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!
Ryan Dancey wrote:
A lot of people want to play a solo experience in a multiplayer world and when the solo content ends, they quit.
And surprisingly, other people want a multiplayer experience and can't have it until cap level so they quit even earlier. That's pretty much my story with TOR.
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.
Just cross-posting as it's been said in another thread.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I think that the "capstone" thing is way over-discussed at this point. Since there's no design for them and we have nothing other than a vague idea to have them, I'm not going to be able to tell you much about any capstone.
I have more respect for the "guy with a sword" answer than the templated arch-gibbledy-gok replies.
Ha ha, I was writing this post while you were writing yours. It's pretty much what I call a GWAS!
I'm gonna play a bandit and recruit a bandit army, and prey on all those cardboard-cutout soloists out wandering around looking for exotic spell components and resources and whatnot. because no matter what else happens, I'll be as epic as they are, in the same time-frame, and (hopefully) we'll both have a great time playing what we want.
Did I mention I intend to track and collect bounties?
I was envisioning the whole character concept as a clean slate. You start with nothing and build up your character through skill training and merit badge acquisition.
Say you train in "longsword proficiency" and acquire the "kill a monster with a longsword" badge, then your character unlocks some ability related to longswords. That doesn't make you a fighter, ranger or barbarian, just a longsword wielding dude.
Now once you have that longsword ability, you'll have to chose what to train next.
If you focus into one field, you'll be able to build on top of already acquired abilities and "specialize" your character toward an archetype, ultimately unlocking a cap ability.
On the other hand, if you chose to train in various fields, like rage abilities, or lock picking or divine spellcasting, then you have a longsword wielder dude that can rage, pick locks and cure himself. A "generalist" with lots of minor abilities that do not point toward any cap ability.
I don't see generalists locking themselves out of cap abilities. If it takes a full dedicated year of training to acquire it and you decided to train various skills here and there for 2 months, well it's going to take you a year and 2 months if you change your mind and decide to aim for that cap ability after all.
My only hope is that at 19th level I start to feel almost epic.
My hope is that you can feel epic from day one. You know, you create a character that starts with a pitch fork and no skills whatsoever. You then pick up a message in chat from a bunch of people who spotted a red dragon and you decide to team up. Your contribution might be limited, and yes you may die but man, it's epic right away.
On topic, I'm very tempted to go ranger. Lots of skills, nice defensive and utility spells (for gathering resources), good combat capabilities in both melee and range (for PvP), the ability to track down outlaws (for collecting bounties!). Overall a good class to explore the game.
The RAW specifies that a cleric is restricted from using spells opposed to his alignment. So a good cleric cannot cast Create Undead occasionally unless he becomes neutral/evil first.
As for necromancy being evil, it's an old debate. My personal standing is that all necromancy spells don't have the evil descriptor and evil spells are not all from the necromancy school (Desecrate is Evocation, Dispel Good is Abjuration, etc.).
So a necromancy-focused caster could very well be good, but forget about that army of zombies.
You don't need to be an RPer to see the use of a calendar tool integrated into the game. Sometimes members don't like to use external websites so having our forums and the tools I need to schedule events right there where everyone with the game has access to them without having to register to our site... is pretty damn useful.
And I'm hoping it could work both ways. If you become a new member of a guild in-game, then you have automatic access to guild posts out-of-game. And if you set a guild event in the out-of-game calendar, then why not send a notification to concerned players in-game?
These are options that are not available to 3rd party forums. Or at least not without an API.
One of the things that bugs me most in MMOs is the lack of proper organization outside of the game. What I mean is usually, inside the game, you are a member of a guild, with maybe privileges like being able to recruit members, giving reputation (good or bad) to other guilds, etc.
But once you close the game, none of that is maintained. You are just a username and password away from any blog/forum. And that username might have nothing to do with your character name.
What I'd like to see is an official forum that links to the game's database. If I'm a member of XYZ guild, then I have access to XYZ forum's section. If XYZ is part of the ABC alliance, then I also have access to that forum. If I'm given an administrative title in-game, it can also be mirrored out-of-game (guild master -> admin, recruiter -> moderator, etc).
I think that's the kind of feature that would enrich any MMO. But this is especially true for MMOs focusing on players interactions.