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

Nihimon's page

Goblin Squad Member. 9,215 posts (9,218 including aliases). No reviews. 14 lists. 1 wishlist. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Pax Keovar wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
I really liked one of Ryan's first statements about offloading the AI processing to a server farm that can be constantly running to determine what the NPCs are doing even while there are no players in the area.
Ultima Online originally wanted t do something like that, but it became too unwieldy to have the server playing with itself when no players were there to care. It still seems weird to me...

It's an open question how the devs might address this, but in my experience it's easier to manage software when you don't have slightly different pieces of code that do almost the same thing. I see it largely as a choice between 1) having well-defined processes for interacting with the game-world that can be used live or automated vs 2) having one section of code that's used live and another bit that's supposed to simulate everything that would have happened. I would also worry about how much "server lag" would be introduced by having the server "play through" that simulation when a player first entered a previously unoccupied hex.

In my ideal MMO, the server wouldn't know or care whether it was a scripted PC or a live PC. Likewise, other players wouldn't necessarily know if it was a scripted PC or a scripted NPC, or even if it was a live PC played by someone who had some reason to want to appear to be an NPC, etc.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really liked one of Ryan's first statements about offloading the AI processing to a server farm that can be constantly running to determine what the NPCs are doing even while there are no players in the area.

I'd really love to see that taken one step further and allow the players to provide some of that by scripting what their characters are doing even while they're not logged in. I don't expect that in PFO, but it would please me if the industry moved in that direction.

Goblin Squad Member

Sadurian wrote:
*It is correctly poll- not pole-. The term comes from 'poll' meaning 'head' (as used in 'poll tax, for example) and not because it is on a pole.

I love learning things like this! Thanks :)

Also, I found very interesting the part in the original video link where the guy described a sword as a "side arm", in essence that it was useful because it could be worn without interfering with your daily routine.

Goblin Squad Member

Very cool link, I may end up searching for others from Schola Gladiatoria :)

Goblin Squad Member

Sadurian wrote:
In fact, reach weapons (spears and polearms) can be used in close quarters in real life.

I have no doubt that spears can be effective in close combat. I'm a little more skeptical about true reach weapons like pikes and true pole-arms (the kind that were designed to be used in formation from the 2nd or further rank back). And even then, I would imagine a short spear would be more effective in close combat.

Just my intuition, I haven't (yet) hit the link you posted.

[Edit] Watched the video - very cool, thanks for sharing! - and I see what you're saying. I think it all comes down to the "close quarters" thing. I think you're right to say they can be used in "close quarters", and I should have been more accurate because I was thinking more in terms of "confined" quarters, where the polearm-wielder doesn't have a lot of room to hold his hand out behind him while retracting the weapon. Again, awesome video link, thanks :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Tuncale wrote:
Unless there is a huge difference in carry-capacity between the killer and victim...
Folks specializing in transporting goods will no doubt have increased inventory space equipped, while folks specialized in killing them probably won't.
Not in the case of groups that focus on killing and looting.
Those groups will get wiped by the groups that focus on killing alone. Opportunity cost is a thing.
You are assuming even numbers, I'm not.

Good point, Bluddwolf. An entire Company of Bandits, with some specialized in transporting goods, some specialized in killing, and some generalized in both, will definitely be able to carry all the gear that a single traveler specialized in transporting goods might have. I'm not sure how I missed that nuance in my analysis.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
I think the WildStar rep took a minute to realize I wasn't disparaging his game.

I had to laugh a little when I heard you say "WildStar will be the last Triple A MMO Theme Park ever made" (which might not be an exact quote, but it's close enough). How many games have you said that about, now? Not that I think you're wrong - I find your analysis extremely compelling - but it's kind of become its own thing now, kind of like the way the blogs being named for song lyrics became its own thing.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Avari wrote:
... it revolves around attacks of opportunity...

I had the same thought.

