. Since a round is 6 sec., that gives you plenty of time to click buttons with your mouse instead of the keyboard.
As to why we need more than 12-14 active buttons, well I guess it's both a matter of preference and situation. I'm sure we'll have out of combat actions like long term buffs or gathering skills. Those are buttons you don't need in combat.
There are 2 things to consider:First, Stamina will limit the number of buttons you can click per round. So extra buttons will be circumstantial at best.
Second, to get all the buttons active, you'll need to be fully equipped, making you a tempting target.
Players will have to ponder if an extra button is really worth the risk of losing the associated equipment when dying. I'm expecting hardcore PvPers focusing on a limited set of buttons that synergize well together while limiting the equipment they put at risk.
Tork Shaw wrote:
MOST expendable feats are designed to be just as accessible as weapon feats, so they need to be pretty readily available.
If most expendables shall be "readily available", there won't be a huge market: too much offer for very little demand. Expendables will just become junk loot.
By selling expendables through NPCs you at least get another coin sink to control inflation.
Expendables are only consumed once per player. As soon as every single player has consumed one type of an expendable, all further drops of that type are useless. In other words, without a proper sink, any drop chance above 0% creates an inflating system...
In PvP, any expendables the player has slotted have a chance to appear as additional loot if the implement they were slotted in was not threaded (the original character does not forget the expendable, it is merely copied into a loot item).
I'm not sure I get this. When you die, even if you didn't thread the expendable, you don't lose it. So there is no expendable sink? They will just multiply until the market is flooded with them?
1. I can live without special characters. Allowing accents will accomodate for french, spanish, swedish alphabets while still preventing arabic, cyrillic and chinese ones... If you can't make everybody happy, just go less headaches. I'm french speaking and I can tell you it's very common to not have access to accents, it's really not a big deal (at least for me).
2. Surnames like McDonald, O'Brian, D'Artagnan or De Maisonneuve can be achieved with simple prefix rules. Prefix need to be capitalized, can include apostrophe and optionally a trailing space. So the system would end up being "Name" + "Optional surname prefix" + "Surname".
This would still allow "Marty" + "Mc" + "Fly" and "Drizzt" + "Do'" + "Urden" so I guess GW validation will be needed whatever the system...
It's my first time participating so I was all proud to get to work with my mo this morning. Apparently, there's a set of rules to follow and you're supposed to be completely shaved on day one. I've been called a cheat a few times today, lol!
All that to say that 1. I'm already in a team and 2. it sure is funny!
I would be happy with a skill check giving me an arrow pointing in the general direction of my target. That would be both lightweight for the database and serve the purpose of "actively" tracking something. Improving the tracking skill could enlarge the search radius and/or the arrow precision and/or skill usage time and/or skill refresh.
I would also add some specific knowledge of the target to be known beforehand. Tracking specific monsters/NPC would require the appropriate Knowledge skill. Tracking another character would require a bounty. I would even allow tracking players when they are offline so we can ambush them :D
EVE allows manual reputation overrides. If alliance A cuts a deal with alliance B to set mutual blue flags, then they can enter each other space/installations. This of course involves real people from alliance A talking to real people in alliance B beforehand. So technically, both A and B can keep their NBSI policies while allowing "trusted" visitors in. The matter of deciding who's trustworthy and whose not is left to alliance diplomats/authorities.
Clarification Please: Is there an automatic shift towards Good in addition to the one towards Lawful?
I wanted to play a True Neutral character since day 1 but got slightly rebuked by the auto-LG mechanism. I mean, to remain completely neutral, you had to engage in unprovoked PvP for a CE counterweight. That's not what I had in mind for a neutral character...
With Stephen's clarification, I can avoid both PvE and unprovoked PvP, turn off the auto-lawful and stay neutral. That's good news!
Your apprehend mechanism sounds like a good way to grief bandits, disrupting their play style every time you pass by them.
There are already mechanisms in place to counter banditry. You either declare a war on recurrent bandits so they all become fair game. Or you set laws in the hex you control to kill them on sight.
If you are not in your own hex and you are not at war with them and still persist at attacking them unprovoked, then your are acting as judge, jury and executioner. It might be lawful but it's certainly not good.
Sure bandits will steal wealth, but they also close doors to many settlements, that's a harsh punishment already. And sure caravans will get robbed but why were they not sufficiently escorted in the first place?
Yep, I mixed up quote tags. I was not quoting AvenaOats but Being, my bad. It's been more than an hour so I can't edit it...
Now with proper quoting :)
If DudeRanger doesn't have the bounty on Lololol he has no business attacking Lololol unless he wants to get a bounty on his head as well.
