When it comes to templates... I do have one problem right off the bat if we are talking "super hard to aquire, but very powerful and permanent".
They will not be uncommon 5 years into the game. I don't care if it takes 4 years to get. A permanant boost in a game where almost everything can be lost, IS HUGE.
Look at eve, titans take a stupidly large amount of work, there's tons of them in game... AND they are regularly destroyed. If CCP made a ship like the titan that was flat out exempt from loss, you could expect 15x as many people working towards them, basically they'd be everywhere.
(for those who are unfamiliar with eve, basically the titan takes thousands of man-hours worth of effort to build, something like 6 months of real time
Unless templates carried with them a pro's con list that made them evenly balanced against another character, they would be both overused. Raising the work to get them, would just leave new players at a point of "well I'll never reach that stregnth".
With items that can be lost, new players get the "it will take me years to get to that level, but hey there's also the chance that someone else will knock that guy down from his pedestal of power", by destroying that powerful item, bringing him down to my level.
Basically I hold this view on everything that is gamechangingly powerful, should have potential to change hands or disapear. Otherwise it is just a barrier to new players telling them they aren't going to be competitive or meaningful for a long time.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Well I may be in the minority here, but the main thing I have a problem with in the general concept of factions, isn't so much the lack of complexity, as the lack of a hypothetically obtainable end goal. IE in horde vs alliance, at least in my view the issue wasn't that there's only 2, but that it delves into "bob is alliance, he is my enemy, he is and will always be my enemy".
Is there any probability of some player controlled drifts or tides changing within factions. Like say members of faction A can vote and change the enemy from X to Y.
I can see some potential cool things that can come out of factions, assuming they are done as more than a "OK you can now freely kill anyone of X", being the extent of it. Like say random events, in which X evil faction gets a faction alert.
Reports of an artifact that can be used to enslave thousands has fallen somewhere in the area to the north, recover it.
Good faction Y: Reports have come in that faction X has learned of a powerful artifact to the north, you must prevent that from falling into their hands at all costs!.
IE meaningful events revolving around the groups having specific goals that come into conflict, with win/lose conditions and rewards/consiquences.
The idea of X and Y, being at permenant conflict, with no possibility of changing, no chance of swing, no logical expectation of a truce or any goals to be worked for, flat out turns me off to the concepts of the game as a whole. Namely because I do want to have heavy meaningful PVP participation, and if the majority of the PVP is just as a X is my enemy because X is my enemy... my interest in the game has just dropped 5 notches.
Hell's bells, I'd like Druids to spawn trees one day and such mining to despawn trees and graphically degrade the area as well as influence the numbers which is the most important part. Yeah so to begin with I like Being's suggestion: Druid skill to increase yield/rate/recovery and so on. Very fitting and you want Druids right at the outer limits of the inputs to settlements
Only real problem with that is the metagamey side that will arise from it. IE while it may be druid like to help replace trees that go back. It isn't very druid like to pop trees up in front of the guy with an axe. In lore you would expect the druid to be trying to make the lumberjacks focus more on sustainability, keeping the forest alive etc... IE keeping the priority goal as the survival of the forest, and balancing ensuring the humanoids are able to fit into the balance.
In an MMO, especially one with competition as a heavy motivator, you can expect the druids concern for the value of nature, to be limited exclusively to where it benefits the humans. "Oh we have a different harvesting site, let me buff this one up a bit so you can get the most of it while driving it to the ground before we make our sustained forest the second one".
Then again, we could have a plausible route from that... Mechanics could be tweaked to encourage better options.
1. Resources regen based on their max. IE lets say the max value is 1,000, at 800+ the forest regens 50/hr. 700-799 40/hr, 600-699 30hr 500-599 25/hr, 400-499 20/hr, 300-399 10/hr, 299 and below, node is effectively dying, A costly spell can grant it 5/hr regen, until it re-reaches 300 and can slowly start growing back up.
With the exception of the 300- druids have an ability that can increase these regen rates by X%
Now, to further it though, The druids should also still have motivation to keep these sites high, even if their settlement no longer needs it. Druid's training and possibly some of their abilities, are affected by an overall "thriving" status. IE for the druids to gain the most of their abilities, (with the exception of the lower skills that are available from NPCs, as this won't apply to the NPC settlements for obvious reasons), The thriving status would be an extra stat to a city, based on the amount of healthy forests etc... within their claimed hexes.
It still has the drawback of the druid will have no motivation to care outside of their territory, and most likely will be happy to aid a scorched earth burn down the enemies forest type of plan, but as a whole, it covers most of the goals.
I'm way late to respond to this, as I kind of forgot about this thread, and haven't fully caught up, but I figured I'd explain my point a bit deeper. The issue is there's a lack of long term consequences, unless you define disposable gear that you are expected to lose often as meaningful somehow.
A settlement divvying for control of a harvesting source, conquest, etc... is pretty meaningful. Bandit's and their continual arms and strategy against cargo runs, is also pretty meaningful. The biggest thing is, both have means to an end at some point. The merchants get some bounty hunters and drive the bandits away from route X, or the bandit's arrange a payment plan for the merchants to pay not to be robbed. Settlements and nations fall, or arrange peace. Longterm there is an end goal that they are fighting for, even if it is never reached, the fact that it is there, adds a meaning to the conflict.
A war between the gods, or between any NPC characters that never reach the foreground, and never changes beyond some sort of point system they reward their followers in. Can factions rise and fall? Can their friends/enemies change? Does Joe killing bob, have any impact at all to anything in the world besides Joe and Bob's gear and faction rep? If the answer is no to those questions, I have a hard time calling it "meaningful".
