I was referring to the abilities slotted in implements; the term of art that described them is "expendables". Expendable abilities are usable a small number of times per combat, and consume a resource (power) that sounds like it will not run out in a typical engagement, but will not be rapidly recoverable in the field. No specific statements regarding stamina usage of expendables was mentioned, and I could see it anywhere from no stamina usage to moderate.
I think that's it is consistent with his previous statements, but inconsistent with my previous understanding of his previous statements.
Yea, at first I was pretty excited to see that casters were probably not just going to be "archers who can't stealth" from a game mechanics perspective, but it looks like that won't be the case.
Really? The only characteristic that archers and mages have in common is the (presumed!) ability to attack a target at range.
I suspect that if there's a ranged archery attack that slows or roots, it's single-target, weapon, with a high power cost to use and a very short duration. The wizard abilities (grease, web, slow, create pit) that slow or root will probably be expendable, hit many targets or an area, and have a power cost lower than most expendable abilies.
I'm hoping that for the most part, each cantrip/attack is relatively balanced against each other one, meaning that they are situationally better and situationally worse.
At this point I'd like to throw in my request for items which can slot both 'mage' attacks and 'melee' attacks, such as a staff which can be used to project rays and hit someone on the head or the Divine Warrior Sword.
From a design principle standpoint, I expect that such items would have fewer magic keywords than pure wands, and fewer weapon keywords than pure weapons, but more total keywords (or perhaps the same total number of keywords, but some, e.g. Masterwork, would apply to some spells and some attacks) such that there is the potential for a character that occupies the area between 'trivial to defeat in melee' and 'unable to project force very far'.
Everything you do has an opprutinity cost. If you are doing PvE activities which provide no change to reputation instead of +rep activities, one of the differences in outcome is a difference in Reputation.
Since every player has finite time, any time spent not maximizing Reputation has an opprutinity cost of some amount of Reputation. I think that's what Ryan was saying about the player who gets the highest Reputation being selfish- they spend all of their time on Reputation, which is as selfish as spending all of your time accumulating coin in your personal account.
They way I'd handle spontaneous casters in my current understanding of the paradigm would be to give them implements that had fewer spells, but instead of each spell once, it could provide some total number of spells (of each level?).
I'd also make it harder to change the abilities slotted in the sorcerors' implement.
Failing to complete an advance-payment contract that they accepted, which would include failing to make a margin call when due, failing to meet a futures obligation, or any other breach.
I think that it's very meaningful to allow characters to fail to meet their contractual obligations, but if there is no cost to doing so it will be widely perceived that advance-payment contracts are for chumps, and they won't be used.
One example of what I hope is a typical advance-payment contract would be: "Accept delivery of X units of logs in advance, and deliver Y units of lumber within 24 hours for a payment of Z coin on delivery."
I always assumed that spellcasters would use a 'staff' weapon, like in Dragon Age, or have a 'basic attack' which was magical in nature and similar to weapon basic attacks, like many classes in 4e.
My though was that there would exist a 'wand' that was a 'weapon', and the wand weapon abilities would be magical in nature and similar in use paradigm to other weapon abilities. Likewise, the martial maneuvers would be slotted to an implement and would be in the same realm as other implement abilities.
PnP players would have to overcome their expectation that fighters won't have limited-use abilities, just like wizards do.
I feel exactly the same way as I feel about the full-weapon classes having six dedicated 'implement' slots that I would rather were available for weapon abilities.
A dedication bonus or special item that served e.g. both as a weapon and as a holy symbol, with a total of 12 slots distributed less rigorously between 'weapon' abilities and 'implement' abilities would be very cool, but only for players who use both implement abilities and weapon abilities because tradoffs: it would be bad design for there to be an item which was a better implement than the other implements and also a better weapon than the other implements. Since the regular implements aren't weapons at all, any dual-purpose item would have to have partial utilities less than the partial utilities of their counterparts in each purpose.
I meant, one thing that you could do if you had >8 players in a PvP encounter is to form more than one party, and get the benefits which apply to parties. Or were you asking if there was some additional extra benefit to having lots of people other than the ability to create a formation?
Form multiple parties, for one. Your opponents would have the same options and limitations that you do.
