Ilquis

Forencith's page

749 posts. Alias of KitNyx.



Goblin Squad Member

The concern. So, we were discussing the leadership dynamics for settlements...specifically as it relates to assassination. I know at one time, assassinating a settlement leader would either cause a deficit for the settlement (or remove a buff gained by having the leader).

Our concern was that this system would drive settlements to utilize the simplest government in game and keep that leader logged off except for when either training or changing the UI.

Then, using standard philosophies, we must assume if some will do it, everyone will do it...and then question spending the resources to implement the system at all.

A solution we came up with:

A leader flag. Settlements (and/or residents) receive bonuses for having a active leader. Similar to how the flags worked for bandits and assassins, the longer it is active, the more of a bonus the flag gives...and that time only accumulates while the leader is online.

Another cool thing about this idea is that it does allow the leaders to sort of set the focus of a settlement. Also, it could create a larger set of targets for assassins, by creating a system that is easily expandable to the leaders of any in-game association. Companies and Nations will have leaders, those leaders could also create an "Officer Flag" for their constituency.

Focus. Another idea or twist on this idea would be to make the nature of the bonus depend upon the build of a leader; ie. a very "combat" build for a leader would give their constituency a bonus to combat oriented activities.

Organizations with several leaders, get the "average" of those leaders.

Goblin Squad Member

Well, interestingly, many pole arms in PF TT have [reach], meaning they can be used at 10ft, but not in close range. Would you accept that consequence in PFO? Especially with no collision? I suppose that however does not preclude collision-based effects or attacks such as "kick" to knockback an opponent that gets too close.

Thoughts?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just tossing out an idea for consideration, the ability to "nest" parties. The idea is intended to address the desire for larger non-persistent groups.

To clarify how this would work, parties can be composed of 1 party leader and 5 members which can in turn be either parties or individuals. If a party leader invites the leader of another party, the whole party gets appended under that party leader.

Dynamically, flags would get inherited down, but not up.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

With the renewed talk of creating good vs evil settlements and societies, I would like to take a moment to reinforce my hope that True Neutral remains/becomes a viable play option for social groups of any size (CC/Settlement/Nation). My fear is artificial limitation.

I understand some of the objections previously raised (including those by the Devs), but would love to hear some perspectives on those objections. Including those objections which might not have been previously raised but seem to be an emergent factor, such as Neutral really being a balance of doing Good act and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic...as opposed to what I am looking for, a lack of pursuing the extreme in any (for instance, I will probably never violate a Contract...does that necessarily make me Lawful?, I will probably never kill outside of need or sanctioned mechanics...does that necessarily make me Good?). Perhaps we can explore some options that had not been previously considered.

With this plea, comes a reminder that there are two sides of every alignment, Good means you would act with Compassion, even if you never get the opportunity; one cannot hide their heart from the gods. There are those who fight for the side of Good...there are those who simply live their lives with Compassion, helping their fellows. Evil is not just the deeds of acting Evilly, it is a lack of Compassion. The most Evil person might not ever do Evil or actively fight against Good...but all that they do do is for themselves only. They might never get the need or opportunity to murder others, but they would have no compunction about doing so. Likewise, Neutral has two sides. There is the position of tolerance, often viewed distastefully by other non-Neutral parties as the inability to take a side. This does not necessarily have to be the case, sometimes they are just more pragmatic than their Good kin, and less willing to do anything to accomplish their goals than Evil; others, they see a need to combine the rationalism of society with the chaos of nature.

But, there is a flip side to Neutrality, a desire to fight tyranny in any form...for make no mistake, all extremes are a form of tyranny. No one can say those who pursue this philosophy have not chosen a side, clearly they have. We fight to maintain this balance as fervently as those who fight for Good, Evil, Order or Chaos. For example, We of TSV seek knowledge and wisdom in all their forms. Our lore teaches us that all reality is a mutable illusion...if only we can find the cracks in the perceivable reality, we can disbelieve and find the more true one beneath. This is why we focus on the collection of knowledge. We know not what form these cracks will take, nor what pieces of wisdom will reveal them it, but one thing I do know...the destruction and censorship of knowledge, as each extreme alignment would do to the wisdom of their diametric opposite, is counter to our cause.

I do not speak for TSV, and I am sure not all within our leatherbound halls would agree with me...but I intend to stand...as I am able, fighting against that side which grows too strong. A balance can only be maintained by force of arms, strength of whit, and blood on the battlefield.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not recruiting for TSV. I am not even advocating our position. What I am trying to do is show, through example, that True Neutral can be a "side" - a side with valid reasons to participate in the various battles that will range across the River Kingdoms...a side, I hope I am able to take, build, and defend.

So, lets discuss why Neutral is not a viable in game option, the specific problems that can be predicted, and ways to remedy those issues. (Of course, I realize my table top ideas of alignment might have to be revised in PFO, I accept that as a possibility too...in which case, where, for example, would a TN druid stand and why?)

Goblin Squad Member

I apologise if this has been addressed elsewhere, my eyes tend to glaze over when the admin stuff starts being discussed. A simple link response is more than I deserve if it has...

I am just curious if access to Crowdforging will remain open to the entire community, even those not in EE when EE goes live. I have been contributing here for a long time and would have loved to buy my way into EE, unfortunately as many can probably sympathize, the fates plotted against me to leave me without the means to do so. So, I am just curious if I, as a member of the community who cannot really make educated decisions about some aspects of the game (as I will not be able to experience the issues at hand), will still be allowed to contribute via the crowdforging.

I can see both sides of the argument, on one hand, for the well-being of the game, I would prefer decisions are being made by those most educated and able to make good decisions via experience (of the game). On the other, I would hate not not be privy to discussions and not be able to contribute ideas/votes.

I know EE is not a closed beta, just trying to understand the plan.

Goblin Squad Member

I know some 'groups' who have been working toward the settlement level organization. As is being discussed elsewhere, this will probably require allowing CCs to be sponsored by your settlement. I expect there will be quite a bit of variation between settlements in how much they allow CCs to:

- Maintain their own identity and lore (as opposed to being forced to join the central group, even if OOG)
- Access to the decision making process of the settlement
- Taxation
- Access to internal contracts
- Forced compliance to settlement ROE and "drafts" for defence
- Be completely autonomous (other than ROE).
- Selectiveness of sponsorship, ease of application process
- Use of settlement facilities

And, will there be:

- Membership and participation strictly in-game versus some out of game component such as an ability or even requirement to register/participate outside the game.
- Existence of tiers of CCs

I would be curious to hear from all the perspective settlement organizers on their initial thoughts on the above.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope loot is rational...animals should drop skins and bones...if you take the time (and have the skill) to harvest the corpse. Otherwise animals should not drop anything. More intelligent foes could carry more interesting stuff. However, leather armour dropped by a giant should not be wearable by a gnome (or vice versa).

