Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Yakmar

Izzlyn's page

41 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Valkenr wrote:

Defiantly YES! I would love to see Jump puzzles.

It's not that I want to do them. I want the game to be full of things some people hate and other people enjoy.

It's not like you would have to do them, the game is a sandbox, you don't have to do everything available. If there is a jump puzzle between you and an objective, you have the ability to ignore that objective and find a new one. If your mind forces you to complete everything you see, then you get to deal with some things you don't enjoy.

Can agree with this, and it was part of an underlying point. Its a side puzzle nothing says you have to bang your head on it for 2 hours until you hate life. But, to me anyway, banging my head on it for hours gives me a greater sense of satisfaction when I finally get past it, or I move on and do something else and come back to it later.

Drakhan, I know I come off quite rigid in my stance, but for the record I do agree with some of the finer points and scenario you experienced with your wife. That was the clear intent of the switch, one person going through and turning it off making the path easier for everyone. The same as any trap or locked door. The difference tho is you didnt magically warp her past it. My comments are to a very specific case where the clear intent is the opposite, challenging each and every player on an individual level, then having an unrelated or side mechanic that bypasses it entirely. As a player it undermines my legitimate accomplishment. As a dev, well I wouldnt want to waste the time carefully constructing a precarious path if it was so easily avoided.

Again the reference to gw2. In wvwvw contested zones and the puzzles underneath. Long and arduous puzzles that take a long time to complete and pvp battles are around every corner making it more dangerous as intended. Then mesmers come in, invis to the top and chain portal everyone and their brother in a matter of seconds and defeat the entire purpose of contested challenges. Then people log in different alts and do it over and over stockpiling the rewards.

Intended or abused only a dev can say. And, I may be a dying breed I know, but I refuse to take part. I'll earn my own way to the top and enjoy the trials along the way, thanks. If my own aging reflexes hinder or prohibit me, I'm ok with that too.

To back up a step, in TT I fully understand why its available and needed. If the physics engine and systems could encompass all of that and translate it into an online game I would also see the point and agree. Given the usual implementation of jump puzzles, and simplified systems where everyone has equal chance of success independent of a skill based dice roll, and an easy do over if they fail, I have to say no, its unnecessary and way to open for abuse.


A barrier that once down everyone is free to pass through relates to a discussion of a jump puzzle meant to challenge each player how? And besides, that barrier should have a 6 keyholes that need to be turned synchronously in order to proceed.


I see now, you've convinced me. Everyone deserves a medal regardless of skill.


Leading someone through is meaningful. Experiencing content together is meaningful. The satisfaction from completing a difficult challenge is meaningful. Robbing someone of that satisfaction by circumventing it altogether is most certainly not meaningful in my opinion.


TT does not apply, everyone has a space bar that causes your character to jump in an mmo.


Nihimon wrote:
Jump Puzzles are perfectly fine if you've also got a /rope command to help the rest of the players across.

Smells like /cheat. And for some reason I get the image of a military obstacle course designed to be a demanding test of ability. Then one guy completes it and allows the rest to simply walk around them and finish.

Sorta like mesmers in gw2 that portal hundreds of people through them for the daily chest reward.

Call me whatever but I want less hand holding, and what you suggest is more akin to carrying someone across the finish line.


Archetypes probably next. Naming any un-named cities towns or npcs would be in there at some point I hope.


Current physics being hit or miss jump only are not my thing. That and I'm not jumping just for the sake of jumping. If it were required to traverse the old ruins to get past fallen debris or similar concept then I would be more apt. But I would hope in this day and age it would resemble the more freeform parkour style like Black Desert is attempting. Then I would be more interested.


If you dont want to read what will likely be lengthy post that follows, the short and sweet of it is use the game mechanics to allow for varied approach instead of generic abilities granted to everyone in order to remove the trinity.

Granted most of this is from a PvE standpoint, but some of it correlates to pvp at a core level because pvp generally goes beyond heal damage and deal damage simplicity when the meta finally kicks in.

Personally I am less interested when mechanics allow for the simplified trinity to be perfectly viable in all situations. Its rather mundane, and removing it entirely is even worse. All that happens is a muddied up game experience where everyone can do everything and no one feels unique or exceptional at anything. While the goal is noble and relatively the same, I would rather they stay true to traditional role functions and class lore.