I understand this is the way they want to implement bounties. And it might end up being a good way to do it, who knows. All I'm saying is I have reserves about whether this system will:
1. Address the grieving issue by ensuring gankers that only a handful of players are actively pursuing them instead of the whole server.
2. Appeal to players who wish to be bounty hunters.
The secret here is to be upfront with ragged bandits and declare an official war on them. The long term solution is to colonize the hex and set laws to engage CE at will.
We already know that a bounty is restricted from the known cohorts of the criminal. We can infer, then, that the owner of the contract can share his property with his own cohorts.
It would indeed make sense to infer that anyone grouping with Gleaneagle would benefit from both a share of the reward and the limited reputation loss. But this is not explicitly written in the blog.
Example: TN Ranger 'Gleneagle' takes a bounty contract on CE criminal 'Lololol'. Gleneagle uses the bounty hunter perks and his ranger skills to determine that Lololol is hiding deep in CE territory. So Gleneagle assembles his A team and makes an incursion to enter CE territory to neutralize Lololol and collect the bounty.
Ok, what about DudeRanger which is also a bounty hunter? He happens to be right beside Lololol but can't attack him despite the bounty. This makes no sense to me. The reason to put a bounty on someone is to make sure the target is tracked down by as many people as possible. Limiting bounties to a single player and his group sounds more like an assassination contract then a bounty one.
I'm a bit concerned about the new bounty mechanics. The "exclusive owner for a limited time" part pretty much says you can't hunt bounties with a group. So if the target is part of a roaming bunch, you have to take them all by yourself? I fail to see people joining me into my hunt when they can't have a share of the bounty and lose reputation for attacking unprovoked players.
And what's the point of putting a bounty on someone when the target can be assured that only one guy at a time is pursuing him? The whole point of bounties is to make sure that wherever the target goes, he needs to be on its guards.
The way it's currently described, the whole system pretty much protects bounties from hunters.
Please oh please no mini-games! In most games, they are just distracting players from the fact that crafting sucks.
To make crafting not suck, it has to be more involving. Crafters need to study markets, manage production, secure material supplies, organize logistics for both supplies and crafted products. You can do it by yourself, with guildies, with contractors. You can do it safely in a trade hub or be more opportunist by risking going to remote places where demand and prices are higher. You can specialize into high-end products with low volume and high profits or generalize into mundane stuff with high volume and low profit.
The possibilities are numerous and doing all that requires a lot more than clicking on a "craft" button.
Investors are putting money in to get their cash + profit back at some point in time. They most likely take equities to have a word to say as to where the game is going, making sure they will make profits in the end.
Backers are putting money in to get their game + fun at some point in time. They most likely beta test to have a word to say as to where the game is going, making sure they will have fun in the end.
People want consequences for evil players but none for good ones? I'd like to see a security system that prevents good-aligned players from entering evil settlements as well.
The law can only be enforced by NPC guards so it'd be nice if "lawful" settlements could ultimately hire some. LE settlements could then screen any good-aligned players from their territory.
To prevent abuse, the NPC guards should only be hired in a "capital hex". And a PC alliance can only have one such hex and only if they control 3-4 touching hexes. So any opposing faction could fight in the 2-3 surrounding hexes to make the capital lose its guards.
On the other hand, "chaotic" settlements would not have the option of hiring NPC guards. They would instead screen players on a reputation basis. Reputation that the alliance leader can give or take from players/companies/alliances. CG could flag E players as criminals and CE would flag G ones.
The demo is beyond anything I was expecting. So much has been done in so little time!
The artwork is fantastic, I love the water and all the different looking trees. The dungeon looks good too.
Models are very detailed and from a demo perspective, the animations are totally fine.
Lighting/shadow also look realistic (ok, in some dungeon scenes with more than one light on the walls, you still can see there's only one light source. I do understand that lighting/shadow is very performance hungry for not much added).
Special effects like spells and flames are very basic but hey, they prove that you can support them.
If I were an investor, you'd get my money right away!
Teleport as written in the pathfinder guide, would almost certainly squash any chance of seperate economies, a transport industry, most protection industries etc...
The Teleport spell specifies you can bring up to your maximum load with yourself and bring one person per 3 caster level so that won't be enough for a caravan. That and the spell is 5th level so not something we'll be able to train in a few days (the parallel would be cyno field in EVE).
Invisibility, could be implimented, but it is still not a certainty on any level.
Agreed but that's a really basic option to provide players. Invisibility works both in offense for surprise attacks and defense for sneaking pass enemies, it is just too important! That and it's early entry for casters, non-caster could buy a magic ring for cheap (again, cloaking devices were pretty easy to get in EVE).
The main thing that is keeping me from embracing PfO as a pvp centric game is that the more pvp focus there is the less this game will resemble the tabletop version.