Leading to my next hope, intelligent salvaging...that gnome which loots a single piece of Huge leather armour should be able to cut it up (or have a crafts person do it) to make multiple pieces of small leather armour.

Perhaps a "salvaging leather" skill can also increase the amount of craftable scraps one can salvage from any given piece.

Goblin Squad Member

The Seventh Veil is making a unofficial in-community wiki which will be our "library". It is technically public, but we have not yet made any links to it. Eventually we do hope to allow others to use it. Currently we are only adding official PF lore and first person character experiences from P&PPF games. We will be adding information about PFO (lore and mechanics) as it becomes available.

May we quote Dev/Blog posts?

If so, how would you like us to cite them? Would a short "Author, Date" citation as a hyperlink to the original work?

Do you have any other special requirements for us?

Goblin Squad Member

I assume settlements will be able to have or build banks...and I must assume they will be able to have their own inventory. I request that this central inventory (settlement inventory) be open to any members of the settlement. Additionally, I hope it can be subdivided and specific characters/sponsored chartered companies be allow sole access to those subdivisions.

I hope this system can be made as generic as possible. A single "folder" holds inventory only accessible by the ruling group (whichever that may be). Within this folder, new folders can be created and destroyed hierarchically. Each sublevel would allow the definition of a greater set or smaller subset of individuals/groups allowed access, with the option of each inheriting the former levels permissions.

Then, inventory could be freely moved between the system of folders/vaults...each move changing the accessibility of the moved items.

This generic system could be used generically for anything from individual characters to CCs to settlements and finally to nations...with each greater level adding to the subgroups that can be identified as having access. Characters for instance would only ever be able to default to themselves having access to their inventory subfolders. CCs base folder would be the leadership's, who could make the next one all inclusive...and would be able to specify specific individuals or ranks as having access to subfolders. Or, they could just create a bunch of subdivisions used to organize the inventory, but only ever allowing themselves access. Settlements would be like CCs, but would also be able to specify sponsored CCs as having access to folders (of course, loosing your sponsorship would revoke these accesses).

Additionally, anyone who has access to a given folder could be given admin access, which allows them to make additional subfolders and set internal permissions. To illustrate, a Settlement who gives a CC a bank vault also gives them admin power. The leader(s) of that CC can make subfolders and specify individual internal ranks that have access to those folders, but they could never give access to someone outside their company.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does GW intend to have a group of volunteers or in-house employees specifically dedicated to running in-game RP events and progressing the storyline of the NPC nations? Or will those kingdoms/settlements be fairly static?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What other challenges in dungeons/instances would you like to see other than obvious of combat?

I would like to see instances with no mobs, perhaps riddled with traps or better yet, riddles and/or puzzles.

By riddles I do not necessarily mean language or even just symbolic riddles, I mean apparent dead ends with ledges that can only be reached by someone with a climb of > x then of course we have Nihimon's rope to get the rest of the team up. Possible limiters of this type would include skills in linguists, climbing, acrobatics, etc.

Any other ideas?

To me a puzzle requiring the coordination of 5-10 members could be just as difficult as a combat oriented challenge. Especially if it required various levels of skills.

Point being, I understand the importance of combat in an MMO, it is an easy entertainer. I would like to see some PvE that allows those who have not specialized in combat to excel and contribute...perhaps even taking the lead in certain situations.

Goblin Squad Member

I decided to create a new thread so we do not hijack the blog notification. The preceding posts can be found at the end of page one in the link above.

Elth wrote:

I don't think we need to evaluate what your typical adventuring party does in a computer roleplaying game. I cannot fathom the evil I must have committed over the last 25 years of gaming, all under the guise of being a hero vanquishing my foes.

If an Assassin accepts a contract to kill the Lord of a Neighbouring Hex, is this any different from a Paladin that massacres a tribe of Goblins because their lair was too close to his Cathedral? I would consider the Assassin to be the lesser of two evils.

I would agree in real life in the absence of absolute alignment, a relative one illustrated by your examples above is the only way good and evil can make sense. But in Golarion the forces of Good and Evil are personified by deities which have certain characteristics which can be qualified. Likewise, certain behaviours are prototypical along the various axis. Specifically, good and evil are characterized by:

Set wrote:

Evil - Darkness, Death, Destruction, Evil, Knowledge, Madness, Magic, Strength, Trickery, War, Weather

Good - Air, Animal, Artifice, Charm, Community, Creation, Earth, Glory, Good, Healing, Law, Liberation, Luck, Plant, Protection, Sun, Travel

Quote above from here.

There is a clear distinction here, into which do you see assassins fitting? Personally, I see them falling under Darkness, Death, Trickery, War, and Strength...I cannot relate a single good domain (although I admit others might be able to, hard to deny the evil though). This said, I also acknowledge the existence of a struggle or war between the alignments. While good might destroy evil, and while destroying is evil, I think it can be looked at differently, in light of this war. Your example above about the paladin and goblins, goblins destroy and devour, your paladin protects the community. Only one can win out...either the goblins will destroy or the community will exist, both cannot be true. As such, the paladin is not destroying for the sake of destroying when he kills the goblins, he is destroying so his community can exist. The goblins destroy for the love of destruction.

Similarly, I admit I can envision a neutral assassin that might have been "made"...but most people in life become what they already are. If the thought of killing someone never even crosses your mind, you will not kill people. And if a certain behaviour gives someone pleasure, it will be reinforced and repeated. Therefore, assassins either exist because they really do not care one way or another, and hence it is just a job...in which case another job that would be just as lucrative should be able to form a suitable replacement when criminal behaviour makes life difficult, or the assassin likes what they do, which is why they do it...and they then fall into the domains of evil, like the goblins above.

Arguing that Assassins should not take alignment hits because it will make society like them less is on par to arguing con men should not take a reputation hit when they break a contract, because that will prevent them from being able to take further contracts, and continue playing a con man. This argument might work on Wall Street, but it is evident that GW is trying to facilitate a social order that allows people to trust others, allowing constructive communities to form. It is just as artificial as monitoring the economy...and we die hard "Sandbox Libertarians" might object, but I understand their reasoning...and I for one applaud their efforts.

(All of this aside, I do think they have hinted that there will be ways for assassins to "get away with murder".)

Goblin Squad Member

I realize the PFO is not going to have the actual classes as in PF. I actually like that we will have additional freedom to mix and match skills and abilities. But, one of my favourite aspects of PF was how they rebuilt the core classes...especially with the class variants.

Please find a way to work this system in as much as possible. Give us the variety of class features to really make our characters "unique".