I would much rather a return to niche roles defined by the encounter.

"tank" "healer" "puller" "support" "cc" "debuffer" "dps" "offhealer" "offtank" and these can even be expanded upon to include traps, locked doors, hidden paths, and whatever else can be thought of to incorporate other roles into gameplay beyond the standard "um grab a tank a healer and some dps we can conquer all".

"Best at" should be available for any of those specific roles, so should alternate means of filling that role, or circumventing it with thinking outside the box.

Encounters should vary enough that each class (for lack of better word) has certain ones they are highly desired for, for their specific function. What sets you apart and makes you desired in one may not be needed at all in the next. What I dont like seeing is the same group of 5 or 6 adventurers having an easy go at every encounter because mechanics only require the basics needs to be met. I fully expect my core group of friends to require outside help from time to time unless they have a wide enough toolset to meet the most stringent of demands. Quite frankly I welcome the challenge, and have no problem adapting to the situation. Mindless adventuring means, I wont ever see the content. Sorry ask the next joe blow he can do everything I can do and I'm not gonna waste my time on another generic dungeon crawl.

Like many I agree I don't want to see healers where that is all they do over and over and one missed heal means wipe. But, at the same time having one around should mean you have a great advantage over your foes.
Not having one around shouldn't close you off from the content, but merely force you to use alternate means of getting through it with the use of debuffing, control, silence, range attacks and so on. And allow you to recover after the fight. Fighters can field dress wounds, light healing paladins, and so forth. It wont be the optimal setup, but you can make due.

Tuning also plays an integral part in this as well. There should be weak mobs that I can solo, but it should take way longer and these should be few and far between. If I step into a dungeon it should be nearly or entirely impossible to solo. And the bulk of health and damage output of enemies should be tuned with an expected group of 3-6 as a minimum requirement. Then those of us that prefer the challenge of soloing occasionally can have it. Coupled with mechanics it should be extremely hard and not even possible for every mob or class to do this.

To me solo tuning is a plague in modern mmo's. Novel idea I know, but if I want to have an easy solo experience with story based path I'll play a single player game. If I want a challenging and engaging experience with friends I log into an mmo.

WoW - solod 1-cap in a couple days - unsubbed and uninstalled.
Rift- Solod 1-cap in a couple days gave it a bit more - started soloing dungeons and so called elite mobs - unsubbed and unistalled.
GW2 - Solod off and on with ease until around 40 when by happenstance I stepped into a dungeon undergeared and inexperienced, had a very easy time with the first boss that was nothing more than dont be here when x goes off and kite kill. I realized then and there when the dev said facemelt hard he really meant carebear easy. Never have I stepped foot in another dungeon or bothered with pve at all since.

Again the tl;dr if your mechanics and tuning don't provide a challenge for a wide range group makeups in mmo's, or the only challenge is simplified down to perfect heal and dps rotations: please, dont waste your time, I wont waste mine.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
avari3 wrote:
Languages. They are simple scripts to make, but the ability to speak elvish/orc/etc. is aminor but important feature in Pathfinder and fantasy games of its kind.
Yeeeees. Plus this gives a reason to have a linguistics type skill and gives my bard more choices. Diplomacy win!

Agreed. Also, it would add many layers to deception, illusion, factions, control, and any racial abilities that could make use of native languages for greater affect.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arslanxelan wrote:
This game is not going to a fantasy MMO. This game is going to be a PVP survival fantasy MMO. Basically what the PVP people and the developers are saying is "If you dont want to get ganked then stay at home with the women and children". I have no problem with that since I would simply not play. But the developers should be clear about their intentions. I pledged in the original kickstarter and I already feel burned since it seems I wont be playing the game.

After following for nearly a year now I have yet to see them be anything but upfront and very clear about their intentions as well as limitations. From the first blog to the most recent of posts in this very thread. Honestly its quite refreshing and stark contrast to other developers who hide in secrecy building the game as they want it to be, then throw it all away trying to please everyone post release.

Not trying to be an ass here, its just hard to be sympathetic when my own experience is the extreme opposite from yours.


