|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
"Is breathing evil?"
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I'm glad they havent meta'd. Playing what they want to play instead of trying to form a party thats ideally suited to the type of fights they're expecting to see.
But they did. The cleric meta'd that he'd be the healbot, and everyone else meta'd that there would be a healbot.
It's time to teach your players how to be self-sufficient instead of relying on this guy to save their butts every single combat round.
Job one as others said is don't roll HP! Or if you insist on it, be prepared to fix it when it inevitably breaks characters. Let them retcon their HP to average, which will probably boost their health by 150%, which will help a lot.
It's much, MUCH better to never take damage than it is to heal damage. What is preventing the ranged players from maintaining range? Is the ranger casting entangle ever? Does the cleric ever cast any buffs? Is the cleric ending the day with spells uncast (wasted)? If there is a spell the cleric can cast that mitigates potential damage, that is inherently better than casting a heal after the fact.
Read this: a player's guide to healing in TOZ's profile. And have your players read it.
If all else fails, buff the heck out of channel's heal. Double it, or give it 1d6 per level. Who cares. Your healer's probably been getting shafted for years. This will have a few effects. One, your cleric will wait until it's effect won't overheal too much, and will consequently be doing other things. Two, it's really underpowered anyway (channel specifically and healing in general). Three, the party will start to realize, as they sit there with falling health for a few rounds, that maybe there are things they could be doing to keep themselves alive until the huge heal comes.
Kung Fu Joe wrote:
Your opinion on Brooks' writing doesn't mean he's wrong, or a bad writer. It just makes it your opinion. "Hacks" generally aren't extremely successful.
Does that sound like someone who knows where they're going? He may know who's on the throne at the end, but that's all he seems to know. He's like the student whose 5 page essays are 30 pages long and several months late. You want to fail them on principle.
I think the major contributer to the problem is the huge-sweeping-multi-book-single-story-epic just isn't a viable form. And I think a major contributer to that problem is, the writers who are inclined to pursue that form don't know when to stop. (Terry Brooks would call this a failure to outline, meaning if you don't know where you're going when you start, you'll just go on and on.)
Is anyone else hoping Rothfuss's 3rd book is the last one?
I'm not sure if the writers engaged in sweeping epics are megalomaniacs, or if it's a problem perpetuated by publishers wanting to indenture writers, or if stand-alone books don't sell as well, or if writers don't want to do them as much. But I'm really starting to not want to see any more series. At all. It's to the point where I cringe whenever I see something new and see it's "book 1 of who the hell knows." There's a reason Netflix originals are released whole seasons at once. They understand that's how people want to consume entertainment. Serialized entertainment is becoming obsolete.
More stand-alones, please. There's something to be said for being able to tell a *whole* story in just one book. (That something is *thank you!*)
Someone taking a long time isn't a betrayal. I never said it was. What I said was a betrayal is a writer botching the end of a story, or failing to complete a story people care about, that they are capable of finishing. The better the story, the larger the betrayal if either of these occurs. It's a perfectly apt word. In fact it's the perfect word. People become emotionally invested in stories (that is what they are for) and when those stories let them down, what else would you call it?
Just as books can inspire, comfort, and evoke other positive emotional responses, so can they disappoint, anger, and betray the reader.
If I open a book I expect to be entertained. That is a reasonable expectation. If the book is book 1 of 2, I am owed book 2. If book 2 is never published, that author gets crossed off my list. You know why? Because they are unreliable. You know what a common thread is among unreliable people? They end up owing other people. There are plenty of other reliable authors who will not leave me hanging.
Note that I never mentioned movies, particularly movies that are adapted from books. The Golden Compass movie doesn't matter one bit to me, nor do the Narnia ones, because if I want to I can read the books. Similarly, if HBO ends up finishing GoT instead of GRRM, I will be somewhat satisfied, because the story will exist in its entirety somewhere. It would be preferable if GRRM just finished writing it, but whatever gets it done, as long as it gets done. Until then, however, GRRM and/or HBO most certainly owe fans an ending, and failing to provide one, or worse providing a bad one, would certainly be a betrayal.
Steve Geddes wrote:
...(which does make me tangentially wonder why rules debates about PF go the way they do).
They go that way because the rules are there to fuel them. Without the fuel, the debates die down. PF emphasizes system mastery and rewards the person who spends more time scouring the rules and arguing about what applies. 5e rewards critical thinking and creativity, and only needs one or two rules to support that emphasis (advantage and inspiration).