How this could work: We already have mention of the existence of the "archetypes" which I have assumed will be roughly based upon the core classes. After building a skill tree(s) for each archetype, just build in the optional replacements. They could be mutually exclusive, but I really do not see why a player could not be allowed to slow their progression down by half and pursue two paths.

Example:

Bards will have a Bardic Performance skill tree they can add "point(s)" or progress in (as illustrated here). Archaeologist is a bard variant class that replaces Bardic Performance with a different set of skills which can be made into a similar skill tree. These two trees could be made available in parallel. Players who only want to progress toward the cap skill will choose only one of these branches. (Alternately, I will be happy if either is possible, so I am not against making them exclusive. Although I do not see why a player who has progressed down one path cannot could no go back and then learn the other as well.)

Please, please...variety is what will make our characters feel more unique...and hence more "ours".

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I would like to see a localized Knowledge(Market) skill that let you analyze recent sales data, not only showing current Buy and Sell orders, but also recent historical data on actual sales. There's a world of difference between knowing that someone is offering Widget X at 100 gold, and knowing that a number of people have actually paid that much for it recently.

I just wanted to point this idea out to the community. Nihimon offered the first good idea I have seen concerning the implementation of knowledge skills. All knowledge skills could make real relevant statistical and historical information available to you. I think this is a brilliant idea, what you do with it is still entirely up to you. I would also say increasing the skill, increases the volume of the information...so a beginner might only have access to the past days worth of information, while an expert might have access to a years worth of data.

I like it, thank you Nihimon.

Goblin Squad Member

I am posting this here because this does not really belong in the general PF forums suggestions as it only relates to members of this subforum.

Is there any way we could get our Charter Association added as a title to "Vic Wertz (Technical Director)" or "Xxxxx (Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber)".

Maybe something like: "Forencith (PFO Charter Member :: Caeruxi Khaiognos) "

Or, at the least, can we get hope for this in the new PFO forums when they become available?

Goblin Squad Member

I think I would rather see Dementor type magical constructs which are used to keep the peace. This is opposed to the human (or other player available race) NPCs working in some backwater part of Golarion...that are just short of being gods in their power. This could also help explain their singular purpose and seeming omniscience within their domain.

Goblin Squad Member

I hope PFO will have customizable actions similar to what is described here.

Of course, I hope it is not done exactly like Ryzom, but this is one of the things Ryzom did right. This is a sandbox innovation that stands head and shoulders over the action stanza systems of any other MMO (and this game came out at the same time as WoW).

For those who cannot be bothered with the link, what I am suggesting is that PFO have a way to customize actions. The training of skills and earning of merit badges results not necessarily in the receipt of whole skills, but rather the receipt of components that could be used to build new skills. To illustrate, I earn the "might swing 1" badge and what it gives me is +2 to melee damage that I can then add to any melee attack, even those which other special skills added (such as "precise attack 1"). Each subskill has a cost, stamina and/or mana, and when you add a sybskill to an existing (or new skill) the costs stack. So, you could build attacks that are massive, but drain your stamina quickly, or you could build a different type of character, one that uses quick precise, low stamina drain attacks for extended combat. The options truly are endless.

Where this gets really interesting (and where I suggest PFO can move beyond Ryzom) is that this allows for the addition of stanzas from differing archetypes. Why not add shock magic subskill to your rogues sneak attack? This would drain both your mana and stamina, but you could...and since you balance each subskill with an action cost, the game will always remain in balance because players pay for what they use. Massive attacks will result in huge drain of whatever type of reserve(s) are appropriate...limiting the attacks use...then leaving the character drained (and unable to use anything but the base attack).


I am not sure if this is where this belongs, but it is where you moved the thread it came out of. I am making a new thread because this is not really relevant to the topic of the original (which was about PDFs of Paizo books found online...and whether looking at them constituted piracy).

Liz Courts wrote:
KitNyx wrote:

...a group of us who are excited about Pathfinder Online have been discussing making a wiki (we will RP it as a library) and a guild of scribes focused on building it. I know in academia, even significantly rewritten passages can be considered plagiarism if the idea and flow remains the same. Is it even legal for us to make a wiki concerning the Golarion world? Since everything we do will just be a modification of what has been published and copyrighted by Paizo?

To clarify, I am asking these questions to try to stay legal...we have not done anything yet (this was just our plan). Until Nihimon brought up the concern, I had not considered any of what I just asked to be illegal or a problem...but now, upon consideration, it seems everything might be against the law.

Any advice (PM is welcome too) would be welcome...

KitNyx, I would point out that a Pathfinder/Golarion wiki already exists here, and yes, you're prohibited from lifting text whole cloth from the source material. (PathfinderWiki operates under the Community Use Policy.) If you're looking at building a wiki more focused on what Pathfinder Online is revealing, I would wait to see what kind of community use policies Goblinworks chooses to enact, as well as familiarize yourself with our existing Community Use Policy.

I am sorry for being dense and I also don't keep a lawyer on retainer. As previously described, the intent here was to create a PFO (Pathfinder Online) oriented wiki. There will obviously be differences in the world as described by Paizo and as implemented by Goblinworks, if only because of technical and financial restrictions.

Our intent was purely for fun and for the benefit of the community (we intended to have open access for reading, and anyone in the community can apply to be a contributor). There are many people who are not familiar with Golarion or even Pathfinder who are becoming interested in the MMO and we wanted them to have a place to look at the information the community thinks is relevant.

Yes, we understand there is already a Golarion wiki, but there is a lot more information there than is needed or relevant in PFO. And even some that we expect will be different due to the reasons above (as well as the difference in mechanics).

Our current interpretation is as follows:

We could argue that any entries into the Wiki are for educational purposes which is considered Fair Use. Likewise, Paizo's Community Use Policy reads, "You may descriptively reference trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), locations and characters from products listed in Section 1 of our Community Use Approved Product List". And Section 1 is the material we are most concerned with (this I edited from the original version of this post, sorry for the confusion). Therefore, it seems, as long as we register with Paizo's Community Use Registry (which we have already done), and we insure all pages have the disclaimer, and creatively/descriptively talk about the content of the Crusader Road region without directly copying anything, we should be acceptable.

However, I don't really want to argue with Paizo or Goblinworks. We would prefer to have a blessing, or at least be free of the fear of legal condemnation.

So, this explained...would Paizo prefer we scrap the idea? If we do not need to scrap the idea, may we include and reference lore...if we do so with our own words? For instance, Sivanah is playing pretty deep into our Community lore, but we will probably not directly observe her in game. Can we take the lore we find elsewhere (such as in published material and the official Golarion wiki) and add it to our own Wiki...in our own words of course. I am not sure how far "reference" goes in "You may descriptively reference trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), locations and characters from products"...