I contemplated adding appearance tabs to the list, but ultimately left it off because I see both sides of that story. For myself, its not a "must have" tho for pfo I do think the ability to cloak your fighter as just another merchant travelling with the pack would be a useful means of deception, along with many other scenarios and the normal "convenience" of it.


Nihimon wrote:
HolmesandWatson wrote:

Unless I hang in or around NPC towns;

Or travel with others who can protect me, I'm fair game to just about everybody, all the time.

It's true that you are "fair game" in the sense that anyone can attack you. However, they will suffer significant penalties for doing so without a reason. If they're doing so repeatedly for no reason in a way that makes the Admins think they're just trying to ruin your day, they'll be banned.

So, yes, you'll be "fair game" in the same sense that you're "fair game" walking down the street in the town where you live. Anyone can come up and attack you, but they usually don't without for a variety of reasons, ranging from "they're not a~$@#@#s" to "it's not worth their time" to "they don't want to go to jail".

@holmes This is needed for a bit of realism. I dont think you will find anyone here who would enjoy the scenario you faced in AoC. But that is what most are getting at, with the right safegaurds that ryan illustrated in place then there is less chance of that happening.

My view is simple, as a ranger myself I dont plan on traveling in groups all the time. I will venture out on my own for hunting runs, there is an extremely high chance I could be ganked. Not only will the game enforce its own detrimental effects on that behavior, I have my own. I plan on being open to all organizations and companies as a gatherer, scout, and multiple other things that tie me to multiple communities and hopefully make me a valuable outside contact and asset to the larger community. Openly attacking me will have serious repercusions beyond what the game enforces and will likely cut you and or any affiliations you might have off from any future benefits you might have gotten from trade or other services I provide.

I think this is the "meaningful human interaction" that we all want.
Yes there is risk, but its on both sides and makes the choice/consequence matter.

That is where most pvp focused games fail, there is little to no risk or repercussions for the ganker, and plenty for anyone just trying to get from point a to point b. Now couple all this with the power gap that most games have and its twofold, another area that GW hopes to change for the better. A level 20 ganking a level 5 will only have a marginal advantage and be just as at risk if they underestimate their opponent.


Never too early to discuss what you would like to see implemented and since features that I feel have a major impact in the day to day gameplay and management often go overlooked or seem tacked on and never fully functional I would like to discuss them early and often.

So at the top of my list.

With large scale warfare comes the need to manage multiple groups or raids with an extensive ui. Not a cumbersome visual ui like rift cluttering the screen with every members lifebar. But, more akin to the toggleable, fully functioning one of eq. Leader can organize and arrange groups filling specific needs. Class or archetypes, level, rank etc all displayed. User added notes would be nice and eq also had the ability for anyone to change the displayed name color code to easily identify classes. Another nice touch was click to target, I could easily sort class by color and go down the list distributing buffs as needed. Fighters got ac boost, melee got attack buff, and so on. When you're buffing 50 plus people this eased the burden of doing it repeatedly each night.

Another integral part of computer based game features that I havent seen in a long time is command lines, ones that can be tied to custom macros.
Not talking the ability to loop indefinately. But, if someone asks for this or that the ability to /returntarget /cast xyz /telltarget your roleplay text here in a one touch macro makes life much easier and removes some minor annoyances like searching for the proper target in a crowd of people and so on. With hundreds of commands I used on any given day when I played that added so much customization and user friendly appeal I think they are a must.

Next up ties in to all of it and is lacking in most recent games as well. Custom chat channels and features. Sure there is voice chat programs and group / guild chat. But, what if I want to make a ranger class channel for guild, or serverwide channel and just mingle and foster community relationships that form outside of these institutions. Or a rp specific channel, merchant channels to peddle wares.. yeah I really like my chat channels I could color code to keep them seperate and was usually in 5-8 and came to depend on them for communication even with headset on and in vent. I miss them terribly.

So how bout you, anything missing that you feel would have a great impact on your day to day game affairs? Or just want to shoot mine down? Feel free, I welcome all discussion.


There is another mmo that offered permadeath with relative success, still being played 7? years later. Tho it had several "modes" you could unlock with ultra being the final one offering perma-death.

