Bah had wrote this wall of text when i got a blue screen. Lucky for you :)
@Xeen, this is just a brainstorming, of course you are gonna find faults in the mechanisms. In your example the PvP settlement could offer a ''pledge to protect'' agreement which is sort of a one way defensive pact, for example.
@bluddwolf, you would only make an agreement with one other company/settlement, not it's allies. You two would decide the specifics, also how long it would run. You could decide to make it public or hidden.
The point i was trying to make was that if agreements became an important part of the game, there could be several benefits from it:
-Meaningful content for diplomats and spies.
- More options when a settlement is under attack. Do you send out a diplomat to negotiate for a surrender, maybe even become a vassal under the attacking force?
- The diplomatic landscape in general less black and white, much like the real world (which isn't always a good point, but here it might be). Cross overs, paranoia, allies spying on each other.
- Diplomatic connections could be more easily followed. A menu where you can search for all known agreements between all known companies/settlements for instance.
This might seem far fetched and hard to balanced (which i think it is), but it would be great if it was made possible.
I don't know if this has been discussed before (but i would be surprised if it hadn't). Basically an Agreement could be a long term contract between social organizations. It could change some in game mechanics, and would have to be renewed in regular periods. I think this could provide a lot of meaningful interaction and value to the community. Brainstorming:
Trade Agreement - The most basic form of Agreement, that most resembles a normal trade contract. The accepting party agrees to continually provide specified resources, items, or other goods to a specified location, in specified intervals. This can be in exchange for coin and/or goods, but also for other services. For instance useful if a settlement wants to hire a company to run a nearby mine for them.
Peace Treaty - Pretty self-explanatory. The two parts are unable to attack each other for a specified amount of time.
Safe Passage - The accepting party agrees to not attack any caravan moving through their area (settlement controlled hex), in exchange for coin, for a set period of time.
Defensive Pact - The accepting party agrees to join defense if the offering party has been declared war (or feud) on. Does not apply if the offering party declares war (or feud) (du'h. Might be tricky to specify therms. This could be useful in many different ways: Could be a step towards an alliance. A company could be accepting party in exchange for usage of a feudal manor in a settlement controlled hex. Etc.
Training Agreement - Accepting party accepts to continually provide 1 or more training slot in their settlement in exchange for coin.
And I'm sure there is more...
I believe the only way to stop a toxic community is to have a major report/penalty system in place,as some of you have mentioned This might be too much for GW to handle resource wise, but there could be benefits from such in the long run, as a toxic community really scares off new players.
Likewise, i believe best way to deal with griefers/flamers is to, if possible, separate them from the community, without separating them from the game. Flamers could be muted for a period of time. Griefers could be unable to attack, unless attacked first, for a period of time. Getting banned rarely makes someone appriciate the game or paying money for it.
I believe this is a tricky part, at least when the numbers of reports start adding up. It might also not be that important, as i find people who grief/flame to do so regularly, and if they get penalized for it in the same regulatory, they find themselves not wanting to continue such behavior.
Interesting blog post. So now we have:
Seems like staying outside of any war will be close to impossible for a company that wishes to advance their characters.
* ”habitual” random player killers will very quickly find themselves in the chaotic/evil end of the spectrum and naturally gravitating towards the chaotic/evil settlements, which provide the training services they need to take advantage of the special tools available for chaotic/evil characters (such as assassination) as well as company in which to perform such actions more effectively
I am just gonna quickly quote Ryan to clearify how they want to punish random player killers that end up in the chaotic/evil spectrum
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)
So it's pretty clear that Chaotic Evil players won't have access to the higher training facilities. They will be penalized for their behavior by being weaker than players of other alignments. For this penalty to actually have any effect, they have to deny chaotic evil players the right to live in other, more thriving, settlements, where they can grow just as strong as other characters.
It would indeed be nice with some comments from the guys above, since this has become such a debated topic lately.
The following quote is really interesting though
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Lawful Evil will get all the upside of being able to use force to solve problems, and will have awesome Settlements.
This seems to imply that:- You won't be penalized (with less efficient settlements) for being evil (killing players).
- You will be penalized for being chaotic (breaking laws and contracts).
So killing players outside the starter areas and the settlement areas where killing is not allowed (by the settlement's law) won't hinder your characters growth. You won't be penalized for that. (LE?)
At the same time, if you constantly break contracts, but never hurt a fly, you will be penalized. (CG?)