Hobs the Short wrote:
Not necessaraly. People who play games certainly do so to have fun, and making relationships of all sorts, has a huge impact on the profitability etc... as well the skill training system etc... will lower the grinding, but there will of course be a high need for monster hunters etc... looking for a good score of loot, harvesters etc. There will almost certainly be times in which gathering resources will be at a below average rate. Those will be the time that people will find higher value in the social arts, making sure to have allies, assistance for when a huge harvesting oprotunity arises or an attack is impending etc...
Just like the real world. In business during the slower times, you'll find lots of executives, agents etc... doing things that on one aspect are a waste of company resources to stregnthen relationships. Companies taking different people out golfing, or to a fancy resteraunt or whatever to help solidify longterm business. If there are activities that are more enjoyable but less "reward" for the settlement, they will not be completely ignored by succesful organizations.
In modern society, not really. Something has knocked that part out of humanity, which I find somewhat odd. Perhaps somewhere down the line in humanity of which violent nature did much more to increase human survival, while human's jealous nature combined with said violence lead to a much lower rate of survival. As far as what time that particularly went into human development though, is anyone's guess.
Ever seen bonobo's in zoo's? Probably not, While they are the most genetically similar to human beings creature still in existence. They are generally not kept in any family establishment, due to the fact that almost every social interaction they have, involves some form of sexual acts, with very little concern over gender, age etc...
While the historical accuracy of the bible is very debatable, a brief reading of the bible regularly talks about cities etc... in which were referred to as "evil" and "filled with sexual immorality", that were slaughtered by either yaweigh or his followers. While I don't personally take the bible to be a very reliable historical document. It does show parts of what people thought and/or knew of at the time of it's writing, and it appears that within the bronze age, there either were societies in which casual sexual actions were publicly no big deal, but those societies were greatly disliked by outside cultures (at the very least hated by jewish culture).
There's a thing with mac addresses, they aren't routed. IE if your ISP were to scan you for a mac address, they'd get your routers mac address (which is in most cases 100% programmable, as early on ISPs put up a fight against home users using routers and would only allow access to the mac address of the one PC, routers almost immidiately were given programmable mac's so that they could imitate the PC), if I were to scan your IP for a mac address, I believe I'd get whatever the first hop in the long path of routers that network traffic goes through.
The only way a game can know someone's mac address, is if the client asks the OS, then the client tells GW. The OS and the Client will both be moderately easy targets to fool, and just ignoring that, a basic network card is roughly $3-$15 which would change your mac for real.
Onto the topic of griefers, Griefing is usually done because it is easy. In the event of dealing with the need to ban the sorts of griefing GW intends to ban is simple. For the most part, it is done by short attention spanned, annoying types. If you set the minimally viable griefer bar up to a decent height, (IE it takes 2 weeks of paid training before a griefer has any shot of really being a problem for anyone), and ban the behavior fairly quickly. Griefers would get bored pretty fast... $5 and 2 weeks of time spent, for a few hours of "fun".... totally not worth it.
Hackers... that's a different ballgame, and I personally like GW's methodology on it. Namely treat the client as compromized. Make any information sent to the client, available to the user. If that is done, then no amount of hacking etc... will uncover information that the user shouldn't know.
Same goes for speed etc... The most secure method of running the game, is for the client to be a dumb terminal. The client should have no say in how fast the character is moving, or anything that happens. the user tells the client the move action, client tells the server the user wants to move, the server tells the client where he is.
Then all that's really left to deal with is botting, which while the most complicated part, is also the most visible, and easiest to spot and punish, both as a player, and for the Dev's to swing their banhammer.
This is the philosophy that creates the groups of morons that you are complaining about. Why do people don't care to work in a group exist at such high levels in most MMORPGs, Because being a bane to every group, does not hinder their progression in any way shape or form. Failing at 99% of groups, is irrelevant to them because solo is where all the progress is made.
When not grouping is actually a huge hindrance to progression, the group bane types that make grouping horrible, either
I'm not saying to make solo imposible, but the easier it is, the more bad groups you will find. Making grouping worse, making solo better by comparison, ad infinium.
That is why my general opinion, the benefit of solo, should be scaled against what you can expect to gain on a bad party. Thus solo you expect say 100 coin/hr value, group you expect 90-1,000/hr value depending on quality of group.
The key to this idea, is they can't be balanced evenly. If an hour in a group = 1 hour solo, then 5 minutes looking for and organizing a group, puts groups behind. Leading to more soloers, making groups take longer to form as less people are looking for groups. Making it take 10 minutes to find a group, loop repeats, groups take 15 minutes, then 30, then hours. I've seen that feedback loop so many times, in so many different games I have darn near given up on MMORPGs. They try over and over again to make it even, but then don't factor in that organization time, is an inconsistent variable that changes based on time of day, seasons, etc... Then of course there is the variable of non-ideal groups, backstabbing, potential loot stealing etc...
Solo vs group, Solo needs to be balanced not against a good day in which you log in, and there is a great organized party waiting for you in which everyone is geared up and ready to go.
Rather it needs to be balanced against the low end of partying, IMO it needs equal problems in setup time, problems happening outside of your realm of control etc...
This can be accomplished as well within PFO's system as well. The world isn't going to be segregated where "If I go here, there's no chance of running into anything I can't handle". Instead you can go there, sneak around, attempt to find the right enemies etc... But still run the risk of "oh crap that kobold just yelled for help, now I've gotta fight 8x more kobolds than I was prepared for, or run away. Or oh crap I was jumped by a group of rogues etc... Or simply "crap I walked 20 minutes out here, and there's no enemies in my league around" etc...
The key issue with solo in so many games, is it is too attractive on the grounds that, 100% of the variables are in my control. I could get a party, but then I have to share the loot, the other party members might not know what they are doing, etc... Or I could make the same gain solo, with only worrying about myself.
The false assumption that making them equal is possible, is what leads to the regular path of the modern MMO being
Solo to cap, maybe have a few optional instances on the way which mandate partying.