Too bad it was heavily lopsided pay to win formula and sold res tokens as a workaround.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Rangers and Druids both have animal companions in the tabletop game, so that's something I think we'd look to have eventually in the online game too. Mechanically I have no idea how it gets implemented, or what you could have as a companion.

Provided there are plenty of alternatives to that play style I hope. I don't really see it being an issue here. But, having played rangers almost exclusively since 2e I can say the beastmaster line is my least favorite when implemented into mmo territory. Overall I think it detracts from my perception of the ideal ranger being muti-faceted, high utility with multiple weapon/armor proficiency (second only to fighters) and plenty of nature based spells for light healing, minor cold and fire destructive capabilities and some control thrown in with use of snares and shackles.

Mechanically it doesn't translate well into mmos from a balance perspective. Typically they are grossly overpowered or highly enefective depending on whichever game mechanics happen to be in place. Being dependent on pets to achieve maximum potential and the subsequent micro managing of what amounts to two active players is not something I personally enjoy. If calling upon animals of the wild for short duration supplemental damage is what it amounts to then I'm all for it.


Agreed, Micman. Tho I never played sw, in general it seems too much money is being spent on concepts borrowed from sp rpgs that actually detract from immersion in mmos. Story, cutscenes, cinimatics, vo, and in some cases music, are the worst offenders. If given the choice they will be muted or turned off / ignored entirely.

@Ryan: I'd much rather a 10th of that would be cost used to create a full and robust sound effects library. To me this is where the focus should be on improving the immersion quality of any game world. For a fraction of the cost, and far greater impact. It's weird running through game worlds hearing footsteps and little else. The same sword sound replayed over and over no matter which weapon type you use and so on. Even tho millions were spent on vo, the sounds that should matter fall flat usually.


There needs to be a + and - trade off to both.

There is already a down side to choosing a single class. They are heavily back loaded and take 2.5 years to reach capstone and can then work on synergy. If the payoff is knowing your single minded focus gets you there ahead of the rest, incentive is there and will still be rewarding enough.

Multi-class are heavily front loaded, they see added benefit of synergy from a larger tool set as they level making them the heavily favored choice. If there is no downside, or increased time to reach cap, then the problem isn't resolved, and the original intent of giving incentive to single class is defeated.

Both being able to reach capstone at a + or - rate achieves both goals. My numbers being arbitrary, an added 2.5 years my be a bit steep of a trade. But, no penalty, as well as never reaching capstone power, only shifts the problem from one foot to the other, making one or the other the only choice or a non-choice.

I will agree to the point that it may not be the best solution, but it seems quite fair to me.

And, this all assumes that capstones offer any type of mechanical, or power based beneficial factors.

And it also assumes that capstones are not something to keep multi-classing to a minimum in the games infancy to allow easier balancing and as the game progresses open up the multi-class possibilities. The Rift balancing fiasco from opening up to much too soon comes to mind. In which case its fine as is, and I am fine with it provided the previously discussed precautions are in place to either warn, or undo the currently irrevocable choice.


Sparrow wrote:

How does this help anything?

The people that choose to level a single class at a time will still achieve diversity while also getting capstones, but those that choose only diversity will suffer from slower training time.

Maybe you missed something there.

Currently: capstone + diversity later or diversity now + nothing.

Proposed: capstone + diversity later or diversity now + capstone later at a lessened rate.

The choice should be when you achieve one or the other not if you can at all. Because as it stands, it is a non-choice to many.

@AvenaOats: complicated and tricky indeed, will leave that to the number guru's tho. Plenty of solid ideas coming from this and the other thread from all sides tho.


Increased training time previously mentioned seems like a fair trade off to me.

Those focused on one path will reach capstone in 2.5 years or 5.0 for two.

Those who branch may still reach capstone but it will take 3.75 or 7.5 for both.

You still have incentive for singular roles, while not penalizing diversity.

It would hopefully scale per level and not blanket the entire arc of both paths. So for a 5 fighter that wants 1 rogue for a low level stealth ability, they may suffer the 50% increased time for that level.


The bad - mailboxes, auction houses, menial tasks (so called quests), click option stories, cut scenes, solo adventurer tuning, mini maps, quest markers, lack of engaging mechanics, excessively redundant voice acting. All games fall victim to many of these streamlined features that detract from immersion or my personal taste. A few would probably fall more into the ugly category for me.