"Dumbed down" is a copout catchphrase, and a major pet peeve of mine. It doesn't actually mean anything--it's an assessment that is incorrect frequently enough that it carries no weight. It says more about the person saying it than it does about what they're referring to.
5e is "dumbed down" in the way multiplication "dumbs down" addition, or in the way a lever "dumbs down" force. In the way something can be made easier by utilizing a more sophisticated system. In other words, it's not.
Instead of piling on modifiers and rules-lawyering/brute-forcing the system, the challenge is to roleplay to gain advantage. One is about system mastery, the other is about critical thinking and creativity. Saying one of those is "dumb" is dumb. Calling a different kind of challenge than you're used to "dumb" is dumb. If they prefer the former playstyle, that's one thing. They should just say that. But I suspect they don't know what they mean when they say "dumbed down," which is why they're saying it.
As for rules-lite, there's not a single edition of D&D I'd consider to hit that, and certainly they wouldn't. One of them said to me, and I wish I could get the mixed contempt and disdain in their tone across on a message board, "It's got over a hundred pages of spells. You could right a whole system in that, and have space left over for stuff that matters."
I get that. My eyes glaze over when I get to the spell section and realize a full third of the book is not relevant to the character I want to make. That's a lot of wasted rules from one perspective. And when I do get around to making a caster, I'm perpetually struck by how many spells there are that just do something mundane in a fancy, expensive way. Alarm, for instance, is a magical tin can on a string. It can also alert me long distance, but so can message, so why can't message do what that part of alarm does, and I'll just buy a tin can?
There is also a lot of redundancy due to an unwillingness to scale certain spells. For instance, there's really no need to have slow and time stop be different spells. One is a much weaker version of the other--so why not just design them that way?
5e shows us that with the right rules, you can design a system that is both robust and easy to use. It's too bad they didn't take that approach more with spells.
Steve Geddes wrote:
In general I think 5e will prove resistant to rules-lawyering. There are fewer rules, and they have taken care to not attempt to codify every conceivable scenario, opting instead for broader rules and more reliance on the DM's ability to adjudicate (and making it fairly easy for them to do so since most of it revolves around advantage). More rules, especially specific corner-case rules, means more arguing about rules. Fewer, broader rules means less arguing about who is "correct" and more negotiating/roleplaying/adjudicating between players and the DM.
Respectfully, I think the FAQ on ranged touch attacks may be in error. I didn't participate in the thread on the subject so I don't know what was discussed, but it seems off to me. Here is what the PRD says from the combat "cast a spell" section:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity...
Making a ranged touch attack is a single action (whatever action the spell requires to cast). The attack is made as a part of casting the spell. The last line "Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity" is, in my opinion, only there to clarify that they do provoke, but only once. Obviously casting a spell in melee provokes. Obviously making a ranged attack in melee provokes. However, if as a ranged touch attack doing these two things together "do not require a separate action" then they should not provoke as if they were two actions.
I can't believe this is even an honest question. "Is doing good an evil act?" Seriously. "Defacing" or destroying an evil temple is called "consecrating." In other words, it is literally impossible to "deface" an evil temple. It can only be worshipped, making it more evil, or consecrated, purging the evil. There is no grey area here.
The only relevent part of destroying worshippers/temples of evil gods is the fact that they are EVIL. By RAW, this makes thwarting/killing/destroying them GOOD. Period. And for paladins, Good always takes precedence over Law.
Good and Evil are black and white in the game world. The sooner you guys figure that one out, the sooner these stupid evil threads can stop.
I grew up in a house with a solar water heater. Not photovoltaic; I think it was like the glycol system that Robert Hawkshaw mentioned (perhaps exactly that). It wasn't enough by itself, but it was handy for keeping monthly costs down.
I also grew up in a home with solar hot water (glycol). The Colorado winter sun is usually sufficient to heat water up to 90-100 degrees. Pretty easy to get it up to a comfortable temperature from there.
I'm intrigued by tankless water heaters, since I know from physics that they could be much more efficient. (It takes tons of energy to heat up water one degree, and there's no such thing as perfect insulation.) But I haven't researched them.
I've researched them a little but have no hands-on experience. It seems they are extremely efficient, but take a little practice getting used to. Point-of-use heaters would make an excellent pairing with solar hot water.
And finally, whatever you do, try not to get tied into a single source of energy. When a resource becomes supply-constrained, the primary result is that prices become spiky, which is horrible for people on fixed incomes. Either natural gas or electric would be fine for supplementing wood; but electricity is nice for being able to be generated in many different ways.