Reach weapons were never intended to be used while soloing, so having a Fighter maneuvering to stay between you and the enemy - and capitalizing on any Opportunity the enemy presents as they to try to approach you - sounds like it would be kind of awesome :)

Goblin Squad Member

Monty Wolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
If someone has to blatantly misrepresent your point in order to even attempt to counter it, you know you're winning the argument.
I guess it would be better to send everything through to the GMs and get them to figure if out.

Q.E.D.

#Winning

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:
Well done Goblinworks on getting this far in such a short space of time in such a challenging genre.

+1

Goblin Squad Member

Tuncale wrote:
Unless there is a huge difference in carry-capacity between the killer and victim...

Folks specializing in transporting goods will no doubt have increased inventory space equipped, while folks specialized in killing them probably won't.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
You might have good reasons for killing the party member: faction or company hostility for starters, but those aren't excusable once you're both in a party.

Yeah, I believe Stephen has told us that being in a Party with someone always means you see them as Friendly, even if they'd normally have flags that would make them appear Hostile. So, I think you'll always lose Rep and Alignment for killing a member of your Party.

Urman wrote:
You should also be flagged, in case the rest of the party wants to kill you in return.

I think the simpler approach is to make the party kick you if they want to kill you, or if you're the leader, the other party members can drop first. I think it best to avoid trying to create situations where party members are flagged to other members of the same party.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I was saying that the best way to handle corpse camping is for players not to return to their corpse, for the sole purpose of retrieving their gear / loot.

And I was saying it's "interesting" that Ryan explicitly says defeated players are "encouraged to return to their corpses" in Some Good Reason for Your Little Black Backpack.

Maybe there's a disconnect between your vision and Ryan's that's illustrated by the difference. Maybe Ryan's trying to make a game where players don't have to learn all the hard lessons they would have to learn in most other PvP games. Maybe there's an market he's trying to capture that has a low tolerance for accepting that kind of behavior, and would simply quit playing if repeatedly subjected to it.

@Blaeringr - most open world games with unrestricted PvP tend to have very very hands-off policies when it comes to griefing. Pathfinder Online will be an exception to that trend.

Goblin Squad Member

I have no objection to bouncing ideas. I was specifically responding to you saying you "always assumed that would be the consequence of buddy killing (blue on blue)".

Goblin Squad Member

Harneloot wrote:

OK, another newbie question: What is a threaded item?

On another note, I can see I am going to need to spend quite a bit of time in the settlement hex until I get the hang of things!!!

See Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves for the full explanation.

In short:

Quote:
Each character has a certain number of "threads of fate" they can use to tie their equipment to them... These threads cause the items to which they are tied to remain with the character when the character resurrects, meaning threaded items cannot be looted.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
The Devs have mentioned the Betrayer / Traitor flag and I always assumed that would be the consequence of buddy killing (blue on blue).

The "Betrayer" trait is a faction thing. It doesn't look like it has anything to do with player-to-player interactions.

Players can choose to join a single alliance that they have gained rank 2 with...

You may choose to leave an alliance at any time, or you may be automatically forced out if your alignment is more than one step from the alliance's alignment.

  • If you choose to leave an alliance on good terms, or are forced out, your rank is reduced to 2 and your rating is reduced to be in the middle of the range for rank 2.
  • If you choose to betray your alliance, you immediately go to rank 0 and a negative rating with the alliance you are leaving, but gain half your old rating with a new alliance (that must be selected from your old alliance's enemies and with whom you must be within one alignment step of). You gain a trait, Betrayer, which means you can be killed by members of your old alliance without repercussion in terms of reputation or alignment for a period of time.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

If I were to do such a thing, I would sit by the corpse and wait for the owner to show up. If he or she should show up, I immediately loot from the corpse and get the thief / criminal flag. Then hope the player is foolish enough or underpowered / outnumbered enough to attack.

What I certainly might do is set up a blind right on top of your corpse, and attack the second you enter or SAD you.
Nihimon wrote:
For what it's worth, if I were to corpse camp someone in the way you described, I would sincerely hope the GMs would give me a stern talking-to.
Griefing is doing something to another player with the intention and primary outcome of ruining that player's experience.
@Blaeringr - most open world games with unrestricted PvP tend to have very very hands-off policies when it comes to griefing. Pathfinder Online will be an exception to that trend.