At cap raid parties are the only way to progress.
I'd say it isn't explained, much because it isn't a priority. the blogs, depth etc... is based on where they are developing their time, resources etc...
The settlement building game, economics, etc... is the focus of the game. The escalation system, dungeons, etc... are secondary. The general concept of the developers for the game in it's entirety, revolves on 2 key things.
1. You make your own meaning for your character.
2. When you change the world, that change is intended to stay in place.
IE, when you deal with an escalation involving clearing out the ravenous kobolds away from area X. The intent is not that when you leave, instead of still seeing the exact same quantity of kobolds standing around for the next player to kill off. But to actually feel you've cleared the kobolds out.
The overall intent of the developers is not to create 1 consistant story that every player walks through, nor do they have time to possibly develop 500,000 unique stories for each person to walk through.
You will be able to solo, but it will 1. Be much harder, and 2. Will most likely not hold your hand and tell you what you are supposed to be doing.
CUUURRSSEE YOUUUU DANCEY!!!!! what good is my digging through 2 years of your posts, if you are just going to give us a modern relevant quote confirming it before I can finish!!!
If you keep this up, people like me and Nihmon might have smaller ego's than we currently do!
One thing to factor in however when it came to things like WoW. Your total skills are finite. IE say when a change adds in a new skill, and you've already spent all of your skill points, you CANNOT get that new skill without a respec. In addition of course respecs were common nature of the game. IE if you wanted to be a PVP warrior and a PVE warrior. The skills needed are drastically different. A PVP warrior in PVP, would die on the first AoE or the first time he took agro in PVE, and a PVE warrior would live indefinently in PVP, but his damage would be so low people wouldn't bother to attack him.
PFO on the other hand, if they add in a new skill, your character may absolutely train that skill and keep the skill you took, and in the hypothetical event that the changes they made, turned a skill completely 100% useless, at the very least, it is a bonus to the relevant attribute.
Admitted without kill based XP, my biggest pet peves with respecs is gone. (IE it ticks me off in games when say build X makes levels 1-50 super easy, build Y is best for the long run, and people who use build X are rewarded with build Y despite picking the easy way out).
The greatest issue I do see with respecs in PFO, is how can a respec handle a non-defined blur of classes.
OK we've changed wizard skills.... everyone playing gets to chose from scratch? IE a high level wizard overnight can become a high level barbarian, sounds silly
I nearly always took a level or two in Rogue in DDO, there were lots of goodies you missed without Rogue skills. As avari3 mentioned, they have all the skills that a true dungeon crawl requires.
Yeah DDO in concept, nearly had one of the most enjoyable forms of rogues I've seen in an MMO. Between having a large part of stealth be strategic. (IE enemies facing direction, lighting etc... being factors rather than the standard MMO, I have sneak level 6, he can't see me", as well as actually using a decent amount of the utility portions of the class.
Of course where it fell apart in DDO. came in 1. 99% of the utility could be accomplished with a 2 level dip. 2. The traps, while they were deadly on the high difficulties, were usually possible to avoid if you knew what and where they were... and DDO's scripted nature, combined with the amount of vets either rolling new alts and re-incarnating... plus the dungeons having multiple difficulties, the easier ones usually solod, in a party of 5... odds are someone already knows every nook and crany of the dungeon, thus trap spotting and disarming, became more about the tiny boost to the end XP, usually with the rogue disarming the traps while or after his party has already taken off to go fight things.
That being said... PFO from my understanding, is talking about dungeons that appear randomly, and disapear when cleared. Which I believe that means randomly generated dungeons... which brings the nature of players in the dungeon IMO as close as you can get to the true P&P, none of the players know what's behind that door, as you can get without a DM custom writing unique encounters for every group of players. Doing so, does create potential for utility skills and spells, to actually come in handy.
Worth pointing out that, technically you do need far more than gold. The gear will be largely unusable without the training, which requires both time, and community position (the training facilities for higher training forms is exclusively going to be in high level player camps, and They will decide whether or not you can access it or not.
In addition of course to the gear itself, high powered groups who are obtaining the hardest to earn items in the game, certainly aren't going to just hand it over to joe nobody, no mattter how much money he has.
As well you also are neglecting the fact, that the gear itself, isn't safe forever. the better the gear, the more threads it takes to protect a single piece. If we are seriously talking the best gear in the game... you would most likely need to train the maximum threading ability, just to protect one piece of it. Someone with the gear, but not skills (both trained, and player) to back it up, and without allies to run with etc... would go through gear costing real world money fast enough to make bill gates flinch.
Eve has had the model for almost a decade, yet of everyone I know who's played it, some have quit for different reasons, but virtually no-one I know of has had an issue with any pay2win existance within the world.
I would say a foundry at launch, will be beyond impossible. Designing the world etc... as ryan has mentioned, has at least a few components that just take time, and no amount of money, or even staff can make go faster.
The concept of a foundry, until the world is in, balancing can't start, without balancing of abilities etc... instances can't really be developed.
One thing also worth pointing out, a foundry in the context of PFO... will be far less popular than it is in a game like NWO.
Why? quite simple, the reward factor. In neverwinter, the foundry quests etc... had comperable in game rewards to the remainder of the game. XP loot etc...
PFO... it can't, shouldn't and won't have anything comparable to the other activities that are already implimented. (considering every other activity involves, finding a site, passing through wildernesses, of which the value of the rewards will usually be scaled within the risk of PVP and enemies just to get there), as well every other aspect of the game is designed to dry up, vanish, move etc...
The key is, the category of things that "modules" are mentioned to be in, in order to not margionalize and destroy the rest of the game, will have to fall into 2 possibilities.
1. Items that are exclusive to modules, possibly used as a piece for certain items/equipment to be crafted with, but it cannot replace the materials needed from the actual sandbox side of the game.