Ideally they would remodel as renewable as possible, for their own energy security if nothing else. But of course that costs money, and you have to anticipate the length of the return on your investment. How long will your parents own the house? If they plan on being there a long time, it may be worthwhile to invest in solar water, PV, even wind. Otherwise it may be best to just get really efficient appliances.
You mentioned they have 20% shade. If they have the money they should consider a sunroom for passive solar heat gain. A properly designed sunroom can keep the summer sun out and let the winter sun in--a significant heat supplement.
It would also probably be a good idea to evaluate their insulation. The roof is the most crucial for keeping summer heat out and winter heat in.
Check with several contractors and try to get a referral from someone you know. Contractors follow the 80/20 rule--80% of them suck.
That the spell is transmutation school should clue most of you in to the fact that you're incorrect. There is nothing in the spell that says things like *no plant in the square = no entangle in the square* or *can only use parts of plants that are visible (ie: subterranean root systems) or *cannot make plants larger.* You know, one of the main principles of transmutation--making things larger?
Nevermind the obvious thought experiment no one's bothered with. If you place a potted plant in a grassy field and cast entangle on the vicinity, does the potted plant respond?
Pirate's choices are therefore incomplete and should be ammended:
Option 3) A single potted plant could very easily be magically transmuted by entangle to entangle at least one creature or square.
Andrew R wrote:
So what happens if they prove too much solar is bad for the planet? The materials lead to problems, too much space needed to produce enough electricity, Climate change from too much of the sun's heat redirected, etc? Not to mention problems with batteries.....
Solar by itself isn't the answer, but if you honestly think the impact of procesing silicon and lithium outweighs the processing of oil (nevermind burning it), you're dreaming.
Also, you don't need a battery for solar hot water.
Teams share in the profits. So while the Cowboys are hugely successful and make a lot of money, they have to share it with the Vikings, who haven't had as much success and don't make as much money. This has helped keep more teams competitive.
So, supporting teams that need help makes the whole organization MORE competitive? Surely that lesson couldn't be applied to uninsured, unemployed people?
Pet peeve--entitlement means you actually are entitled. Thank the republicans for continued success in controlling language--a problem I refer to as America's "vocabulary problem."
Like anything and everything else, the people who will pay for it are the people who have made good decisions and are earning income that gives them choices.
This is the ideology that is wrong with this country. People thinking that because they have done well or just had good luck, they are entitled to reap the benefits without regard to other people.
Insurance companies in the USA are still private corporations, and if they are not profitable they shut their doors.
This is what's wrong with health insurance here. Something as essential as healthcare should not be motivated by profit, it should be motivated by making people healthier. Healthcare is a right not a privilege, and administrating care is a responsibility not a service.
It boils down to the simple fact that our economic system does not value human life. People are a resource, they are capital, but they have no value beyond what companies can get them to pay. That is indentured slavery on a national scale, based on class.
Like so much of the modern liberal agenda, this public law takes from those who earn to force them to provide for those who do not.
Are you the guy who when you got the School Tax card in Monopoly said I don't have kids, screw the children! and then thought that was a life lesson?
I want you to look up a word in the dictionary. It's stewardship. It's synonymous with conservation, and steward is synonymous with conservative. At least, by definition. In practice, they are opposites.
Also, as much as mass military combat is cool, I hope it doesn't act is the "main piece" of PFO.
They have a robust PvE game planned. It's a common fallacy (one that I have fallen victim to) that "game with open pvp" equates to "pvp game."
Also still confused about if being good at "soldering" means being less good with 1-on-1 or small dungeon/mob-based combat. Is skill at combat skill at combat, or is there Combat: Warfare and Combat: Small Battle, as two separate skills?
I asked a similar question a while ago. The response I got was pve and pvp would use different skills. At the time I didn't get why they wouldn't translate, but considering formations, now I get it.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
In the sandbox, YOU are the source of the loot drops that Themeparks provide via meaningless endlessly respawning non-persistent mobs.
I get this. I'm on board with the sustainability argument. I'm in favor of partial looting as well--full loot is a bad idea, and some winning/losing just makes sense.
Here's what doesn't make sense to me:
What makes all this effort and risk worthwhile? If you're involved in a territorial dispute, you want your opponents to suffer from the attack. Getting "Free stuff" from the husk doesn't do that. You want to deny them access to whatever the target was harvesting or transporting. If you're involved in economic warfare you want your to disrupt your adversary's logisitics chain - here you not only want your enemy to be denied access to the resources but you want to benefit by gaining them yourself. If you're just out for the lulz you're happy to get whatever you can get; the economic value isn't driving your actions anyway.