In short: The freedom you get for being able to break laws and contracts is being balanced by lawful settlements having better settlements. If you could be a brigand and live in the most civilized settlement in the world, you would get the better of both ends. Who wouldn't want to be a brigand then?
This might be slightly off topic, but i wish official titles to be earnable through actions in game, for any role imaginable.
Kill a giant red dragon and you get the right to call yourself Dragonslayer. Be a front figure in running your settlement and you could call yourself major, city planner etc. Gather all wizard spells in the game and you can call yourself Archmage. I think you get the point by now :)
Titles like this could even give some unique, but trivial skill, emote or something like that. The major could get an unique emote that makes him look like he is making a speech. The Dragonslayer could get a unique tattoo of a dragon if he decided he wants it.
Regarding alignment in settlements. While i understand people might be let down they can't live in the same settlement as their friends, i think there are good reasons why the system is as it is right now.
It sort of makes sense that mixing child killers, who rob all their neighbors, with the nicest neighbors in the world wouldn't work. Reality may not always be the best way to set up a game, but in this setting i think it is.
GW looks at previous sandbox games and wants to avoid the constant kill on sight PvP that seem to be the main gameplay in such games. They want diplomacy, trade, craft etc. to flourish (but also wars of course). They call it meaningful human interaction. So a way to handle this is to penalize those who constantly kill random people for no reason whatsoever, with the alignment system. By having settlements of certain alignments be at a disadvantage when it comes to upkeep, training etc. (at first i disliked this, but i see what GW wants to do). So if we were to allow people of any alignments into any settlement, this system would not just go to waste. I think people need incentives to play meaningful, for this game not to turn into a KOS PvP game. For people not to ruin other peoples experience to the extreme.
The only solution i see to the problem is that: A settlement is the most efficient the closer to its set alignment it's members is. The further spread out it's members is on the alignment axis, the less efficient it is. This way any member of any settlement has real incentives to be as close to the settlement's set alignment, for the settlements well being. At the same time you could have your free haven settlement (which i think is really interesting), but it's would run really bad (bad training facilities, upkeep etc). A lawful good settlement that has an evil necromancer summoning undead in his basement would take a toll on it's indexes. People would not really want him there cause he is making the settlement less efficient. Of course if he is a dear friend you might decide to let him live there, but you have to pay a price.
Thank you for the warm welcome StormWeaver! Looking forward to be making a name for ourselves as an always reliable trading company. And of course making tremendous amounts of coin. I'll be playing a transporter kind of guy so if you need some light, but very valuable goods, transported somewhere, look me up :)
I am just here to voice the need for dense forests, fog and dark nights. Traveling or fighting under such conditions should be different than on sunny days. When watching the tech demo i realized how dull the world would be if it always looked like that. I haven't had much experiences with such things in mmos, except somewhat from the recent The Secret World, but i heard stories about dark nights in EQ for example. How would you like this to be implemented in PFO?
I like the idea of food / drink having an important role in the daily life. It adds another dimension to the game imo. Either putting food in your backpack before adventuring, or rely on your survival skills like fishing or hunting.
I would like to see food / drink being used to restore Hit Points between fights. So normally it would maybe take 30 seconds for your Hit Points to restore from 10% to 100%, but with food / drink it would maybe take 10 seconds.
There could also be some buff depending on what food / drink you use. Food needed to be prepared over fire could give a long term major buff, so setting up campfires once in a while is a good idea.
Interrupting supply chains under siege sounds really intriguing, but may be hard to implement. The same goes for poisoning the water supply for an enemy settlement as sabotage (this would have a major impact on the common folk that are harvesting for that settlement). Thieves poisoning the food people are carrying around on them (using pickpocketing skill).
Hard to decide. So many options. First i want to learn how to move silently and fast in the land. Gain knowledge about monsters and players. Use this knowledge to smuggle valuable wares ''under the radar'' for other players. Then i want to gain some fighting power, probably using leather armor and a spear. Also want to specialize into a gathering profession, be it herbalism, skinning or something else that benefits from my knowledge of the wilds. Lastly i want to be able to make good deals as a trader, since i already will be smuggling other wares around the world. Probably some sort of Ranger.
I dont mind seeing lower numbers in combat calculations, but you can hardly compare combat in a single player game and a mmorpg. In a mmorpg players will go to lengths to figure out the best possible way to build your character to be better than other players, while in single player games you only have yourself vs Environment to worry about. I think this might be why so much mathematics have been put into combat calculations.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
]Okay, so a guy spends four years of gaming to be highly flexible. What's wrong with that? After four years, I'd be shocked if the most advanced players hadn't invested in being ready for anything. Four years is a long time.