2. Negligible/no reward. or entirely social structure based reward. (IE settlements/CC's may use these as enrollment tests)
Half agree... To purchase yes, to obtain, in any way shape or form absolutely.
To see? I don't really see how that will effect anything. Multi's, bots, duplicate accounts, pick your poison. Some way shape or form, the big players will find a way see the prices, and have it aggregated to a settlement wide or public document. Updated daily at the slowest, but probably hourly, it's just unavoidable there. In my opinion nothing is ever balanced by people not knowing stuff. Information at this day in age is at the point where if one person can know it, everyone will very shortly.
Not sure on that... I'm not even sure what exploit you are trying to solve. Are you meaning if say Joe has the only X, and bob tells joe it's worth 500gp, while knowing it's worth 20k, is an exploit, rather than Joe not doing his research?
I'd say the solution you are proposing is worse than the problem. In my opinion NPCs buying stuff, should be the extremely rare exception of what to do with items, which should be going into the crafting economy, being salvaged to make into something to craft etc... Having NPCing be a reasonable alternative, can lead to massive inflation, as that's a pretty big faucet, that cannot be contained.
Fully agreed there. GW has designed a very good long chain for equipment to enter into the economy.
adventurer gathers big rare components from dangerous boss monsters/escalations, harvesters gather large quantities of less rare, both are sent to refiners, who send them to crafters, who make them into stuff, and sell them to adventurers (or possibly middlemen who sell them to adventurers).
When you cut it down to "adventurer gets item", skipping all the markups etc... from every step inbetween... well you wind up with WoW's crafting system, in which 5% or less of crafters, actually make more than they spend.
Cohorts and Hirelings? Something for players who might be in different timezones and not be able to be part of the main time-zone players !
Indeed, the fact is within the bounds of open PVP, there will almost certainly be goonswarm like groups, which can be expected to make up roughly 20% of the world and if there is a viable "superpower" class/skill combination that can run down everything and everyone... well you can pretty much expect them to do it.
Of which the first consiquence, is going to be those who like both RP, and winning on occasion, lets say these guys make up 60% of the world, these guys will inevitably be forced to adapt to not face continually getting their face rubbed in the dirt by group 1.
Finally is group C. The guys who will play what they want to play with no consideration of power. Group 1 will steamroll these guys (admitted, they most likely would regardless, group 1 will inevitably be optimized to the maximum potential, but the bigger thing is, group 2 also is steamrolling them. As a result, part of group 3 will adapt and take the OP route, a good portion will quit, and a tiny portion will remain true to themselves. Most likely as hunting targets for group 1, as they form their puny little resistance.
Now all that being said, this isn't the nail in the coffin for creating powerful necromancers with undead swarms. The solution is rather simple.... The upkeep to fuel one man's undead swarm, must be drastically more than 1 man can rationally obtain by himself. If it takes 20 people to obtain, secure and manage the supply chain to keep 1 swarm going, then 1 in 20 will be able to go necromancer, as everyone going necromancer would result in characters being non-functional 95% of the time. In addition of course the time to build up a swarm could be notable, and when a side kills them off, they could take just as long to replace as they did to create. The old expression the bigger they are the harder they fall, is a fully viable balancing condition, unless you actually make it so powerful that they won't realistically ever lose.
I'd say 2 factors have to be applied on the should pets be killable.
1. Are we talking multiple teirs of drastically different power of pets.
IE if there is an epic pet that must be tamed and earned, that is not an automatic earn for the class just by leveling up, then the boosted pet is following the same general rules as equipment, and thus must be vulnerable to item loss etc... If reaching a certain merit badge, or training the pet handling skill etc... poof allows you to have the pet, and the only variation of that vs someone else with the same training and badge is cosmetic (or a choice, but they have the same options as you), then it is a class feature, and should be immune.
2. pet use/equiping.
If using the pet counts against your equipped skills, stamina etc... (IE commanding it etc...) then that is a vote towards it being a class skill, and thus recoverable without any real hassle.
If the pet is an added bonus on top of your choice of equiped skills. Then the pet is a bonus consumable... and thus subject to death. (remember everyone is going to be multiclassed to some extent at some point, if it is ballanced for a druid with X skills to have it, it still has to also not be a drastic improvement for a 20/20 wizard/druid to be using pure wizard skills, with a pet out, without blowing a normal 20 wizard out of the park.)
Well in the browser based game pardus, friends lists are actually specifically tied to mechanical connections. IE there are buildings called military outposts that work as blockades. Of which they can be set to allow or deny your friends etc... Starbases also had key settings in which foes could not dock or repair, indifferent (IE neither friends nor foes) could dock and repair unless they had a terrible reputation score, and friends could actually access squadrons (which were used to destroy starbases). Currently they are about to impliment a seperate contacts list, to allow people to have friend/foe lists, without worrying about it jeopordizing security of their allies.
Anyway the point I'm making here, there could be 2 seperate types of lists of friends. IE 1. a list of friends/enemies that controls say whether someone has access to their settlement resources, shops training facilities etc... and a different one that functions for PM convenience etc...
The prior type of list should be discoverable via in game means, the latter should not, in my opinion.
IMO the biggest and most clear distinction to me. In general in most MMO's the main benefit of crits in PVP, is to 1-2 shot someone to ensure that the healer does not get a chance to land a heal on the target. Debuffs on the other hand are the exact oposite, depending of course on what they do. They actually give the cleric an oprotunity to respond and land a beneficial spell to remove the debuff. Yes they do effect the turn of the battle, which they are supposed to, but the key point is, they do not automatically win or lose the battle.