This isn't a win/lose scenario. This is the killer getting a win/win (win/win/win?) and the loser getting a lose/lose. From the loser's perspective, it might as well be full inventory loot. I would prefer if the winner got a win/meh and the loser got a lose/shrug. The obvious emergent behavior is that people won't carry inventory. But how does this affect the looting issue? You kill someone, they die, you loot them, you get nothing. They lose nothing. Win/meh, lose/shrug.
The only time this will ever change is when people go out to harvest materials. Which, given what we now know about pvp looting, will require a raid group. Because every time you go out to farm, the enemy will be waiting for you. They will do everything they can to make sure of this, because it's their only opportunity to gain anything from killing you, and the only persistent way they can hurt you.
So begin the 4 AM raids (reminiscent of the worst aspect of EQ). The only way to reliably farm in peace is to do it when almost no one else is online. Whoever is willing to farm at 4 AM will pull far, far ahead of everyone else in terms of wealth. Now you've made the leap from "mediumcore pvp game" to "hardcore 4 AM farming game."
Unless the enemy is also online at 4 AM, waiting for you. Now it's "super-hardcore 4 AM pvp game."
I get that this type of looting is designed to instigate pvp, but people will go far out of their way to avoid losses. This kind of behavior will make pvp rare, because people will actively avoid each other unless they have nothing to lose.
If people are actively avoiding pvp, they won't be experiencing the losses you anticipate. Or if they do, it will be in a cycle of long periods of stagnation and then sudden booms of loss and economic activity. This kind of cycle will extend the "4AM-ness" of the game into pve, because the people who are online at the time of the boom and are able to deliver the goods will make sweeping profits in a short time, leaving everyone else behind in the dust.
I know PFO needs to distinguish itself, but the little we know about the game so far makes it stand out. I know the game needs a goldsink to drive the economy, but there are other goldsinks.
I like what I read except the player loot issue, which I dislike to the extreme.
I'm firmly in your camp Balodek.
I can understand the urge to increase the consequences of death...
I cannot understand it. I have heard every argument in favor of it and the value of it is completely lost on me. I guess I just value my toon's quality of life more than some arbitrary ideal of "consequence" in a video game.
Death is its own consequence. You die, you know you made a mistake, your time and money is wasted, and that is enough consequence. You won't be running headlong into that same scenario again.
Here is the compromise I would accept:
You die. Someone loots your corpse, receiving a random selection of its inventory. The rest stays there until you retrieve it.
What is the purpose of destroying it? To add insult to injury? The reasoning is unfathomable to me. You already died and learned your "lesson." You already got penalized with the loss of time, money, and property, and someone (perhaps whoever killed you) got a reward. What is the point of more penalty?
It would help to have some basic definitions of balance. Every comment in this thread is 100% subjective and not at all based on any kind of theory of balance.
Hence why people keep saying "balance" in quotes.
There are three that I know of (courtesy of the Alexandrian):
1) Natural Balance -- things are balanced as they would be in real life. For example, machine gunner beats martial artist, no contest.
2) Spotlight Balance -- things are balanced to give different types of characters their moment to shine. Pathfinder follows this method. For example, the fighter kills, the mage controls, and the rogue disarms the trap. At its most basic, each class has a clearly defined role and there is little or no deviation from it. Rock-paper-scissors fits into this type of balance.
3) Concept Balance -- things are balanced so classes are more or less equal. For example, dps in WoW.
WoW uses 2) and 3) combined. Each class has a clearly defined role, but all classes have similar dps potential, methods of control, and small groups of classes have similar utility. For example, druids, warlocks and DKs all have a battle res. PvP is rock-paper-scissors.
Spotlight balance is what allows the Trinity to exist. Concept balance is what allows the "bring the player not the class" philosophy to work.
Sure it's great to log in and think "My toon is awesome/powerful/fun." But that thought is directly derived from the preceding, unconsious thought "My toon is on a level playing field with everyone else." That becomes less unconscious the more classes you play, when you realize "This class is as awesome as every other class I've played."
Applying this to Pathfinder, it quickly becomes glaringly obvious how imbalanced some classes are. I'll pick on rogues because they are currently my problem IRL. What is fair/awesome about the rogue? Absolutely nothing, unless all you're looking for is roleplay. They do about half the damage of a damage dealer, and their spotlight is easily performed by several other classes.