I also understand we need to address this issue with Goblinworks as a separate legal entity, but there is no reason to do so without Paizo's blessing first. Please advise.

Hiring a lawyer is way out of the purview of guild creation for an MMO. I had not anticipated these concerns and I apologize for the inconvenience our interests have cause.

Goblin Squad Member

I would like to Request the ability to designate missions to be only available to in-association members...and preferably even the power to designate subgroups within that association. Here is why and maybe someone can suggest a more elegant request to GoblinWorks.

Caerux Khaignos Internal Forums :: KitNyx wrote:

This is an idea I experienced in my first guild, in my first MMO...a sandbox called Saga of Ryzom, and I have tweaked it and made it part of every guild I have been part of since. The guild had a ranking system that was based upon a player run missions system. The missions were all oriented toward helping the guild, some of them were to donate resources (this helped the crafters advance...and the crafters made us all gear), other missions were to kill known enemies (this is logical if we have to keep our hex clear of mobs), and even some missions that just tested our ability to survive a trip overland (this was how they tied the mission completion to certain levels and skills), finally...there were missions requiring the players to setup and run player events.

The ranking system was entirely voluntary, but it was also tied to player access to guild resources resources. No one had to do the ranking system if they did not wish to, but they would never get access to the guild materials stores if they did not.[...]

I would like to see a ranking system like this for our guild. In fact, this game being a sandbox....I think it is absolutely necessary to have this internal missions system for slow days; days when other player content is dead...and our themepark elements are done.

Some ideas for types of missions:

- Guarding (kill x invaders/settlers in our hex)
- Scouting (run from location x to y, solo)
- Devotion (Donate x of mat y to the guild)
- Tithe (Donate x money to the guild)
- Evangelism (Recruit)
- Scribe (Contribute a "How to manual" for some aspect of the game you are good at)
- Hunting (Donate all loot from x mobs y)

Of course, in previous guilds, I was forced to do this all manually, using spreadsheets and actually administering tests. This made it difficult when we did not have enough officers online. So, what I am requesting, is a way for associations (logically this should work for charters, towns and kingdoms) to set up missions for their members and be able to pull up a report of those who have fulfilled the missions. As previously mentioned, I would even prefer the ability to make arbitrary groups within associations (ranks) and assign certain missions to different groups.

This has many applications outside easing my guild management which is why I am proposing it. Kingdoms could expect their member towns to contribute to a goal setting up missions for them, the town in turn could pass the missions to their chartered members, who in turn pass them to their players. But at no point should these missions be available or even visible to other association, the mission after all might include or be espionage or combat orders...and being able to assigning mission to subgroups allows kingdoms to assign certain missions to certain town...and so on down the progression.

From my previous experience, what makes a good sandbox is how much content a player/character can find. The more tools available to create content, the more content will be created...and the more entertained the players will remain (boredom = bad).

Any other ideas about how this could be accomplished in game? Maybe a simpler, more elegant mechanic?

Goblin Squad Member

11 people marked this as a favorite.

[IC] The beginning of our path… And when they reached the Crusader Road together, their destination near, they discussed their plans for the future of their band. Proposals were considered and rethought, and many nights of sleep were lost to the work of trying to create a certain future in an uncertain world.

They agreed that they wanted, eventually, to found a town dedicated to the collection and distribution of knowledge. All the gods which revered knowledge and education would have temples, or at least elaborate shrines, and in the center of town would be a library to rival the greatest of legend. This effort would insure their place in the afterlife.

Additionally, they determined that, in time, they could branch into every town in the River Kingdoms, and even beyond. Each should have a smaller library of its own, the better to accumulate and distribute the knowledge of the world. The nature, quality, fees or tithes, and other details of those libraries would have to be negotiated with the local governments as conditions changed, but the Cæruxi would offer their services everywhere, regardless of political situation or differences of alignment.

In order to fill those libraries, and to prevent wasted duplication of effort, all of knowledge was broken down into seven Veils, or Choruses, (the terms are interchangeable) by how the knowledge could be gained: The Acts of Creation and Destruction; The Searches of Exploration and Contemplation; The Metamorphoses of Magic versus the Changes of Nature; and the Mysteries.

Creation includes Crafting which would handle clockwork and other machines, contraptions, and in general all physical objects which were created by people. The contrast to Creation, Destruction, includes all manner of warfare, conflict, and hunting. Creation is also known as the Act of Making, while destruction is also known as the Act of Undoing. Together, they may be called the Acts.

The chorus of Exploration embodies the knowledge of geography and nature; including the location of things on and within the earth, the sources and mouths of rivers, and the creation of accurate maps. Exploration must be accomplished by travel and direct observation. Contemplation on the other hand proposes to find truths in searching for the locations of things within themselves. Contemplation must be accomplished alone, and the advances are entirely within one's own mind. Exploration is also known as the Search From Without, while Contemplation is the Search From Within. Together, they are the Searches.

The chorus of Magic studies and understands the manner of expression of Magika and how it comes to be expressed in manners which require the will of the user, or the direct consent of a divine being. This is opposed by the veil of Nature, focusing on the location, habitats, behaviors, and properties of the uncivilized beasts. Those who pursue knowledge through Nature seek to uncover the secrets hidden by all of the elements, and the manner in which clouds form and create other forms of weather, the understanding of the motivations and behaviors of natural fires. The Chorus of Magic would also be known as the Metamorphosis From Will whereas Nature is the Metamorphosis From Being. Together, they are the Metamorphoses.

Finally, the Mysteries are a unique seventh Chorus with no counterpart. It includes History which in turn would deal with the people, politics, and everything abstract which was created by people. The Chorus of Mysteries also encompasses everything not covered by another Chorus, as well as the Choruses themselves and the Cæruxi themselves.

Members would be ranked by both their knowledge of, and contribution to the Veils. In general, uncovering a new secret is more highly regarded than knowing many secrets, but it is wasted effort for many people to discover a secret that could have been shared.

Masters of each of the Veils would not only be discovering new knowledge about those Veils, but would have to be actively participating in them; A master student of Creation would not just study creating, but would have to learn and teach new techniques of creation, while a master student of Destruction would not only hunt, kill, and destroy, but must also know as much as possible about how others perform those Acts. A master student of Mysteries would not outrank someone of the same rank in a different Chorus, but rising in rank within the Cæruxi is one manner of studying the Mysteries.

~ Decius, Founding Member of the Cæruxi

Goblin Squad Member

One think I think is seriously lacking in MMOs are in-game social tools. MMOs are suppose to facilitate interactions between players, but the in-game tools for institutionalizing these interactions is seriously lacking.