Soldack Keldonson wrote:
Training time in PFO is going to work like plex in eve, IE someone has to buy it, the prices will hit supply/demand rates etc... The issue would come if say your alt trader, reached a point where he could make enough money to feed your main's training, and thus you no longer need to train your alt, but someone would still need to be paying real money for any characters you train, and of course training time will be subject to the laws of supply/demand. IE if there are far more people who are attempting to buy training time, than there are people buying extra training time, the in game cost of it will go up, as people selling it will be able to mark the price up further.
Always found that technical mechanic funny in some games, It ain't easy to swim in plate... it ain't much easier to swim with a full plate suit in your backpack unless you have that as extra-dimensional space.
It's not a bad system....the problem, of course is the "grab and log" manuver.... which effectively eliminates the targets ability to respond if the delay (on a good perception roll) is longer then the character persistance delay when logging...I guess the way to deal with that is to extend the regular persistance delay by whatever value was on the flagging delay?
Personally in all situations I think log, needs to be a process that leaves your character vulnerable for at bare minium 5 minutes though up to 30 could be reasonable, unless you chose to log out in a designated safe location (IE taverns etc...). Doing so immidiately after a kill, looting etc... before defenses can mount, is just ripe for abuse, regardless of what mechanics, and completely undermines the abilities for humans to police anything.
In addition I think when logged out more than 20 minutes, a character should be returned to their spawn points. Otherwise I could see some horrible abuse war mechanics. In this example I'm making Y the defenders, X the attackers, and K the siege weaponry party ====== will be Y's settlement
X approaches Y's settlement walls, logs out, 20 minutes later a second member of X repeats. 20 minutes later another etc... Y never notices because... well one guy approaching a settlement has little meaning. but over 48 hours.... half of X's army is invisibly at the gates.
Settlement X moves it's siege warfare party in, Y moves out it's defenders.
Poof, a 40 man army pops up behind defense formation Y, quickly creates formations, Y is caught pants down in a pincer due to the invisible forces approaching.
I personally don't disagree with nihmon's permanant logon idea, but even without it logoff cannot simply be Poof I disappeared just before your axe hit my head.
Now I know the objections to the long vanish time if not in a safe zone already.
1. But what if I'm out in the wilderness and need to use the bathroom.
2. But if my power or internet goes out I will probably die.
I believe theoretically if we hit 200 billion, GW can put the extra money into advanced physics, thus possibly leading to the completion of time travel, and permitting future Ryan to bring back the finished product yesterday thus allowing launch tomorrow. Unfortunately in bad news, since if he had it yesterday he didn't tell us, we either inevitably fail to raise the 200 billion, or time travel to yesterday is impossible.
Hobs the Short wrote:
Ditto there, it would be downright awesome to see warring kingdoms have to drop everything they are doing, and join in the resistance from goblins, bugbears, orcs etc... that are just flat out devistating everything in their paths. Admitted there are scenerios where it could theoretically get too far out of hand. IE the bulk of the world is overtaken, and any attempted resistance gets splattered, then the facilities to manufacture gear to compeat against such a threat becomes moot, training halted etc... Though I'd say that could be managed with stealth nerfs etc... IE an invading force holding more than 10 hexes gets a bit weaker monsters etc... The cost of a player organization goes up exponentially the more hexes they control, that could be the explanation for monsters to have that weakness as well. Done as a soft cap rather than a hard blatently visible cap.
Personally I disagree slightly. I think friendly fire could have benefits.
Yes in many situations it would be very difficult to hit enemy targets without hitting friendlies. That however, adds strategy into spell selection. Personally I think the whole, best strategy to kill a bunch of things quickly is to tangle them and your tanks up into one big clump and then drop bombs on their head, is getting a bit overdone. IMO fireball could be a very awesome opener spell IE bomb the hell out of them before distance is closed, and once that distance is closed, switch to single target spells and aid your team into picking things off, for both PVE and PVP.
Secondary options could be specific buffs etc... to protect from elements. IE have your team buffed to the brim with fire resistance, via spells, or have them plan ahead with fire resistant armor etc... or lightning resistance, or cold resistance etc... Adds a bit of depth to PVP when your enemies may be choosing their own elements etc...
Stop right there!, If everyone reaches a uniform consensus on an alignment discussion related to anything pathfinder or D&D, the universe will implode upon itself. We could all be DOOOMED, DOOOOOOOOOOMMMMEEED
That's ridiculous, are you saying you can't be a Lawful Good atheist or anti-theist?
A PALADIN recieves his code from a god. A Paladin is lawful good.
But you can be Lawful Good without being a paladin or even believing in the gods. Having an ethical or moral code does not need any divine inspiration.
The doctor that invents a cure for a community without charging for it because "good health belongs to everyone" is lawful good (follows the Doctor's code AND seeks no personal financial improvement).
Care to revise your definition to be less offensive to atheists and agnostics?
Well, within the bounds of the pathfinder universe, atheists and agnostics are pretty illogical concepts. The existence of higher powers is a demonstrable fact within the context of the universe. It is one thing to doubt the existence of Bigfoot when only a small group of people claim to have seen him. Doubting the existence of deities in the pathfinder universe, is like doubting the existence of dogs in our world.
Antitheist by definition is one opposed to belief in gods, so it also falls into the same category as atheists and agnostics by our worlds definitions.
That being said, it is fully plausible within the pathfinder universe to be LG and
Distrust dieties, not agree with 100% of what they stand for, not want to chose one particular deity etc... Lawful is the preference of order over disorder.
Lawful good believes a well designed government (either under the rule of someone who has the good of all in mind, or a democracy). That being said, a lawful person does not just sit and accept it when the law opposes his morals. He would do anything in his power to have the law changed, a corrupt government overthrown or abolished, and a better one put in place. If the LG character has no means to do so, he would leave, and follow a group that fits with his morals. If the oprotunity arises he would lead his new group to liberate those suffering under the current rule (assuming he couldn't take those who are equally outraged with him).
