|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
This post made me realize, at least in one way, how size will affect the early game.
If there are only a small number of active players (10,000?) won't it be fun when someone wants to join an existing organization, and immediately three or four members already know them?
I've been considering the political consequences of groups considering escalations their 'turf' and 'defending' them against 'poaching'. I'm not sure how that should work; it seems anti-lore but pro-"meaningful player interaction".
Another concern would be turning what GW is calling PvE content into a PvP issue. Then again, would such a development simply be a reflection of the game's nature?
The prudent choice may be having, at least for this, a notable divide between PvE and PvP.
I'd go with "...not the kind of person who buys Lo Mein when I want to eat Phad Thai.", but that's just nitpicking. I get where you're coming from, and to be fair if the game were like what you wanted, I would never have been interested.
It's one of the polarizing fundamentals about PFO, can't help that.
@Bluddwolf, Good point.
I am 100% fine with harvesting and monster hexes periodically shifting around according to some sort of timeline (possibly randomized to some extent), because that establishes that NOBODY can long-term rely on controlling certain hexes to control certain features. But saying that only when you leverage your control of a feature to become very successful, will GW shift things around so you no longer benefit from what you worked for, seems like a let-down.
Agreed, you put it better than I could articulate at the moment.
Or expanding on what Decius mentioned above, altering the frequency, quality, and locations materials are generated in the world. Although I'm not a hundred percent comfortable with the idea.
And we are aware of the danger of a powerful settlement "cornering the market" on a part of the economy critical for the health of the other settlements. We will be watchful for such outcomes, and will be prepared to take action to resolve them for the good of the game if necessary.
The "...if necessary." portion should be in big, flashing letters with arrows pointing at it. A faction or network of factions monopolizing a critical resource is the perfect opportunity for player-conflict of the most dramatic proportions.
An intervention by GW for anything less than "oh gods everything is falling apart" will likely run counter to the game design principles.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Maybe a bit more on the Paypal thing. Paypal has a requirement that the goods paid for be shipped or the service delivered within a short time window from when the payment is processed. While I know there's lots of counter examples of people offering the same kind of things we are on multi-year timelines, we've got a particular sensitivity because of the volume of business Paizo does with PayPal. We just can't jeopardize that relationship even by proxy. So we're complying with the letter of the terms of PayPal service rather than what appears to be the more "accommodating" industry practice.
And with Paypal having frozen accounts in the past for weeks at a time for violations of their terms, it's probably best not to use the service.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
It would be a fun system, but you're right in that it would be very difficult to balance. If there is a wide enough variety of attacks with a modular system under the hood that sounds like a good formula for engaging combat.
From the blog it sounded to me like a "build-your-own" system was what you guys were going for, so I had to ask.
@Milo, I agree with you about min/maxing getting out of hand, but rock/paper/scissor can be dull unless there's enough variety, and this sounds like there will be enough variety.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
But at the same time monster hexes that never change may (perhaps years down the line) make the geography of the game stale and predictable in regards to PvE.
Oh it sounds very fun, my reaction was one of reflex, and now that I've had some time to think about it, the possible scenarios that might evolve out of that could easily become the source of compelling stories outside of PvP.
Thank you for your responses, they have been illuminating.
Very interesting, consider me intrigued and a little excited.
These are the things I wonder about.
Out here in the Gray Lands (Cascadia) if you were to plop Philadelphia down on the right spot, you could have a pretty large diversity of terrain.
Then again, there aren't any major mountain chains splitting the Crusader Road up.
I can at least hope for something like central Pennsylvania, right?
Disguise could be useful for so many people: Spymasters and their agents, bounty hunters, black marketeers, and anyone who wants to be the mysterious stranger in the back of the tavern. For the cost of a suit of armor, it sounds like a wizard or a monk could pose as a fighter until combat begins, then unexpectedly start slinging spells or swinging deadly fists. An elite army unit disguised as grunts could do a lot of damage when they're underestimated and engaged.
That may be possible, but if I understand how it works, one's armor will be severely impaired since the Disguise has to be equipped in lieu of your usual gear.
Far as I can tell that's correct.
GW Blog wrote:
We're also creating a Refresh system. Characters can use particular abilities a certain number of times per four-hour in-game day, or until the player uses a Refresh—a special action characters take to refocus, rest, and regain abilities.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
That sounds like a reasonable balance between power and flexibility.