I would like to see a tool system that allows free association to player built groups. I would like a system that allowed any arbitrary group of players greater than one to "officially" create a social group. This group could be called a guild, a religion, a spy ring, an alliance, whatever. This social group will have internal tools which the creator of the group can distribute access to. Among the tools, I would like to see the ability to create chat channels, internal titles, and internal groups (which in turn can be assigned privledges/rights/duties as a whole).

I would also like to see the ability to invite not only new members to a social group, but also entire groups as a whole. To illustrate, Player x starts a social group called Southern Alliance, he/she then invites 3 other social groups by either clicking on a member of that group and selecting "invite group" (as opposed to "invite person") or by entering the groups' names. The leader of each social group then accepts the invitation via popup and all 3 social groups are then three separate groups within the larger group. Each of these 3 sub-groups retains full rights to their own sub-organization, while still allowing for a unified alliance chat channel and even setting it up so notification is received concerning news (such as log ins and log outs) from the other member groups.

This system should allow unlimited customization of organization as well as encapsulation of responsibility.

Using this a framework, what features would others like to see?

Goblin Squad Member

This is how I hope crafting will work similar to:

Each recipe dictates x number of y materials. However no specific materials are specified. The crafter can/must select how many of each type of y they want to use. Each material has it's own strengths, weaknesses, and other stats and the final properties of the craft are determined by the resources chosen. Finally, depending upon the recipe, additional optional items can be added for effect.

Each material has a subset of categories it can be used as an crafting material for. Iron can be a "Blade", "Shaft", etc...

To illustrate:

Sword "Z" costs 8 blade, 2 shaft, 2 cloth, and a single optional slot. For the blade, the crafter chooses 1 silver ingot to allow the sword to damage creatures vulnerable to silver, but this greatly decreases the strength and durability of the sword, so they counter this with a single ingot of mithril (they only use 1 because of the extreme cost of mithril), from there they use 6 iron and one optional carbon/charcoal to make a steel alloy. For the shaft the crafter chooses 2 oak. For the cloth, the crafter chooses one leather and one silk to wrap the handle with (no idea what properties that would give...just illustrating). This provides a sword with base stats that can also kill creatures vulnerable to silver (without the mithril it would have been slightly weaker than normal steel sword due to the silver).

Masterwork weapons have slightly boosted stats and are the crit versions of normal weapons (Crit chance increases with skill).

Goblin Squad Member

This idea originated with the following thought from another thread about open construction:

[/quote=KitNyx]Make structures require x time resources to build, dedicating NPCs or PCs to the task (point and click, assist construction) consumes these units and progresses the construction). This makes people actually find the support necessary for building things and allows PCs to make money while logged out (as a laborer).

Initially I was thinking about ways to limit construction (versus having the ability to throw up a castle tied solely to having enough mats). I also thought time and labor should be a cost and of course the more labor you have, the less time it would take. This would help build a sense of community as the whole town is involved when something is built.

From there I realized this could remove part of the money grind if players could automated assist in large construction projects. It did not technically even require you to log out, you could be logged in and set to assist...then you can react if something does happen.

Then, after more thought, realized that this might be a better way to harvest some things. We have mentioned ways for guilds to control things such as mines. What is the ore/stone is the product of labor and time at the mine? Then random invaders could steal ore already mined, but not actually use the mine without owning it. Maintain the mine well and there may not be much to steal (do shipments to secure locations often). PCs then can volunteer to either mine or work as a guard at friendly mines. The owners of the mines would determine wages and the workers can accept...all based upon how much the owners make off the sale of the mine's product. Mining then, actually becomes a real business and there is real reason to contest ownership. This was just an example, but I see how this could work for many types of harvesting that in RL require many people to do...other types such as hunting for bone, sinew, meat, leather, whatever...or even picking herbs would not require an organization to do and could be done solo.

And, this adds another consequence to rep and fame...how will known murderers find a job? I would not hire them. And new jobs might become available based upon fame within a faction. Being a guard to a king would probably require quite a bit of rep (for example). People with negative rep will not be able to find many jobs like this.

This adds an entirely new aspect to the game that would be unique to PFO. It adds services to the economy...instead of just commodities.

Goblin Squad Member

Azure_Zero wrote:

Having read the blog, most of the theory sounds great.

But theory doesn't always get the theoretical results you expect.
That and it is still a living document, so changes will likely happen.

I am also wondering about how much visual character variety there will be?
Will the character meshes have mesh morphing or vertex deformation like the Characters in Skyrim, or Age of Conan to increase the variety of appearances.
Though I would prefer it, if character stats were reflected in there appearance (like in the Fable game series) and could use sheldon's body types to assist in this part.

I copied the above out of the feedback on the latest blog. I hope they do use this idea. A human with a Strength of 18 will have a sizable body mass (within parameters of course). They should be forced to select a weight based upon their stats. This may at first seem silly, but if mounts can only carry a certain weight, this could be a big deal.

This is relevant to a previous discussion we had concerning flying mounts and how they should be limited by their endurance. The flight time, ceiling, and maneuverability would be much different for a griffon carrying an Orc in full plate versus a gnome in cloth.

Of course, if they just decide to allow ponys to magically grow to 8 ft tall to accommodate large characters like WoW...well then never mind.

Although we can still use this thread to discuss character creation...

Goblin Squad Member

If a game were designed with RP and RPers as a central focus, what type of mechanics would we like to see? This discussion could include ideas that other games have, what other games lack, and even a discussion of new ideas...all focused on making an ideal "high-RP" game.

Open PvP is an obvious one. I know many PvE-RPers might decry PvP, but in my opinion, RP requires as much player freedom as possible. I should be able to do what my character would do in a give situation. If my character would attack another that was considered an ally because they are doing something evil...then they should be able to do so. Non-open PvP creates artificial limits on ones actions. I am not arguing that there should not be repercussions for ones actions, only that the freedom should exist to act as you decide.

Metagaming...this concern was mentioned much earlier in the "wishlist" thread. The concern was the manner in traditional MMOs that your characters information is displayed, even to those who have no justification for knowing it.

Local chat channels versus the more traditional MMO chats. Which makes sense and why...solely from the RP perspective.

What else would we want to make the perfect RP focused MMO?

Goblin Squad Member

I was trying to think of an under-served audience and I realized every game that comes out (that I have played) gets a good following of RPers who are really excited about what the game will offer them. It seems, this occurs because RPers are not really a catered to crowd. Whenever RPers get a concession, it is always something that the non-RPers are demanding as well (ie. housing = extra personal storage). Unfortunately, it is also usually the case that the majority of RP crowd fails to resub after the initial investment because it is obvious that RPers are not a target audience (and here I am referring to mechanic-wise, not the fluff stuff like lots of clothes options). I do not know any MMO designed with RPers in mind.