I understand the concern but I think it's a mistake to see PFO as a "PvP centric game" only. The game will give you lots of options with various risk/reward levels. I'm sure you'll be able to stay in a safe zone to run NPC missions, just don't expect it to be very rewarding.
You may choose to leave an alliance at any time, or you may be automatically forced out if your alignment is more than one step from the alliance's alignment.
This simple line implies two things:
1- Alliances won't accept everyone regardless of alignment, except N ones;
A good part of the fun in PvP is the fact that you just don't know what the opponent has to offer in terms of challenge. If he has a big neon sign broadcasting he is good at this and that, it pretty much defeats the purpose no?
Then again, if titles are optional, it would be a decision you make for yourself so I'm not necessarily against them. I just see lots of PvP veterans going for deceptive titles like "Master Smith" or "Grand Architect"...
Maybe titles linked to your position in your company/settlement/alliance? Apprentice, Journeyman, Headmaster?
Training will be time based, and (most probably) only one character per account will be able to train. So even if you had a second character on that account, he would either stall or steal precious training time from your main. So what's the use of having a second character then, except maybe abuse it for cheap scouting?
The blog talks about single players and settlements interacting with NPC alliances but will we be able to have PC guilds and PC alliances too? If all alliances are controlled by NPCs, I don't see how players could do politics...
As for the sneaky alliances like Daggermark Assasins, I could see a set of special skills that mock or hide specific rankings. Something in the line of the "See Alignment" and "Undetectable Alignment" spells in tabletop but for rankings. A player could specialize in infiltrating a specific alliance to the exclusion of all others. And a counter mechanism would be for paladin-like players to detect these infiltrators.
Goblinworks blog wrote:
The intent of this system is to create a zone where an attack on a target may succeed... but the attacker will almost always be slain as well. At the edges of the security zone, it may be possible for a swift assault to destroy a target and still give the attackers time to flee before the marshals arrive. Those attackers will still be flagged as criminals, and they may also suffer alignment shifts as a result of their actions. There will be a cooldown timer imposed as well, and if the targets reenter the secured area during this time, the marshals will respond again. After the timer expires, the marshals will not respond to the reappearance of the target in their patrolled lands.
This looks to me like high/low/null security space from EVE online.
In EVE Online, pirates could control choke points to high-sec, killing everyone passing by. With a single scout in high-sec, they could also easily avoid fights with bigger fleets. And on top of that, they could totally live off NPC stations that they didn't need to fuel, maintain or protect. Being a pirate was low-risk and low-cost so we saw thousands of them.
In PFO, I would like to see a dynamic mechanism for security ratings. Say a bunch of pirates want to control an hex, they could achieve specific goals/requirements that would allow them to drop the security level, slowing down the marshall response. On the other hand, law enforcing players could achieve other goals/requirements to increase it.
That would give bandits something to defend, they would have to stand their ground if they don't want the marshalls in their way. They would still be able to gank noobs but if any organized force decides to fight back and get rid of them, they could.
I guess that system would take care of griefing problems without banning banditry as a valid play style. Bandits would have big drawbacks to fighting naked, whatever the looting mechanism ends up being. And overall, player interaction would increase.
I want a true sandbox economy: Check
Yeah, as long as they don't make the same mistakes as EVE Online. I quit playing in 2009, things might have improved since but back then:
1- Implants could not be manufactured by players and only given as mission rewards. It resulted in solo mission grinders controlling the market. Implants were way overpriced.
2- Named loot was better than manufactured Tech 1 and way too easily available. Again there were too many solo "ratters" stock-piling and reselling named modules. In certain areas, it totally killed the Tech 1 market.
3- Tech 2 monopolies. It just sucked.
Speaking of sandbox economy, if the rules stay true to the tabletop, I don't know how I feel about magical items being only craftable by spellcasters. The best a Fighter can do are masterwork weapons and armor right? Enhancing a weapon to +1 requires Craft Magic Arms and Armor, which in turn requires Caster Level 5th.
Alright, let's say I'm a number cruncher and theorycrafter and I happen to find THE best build ever to solo. I can dish out massive amount of damage while tanking like a god (damage mitigation, self-healing or whatnot).
Now I take my character out in the open for soloing and quickly realize that 5 noobs are heading toward me for an easy kill. I die.
Why? Because offensive power is scalable. 5 guys means 5 weapons hitting me at the same time, I lose hit points 5 times faster.
On the other hand, defense is not scalable. Even if I had 4 teammates with me for a 5 vs 5 fair fight, they can all focus fire on me, I still die 5 times faster. My teammates' armors do nothing for me.
Morale of the story: Uber builds or not, you're better off with teammates.