To answer your question OP, when the RAW gives you so little (with respect to the rogue example) there is very little you can do inside the rules.
General reaction: Looks like a very fun game. Increasingly so with each blog.
On attribute generation: I assume it will be a point buy?
On attributes affecting skill speed: A simple solution to the concern that this will encourage people to stat stack is to cap the effect at a reasonable score, say 16. That way, people can get the skill speed boost and still be able to make choices about how to stat their character.
On capstones: I am in favor of getting capstones for getting to 20 rather than for taking the "narrow path." Having to decide to stick to the archetype or forego the capstone is an interesting choice, I grant you that. But being able to go back to an archetype later for the capstone is also an interesting choice. You are choosing to postpone that capstone even more in exchange for a little diversity. So if the idea is to reward the willingness to delay gratification, the multi-classer actually deserves the reward more than the single-classer.
I understand wanting to pay homage to the RPG, but I find this particular method arbitrary. And if psychology serves me, people will follow the reward. Restricted capstones will incentivize people to single-class, and make multi-classing feel like a punishment, which clashes with the tone of the rest of the game--to play in the sandbox. I think this would lead to single-class players feeling entitled, and multi-class players feeling disenfranchised. (It already has in this thread.)
One last thing on this point. If things like crafting and other "non-adventurer" activities get some significant development time, will there ever be crafting capstones? And if so, will they follow the same rules--get 20 levels of blacksmithing in a row or forego the capstone? My point is, as the game diversifies, this capstone restriction will make the player's choices feel like either 1) a series of extremely long grinds, or 2) do what I want but be punished for it.
I think the richness and diversity of the skill system can stand on its own and be its own generator of interesting choices.
As to the basic UI of the game, I really don't want to be limited to what I can see about my character or what is going on in the world. I want HP bars, chat channels, vent, etc. It could be entirely possible to simply turn off the UI, turn on chat bubbles, and speak only in /say. I should be able to choose a more convenient level of interacting with the game.
On to suggestions. I second the 3rd party add-on capability. This has, IMO, been very successful in WoW.
As has the ease of making macros and arranging hotkeys/hotbars. Very convenient, even for RP. Got some poems you want your toon to have memorized? Want to announce your lineage to everyone you meet? Got a catch phrase you want to use in all your duels? Macros.
For lack of a better word, transmogrification. The ability to make items look how you want them to look. A cool feature even if RP never crosses your mind.
RP is an area where mini-games could really come into play. Something like a card game interface could be really cool (although any gambling would probably be with fake money--MMOs tend to frown on gambling). Other games could potentially be supported too, like chess, checkers, go, things people in Golarion might play. Maybe some NPCs might know how to play these games too.
I also tend to believe the creators of D&D (Gygax for example)on the subject.
To be perfectly honest, Gygax's commentary strikes me as the opinion of someone who is only passingly familiar with Tolkien. Very passingly.
Tolkien includes a number of heroic figures, but they are not of the "Conan" stamp. They are not larger-than-life swashbucklers who fear neither monster nor magic.
Gygax confuses subtlety with inferiority. Aragorn would have fought the Balrog beside Gandalf, as would Boromir. But the bridge breaking and Gandalf's fall happened too quickly. Aragorn does not fear the Nazgul. Aragorn's bravery holds together an entire army as they marched to Minas Tirith with the dead. Aragorn (and Eomer and Imrahil) were unharmed in the subsequent battle, "for such was their fortune and the skill and might of their arms, and few indeed had dared to abide them or look on their faces in the hour of their wrath." Then he goes into the city and virtually resurrects Faramir, Eowyn and Merry.
What, besides the author's style, struck Gygax as not larger than life about Aragorn? He is the very definition of it.
His wizards are either ineffectual or else they lurk in their strongholds working magic spells which seem to have little if any effect while their gross and stupid minions bungle their plans for supremacy. Religion with its attendant gods and priests he includes not at all.
This statement is, for lack of a nicer way to put it, completely ignorant. In fairness, the Silmarillion was not yet published, but there is enough in LotR to make sufficient inferences. (The subtlety of magic in LotR often forces us to infer.)
Gandalf dies and comes back. He says he was "sent" back. There is only one conclusion what could have done this--some divine power. And Gandalf is clearly its hand on Middle-Earth.
A few references to "Powers" exist in the trilogy, referring to Sauron and Saruman, if I recall. In Catholicism, a Power is a type of angel.
The Silmarillion reveals Aragorn is the direct, distant descendant of Melian the Maia (an angel). But even without knowing this, we know Aragorn reveres someone named Elbereth, and has healing magic. Sounds pretty deific.