Since PFO is based upon a very rich world that will challenge even the most developed systems in lore (due to the campaign resources for the P&P version), it makes sense to me that it would natively appeal to the RP crowd. This, in addition to another thread about starting out with ones niche market, got me thinking that PFO might really be able to attract this crowd. A "high RP" focus gives justification for the PvP stance (since you do not want to limit your characters options) and offers suggestions for other mechanics, namely those that would appeal to RPers. Also, RPers are in my opinion much more likely to develop their own content in a sandbox (which it could be argued is exactly what RP is). Finally, in my opinion, while I would not be willing to make a blanket statement, RPers tend to be a more mature crowd.

Either way, knowing the audience focus would allow us to ask the question...would mechanic A appeal to audience B, and use this as a foundation of future discussions.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really hope we are given unparalleled freedom in designing/building structures. I understand from the blog we will be bound in area, but I hope we can actually design the layout and height of walls and other building types. This would allow guilds/towns to actually build intelligent defenses...and not so intelligent defenses.

I was really disappointed by DF and AoC where construction really means collect x number of y mat and click here.

I am not sure how this could work, especially when determining how much material and time is needed for construction...I assume it could be based on volume. There could be preset construction tools...with base shapes such as floors/mid and full walls/ceilings and additional stuff like windows, doors, and even statues and other decorations. These tools could be used for anything from designing an inn to a full castle.

A question which develops from this would be, who gets control...I suppose since the intent to limit construction to whomever "owns" a territory is already in place, the Leader of a Guild could specify who has access to the building tools.

OPTIONAL: This could also offer content for an architect and engineer profession. Architects could use the design tool to design structures and store the design on "blueprints" (which can be used to dictate construction). Engineers on the other hand are necessary for actually building structures. Architects level by selling their blueprints and engineers level by directing construction. The benefit of leveling these professions is either access to additional base forms for the architect, or more efficient construction for the engineer (decrease required mats by x%).

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if you even want feedback of this type, but I figured you could delete it or move it if not.

Goblinworks :: Introducing the Crusader Road :: Ryan Dancey on Wednesday, December 21, 2011 wrote:
We'll divide this area into 256 hexes—the fundamental territorial unit of Pathfinder Online. The game's underlying technical architecture will likely encapsulate each hex in its own process similar to the way EVE Online manages systems. (This is extremely preliminary thinking; our final choice of middleware may dictate a different underlying architecture, but the logical division of the territory into hexes from the player perspective is the intended design.)

There has been quite a bit of work recently in academia which illustrated the usefulness of programming with agents. Specifically, work that I have participated in tracked targets in RL across numerous camera networks. This was accomplished by assigning each target a mobile agent that autonomously moved from server to server within the network as its associated target moved from the visual field of one camera to another.

Reference

While the application seems fairly different on the surface, the foundation could be used to efficiently allow cross hex server movement and the more radical idea of viable ecosystems.

What is of particular interest concerning this idea is that each object within game that exists interactively in the virtual world would be assigned its own agent within the server (items in inventory would not but if dropped...would, large rock faces would not but a piece chiseled off...would, etc). These agents could not only actively monitor position, but also statuses and even interactions. They could be created and destroyed on the fly and if treated like data-types could even be made to "hibernate", using zero resources until "triggered". Since every mutable object will have one of these agents, each agents behavior could be directly linked to an AI rule-set. This means the animals and mobs (and plants?) could be made to act and move regardless of the hex server boundaries (because they can seamlessly "jump" servers). Likewise, they could be made to interact with other agents autonomously. This would help lay a foundation for an ecosystem as suggested here.

As was mentioned in that thread, it would enable behaviors unseen in past MMOs such as true cooperative behavior among mobs, mobs that actually build structures, mobs that settle in abandoned shelters, intelligent migration routes and more importantly self balancing networks. It even allows control of mob "respawn" rates by allowing agents to duplicate themselves (or use a genetic algorithm and allow two agents to average their features into a new agent with random mutation) at given rates (and of course, based on their rule-set, they would be driven to do so when possible).

There is of course, the question of overhead. Ideally you would be able to change "sizes" of your hex servers to limit them to x number of agents. For example, if each hex server was limited to 1000 agents, a gathering of 3000 agents (for whatever reason, assume a battle between two factions) the hex servers would automatically re-size themselves to distribute that load. So the server at the core of the battle may limit itself to 100m diameter...and 900 agents. The servers on either side then extend their edges to fill that void and each runs at 1.3 km diameter and 600 agents on average. I am not sure of the math behind doing this with hexes. Having this agent based model actually allows you to do this easily because the respective agents keep all of their data intact and just jump to the new server when they cross the geographic boundaries (it makes no actual difference to them if they cross the boundary or if the boundary moves from underneath them, they would be bound by their "absolute geographic position", not server ID).

Since each agent contains all of its relevant data and is an active process, there is already a body of research and application that take advantage of the distribution of processes across clusters. This is opposed to storing data in a central location and using processes to retrieve and manipulate that data, there will always be bottlenecks. I am not an MMO developer and so I am not sure what systems are currently used. However, I don't believe traditional MMOs allow this sort of server dynamics, as evident by the lag we see in cities.

Anyways, this was just an idea I hinted at several times in other threads and never expanded upon. If this type of system could be made to work, the addition of addition hex servers as you expand the world would also have the effect of increasing the efficiency of your whole world (including what you already have)...something that I bet is pretty counter intuitive to most programmers.

It also brings up an interesting point...since this system would effectively allow you to cross the hex barrier in any direction, I assume if pushed you intend to make the world "stacks" of hexes. You could give the hexes a static height and stack them up or dawn as needed. So the next level down could be hexes that are .98 km in diameter at default (vs. the 1 km diameter at ground, one stack up would be 1.1 or 1.2 km in diameter), but also able to re-size themselves horizontally to distribute the population...of course, there is no reason why relatively unpopulated areas such as underground could not be made with larger hexes, perhaps 1:7 underground to ground, since the demands should be less.

Anyways, this has already got longer (and bounced across more topics) than intended. Feel free to ask for clarification if I am unclear about how something would work. If I can answer I will.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to take a moment to thank those who are arguing for more than just convenience and simplicity. It was my hope that PFO would offer something new, something that did not cater to the lowest common denominator like the multitudes of MMOs already on the market. For me, the acquisition of gear does not equal achievement and I find myself bored in any game I have ever played that has that as the primary goal.