My prediction is that for the first two months after OE, a new player's first meaningful interaction will be with an evil character about twice as often as it is with a neutral or good character.
That's not a claim about population, only activity.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
If I read that right, there are some things that cannot be crafted in NPC settlements, but people who craft only in NPC settlements aren't useless or excessively gimped?
If the settlement has fallen and the extra effort won't stop the invaders, the noncombatants serve best by grabbing the things that can be evacuated and denying them to the invader. If they might turn defeat into victory, then they should probably try, but the premise to start was that the characters under discussion were unlikely to have a significant effect.
Thanks for answering the question that I asked.
Do you really believe that PFO has changed significantly as our shared (and often not-shared) understanding of what it will be has changed? I think that the actual design changes have been minimal, and that it is the models of PFO that exists only in our minds which have changed; because those models are influenced both by things outside of us (developer statements, other information) and things inside of us (intended playstyle, previous experience), those understandings are both imperfect (not reflecting all possible information) and variable (not the same as each other).
TLDR; PFO hasn't changed, even though what we think has changed.
Pax Areks wrote:
Let's just leave it at 'the group with the most properly equipped and trained combatants on the field is likely to carry the field'. There's a lot of variation on that one theme, but at least it's a point of agreement;.
I'm very unambiguous when I make policy statements. I was just mentioning that you had previously made statements on the subject, and that it would be inappropriate to let the discussion fester on the subject of the moderation polices.
I keep seeing the word "Expectation" thrown around here.
Everyone should realize that if you have an expectation that doesn't happen, it isn't the fault of the world. Any problem with unfulfilled expectations is a problem with the expectations, not the world.
All that is necessary for a school is a log with a teacher and a student on one side and a teacher and a student on the other side.
In times of scarcity, the log may be omitted.
Pax Areks wrote:
That's really not the point. If you've got a diviner who won't defend your settlement, you won't last as long as those that have diviners that do fight. Keep believing that those who don't want to fight won't ever have to.
You really refuse to see the point. The choice is NOT between having a crafter who fights and having a crafter who refuses to fight; the choice is between having a crafter who refuses to fight and not having him.
Settlement policies don't create members, they can only include or exclude people who already exist. I say that crafters, even if they are unwilling or unable to fight, are a positive addition to our settlement. I am not reducing the number of people who are willing to fight for us by making that statement, and regarding the edge case of people who don't want to fight but would be willing to do so if all settlements required it: Their contribution in a fight would likely be marginal, and we gain more by having ALL of them with us as noncombatants than we ever would gain from having a small fraction of them as reluctant combatants (not to mention that by getting all of them, we deny our enemies their small fraction of reluctant combatants).
Hi Goonies! You missed the party unfortunately, all of the hating for things that have happened in Eve Online is over. The most recent hating, also all over, is for the events and motivations around the creation of the d20 SRD.
The next round of hating is scheduled to begin about nine months from now, and will focus around how the investors are making 's%&@boatloads' of money off of Pathfinder Online, while the Kickstarter backers aren't getting jack, despite the fact that they 'came forth in droves when it was really needed' and how PFO 'wouldn't exist without their selfless and generous contributions'.
After that will be hating over balance issues and which base classes are planned in the short term, along with hating over the vague policy about banning various 'undesirables', with a running eugenics parallel which compares banning griefers with the Holocaust.
If you have a suggestion for how to hate on PFO, Goblinworks, or any Goblinworks employee or director, please file it in the appropriate location.
Tork Shaw wrote:
I think it might make more sense for there to exist some one-use items that can be also used to learn an ability, rather than having something intended to learn an ability be usable as a one-off. A scroll can be used to create a spellbook page for little cost, but turning a spellbook page into a scroll costs as much as the scroll. That doesn't matter much for Magic Missile, but the faucet for spellbook pages of Wail of the Banshee should be separate from the faucet for scrolls of the same.
He doesn't like PvP, I can't imagine that will be hard.
Your lack of imagination isn't important here. In the Zen sense, to truly dislike something, one must understand it well enough to love it first.
Oh, and, as above, even if we had a diviner who refused to fight, we would be better off than an opponent who lacks a diviner who refuses to fight.