There are three ways [poor] behavior can be limited:

1: Game Mechanics...

2: Community Management...

3: Social Engineering...

It is not our intention to create an "anything goes" world where players are subjected to endless scams, ganks, and immersion breaking behavior.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
... in PfO... there's always room for another person...

+1

:)

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Monty Wolf wrote:

Gunna make for interesting siege warfare when the GMs have to talk sternly to everyone corpse camping.

"Don't fire your ballista at the naked mage at the base of your city wall! He is only retrieving his gear"

Why do you feel it is corpse camping to be "near" a corpse in a battlefield situation?

I don't think that anyone else does, when they examine the situational aspects.

If someone has to blatantly misrepresent your point in order to even attempt to counter it, you know you're winning the argument.

Goblin Squad Member

That's more of a "demonstration" than an "explanation"...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan's answer to the nonsensical question was disconnected from the direction he claims PFO is moving in.

I don't think so.

There are a lot of things Ryan has said about PFO that are applicable, including the fact that you can't change spec in the field, and that you can only slot a very limited number of abilities. "Suddenly the tank's the healer" isn't going to happen in PFO.

Ryan's answer seemed to me like an honest one, and I think the concerns he shares with the person who asked it are evident in much of PFO's design.

Bluddwolf wrote:
They (his group) probably feel he is useless dead weight as well.

Why is it so easy for you to insult people? I would genuinely feel bad about myself if I'd said something like that, yet it seems incredibly easy for you.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
The problem I have with your perspective Nihimon is, you always seem to turn to GMs and game mechanics to solve problems.

There are real problems with a lot of "Open PvP" games. GMs and Game Mechanics are part of the solution to those problems. The idea that we should just leave everything to the players to solve themselves is a horrid, horrid idea.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
On a final note, I did not say I would corpse camp. I said "if I were to corpse camp, this is how I would do it."

You're right, I misread you. For what it's worth, if I were to corpse camp someone in the way you described, I would sincerely hope the GMs would give me a stern talking-to.

Goblin Squad Member

Personally, I don't have a problem with outlandish armor as long as it's somewhat uncommon. I think the reason a lot of us are so opposed to it is because it's been so overdone in virtually every game at every tier.

Goblin Squad Member

Iatronas wrote:
Does anyone know the decay time one a corpse has been looted?

Some Good Reason for Your Little Black Backpack is, I think, the latest word on this. It doesn't specify how long your corpse lasts in the world, but it does state that after 5 minutes anyone may loot it without getting flagged.

It's also interesting that the blog explicitly says "Defeated players are likewise more encouraged to return to their corpses..." Something really rubs me the wrong way about Bluddwolf's warnings about never returning to your corpse because it encourages corpse-campers, and that Bluddwolf himself is the kind of player who gets off on corpse-camping. (Though, no doubt, he's only doing it to help the pour souls learn how to play a PvP game)

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
A fairly common and admirable practice of communication is to "say what you mean, and mean what you say."

Funny, it sounds to me like you're trying to say something without saying it. A stateless statement, as it were.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Ryan,

I find it hard to believe you would be uncertain of what our interpretation of FFA meant.

It's a fairly standard - and admirable - practice in communication to repeat what you understand to ensure clarity. It's a mistake to treat such clarifications as if they were signs of ignorance.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
There has been no discussion as a group about the idea of Hexes without Reputation and Alignment effects, if that is what you mean by "free for all".

That is what we mean :)

The overall impression I have right now is that FFA (consequence-free / every is flagged to everyone) PvP zones might be in the game, and they might have resources that can't be found elsewhere, but they aren't a major part of the design vision and probably won't show up until we've had a chance to heavily influence them via Crowdforging.

Goblin Squad Member

I think Ryan is saying fairly clearly that I shouldn't get my hopes up. He can't say what FFA PvP zones will have, but I'm taking it as a clear statement that they might have exotic resources that aren't available elsewhere (except on the market).