The good - questing early on in everyquest, where you had to actually read, reason, and respond appropriately. Then you actually had to decipher the locale, form a group to travel and gather the items or complete the task. Trade zones with person to person interaction. Group adventurer tuning and mechanics that made soloing impossible or a serious setback.

The ugly - anything that takes away from long term character development, the multi-player aspect of adventuring, or invalidates risk vs reward. Guild wars 2 is a shining example of all 3. And my most hated aspect of fantasy mmos - cross genre contamination - like steam punk bleeding into pure fantasy settings.


Love this approach, and the possibilities it opens up for those of us that prefer well rounded builds over typical crit builds that enjoy 1-2 shotting people before they can react.

Question tho. Will there be counters to critical effects other than healing?


Sure, I agree with that 100%. I want game developers to be profitable. Tho I have my own ideas on how to make that possible.

Offer products and merchandise in the cash shop, even e-lore books would sell well I think. 5-10 dollar customer service fee (this is a big overhead cost of mmo's and I am willing to pay for the service). It would also hopefully limit bogus claims and help keep the overhead to a minimum as well as fund itself. As before, character services, even character appearance changes can have a nominal fee. Raise sub to cover rising costs, 20-25 dollars a month is still nothing in the entertainment industry. Additional server fees if not included in subscription cost. And, lastly, and most importantly, make games worth buying and playing.

The idea behind ftp was originally to get people to try your game, and if willing, and if they felt the game was worth it, commit to the sub fee, or buy features and content they wanted as piece meal. Nothing wrong with that. Limit their access, offer piece meal content. Make it so the most rewarding features come from long term commitment and actually playing the game.

But I firmly believe everything should be straight forward cost wise.
Box fee should pay for the entire game, content, features, items etc.
Sub fee should pay for future game development and server maintenance.
CS fee, character services, etc should cover those costs.
Cash shops should generate extra revenue from those unwilling to commit to sub fee, or merchandise sales.
Charge for forums and out of game features such character bio sheets, blog/story hosting, or the integration page Ryan spoke of.

There is no need to depend solely on cash shop item sales and cash shop development to fund all of these expenses. Let us pay for the services we desire to use, and keep in game rewards for cash to a minimum. And, above all should be the game play experience being the most important and rewarding aspect, not some bonus item in a marketplace.

If developers went back to that, then the money would flow once again. I personally spent $400 bucks on the last single player game I bought and got every penny worth in gameplay or real world merchandise. The last mmo I payed $60 for was rubbish and have not spent a dime in the shop even tho they have gone to great lengths to make it more rewarding to spend extra for "fluff" or "convenience" items than actually making a game that I want to play more.


Cosmetic or not they still tend to influence design (not saying they will in PFO). If all items are plain and unattractive leading most to spend extra cash on them, that is wrong in my book. If I pay a sub I expect to have access to everything the game has to offer. That includes best looking items, bank slots, mounts, etc. And, selling mounts with run speed is a form of selling advantage to those that can afford it. Why invest time in game for a inferior item when you can buy run speed in the shop? And, why does it sound like a good idea to reward those people over those that invest the time in game with a "better looking" mount?

Or to put it another way, why would anyone invest so much time and gold or whatever into a mount when for some rl cash you can have one on day one, being that much ahead of others in character development, freeing up game currency and time for other things, with a better appearance then doing it the normal way allows you to achieve. There is no incentive to playing, just click, pay, win.

It sends the wrong message to gamers. Call me crazy and old fashioned, but I prefer games to reward me for PLAYING them, not PAYING them.


Character services such as race/gender changes, server moves (not applicable), and so forth.

That is it for a subscription model. Everything else is either power items cloaked as "convenience" or affects design in ways that always leave me bitter and jaded.


Nihimon wrote:
I've always thought it would be kind of cool to have a Beta that slowly introduces the player Races, in the same order the Lore says they came into being.

Same here, but it was part of a larger desire to see glimpses of past lore leading up to the present "launch" timeframe phased in with each beta wipe.


Drejk wrote:
This is a matter of things that should be players choice to be maintained by the players themselves instead of enforced by the game. Of course having easy tools to do it provided as a part of the game could be helpful.