For me, as someone whose first MMO was a sandbox (in the PC-driven content manner of sandbox, not this new absurd assertion that a sandbox is any game which allows open ranging...what does being able to roam have anything to do with sandboxes?), I always find myself quickly bored with themepark games. For me, accomplishment comes from building/designing something that is the exceptional (notice the creative build element? Like what one does in a sandbox?). Examples from my experience range from developing a great recipe (in a very complex crafting system with huge possible combinations of mats) to social engineering (building a great guild and/or community), and even developing player made structures (although I have always been disappointed by the lack of design features...unfortunately, this is usually reduced to collect x mats and boom, you get your pre-designed structure in its predesignated position).

Therefore, I find the requirement to be creative (and seeing other people's creative solutions) fun, more so than the acquisition of stuff. I find that difficulty and challenge are the catalysts of creative solutions...given that a system be designed with the freedom to allow these creative solutions. This, to me, is the most important design consideration.

So, I must thank those who also argue PFO should not be a copy of the multitudes of games currently available, and those who argue that the game actually be a sandbox.

I do want to add that I do not think my design priorities are fundamentally better than any other...only that this is what I hope for in some game that I can call home, for me. There is obviously a logic and audience for the type of games that currently exist. My inability to long enjoy them may be more a personal fault than one with the games themselves.

For those who hope to inflate their...whatever...by disagreeing with me, realize this is an opinion. You are free to disagree, but you can only ever offer an equal opposing opinion.

Goblin Squad Member

This was moved here out of a different thread...we were hijacking. Here is the history:

Quote:

Scott Betts wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Question #19 was the biggest surprise for me. It sounds like pretty much no one here likes end-game raids. This tells me that we probably don't have a lot of hardcore MMORPG players participating in this forum.

Personally speaking, it's because I don't WANT an endgame. I want a game, with the same general environment from start to finish. I don't want to have to 'level' in order to reach the 'endgame.'

In essence I want a sandbox, which is exactly what Goblinworks has promised. The partial themepark stuff could be cool, so long as its inhibiting to early sandbox play.

Okay, what if we replaced "end-game raiding" with "large group challenges that can only be completed by characters who have accumulated a significant level of skill over the course of their careers?"

Why don't we make it so the difference between the highest level characters and lowest level ones is simply a matter of more options in combat, more maneuvers or aimed attacks which primarily result in critical effects? Then everyone can contribute in any large group challenges? Additionally, since "they" have already stated they intend to make the most powerful items in game player created, benefits from uber gear can be bestowed upon anyone (they have not said they will not have limits on who can wear what gear, but I hope if you are a medium humanoid, you can wear medium humanoid armor).

Then, this is the new content below...(including Scott's intermediate post in its entirety as quoted)

Scott Betts wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
Why don't we make it so the difference between the highest level characters and lowest level ones is simply a matter of more options in combat, more maneuvers or aimed attacks which primarily result in critical effects?
So what do you imagine someone with a very experienced character being able to "show off"?

I am not sure what you mean or why it is integral to the game. I suppose they can show off their fancy moves while they get the job done. Or, someone could make an average set of armor with cool scroll work on it...it could be really "pretty and shiny".

Scott Betts wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
Additionally, since "they" have already stated they intend to make the most powerful items in game player created, benefits from uber gear can be bestowed upon anyone (they have not said they will not have limits on who can wear what gear, but I hope if you are a medium humanoid, you can wear medium humanoid armor).

See, this is tricky, too.

If anyone can use any gear, and if having really awesome gear is mechanically important, then it will be easy for a brand new character to be awesome right out of the gate if he gets his experienced alt to mail him the gear. Now, I'm assuming you don't want characters to potentially be awesome right out of the gate, since that means having an experienced character isn't as valuable. So to get around that, you need to make a character's intrinsic abilities (those that increase with experience/skills, not with gear level) more important. But if you do that, you lessen the relative importance of gear. So in order to make gear more important for more experienced characters, you need to have their skills affect the effectiveness of their gear.

I hope most gear is not mechanically important. The difference between a regular sword and masterwork sword should be increased durability and a slight bonus to chances in combat to reflect better balance, construction, and materials. Magic of course adds a bit more, but most people will not have access to uber swords of greatness...simply because they should be difficult to craft. Therefore, I see most people as having average gear (hence why it is called average gear). And I do hope new players are able to contribute in combat on par with a veteran player not using their high skill acquired abilities.

Scott Betts wrote:
So perhaps that's the solution? Anyone can wear/use anything, but the better it is the more difficult it is to use effectively (essentially, you see diminishing returns on increased gear level unless you have the appropriate skill level to match it).

I think it makes total sense to have a system in which a more skilled sword fighter can actually tell if a sword is better balanced...and what that will allow him to do...whereas a mediocre sword fighter would use all swords identically (except poorly made or broken swords would hinder both).

So, based upon what we just discussed, all players, new and veteran would be useful. Veterans would have additional abilities and ways to attack, but base attacks would be identical (for players with equal stats). Veterans would get more bonus out of higher quality gear, whereas new players can use all gear, but they do not know how to utilize the benefits of the better quality gear, so it would be no different than average gear.

I like it....and this is actually logical in that clans/guilds/factions would give specialized gear to those who can take full advantage of the benefits...and this will help build community.

Goblin Squad Member

May we get a response from Goblinworks on whether the initial thought (of course this may be subject to change, just looking for an official "opinion") is that skill advancement will be EVE-like in that you schedule your skills and they "train" in the background, or if it will be effort based like Darkfall and Saga of Ryzom?

Goblin Squad Member

I hope there are two main types of Player-given missions. The first is similar to the bounty system but could extend to not only PKs but to acquisition of materials. In fact, I think the latter would be the stronger type. The second type of mission would be related to association to specific factions of religions and the ability to give out missions to further the causes of that faction.

The player-based bounty system would allow players to offer rewards for the completion of any trackable event such as the killing of other characters (PC or NPC). Or the crafting and delivery of specific item(s). This would allow players to request unique gear (perhaps with unusual stats for a specialized purpose) or even items for use in crafting.

The other type of mission giving is based upon unique access to the goals of a faction; perhaps, up to and even including dictating those goals as the faction leader. Religions on one hand would always have NPC leaders as the leader is the deity. Depending upon ones "rank" or "reputation" in the religious faction, the player would have access to ever more detailed understandings of the gods plans and as such can request players to act upon it. Societies on the other hand may or may not have necessarily NPC leaders. PC leader(s) could create a caste system based upon the creation of a set of missions and dictating which rules are available to which players within the faction. This keeps players who wish to be part of these societies going to those with ever more power.

In the case of all missions, and depending on the amount of immersion vs. ease of gameplay the devs decide upon, I think players who can give missions have the option to toggle a "mission available icon". Choices for this icon would include "public" or "only members of my faction". Additionally, I would hope that there is a way to post missions on public boards (but also I would not want to require this).

Complex social structures such as spy rings can even be created depending upon the level of freedom of association allowed by the game (for instance, how many not-directly at war factions can one be part of at once)?