Goblin Squad Member

Harneloot wrote:
What is the Layered Response?

Ryan Dancey (Goblinworks Blog: Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves)

That link goes to the post where Ryan laid out the Layered Approach.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
I was hoping for an Abrams main battle tank for my druid. I mean... can you say armor?

That's on each shoulder, right?

Goblin Squad Member

Hey, I just follow the conversation where it goes. More often than not, I don't even pay attention to the thread title.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally don't have a problem with FFA PvP Hexes; I think they'll be fun. I don't have a problem with them providing rewards in the form of better concentrations of higher-value resources. I just don't want to see them be the only source of those higher-value resources*; I don't want to see them serve as any kind of gating mechanism.

To put it into perspective, imagine if there were certain resources* that were only available as rewards by the GMs for "winning" an RP contest.

* I'm talking about resources that are necessary for creating mainstream Tier 3 items, not weird resources that are only useful for odd, non-impactful items.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
If one group somehow manages to dominate the game and causes the culture to significantly degenerate to something toxic, Goblinworks damned well better step in and do something before it gets to the point where Ryan feels the only solution is to shut down the servers.
You don't recognize bluster when you see it?

I assume you're saying that this statement from Ryan is bluster.

I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.

That's fine if you want to pretend that.

But if you'll take a closer look at my quote - the part that you bolded - you'll see I didn't say "before it gets to the point where Ryan shuts down the servers".

It's all moot, though, because a game that would make Ryan want to shut down the servers won't be commercially successful.

Goblin Squad Member

Ruick wrote:
The only time that I have a problem with multi-boxing is ISO boxing. Meaning using a third party program where you control 1 character and the program mimics your controls for the others. Im pretty sure that is against the EULA but you see it from time to time in EVE online.

I know, to a metaphysical certitude, that there are a significant number of EVE players who use third party botting software that's a lot more complex than simply replicating keystrokes. They're paying a subscription to a company I won't mention here to have access to software that gives them complete automation and access to a lot of information directly from the game client.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Ryan is aware of this kind of thing. This is the crux of my argument that it would be better for this kind of automation to be sanctioned than to only allow those who are willing to break the rules to benefit from it. I understand there are a lot of folks who are comfortable with the illusion that this doesn't happen, but they'd be quite surprised I think to realize how widespread it is.

Goblin Squad Member

"Dazyk and the Hyperbolites"

I'm not sure if that's an awesome band name, or more reminiscent of Moses and the Hebrewites - or maybe Jason and the Argonauts...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
If you're being attacked by one or more characters in melee range, and your target is not one of those characters, I think you should take significant penalties to both your attack and your defense.

Thinking about this more, my intuition is that only two or three attackers should gain the benefits from attacking you while you're not targeting them. Any more than that and their attacks should start actually degrading. I think this should apply whether they're ranged or melee.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
If one group some how manages to dominate the world through legitimate means, I'd have an issue of GMs stepping in and plaguing them with artificial mishaps to undermine what they have built.

If one group somehow manages to dominate the game and causes the culture to significantly degenerate to something toxic, Goblinworks damned well better step in and do something before it gets to the point where Ryan feels the only solution is to shut down the servers.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you're being attacked by one or more characters in melee range, and your target is not one of those characters, I think you should take significant penalties to both your attack and your defense.

Goblin Squad Member

Tigari wrote:
It's as simple as, if I'm behind them, they can't hit me (or should be able to).

I think you'll be forced to accept that won't be the case in PFO. The auto-facing is not what enables them to hit you, it's the artistic illusion that makes it believable (when presented on-screen) that they did hit you. What enables them to hit you is the design choice not to punish folks with low ping rates by making them unable to hit folks with high ping rates who also choose to maneuver to stay behind them.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
I absolutely hate games where group PVP becomes a matter of targeting the raid assist target and throwing off your biggest attack.

Does it fundamentally change things for you if those players have to manually acquire the target?

Is the problem that everyone on one side is capable of hitting the same individual on the other? Or is it simply that /assist makes it too easy?