The main thing the level of the spell indicates is how many keywords it supports, and thus its potential base damage. Unlike cantrips, which read the keywords on the wand or staff, a spell reads the keywords on the caster.
To clarify this means that certain spells, especially higher level ones, will require the character to possess certain keywords in order for them to be cast?
For example: A high level diviner may not have the "Archmaster Transmuter" keyword, preventing them from casting Transmute Blood to Acid.
Would an arcane caster, with enough dedication, be able to obtain every possible keyword?
Are certain keywords exclusive based on school/bloodline choices?
Concerning divine magic, in my experience the thing that sets divine casters apart is the flexibility of their spell list from day to day. Essentially they neither rely on an object nor a fixed set of learned spells.
During Prayer/Refresh periods, maybe a good approach would be to allow access to a menu from which a divine caster can choose their spells?
For domains, maybe the keyword for each domain is attributed to the character at a certain point in the archetype/class progression? Once you get to a certain point in divine spellcasting (depending on the flavor of your choices) you are required to make a mostly permanent choice for domains.
I don't think Skwiziks was suggesting that Chainmail shouldn't look like Chainmail, but that it should be possible to have a set to Tier 3 Chainmail that looks like a standard Tier 1 Chainmail instead of a obviously magical high-quality Chainmail.
That is a clearer way of putting it, thank you.
It should go without saying that stats relate to appearance; low quality equipment looks awesome, while midrange equipment looks awesomer.
I hope there will be a way to have armor appearance separated from armor stats. Is it so wrong to want to look less fantastical while still being fantastic?
Perhaps. Or perhaps the gods are perfect expressions of alignment, and alignment is ontologically more basic than gods are.
In all seriousness though, the full implications of the alignment system will probably be addressed in a blog far in the future. And then will have to be calibrated in EE.
Now that you mention it a blog about sound (effects, music, etc) in general would be great. Seconded on the footsteps.
However, I do understand that those designs are fine for plenty of people, even desirous, and I'm certainly not wanting to pull out the torch and pitchfork over this. I'm just hoping that in the final game there will be options for cloth that also fill more modest tastes, and that I wouldn't be embarrassed to show off to my daughter. :)
Seconded. The concepts in this picture from the blog, especially the left side of the third and last rows, are good examples of what I'd want any female bodied characters I make to wear.
The key word here is Options. :D
What concerns me about the way it's presented (the combat round system) is that you would basically figure out the most economical attack sequence and spam that combo until target drops. If the different attacks cost different amounts of Sta, then 1 combo should result in the least wasted points at the end of the round.
This is true if my only options are to deal damage to my opponent. However if I can also disrupt them (debuffs, status conditions, etc) and more significantly counter or thwart their attacks, then it becomes more involved.
How can I act or respond to my opponents at this moment in time such that I can regain or continue to have the advantage?
That's the kind of question I want to be asking while in combat.
Hmm, right, that is what we've heard so far. I don't mind a small bonus for mimicking a class from the p&p game, I just hope there's room for the player that says "I want to play a Fighter" and those who say "I want to make my own thing".
I'm very curious about the way Archetypes and Skills will play out. One of the big draws to this game for me is the flexibility that comes from a skill-based system. That fluidity is far more interesting than a fixed-class system.
Will the archetypes be mutually exclusive?
It's probably best to think of hit points not as blood loss, broken bones, or other traumatic injuries necessarily, but as one's ability to keep fighting. An attack will miss, but the effort to dodge/block/parry the attack will still take something out of you.
Stamina will be an interesting factor, as it will be the "currency" of combat. I wonder what will be better, a pool that stays fixed for all players, or a pool that can be improved through effort?
Stephen Cheney wrote:
We don't currently have a concept of item degradation/repair. You'll use consumables to temporarily boost certain gear in effectiveness, which likely expire when you die, and we're hoping that will cover enough of the intended effects of a degrade/repair cycle to not require such a system. But we'll be able to say more for certain later, once we get a better picture of the actual usage patterns for items.
Sounds like a good plan.
Also, this system reminds me somewhat of Ryzom, which isn't a bad thing at all.
It also means coordination between characters specialized in exploration/finding and those specialized in crafting/gathering will be all but necessary.
Enchanting doesn't sound like it has a lot of utility, but neither does it sound like it's had a lot of attention. Curious to see where that goes.
I don't know, I can see an organization existing that might put their effort into creating training facilities over anything else, and opening them up to the public and/or a large number of friendly allies.
I'm sure those allies would defend such an organization with great fervor.