Well, you've already made statements that Nihihon's "not one copper" stance on extortion will garner red status, and I can provide the mathematical justification for why publicly and credibly precommitting to such a stance is superior against rational opponents who cannot precommit. From that, I conclude that you are trying to commit as credibly as possible to be Nihimon's enemy if he continues with his Not One Copper policy.
Because I know that Nihimon will not back down from his policy even if rational games theory proves that he would be better off doing so, I conclude that it is harmful to question your commitment to declare him red for doing so; such a question is expected to result in a greater commitment from you, which has a negative effect on the expected outcome.
That is why I have no doubt that you will carry out your plan to be hostile to Nihimon's characters. The politics become problematic when discussing how your posture towards one of The Seventh Veil's leaders interacts with your position towards the organization, or how your posture towards either changes the political situation between them and the organization which you intend to use to shelter and harbor your activities.
Personally, I like the idea of Pax gaming and want to see them help create a healthy game. I think they can do that better without your 'help' than they can with it, and I am trying to cause them to see all of the same evidence I do so that they are likely to come to the same conclusion, as quickly as possible.
The Seventh Veil's position is that a settlement with an armorsmith who will not fight has an advantage over a settlement who has no armorsmith.
Only time and subjective judgement will tell which position is more correct.
Pax Charlie George wrote:
If I understand this clarification, your original statement was that you expect PFO to be written in a manner such that a character who lacks minimal defense skills is either not viable or not possible to create. Nihimon (and orginally I) interpreted that to mean that you expected there to exist a settlement policy requiring that.
I disagree with both statements; I expect that there exist some players who will have fun with a character who cannot PvP, and I further expect that there will be a way to advance a character for a long time without ever slotting a combat ability.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect players to reach shift, alt, and the number keys as well.
Really? Super caps and Titans can be converted to ISK? And nullsec corps let members mine, manufacture, and sell without giving the corp most of the ISK?
Are you saying that the crafters who work for large nullsec corporations make a lot of profit? There's minimal ISK to be made in eve commerce because there's a fairly low barrier to entry and not much that anyone can do to differentiate their products from anyone else's.
I expect for the richest crafters to be paid in things other than pure coin, at exchange rates far better than market price, by the richest PvE and PvP players, who are themselves paid in kind. The harvester who is repaid for his work with gear, training, and recognition is much happier than one who is given only coin, with which he must purchase his own gear and training (often from the very people who buy his raw materials). Likewise a PvE player who contributes to a bank of the items used to learn expendable skills can expect to learn more skills than one who buys and sells at an auction house.
The main reason to exalt PvP players is that players who focus on PvP tend to be the kind of person for whom exaltation is a terminal goal. (because that kind of person tends toward the PvP styles of play). Part of my goal in PFO is to make the small group of players who like PvP but aren't reminiscent of the Call of Warfare crowd a dominant faction within a small niche.
We have taken enough flak for not making policy statements, and this is topical and relevant and certain enough to make one.
It makes no sense to say that every member character must contribute to defense when needed, unless we are saying that we have no use for characters or players who lack the skills and inclination for a smaller subset of all gameplay.
Let's consider what we can do with only 1-6, alt, and shift. None of those are a reach from the 'gamers homerow' of WASD.
Six weapon abilities, six implement abilities, and six other abilities. Sounds like 1-6, alt1-6, and shift 1-6. Q and E fit well as swapping keys.
Downside: alt-1 requires dexterity to hit while holding WD; continuing to move while activating an ability is hard.
There is no way to resolve the dexterity problem, even though certain hardware can help.
Shane Gifford wrote:
The point is that effects limited to the RK area are perfectly compatible with there being no noticeable difference in PFS games.
Pax Pagan wrote:
Faction warfare will have no significant effect on the larger faction because neither the Church of Pharasma nor the Hellknights will significantly change their position in the large scale based on their interaction and influence in a small provincial territory dispute. The petty baronies and counties of the River Kingdoms have no influence outside of their territory.
That doesn't mean that within their territory in the RK, these changes aren't relatively important.
I hope that the comments used to craft the items that provide the highest expendable abilities are found only as escalation rewards or other high-level PvE play.
I'm not sure what the numbers would look like to make trading those via staged PvP looting unattractive; to have that characteristic would require setting a fairly low ceiling on the value of the ability.