I can think of a number of ways to solve the problem other than removing /assist. Most notably, by giving Guards the ability to provide Cover for the Character they're Guarding, as long as they remain close.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius, would you have a problem with /assist if the character using it still had to have a clear line-of-sight to the target in order to do anything, and would hit obstacles in the way if they didn't? The main reason I don't have a problem with /assist is because in the real world humans (and dogs) are very adept at following others' gazes to see what they're looking at. There are myriad clues we give via body language, gestures, and eye contact that simply can't be modeled (yet) in any game.

I hear you about healing by watching and clicking on health bars, and it sounds like the PFO devs hear you, too. But rather than making it difficult to target the character you'd like to help, I'd rather it be (potentially) difficult to get close enough to them to make a difference. I think the real problem is being able to stand in the back and heal folks thirty yards away without having a clear line-of-sight, not the fact that it's easy to indicate to the game systems whom you are trying to aid.

Goblin Squad Member

Dazyk wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

...In my "perfect" MMO, every character you made would be in-game at all times, effectively living as NPCs while there was no player at the controls. Ideally, they would be controlled by processes running on client machines, and not on the server. I doubt this "perfect" (to me) implementation will be realized any time soon :)

Coolest idea ever.

Flattering, but probably a tad hyperbolic :)

Goblin Squad Member

I would very much love to be able to effectively play multiple characters at the same time. I don't really have a problem even with fully automated bots that run while there's no one at the keyboard, I just wish that games were designed with this reality in mind and chose to completely eliminate all the "grinding" that these kinds of bots are designed to automate.

In my "perfect" MMO, every character you made would be in-game at all times, effectively living as NPCs while there was no player at the controls. Ideally, they would be controlled by processes running on client machines, and not on the server. I doubt this "perfect" (to me) implementation will be realized any time soon :)

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Avari wrote:
I like hybrid systems. I also like different classes to feel different. Rogues should be twitchier, Clerics and Fighters more tabby and archers/mages more aimy.

I'm not suggesting this for PFO, but I've often thought it would be really cool if there were a completely different client for each class, with radically different game play. Obviously, that won't work in a game where you can mix and match skills and abilities from multiple classes in a single outing.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm a lot more open-minded about some of the alternate targeting systems folks like Andius have advocated than I used to be, but I'm still most comfortable with simple tab-targeting.

One question I have for the folks who want something different is: would you still want it if your foes weren't also forced to use it? If the answer is "yes", then I would strongly support the eventual inclusion of it as an optional feature. If the answer is "no", then I'd have to assume at least part of your motivation is gaining a competitive advantage over those who are less comfortable with it - even if you genuinely find it "more fun", "more engaging", or "more immersive".

We shouldn't have to wrestle with the UI to explain to the game systems what we are trying to do.

Goblin Squad Member

CosmicKirby wrote:

Hmm, responding just to the initial idea in the OP.

I would much rather have a single character than be pushed to have a stable of character tailored to separate roles.

For the record, my OP was not at all meant to suggest players should be pushed to create alts.

PFO will allow me to do everything I want to do on a single character, if I choose; it will just take me longer than it would if I paid multiple subscriptions and trained separate characters for each role. For the player that only pays for one subscription, there's no difference between having a single character who can do everything vs a stable of alts to fill distinct roles because whenever one character is training, the others are not.

Goblin Squad Member

Ravenlute wrote:

Nihimon, Wurm Online has a payment plan in the form of purchased playtime (subscription) for each character, not the account. You can choose to multi-box and play all of your characters at the same time if you wish. Having a second account has no real benefit because of this.

It sounds like PFO is going a similar route. Is that what you were looking for in your earlier posts?

Very much. I'm extremely happy with what's been announced with respect to accounts and subscriptions for PFO. Allowing me to have multiple Characters from the same account logged in at the same time takes away pretty the only reason I would want a second account.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love the way Decius writes. As I've said before, I often while reading him have the urge to say "that boy's got a purty mouth".

Goblin Squad Member

I'm curious why Xeen seems so obsessed with Ideasthesia.

1 to 50 of 9,215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©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.