In Mordor, after their escape from the watchtower, Sam asks for light and water. They shortly get both. Coincidence, maybe. But what exactly, in a fantasy world, constitutes a spell? Especially one as subtle as Tolkien's?
Gygax seems to have thought that because the pantheon was not spelled out, and the cities full of temples, and because Gandalf was called a Wizard, and the divinity that all the elves worship (ie: make songs about) isn't clearly defined, and many spells are described in subtle prose rather than flashes of light that shout "here's the magic!" that these things don't exist.
I am almost forced to conclude he didn't actually read the books. His opinions strike me as formed based on second hand information, and dismissive without being sufficiently knowledgable to earn the right to be dismissive.
I posted a small part of this in the MMO wish list, but it got buried. I am reposting it here for the purpose of discussion.
I constantly see people talk about the "dumbing down" of WoW, and I want to address this with regards to PFO.
In a way I completely disagree. WoW is incredibly complex and sophisticated, and no amount of information on wowhead, google, or wow forums can detract from that.
1) Rote fights. Endgame often consists of watching a video of another guild killing a boss, and replicating what they did over and over. While the fights are always pushing new levels of complexity mechanics-wise, they are still repetetive. Nothing ever changes.
2) One button wonders. While this is an exaggeration, every class basically has their "go-to" ability. They spend some time ramping up, some much more or less than others, but ultimately the goal is generally to push that one button as many times as possible.
3) Binary challenge curve. Often fights are either impossible or pushovers--very tough or very easy. Few challenges ride the grey area. This is because, due to the static nature of everything else in the game, the only variables are fight mechanics (which are rote once learned) gear level, and the wide spectrum of player skill.
Something needs to be done to mix things up. Something that is somewhat forgiving of skill, yet also provides challenge for players operating with years of experience. Something to really diversify things.
And I think the answer can be found right in the Pathfinder RPG.
No Holy Trinity!
There is no "tanking" at the table. Tanking implies aggro control, which does not exist in RAW. (Except for that one feat which shall not be named.) Sure you have your tin cans and meat shields, but tanking is more than being able to take hits and running in first. Without aggro, these builds are just more survivable damage dealers.
Healing is not a dedicated role at the table either. On the contrary, healing in combat is decidedly sub-optimal.
Dedicated damage dealers are not required due to the variety of campaign style options. If you run a social game, for instance, you may not even engage in combat.
The point is, the Trinity roles don't exist as such at the table. The Trinity roles don't feel like Pathfinder.
What could this mean?
Remember playing through dungeons while leveling in WoW (or whatever you've played), before you really knew what you were doing, before knowing that you were "supposed" to tank 'n' spank? It was chaotic. It was awesome. How could we make that the way the game is supposed to be played?
Get rid of the Trinity roles.
-Make "tanking" be about keeping yourself alive while the focus is on you, rather than about keeping the focus on you, as it is in other MMOs.
In other words, give everyone some ability to perform all three of the former Trinity roles in some manner.
What effect would this have?
Roles would be dynamic instead of static. One minute you'd be DPSing something your friend was tanking, the next, you'd be tanking! But it would be ok, because you'd have the situational tanking tools you need. The ping pong would be constant, but that wouldn't mean an automatic wipe like it always does in "trinity" based encounters. Instead, it would mean no fight would ever be the same twice. Very basic boss fight mechanics could generate wildly different fights over time.
This would preserve the feel of the PnP game, give characters improved PvP viability (especially group PvP where the strategy almost always boils down to "kill the healer"), and also introduce a revolutionary tactical challenge to raiding that would not relent once the strategy is learned. Players would always need to be paying attention, be prepared for when they get aggro, and have a plan for how they will deal with it this time around.
In short, it would require players to think.
Here's the thing:
It's one thing if there is world PvP that you can't avoid--you can regulate safety to a high degree, but not guarantee it.
It's one thing if there is a small (and I mean tiny) death penalty of gold. (Any kind of exp/skill loss I would find intolerable.)
To have both would be a deal breaker for me. I will not play a game where I can be ganked, robbed, AND de-leveled by other players without my consent. Nothing else about the game would make this even tolerable.
And perma-death would be an absolute deal breaker for me.
1)Choose the ONE favorite MMO you've played.
World of Warcraft.
2)Explain no more than five reasons why you greatly enjoyed it.