Meh i've played the same games for 10 years on and off because of it's gameplay. A part of the reason why i am looking forward to this game is that there are so many different roles you can pursue, making you a highly specialized and unique being in the world. I was hoping this would also translate to combat. That you can't fill every role at the same time. That you can't be ''ready for anything''. If everyone are ready for anything, then everyone is equal and that makes for some pretty stale combat.
Hopefully the thread system and maintenance of weapons will stop people from being every card in the deck, from being the rock, the paper and the scissor.
I was never a big fan of putting real life into gaming systems for the sake of real life.
And yes it would be a while into the game before something like i described could happen. A 100% fighter with 3 weapon specializations = 4 years? But then again i am here for the long haul, and rather plan for it now rather than wait and see what happens.
Glad to see they are going with slashing, piercing & bludgeoning that can set up for a rock, paper, scissor type gameplay. It makes people have strenghts / weaknesses, it's up to you to take advantage over them --> skilled and experienced players has an advantage.
Now i have a simple question, will you be able to swap between your 3 weapon types in combat? Because this would negate the whole rock, paper, scissor and making people generalists instead of specialists.
EDIT: This will be the case anyways, since you can just swap weapons when you see an opponent and just pick the weapon that counters his armor... yaaaawn. Please go away with 3 weapon system. People should pick 1 weapon before they go out hunting.
First of all i think it's pretty hard to balance single class vs multi class to the extent that all parties will be happy, so good luck with that devs.
I agree with Randomwalker tho, that capstones should be powerful class defining abilities that you want to get as fast as possible, and that you only should be able to use them if your build is of a single class.
That way you would want to level a single class as fast as possible.
I don't know how much multi classing will delay your progress in a single class (please inform me if you know). If there is a significant delay you really have a tough choice, do you want to delay getting that powerful capstone ability so you can get some more versatility now?
This way you might want to stick to a single class so you don't get delayed to the peak of your class.
I feel this is enough to balance capstones. A straight leveling path from 1-20 isn't really needed. Only single classes can use capstone abilities and a (significant) time delay to capstones if you multi class.
About the generalist vs specialist discussion, there is too much we don't know yet to say how it's gonna be in PFO. Personally i hope we can ''specialize into a few areas'' without loosing too much progression into the game. What i mean by that for instance is that i would like to be good at sneaking, scouting and skirmishing (small scale combat, mostly ranged, some melee). Others could be good at squad-fighting and mining production. Others could be good at Weapon AND armor crafting. Others at dungeon crawling and wood refining.
You will still be reliant on other players because there are way too many roles for you to even be close to fill yourself. But at the same time you have a couple of interesting fields to progress in. I think it's important to have more than ONLY ONE thing you should do while playing.
The idea is that they are meaningful, so not fluff, but not necessarily mechanical advantages. If they aren't meaningful in terms of gameplay, then they offer no incentive.
If they offer no mechanical advantages, aren't they fluff by definition?Anyways, people love to have something special in a mmo, no matter if it's meaningful in terms of gameplay, if only to show off.
Yeah... structured PvP may be borrowed from such games, but the combat itself is not, which i tried to say before.
For instance in Dota (a moba) combat is rather slow paced, you have only a few buttons to smash (usually 4 abilities and an attack), and you have to stand still while attacking and using abilities (not like in most mmos where you spin around in the air and do attacks on the fly). To play well you don't have to have good micro (finger dexterity) at all (at least not compared to most mmos with 10+ active abilities to use). But you have to know the game. You have to know the attack animations of your attack, so you can move properly between the attacks to play the most efficient. You have to know how to combine your skills properly with your team mates. You have to react to your enemies' positioning, movement, ability use etc.
It's normal to think mobas and other arena based games are so fast paced, but when you compare the combat system itself to many mmos they really are not.
Imo structured PvP has no place in an mmorpg. Mmorpgs should try make their worlds as believable as possible, and as part of that is open world PvP. Structured PvP with rewards ruins open world PvP, as proven by vanilla WoW. E-sports has nothing to do with mmorpgs if you ask me.
But i think mmorpgs has a lot to improve when it comes to combat itself compared to other genres (and no, don't make it more actiony or fast paced). Make it more tactical, in positioning, movement, attack, timing, cooperation and how you build your character.
Don't see any changes to this coming up any time soon tho.
Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine...but movement pace in many of the MMO's I've played seemed unaturaly fast to me.