Actually has nothing to do with that show, the issue dates back several decades. It is called intelligent falling, and it mostly came about when certain religious groups did not like conclusions that scientists had made, and worked to ensure that in common speech, the word theory came to mean a guess without evidence to support it.
If you ask an off the street american what a theory is, they will tell you it is a guess that has not been proven. While in scientific context it essentially means an explanation for many confirmed facts.
It is going to be an RPG, that is actually focused on your character living a life. Part of that will obviously include RTS elements, construction elements, adventuring elements, PVP elements etc...
The key focus of GW, is that it is going to be about players interacting with other players, Less focus on individual player vs weak NPC. There will certainly be NPCs to fight, but the team aspect of fighting is going to go way over the usual RPG grind that has been leading the game industry that people are recently defining as "RPG"
Yeah as kitnix said, you are massively misinterpreting what blaer was saying. The fact is this is a PVP game, in PVP games a decent portion of the gamers will use what they can to get an edge, which will make people who don't use that edge unable to compeat.
The game needs to focus more on human level tactics, than speed of how fast you can hit multiple buttons, or else it will be dominated by people using macro's.
I believe the intention is that any group worth anything, is expected to own territory, as territory management is going to be the bread and butter of the game. I think you are thinking of territory as something a large group might want to pursue, but I believe GW's intention is that territory is why the organizations form at all.
CC's pre-settlement are just a placeholder for people to work together in building a settlement, afterwords they morph into a subgroup of a settlement, but the primary key is, the world revolves around settlements, training, crafting etc... all revolves around what sort of settlement you currently belong to.
The general feel of goblinworks for the game, is they are encoraging loads of different specializations with different uses. IE a set of gear that is awesome for killing Dragons, undeads etc... is not going to be so awesome for killing humanoid races etc...
Undeads could be implemented as a very valuable tool for defending a lair etc... and a horrible tool for, going outside of your lair and adventuring with. Because you have a hammer, you can't say it is unfair that it doesn't seem particularly good at removing screws. I'm sure when they impliment abilities etc... They will have uses, but that does not mean they have to be usable in every possible scenario, or in every location.
Think about the P&P game, It isn't exactly common to see or hear of necromancers, just walking around town with a crew of skeletons following them, when they reach the public eye, their undead should be hidden away.
I believe the analogy you were looking for isWho better to design your banks security system than an ex bank robber. Very valid point, and look at the real world. Big named hackers who have since reformed, most of them afterwords work as security consultants.
Though I do have to largely disagree with the statement that eve was designed at it's core as a griefing game. The community in eve swings in every direction. There are indeed celebrated griefers, there are also some very large highly co-operative groups focused on building things up, as well as groups dedicated to helping people, as well as groups just focused on setting up public events. Yes the huge named griefers make the news, if they do an action large enough it does get published in all of the gaming websites, even ones not dedicated to eve. But even in the major newsworthy events, most of them aren't what I would consider griefing.
Burn Jita, I agree vaguely qualifies, though they certainly gave plenty of warning for people to actually avoid it if they wanted.
Titan kill: I generally don't consider taking down the biggest scariest ship currently in the game as griefing. It is specifically attacking the character MOST capable of defending himself and making himself known. IMO a griefer is one who repeatedly attacks someone who should not be able to defend himself.
Neadenil Edam wrote:
Sort of like... what already exists... IE you can walk to your husk, wait for the monster to walk away, collect your husk and lose nothing?
But why should it avoid the evil tag... if it has the same penalty as death? If we allow the same reward as killing someone... then we give the bandits the full advantage of killing, but lessen their reputation hit? Why would anyone ever full kill then beyond petty revenge. If we are lessening the penalties to the killed by say not destroying what isn't used, then all we are doing is eliminating the intended item loss system corrupting the ability for the economy to flow as intended. If we do keep the intended item destruction system... then we are essentially offering killing, in a slightly worse form (Leaving the victim in a dangerous location instead of warping them to a safe location)
Stephen Cheney wrote:
But it seems like it'd be more agreeable to start strict and ease off than to try to patch in a bunch of new penalties later.
You know, this is the first common sense explanation I have heard in regards to these penalties. Once actually understanding that you aren't necesarally seeing the current plans as trying to hit the bullseye perfect, but instead erring on the side of caution, then losening up, it makes more sense.
I still have over all concerns over the concepts, like CE settement being as defined as "the worse possible settlement for access to training etc...", the flags I honestly don't have a problem with.
IMO I 100% agree with "Make being hated as hard to survive, progress etc... as possible", Attach bells to the evil guy, put up warnings for entire alliances when an evil guy gets within 500 feet of a good town, all things I support.
I am still in disagreement with "Impose an impenetrable wall for how powerful an evil player can reach".
Maybe certain crafts will be harder or not in those towns also. Take a poison. They might be cheap in the naughty town, relatively expensive in the medium town, and not at all in the boy scout town. Opposite holds true for cure light wounds pots. Still I would look at that as a prime import business opportunity.
I don't know, the wording to me implies differently.
The more grief you cause, the worse your alignment, and eventually you'll only be able to access the worst sort of Settlement. That will have a direct influence on your character's relative power vs. other characters of a similar age.
If you ask me that is pretty clearly saying CE settlements are by definition "the worst sort of settlement", and as a result CE characters will have the lowest relative power.
If he used wording to imply "Different", IE evil clerics channel negative energy, good ones channel healing. Evil characters don't get access to X, but good characters don't get access to Y. I would be 100% for it.
Of course there is one possible meaning that could be different. If he means being known for being griefers, IE being the most hated specifically, meant your settlement is likely to be under constant attack, thus you would be unlikely to develop it's training before being torn down, this I could get behind and agree with. But that wouldn't be directly tied to alignment.