Accessibility. My previous experience with MMOs was that if I wasn't prepared to devote the entirety of my spare time (and more), then I wouldn't progress. At no point did WoW ever take over my life. (To be fair, I never did much in the way of Vanilla PvP.) The fact that one can play WoW for a few hours a week and progress is an essential aspect of what makes it a hobby rather than a lifestyle choice.
Variety. There are so many different things to do in the game. Level to max and raid. Level alts. Collect any number of non-essentials, from pets to hats. Level tradeskills. Do lore quests. Do daily quests. Play the auction house. PvP. Explore. Basically, if you're sitting around Orgrimmar/Stormwind bored, it's your own fault.
Counter-obsolescence. My computer is a cheap one from 2005. I can still play WoW on it. A forced upgrade would likely end my subscription.
Game evolution and player initiated change. When I started playing WoW (open beta 2004), there was one viable spec per class for endgame, and you specced that way because it was the only viable option. People didn't like that, and Blizzard made significant changes. Now, every spec is more or less viable. Similarly, when players started complaining--and rightfully so--about the endless stream of useless boss drops, Blizzard implemented a token system. This can be a double-edged sword, however. Players are fickle, and what they want one day will change the next.
3)Explain no more than five reasons why you got bored with it / didn't like about it / thought could be done better.
The first time I got bored was when TBC's 25 raids destroyed my Vanilla guild. Although my guild's inability to adapt said more about it than the change, it nevertheless left me homeless for over a year, and I unsubbed.
Solution: Decide on a raid size and stick with it. WoW has evolved from 40 to 25 to 10 (25 is effectively dead). 10 is a good place to start and not deviate from. 5-man dungeons and 10-man raids is a good model, and staffing a guild for 10s makes a nice sized guild.
The design philosophy shift from Wrath to Cata put my current guild in a tough spot. A few core players quit the game altogether, people I'd known since Vanilla--primarily due to the difficulty increase and the toxic atmosphere in random dungeons. My guild's progression ground to an immediate halt. Not wanting to quit my guild, I've spent my time in Cata on alts.
Solution: Don't attempt to create multiple "sweet spots" by swinging the pendulum. Having easy, normal and hard modes would have solved the Wrath problem (if you can call it a problem). Forcing everyone into what from Wrath looked like hard/harder modes did not solve the problem. Aniticpate the wideness of the skill spectrum, decide how you want to challenge/reward everyone on that spectrum, and don't sweat the super-elite players--they are your most fickle customers.
Guild levels and perks. Great idea on paper, terrible in implementation. Starting a new guild is now an uphill battle--no good for a supposedly social game. No one wants to join someone's level 1 guild with no perks when they can join a level 25 guild--just for the asking--and gain a 10% experience bonus, shorter hearth time, less repairs, more materials, group resurrection, etc. Not only that, but if you do manage to get a guild off the ground, good luck leveling it. Even worse, rewarding people for participating in guild runs diverts quality players away from the pool for randoms, further toxifying that environment.
Solution: My solution for WoW (since I don't know anything about PFO) is to implement guild "specs." The GM can spec their guild as a leveling guild, a raiding guild, or a PvP guild. Each spec would start with different upfront bonuses most beneficial to their spec, gaining the others, and the most powerful perks, at high level. Further, encourage people to do things outside of their guild, with the rest of the community--maybe a reward for being your guild's sole representative, or in the minority, rather than the majority. Guild isolationism poisons the community.
4)Give one or two specific and major things you are most afraid of seeing take place or implemented in this potential MMO and why. Does not have to relate to your favorite MMO.
My number one concern is your balance philosophy, particularly concering dps (hey, I can say dps about PF and it's not wrong!). I find the idea that "class X should do more/less damage because" to be weak and outdated. All DPS classes need to be on par with each other. If they are there to deal damage, they should be able to. I know nothing of your class structure. But I strongly feel it isn't a good idea to handicap any class merely to justify another.
My second concern is being overwhelmed with classes/archetypes/whatever. I very much like the WoW model of having several classes with unique specs. I also like the RIFT model, with the four uber classes and many subclasses. What I don't want is to get to the character creation screen and see 20 classes.
I will freely admit that the 2 party system is a big source of our political corruption. Each election is essentially a good guy/bad guy contest that seems to serve no purpose other than to polarize our society. Theoretically, the parties are supposed to absorb splinter groups and adopt useful platforms to evolve, but that seems to not happen or happen superficially.
I feel obligated to point out that one of OWS's demands is to make political contributions very regulated, and to allow all candidates equal air time for free:
Demands. #3 is the relevant one.