Sums it up nicely. As an option I'm all for it, but mandatory integration is not something I want to see.

There is a degree of separation that needs to be maintained. As a member of x guild representing y views, and as a character with z alignment, in game I am bound to certain governing criteria. As a general forum poster, name, guild affiliations and the like do not matter. Only the ideas and opinions therein should apply.


So my question, and please forgive me if this info is known, how will gear choice be handled.

Now this all comes from the very limited nature of gear in games of late. Coming from eq that had chain/plate/leather/linen and certain occasions where you could mix types within certain classes. It wasn't perfect but I preferred that over the more recently, and commonly used 3 main types that you're stuck with, and the stats they provide. It makes for dull options when min maxing your character to your style.

So what is your preference, and how do you want to see gear selection playing out in PFO?

Open: You are free to choose any armor type as any class but will suffer the penalty for doing so. A wizard that dons plate armor for added protection will suffer a penalty to mobility and cast time. (my preferred method as it offers the most player choice and consequence for choice)

Pigeon Holed: X amount of skill in a particular line before you can don that armor type. Or in most cases your class can only use a certain type, no exceptions, no deviations. (my least liked)

Stat regulated: Certain amount of strength to wear plate. Intelligence and wisdom to wear magical silk/linen garb and so forth.

Secondary question. What will the selections be? I suspect the usual plate/leather/linen. But, will there be varying degrees of each such as heavy/medium plate etc. Will chain be used as its own type or lumped into the light plate category and limited to fighters as is often the case lately.


Fighter/Druid hybrid. The mix will result in my own envisioned brand of ranger from the days before the beastmaster line became the norm.


Will depend on what role the gods actually play in the world that sets what will be plausible or not.

An atheist denies the existence of any such entity.

An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves, and has the view that it cannot be proven either way.

A neutral just does not care either way and lets their own sense of right/wrong guide their actions.

If gods have an active role, either through interactions, blessings, and so forth it will be hard for the first two groups to exist with gods easily proven to exist and having a direct impact on the world. The third group would still be an acceptable option as a self serving non-religion.

If they are silent, much like the real world, and people rely on blind faith, then all 3 groups will be prevalent and have just as much merit as the most devout believers.


I prefer to make my own story and not be lead down a path, even if that path has branches. If I want that I will play single player rpgs, they have the story part down.

When there are real player journals that log and consolidate info into a readable story based on your own achievements, and exploits, then we can come back and say a game as made major improvements to story presentation.


Ryan Dancey wrote:
WoW's biggest innovation was in cleaning up the UI and the graphic presentation of the game space to the player. RyanD

Oddly enough I prefer EQ's ui over any other game to date. From a functional standpoint as well as aesthetics. One key difference to me is the separation of the spell bar from abilities that I have not seen repeated anywhere that comes to mind. It added a very unique feel to gameplay. Now I rarely consider if I'm casting a true spell or ability or weapon skill, they all appear the same with no distinction and that flavor is lost.


Haven't checked in here for awhile mainly because I've been playing gw2 with a great group of WvWvW focused people. Currently sitting at #1 server rank in the game world. That is beside the point, just thought I'd offer some comments from my own perspective.

First and foremost, WvW. My humble opinion is that it is unrivaled in today's mmo market. The main reason is obviously the large scale battles with multiple objectives and strategies. But here is where I differ in opinion from others, and my guild proves every day. This is the anti zerg game. A well planned attack from a small force of 10-20 people will easily take any keep/tower/garrison/castle from disorganized defenders even if those defenders vastly outnumber the attackers. And the reverse is true. A group of 5 well armed people can defend any objective indefinitely if they know what, and where to use siege.

It is set up so that open warfare or "farming" kills will put you at a disadvantage to completing the over goal. There is literally zero point to it when the penalty for death is a mere click to spawn and run right back into battle a moment later, you will get nowhere fast trying to kill off the enemy. We spend a lot of time moving around to avoid combat, not engaging just for the sake of killing.

A zerg that moves from place to place destroying anything in their path will be quickly back capped from a smaller force once they leave, or shut down by a smaller group that can pinch them in choke points and wipe them out through smart play.