One of the key things in many MMO's I believe on the topic. The arguement of "Getting a group takes to long", is a self fulfilled prophecy in many games.
In older games, on servers with negligably small populations (I'm talking the pre-EQ mmo's, where 400 on a server was considered popular), Soloing was usually much harder than grouping, generally by a factor of 10:1, Getting a group together, took 5-10 minutes tops, up loaded and ready to go, why so easy? because everyone playing is looking for a group.
Now lets hit the other end of the spectrum, perfect world or WoW pre-dungeon finder. Sign in... shout around town, beg, cry... stand around shouting again, ask guild again.... 3 hours later you get a group to go, and your main tank or healer suddenly realizes he has to go somewhere, start all over.
Why the difference... it's easy. When 90% of the game is reasonable solo, well 25% of players by default prefer that gameplay and are taken out of the pool of potential party mates, another 25% are equal opportunity, if you ask them they will go, but if not they'll quickly head out, another 25% vastly prefers grouping, but will still solo if it takes more than 30 minutes to get a group, then finally the 25% that does not like solo at all.
Myself I fall into that last 25%, and what frustrates me is almost every game currently coming out, caters so much to soloers, that either soloing is faster gains than partying (IE the gains from grouping are less than the losses from the XP + loot being split), or so close to the same that it's even... if you ignore the set-up time, which is through the roof because of the self fullfilling "nobody's looking for a group, because they think nobody's looking for a group"
IMO there are dozens and dozens of games catering to soloers, and I greatly hope PFO does not fall into the same category of games that errors on "ensuring soloers feel like they are accomplishing a-lot, as a consequence grouping is a rare special occasion".
IMO there is plenty of room for in-between, but one thing I've noticed in older MMO's and in DDO before they went crazy on dungeon scaling etc... If grouping is drastically more beneficial than soloing, group set-up time isn't an actual factor.
I am 75% sure the original post is intended to be satirical. IE a post saying that the anti-griefing measures are already too far, and attempting to point it out by attempting to humorously stretch it further than any rational person should want to back.
The sad state of affairs is the amount of posts that are in the extreme of ensuring that non-consentual PVP is non-viable, and the portions of the game that are sounding to me like they are indeed going to err in that direction, quite frankly I must say, accidentally believing this is legitimate is a pretty honest mistake.
The dead givaways that it isn't serious
Now if I'm wrong... well I suppose that's the reason why I don't come around here very often anymore... The direction the community, and the general concept of the game... has drifted so far from the initial soundings, many of the things that drew me to the game initially, are seeming to be practically a parody of the initial soundings.
HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:
I will never understand this "He can't win a fight, so thus is 100% powerless definition. The merchant you described, is a magnet for Adventurers, heros, warriors etc... who have a vested interest in protecting their supply.
Ritch merchants are like a bank... yes it is true, the tellers, the bank employees etc... are not particularly strong at fighting off robbers, but they hire a security company, have the best safes money can offer, routine checkins by the police etc...
Yes, when criminals actually succeed at robbing a bank, they make a fortune, but that isn't the daily life of a banker. Succcesful bank robberies are rare, newsworthy events, but they aren't thwarted because the teller has a black belt, they rarely happen because the banks have the money to purchase state of the art security, have their high valued items delivered too and from via an armored car etc...
Just like in PFO's plans. Replaced armored car with hired protector escorts, or simply adventurers in a shared allience with this merchant who simply need to keep their crafting team crafting.
People have this image that the bankers need to go out into a dark alley alone with nothing but a bag of money strapped to their back, and hope they don't get robbed. This isn't the case.
For me, the key to stuns and crowd control is that keeping another character out of battle should reduce your own effectiveness in that battle by roughly their ability. Obviously, it's never going to be this linear, but in essence what I'm talking about is that a level 15 Crowd Control expert should be able to keep 3 level 5 attackers stunned, or a single level 15 attacker stunned, at the cost of not being able to do anything else. And, of course, during all of this time, it should be a back and forth struggle between the Controller and their victim(s), so that the victims aren't just sitting there not doing anything.
IMO I consider the idea of a level setup of this magnitude as very harmful to PVP, of the sort that generally makes people completely stay out of PVP until top level. IMO the rough power (not counting gear), a top skilled player, should be at best double the rough power of an entry level PVP character (Entry level being the era in which one typically does start PVPing, reaching entry level should be within 2 weeks tops of starting the game).
When you are looking at playing as one of the 10 characters that a top level character takes out of the fight, well now you are playing a character who's role is to be a moderate speedbump not an actual participant.
Personally I would actually preffer something to the oposite effect, where CC is something that low levels have a chance to pull off on a higher level, incapacitating both for teh duration. Essentially making that serve as a bit of an "equalizer". (not to say that high levels shouldn't do it better than low levels, IE able to hold them longer, higher success chance etc... But designs where high level characters, incapacitate large groups of low levels, that makes it just plain not fun to play as a low level character, and creates the "Don't bother joining PVP until a year or 2 after you start" style of game.
This I could agree with, it makes sense and I can't deny that the OMG I can't just only use AoE's all the time but actually have to base the decision on where I am and who might be near? arguement gets old to me. AoE's could in fact be viewed as foolish to use in high sec, and in low sec "go near a wizard who seems to be killing groups of enemies at your own risk" in low sec.
Organized groups could certainly handle the situation well enough, heck in DDO there were a handful of spells that effected your party, Grease being one of the most common. Grease became virtually unused, however many of the ones who used it, in advance cast freedom of movement on their party, there's no reason why the same couldn't apply to casting "protection from energy fire" on your group, then fireball.
Or even say custom armors etc... What if there were say a type of armor that granted protection from fire, vulnerability to ice. Sort your soldiers in, put the group with fire resistance in one group, put the ones with electric resistance in another, have the fire nuking wizards allied with the fire resistant guys, the electric focused wizard with electric prepared team etc...