It would at least make the fight fair. I wonder what that would be like? *head explodes*
This looks suspiciously like "you are not a libertarian, therefore you are wrong."
Somewhere between "Free markets deserve to be free of oversight!" rhetoric and the "Goverment should own everythign and divy it all up!" rhetoric, is a good solution waiting to be found. So far, neither the tea PArty nor the OWS people have found it, or even come close.
Agreeing on the problem is one thing, and not that difficult, as this thread shows. Agreeing on the solution is VERY difficult, intelligence notwithstanding.
I'm cool with the libertarian platform all the way through its social values. Where it loses me is the entire breadth of its economic stance. The platform is completely invested in the myth of the free, unregulated market. To paraphrase FDR, the free market is a poker game--sooner or later someone has all the chips. Sooner or later, people won't stand for it. The market MUST be regulated, and that regulation can best be done by the government. To be blunt, if the government doesn't do it, then armed revolutionaries inevitably will. Regulation is therefore nothing less than casualty prevention.
Deregulation is at least one of the major causes of today's economic crisis, if not THE cause. Regulation is at least one solution, if not THE solution. What manner of regulation is debatable. Continuing to not have regulation is not an option. In other words, the libertarian economic view is not an option.
$25k. Employed or not. Obviously, it would be preferable if people were employed, but 100% employment isn't realistic. Neither is hanging the unemployed/unemployable out to dry.
This would be after taxes, which should be nothing at that level. The standard deductible should be $25k.
This would also be after health insurance. Again, which should be nothing.
There is a non-profit in California (I forget the name, I heard about it on NPR months ago) who is working on housing the homeless. They've found that each homeless person costs the state around $100k a year, just for continuing to breathe. They can house them, feed them, and provide medical care for one person for $25k a year. Simple math says give it to them.
The fact is, the economy works best when the wheels at the bottom are turning. If the poorest people among us are taken care of and have a small amount of disposable income, those wheels turn nicely. If not, well, there are very good reasons why the rich live in fear.
While our government isn't enforcing the law here, by our rules and the things George Bush has openly admitted to doing while in office, he's considered a war-criminal, and isn't supposed to be allowed to cross the border, and should he be found in canada, our government is legally obligated (though they haven't been fulfilling this obligation) to arrest him and either try him for war-crimes, or hand him to another country that is willing to do so, and he no longer has diplomatic immunity as the american head of state.
This is so beautiful I cried a little.
I better start practicing:
I dont mean to try to guess poster's intent, but I think Brent is talking about some of the protester's calls for capitalism to be completely ended. I agree that it should not.
So do I, but the way things have gone it leaves a lot to be desired.
I could get behind a version of capitalism that actually valued resources like humans, nature, progress, and things like that. What we have now does none of these.
brent norton wrote:
Ok, question. If you don't like the way this country ran please be my guess to move to a socialist or a communist or Greece since they both and quit trying to change this capitalist one to one or the other. Oswald who thought communism great until he actually lived there. You are free to go. But you won't you will screw up this country up when your utopias are only a plane ticket away.
So much wrong with this in so short a post. Well done sir. I commend your unique ability.
With us or against us, love it or leave it-- Bushisms. They had no value then, and no value now. Why propogate them? People who disagree with you are not the enemy. Hell, they might not even vote. How can any problem of a national scale be attributed to people just for their willingness to dissent against obvious corruption?
I wonder where you've been living that you don't know this country's already screwed up?
"Communism" doesn't technically exist, nor has it ever existed, anywhere. Everything you and everyone else has ever called "communism" is totalitarianism or fascism with a "proletariat" spin. It's a theory that has never been realized. Tried, by misguided people, but never done. So there is no "utopia" to run to.
Hello Canada is just to the north and it has most of stuff the protesters are wanting.
So did the US before say, 1999.
Some people are horribly offended by the prospect of people having more money than they have, and this is one way to take it away.
10-20% of Americans are just sitting at home, stoically refusing to work, because they're jealous of rich children.
Propoganda inflates and obfuscates an issue that means nothing whatsoever to almost anyone to such a large degree that nearly everyone in its target audience imagines they are somehow affected by it.
The latter is the case more often than not. Where there is great wealth, there is great crime.
The estate tax will never, ever be a real concern for you or the rest of us 99% (or 99.9% or whatever).
No you can't, nor does anyone want to. But you can tax the hell out of the billions some families leave their children. While you and I spend our lifetimes busting our butts to leave the kids a few hundred thousand dollars (if we're lucky), the Walton kids are each as rich as a small nation, just for being born.