Totally agree man. Running and jumping around in circles (like its done in many mmos) is a big turn-off both when it comes to gameplay and visuals. The funny thing is games/genres that are considered more action based (mobas, fps etc) have less button smashing and slower combat, making for much ''cleaner'' gameplay.
Just have the monsters
1. Spawn on a random spot.
2. Get a higher chance of dropping equally good loot as the monsters around it, not better. Drop chance for a rare item to drop from a rare monster could equal drop chance from X monsters in the area. So killing a rare spawn would statistically give the same rare item as killing X normal monsters in the area. You would be thrilled if you met a rare spawn, but going only for that monster would not be as effective as killing only normal monsters.
3. Have some achievement tied to it. Killing X rare monsters could give you a title ''Y of the Hunt''. Killing all rare monsters in the game could give you the title Master of the Hunt for example. Of course this should be really, really hard to achieve. People love these kinds of things. It is a really cheap way to add a lot of downtime in themepark content, if GW wishes to extent that part of the game.
Of course these ideas doesn't really ''maximize human interaction''. But it adds variation in the daily life. If you are grinding monsters for something you need (which we probably will be doing in this game), suddenly seeing a cool rare monster sure breaks up the pace. It could give the profession ''Hunter'' additional things to do.
When it comes to body sliders, i would love to have it, but i think a lot of games are not implementing them because of performance issues. I think it's easier to render a lot of characters that has the same pre-made shape, than everyone having different shapes. Maybe it depends on the engine, or i could be wrong :)
Having diversity in face appearance and body shape really helps immersion. Usually tho i am fine with lesser focus on character customization if there are many ways to dress your avatar.
Crafted gear should be somewhat customizable in color/shape, but loot found in dungeons should not imo. This would only give power to the crafters and make them more viable. Then again really rare artifacts could come in a color/shape that can't be crafted. If a player finds such a rare artifact he could get some crafted gear to match it visually. I agree with Frosthammer that there should be a limit to how your item can look (rapier not looking like a broadsword etc.), but armor should have a broad selection of colors/shapes.
Of course the flaws of it were, the fact that it allowed you to pretty much rapid switch armor mid combat asuming you were using cloth etc
Corpse looting will probably stop people from carrying several sets of equipment.
I hope there will be a lot of different ''stats'' available on items so everyone don't go around with the same gear. What gear you want depends on your build/role. I also hope that each gear piece should only have 1 or 2 different stats on them (except for armor/weapon damage) and that they are dependent on where that item is on the body (like your examples).
Boots could come with run speed bonus OR resistance vs CC OR run speed bonus only in woods OR Resistance vs traps OR sneak bonus etc.
I think there are a lot of different ways to make itemization much more interesting compared to other mmorpgs. Usually balance and the nature of themepark mmorpgs make itemization a dull experience. Everyone are competing against the same monsters and everyone should be able to do most things equally. Hopefully because of all the roles you can take in PfO itemization will support those roles.
Still hoping to see weapon range actually matter. A halberd should reach longer than a dagger. Few games add this, which i think is sad, because it can add depth to combat if executed properly.
Really hope you'll have the possibility to make a seamless world (aka WoW). I guess the only drawback is lag? Immersion and PvP maybe the two biggest benefits from a seamless world.
I wonder how open the hexes will be. I guess zoning would mean there would only be a few entrances/exits per hex, and a seamless world would let it be more open.
Maybe one zone could consist of several hexes, setting the stage for natural alliances or long and bloody feuds. Too many questions :p cant wait to see how it all turns out.
L. A. DuBois wrote:
Also, I point to my other suggestion of having PvP zones instead of servers. Perhaps, closer to settled, civilized areas character-to-character PvP becomes discouraged/prohibited
This is more or less how it's gonna work.
EDIT: I suggest you go read the ''To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms'' chapter in the Blog
I am really not sure how the bounty system will work out. If you are rich it will be fine i guess. But if you are struggling saving up for something you want, get ganked and lose a lot of stuff, i dont know how eager you will be to pay a lot of gold for some random guy to die, setting you further back into the game. Just seems like a double loss to me.
What we will probably see is people banding together whenever they venture into dangerous territory. Hopefully this will make for some really good gameplay. Caravans, bandits, mercenaries , scouts, spies, alliances, wars etc.
The most important aspect of what GW is going for when it comes to PvE is how it affects you. Losing or decreasing the effectiveness of your resource camps and settlements means people will actually care about the Environment. It isn't a forever going cicle that doesn't bear any meaning to you or the world around you, like it seems to be in GW2.