While I do see areas of concern and lots they could improve upon, in all honesty it is the kind of tactical warfare I've been looking for, for ages. One where strategy and execution wins.

I "should" just end it there, cause that is where my love for the game ends. The pve side is a casuals dream themepark of bland mediocrity, that starts with the lack of race/profession choices up to endgame mechanics that are the same stand here/ dont stand here and dps drivel that we have seen since WoW created it. Where everyone can collect cute pets and farm their life away on dungeons runs for trivial cosmetic outfits.

And I wont start on the technical flaws, missing functionality that should be standard practice these days, or business model affecting design and ... no cause that will just foul up my good mood.


As a system for every weapon or item, no thanks.

My one exception to the rule is always sentient weapons.

Some sentient weapons can work against you and would naturally start out as very weak, or even as a mundane weapon if they chose not to reveal their true nature. As you prove your worth, they slowly add additional power.

Over time a symbiotic relationship forms. As you become more familiar with not only the weapon, but the being whom now shares possession, it adapts to your fighting style and offers you sharper reflexes, more strength and so on. In return it gains a portion of the power that you earn together.


Elorebaen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

I'd also add that the decision to limit early growth might also create an incentive for the players who do get invited to have a stronger commitment to the game.

I think the importance of this comment is huge, especially in a sandbox environment that focuses on player interaction.

Both comments are worth repeating.

While I seriously hope I would be among the first after following the progress for so long. If by chance I am not, I would just as eagerly wait for my turn to see what those that did have made the world into.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is less about the rp aspect, tho that is major part of it for many.

To me it is escapism and immersion. I play to put myself into another universe, or setting outside of the real world. When I meet people with pop culture names, recycled names from other universes, and or dude speak names, it rips me right out of that place. Congratulations, with one simple "easily ignored" name, they have undermined the entire point of gaming for many of us.

Filters, and ignore features go a long way, but do not solve the problem. The solution is only through proper enforcement, and live support. If a name is reported, it should be reviewed and the offender questioned. If no suitable response, reason, or meaning is given to the name, GM's should change it on the spot. Hopefully in a knowledgeable and respectable manner. Censorship is not the affect I am going for, somewhere in the middle lies the answer.


It is almost a must to have different engines handle the various elements of game building and operating post production.

Account/billing/mtx management.
Server systems and database.
Graphics
World building/populating
And smaller more defined elements such as hit/collision detection.

I don't know of any one engine that can handle it all, or do everything "best". Although admittedly I haven't been keeping up on some of them as much as I have in the past. Each will bring something new to the table and may add to the larger picture, what another one alone couldn't. It will, as usual, come down to cost effective. Or, Can they get the desired affect without being "best in class" at whatever it is they are looking at.

The most critical will be graphics and world building, esp in a sandbox style changing landscape. Both for obvious reasons.

My guesses for those 2 area's are UR4(one can hope anyway,) and Big world.


This may be the worst thread on these forums. For more than one reason, and not only for the ones pointed out already.

Sad day.


Nicely done.


Will save my complete ideal tool set for a later date. But to touch on a couple things.

I can honestly say I am not a fan of the beastmaster line. In PnP it has its uses, but that rarely translates well into mmos. Micro managing them often becomes a burden on you, the healers, any control classes or everyone in general.

I would prefer them as short term supplemental bonus effects. Sort of a "You appeal to nature for aid" ability. Based on either zone specific animals, or a predetermined animal of your choice, they heed the call temporarily attacking your foes. Now you can add in a wide range of effects. Detrimental, bonus attributes or more utility, or raw damage. Snakes could weaken enemies. Hawks could allow you to track your prey. Others could pin down, slow movement, do raw damage, pinpoint vitals, or any number of options that add more flavor than the traditional here is your pet tank and one for dps.

As for camo/silent steps or whatever it might be called, I don't mind it being conditional. Outdoors only, decreased movement rate, self only, and proximity based. With higher specialization ranks improving those areas.

Rangers generally being one of the most versatile classes, available weapon proficiency should follow suit. With two specialization points for melee and ranged. Can use longbow, shortbow, crossbow, but has a bonus applied to his optimal weapon of choice. Same would apply for melee options.


©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.