Finally, I think mission givers should have the option to place the reward for a given mission in an "escrow". This would allow people who are taking a mission to demand the reward be put into escrow if the giver in not known to be trustworthy. I would not wish to require this though.

Goblin Squad Member

I was trying to consider how alignment would work. In RL good and evil does not really have a meaning because it is very relative. Lawful and chaotic do though. There has been some in the debates so far who claim sociopaths would be evil, I disagree...they would be chaotic. Lawful means you function well within whatever ruleset you choose, not necessarily meaning you function well in the ruleset for the society you live in. An example of this would be Richard in the Sword of Truth novels when he was living with the evil society. He did not follow the rules of the society, but I would definitely still claim he was LG because he did follow a ruleset.

Chaotic characters on the otherhand do not follow any social ruleset. Sociopaths may also be evil, but their definition as sociopaths only dictates their chaotic nature.

One huge difference between RL and PF world is the existence of a pantheon of gods which personify the various alignments in a very real and tangible manner. Therefore, using this difference we can specify that being of a given alignment MEANS that you embody the beliefs and goals of the deity of that given alignment. This removes any ambiguity or call for relativism. I agree that a separate relative "reputation" system which is entirely social based would be ideal instead of trying to build that into the alignment system.

So, how would such an alignment system work? I imagine the best way would be during character creation you would either take a simple personality quiz or select an area on a sliding scale. Once you have a general area of belief, you would be shown the options in that area and choose choose a deity to worship. In my opinion, in a world where gods are actually active and able to even hold two sided conversations, those who choose not to follow a deity are meta-gaming and placing their players worldview over their characters. This said, I do think "no religious preference" should be an option and you would be neutral.

Strengthening you alignment (which perhaps results in more divine favors) or changing your alignment happens when you do missions for other deities. This introduces the idea of passive missions.

Passive missions are missions that every player has and just cannot see. An example of a passive mission is "kill 10 followers of x". Completing this mission moves ones alignment away from that of x and/or gains divine favor with gods at war with x. This mission is passive, but may also actively be taken from clerics of gods at war with x. "Activating" a passive mission by taking the mission allows you to track it.

This also presents an interesting idea about Player given missions (I will also present this idea in a unique thread). Clerics, as devout followers of any deity, should be able to give missions to others based upon the desires of their deity (for instance activating the passive missions, but also more complex missions). As a cleric, the player should have a good idea of the desires of their deity and should be able to pass those on to other players with the reward being divine favor or alignment shifting/strengthening.

** I want to clarify by ruleset I mean a code of honor or ethics dictated individually or by a society. And because someone will argue it *cough*, the lack of a ruleset is not in itself a subset of rulesets any more than a "not chair" is a chair.

**Also for the sake of argument, a group of sociopaths do not a ruleset make. I can arbitrarily define a similarity as the lack of similarity, but it does not really mean anything.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a modified version of another thread which has devolved into a PvP vs, non-PvP discussion.

Axioms of Discussion:
1. Open world PvP
2. Griefing (Wikipedia) is the act of causing grief to other members of an online community, or more specifically, intentionally disrupting the immersion of another player in their gameplay.
3. Griefers, and hence griefing, can be reduced through mechanics.
4. Goblinworks has not finalized the mechanics they will implement except those listed as axioms.
5. Reducing Griefing is a good thing for the community as a whole.

The topic of discussion is how a game with open-PvP can be designed to minimize griefing. Specifically, what mechanics can be used to discourage or punish griefing.

Open discussion and even disagreement is welcome, but any debate which violates or denies of one of the axioms will hopefully be ignored (once it is pointed out as such). If you do not agree with the axioms, please start your own discussion based upon different definitions.

So far I have seen outlines of:

- Reputation/karma systems which affect social interactions.
- More severe penalties upon death for those who are flagged as a griefer.

The object of the first idea is obviously to dissuade griefing behavior, while the second punishes griefing behavior. We would want to minimize the overlap in some of these systems between some alignments and griefing. Can evil characters have a good karma? It does make sense they would be able to have good reputations, especially among other evil characters.

Another idea to discuss is something someone else mentioned. Is the source of griefing anonymity? If so, can anonymity be reduced?

Toward this end, both the Reputation/karma system and slow travel offer solutions. Without the ability to teleport at whim, players are forced to build their local reputation and in the local community if they want positive interactions. Granted, there may be a community of griefers, but their prey are then welcome to get up and move...settling in a distant land.

Any other ideas about the causes of griefing? And/or, ideas about how those causes can be addressed? It may very well be that griefers are inherently evil and that the problem cannot be addressed, but that would violate axiom 3, so not worth discussing.

Goblin Squad Member

I hope there are options to optimize the GUI for touchscreen. There are probably not many now who have gaming computers with touch screens, but I am guessing there will be soon. At minimum, the tablets that are all the rave now will continue increasing in power.

While there will always be those who prefer mouse and keyboard, might as well build and optimize a GUI for touchscreen or even multi-touch interactions as well.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How about allowing lethal and non-lethal damage?

This is an idea that came about from our chats about PvP. There are many who do not want open-PvP due to the threat posed by joy gankers; others feel limiting PvP artificially limits a world that is suppose to be immersive and feel real. Both sides have points, but because of my playstyle, I hope to find a group that plays like myself and go build a town somewhere out away from civilization, I need to be able to use the threat of violence to defend myself and/or my friends and our endeavors.

So, even though I fail at PvP, I fall into category asking for open-PvP as I feel the threat of violence can also be used to keep harassers at bay. Someone mentioned that I then am becoming a ganker if I do that by limiting someone elses fun. I agree that technically that may be so, but I feel I am justified not only because the person who I use violence on would have been warned several times before we use violence, after they die they are welcome to come back and get their stuff, and perhaps most importantly, as RP I feel my character would be justified in its actions.

All of this discussion did give me a cool idea though. Why not allow non-lethal combat? This would add a whole new dynamic to the game, one that does not exist in any game currently.

HOW IT WOULD WORK:

Non-Lethal damage would be toggled on the UI and play out exactly like lethal combat. However, the player is not dead. They can be looted and treated as if they were, but they see a cool down that is dependent upon how poorly they loose their CON roll and how much damage beyond zero they took.

At the end of the cool down they would "awake" with a fraction of their HP, but no other detrimental effects.

By allowing players to carry corpses or bodies, this allows me to defend our property by non-lethally subduing an intruder and carrying it away from our holdings.

It provides all the threat of violence in the name of defense without the negatives of loosing levels, stats, loot, and/or whatever and the cost of having to pay a priest to restore them. Sometimes you don't want to really hurt people, you only want them to leave you alone.