It is worth also pointing out, memory, and computers, plummet in price faster than just about anything. If your primary motivation in getting a computer or upgrading your current one is for PFO... it honestly is better to wait closer to the last minute.
I second this, also I must point out the only way where I personally can agree with one of the key points in DLH's arguement
However these capstones don't allow me to at a later time to suddenly decide to go for the capstone. If I decide I want to go for it then my only option is to restart from the beginning, and that's the unfair part, I can't change my mind and go for it later by meeting the requisites as someone else.
IMO the only way this is truely unfair, is in the event that the mechanics, warnings etc... were unclear at the time. Everything goblinworks has said has been "We will make it crystal clear at the time you attempt to take an option that will disqualify the capstone, a big warning will pop up and tell you, if you do this, you will disqualify the capstone). This is the case of a decision, with meaningful longterm results. Goblinworks goals is to have choices that can be made, that have longterm results, no different then the P&P rule of say "If a nuetural cleric choses to channel negative energy, he cannot change the decision to positive energy" etc... in the end there are choices that help in the short run, that might not be beneficial in the long run.
Just like if you focus your ranger with his favored enemies as dragon, fey, goblinoid and orc, he will likely not likely ever be a particularly effective ranger for PVP, but he will be one awesome companion for dungeon delving. (Yes I am aware 5 years down the road, you might have one probably mostly for show skill less than the person who actually heeded the warnings, but unfairness isn't a factor when both players had the warning and made the choice.
Gayel Nord wrote:
I'd imagine an atheist is a pretty tough role to be in a D&D/pathfinder universe. Very difficult to lack a belief in gods in a world where gods show their powers on a daily basis. Though not imposible, due to the existance of other non divine magics. (One could assume a god is just a high level wizard with a slightly larger than a normal wizards ego).
But I would be interested to see how the 2nd could work, if you would just pick 2 domains etc...
Well I'd say right off the bat, anything of a level difference cannot be adapted to PFO. Is someone who has trained 2 years in crafting a fair match for someone who spent 2 years leveling wizard? What about someone who has 2 merit badges of cleric, 2 of rogue, 2 of wizard etc... There is no rule of power, as well the general issue that it brings... PVP is meant to be meaningful, If I am guarding X resource because I don't want it to be overmined etc... I don't think I should need a 4 merit badged guard, and a 10 merit badged guard and a 15, and a 20, just to make sure that my opposition isn't able to just walk past a line of guardians.
At least IMO the key point of PVP in the way it is, one side claims an area, moves in a force, sets up the laws they want, and have the power and ability to enforce those laws. Now a rebelion dislikes those laws, they can move in, and overtake the area and remove the current leadership set up their own etc... This is IMO meaningful PVP. That is the sort of PVP that is greatly hindered via "OK you can kill X, but not Y players", as having someone just able to walk by you and do what you want and you not being able to attack them because they are "out of range" is a pain and negates the whole system.
IMO the level range thing is good for meaningless PVP... IE I see you, you aren't a member of the blue faction, you are a member of the red faction, I kill you because I can. IMO that will be greatly cut down simply via notable death penalties and lower power differences. Simple economics of risk/reward. If I assume a 60% or less chance of killing someone, winning gives me 20% of what they have, losing costs me 100% of what I have, and not only that, but even if I do win, there's then a 20% chance his friends are going to take me out. I'm not likely to attack unless there's a good reason to do it, or if my equipment is so bad that it's nothing to lose (in which case I'm probably not a threat to the guy anyway.
And of course we essentially do have areas of non-pvp. IE the high security marshal patrolled areas, in which people attacking are pretty much guaranteed more loss than gain.
This also is one I switched views on, I originally opposed it, but now I absolutely see the benefit of it when it comes to making tactical combat matter. Nuking your own position should be an obscure strategy with a huge benefit/cost estimate, not a why not the enemy is in close strategy. Plus friendly is such a grey term when talking these games. Backstabbers, spies etc... all general views of warfare, a spy stealthy or betreyer stealthy enough to backstab his team mates, should be a difficult skill (made more difficult than RL by the fact that the dead, will certainly still talk). But not be given away immidiately via a sudden "X has changed from friendly to hostile"
I do hope for things like that, under the very solid condition that in addition to the work put in, there should still be the fiat, that they are indeed destroyable, and thus said long amount of work would have to be repeated.
If they did something like 2 years of work, for a permanant golem, that then can be re-summoned with little work afterwards if destroyed. Then it develops into a huge overpoweredness.
Nihimon is correct. There are certainly ways to achieve pretty much the same goals with GW's proposed mechanics. Nothing says you have to keep fighting until you deliver the killing blow. If you've delivered alot of damage to someone you could simply stop attacking before you kill them. That would be a way to handle sparring or non-lethal duels...and as far as "gentleman bandit" types, it's a simple matter to say "Look the next couple blows will kill you, I don't want to do that, hand over 50 gold and I'll let you go on your way in peace." or something of the equivalent. Given that death and looting means the loss of a persons inventory, a fair number of people might be tempted to pay something to avoid that. YMMV.
Agreed to that, though admitted it will depend quite a bit on combat speed and pace. Namely if there are no chat macros, IE you can expect it to take 2 seconds for a fast typist to say "Surrender now or I will kill you". and one person every 1.5 seconds dies in combat... obviously not a good system.
I do personally hope for was one discussed a long time ago, a surrender emote. Basically a very clear emote to show surrender that puts the person surrendering in a position he cannot fight back. The equivalent of in real life throwing your weapon across the floor (but of course without actually giving up the weapon). Something that lets the non-surrendered have the time and opportunity to state what they would like, without risking losing the fight while asking the demands.