|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
It shouldn't need even that much effort, Bringslite. The XP isn't assigned by the month, it's assigned by the clock. When I log in character A, their counter starts accumulating. When I switch A off and move to character B, that counter starts accumulating instead. All that is required is a character flag for active or inactive, and a variable for how many active flags you have available today. When you login, it displays active characters. When you uncheck one of them, it offers you a list of your inactive characters to turn on another flag or create a new character. When you buy a month, you tack it onto an existing flagged character to have it inserted in that queue, or flag yet another one. 10 tokens can activate 10 characters at one time for up to a month, or 1 character for ten months or one for six and two for two. None of this needs to be a resource issue, and frankly, my interpretation is that something like it is more likely than the alternative.
Describing a system, and creating one, are two completely different things.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Does this mean that a subscription is no more than training time now? Early on we were told that a month of training time would be cheaper than a month's subscription, but the subscription would give the player more bang for their buck.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Are you considering a simple low-cost entry later down the line? I think there are a lot of people that aren't willing to drop $60 to try a game out for a month, but willing to pay $15-20 to try it out (didn't EVE do this?)
FMS Trippic wrote:
Last I heard, the Twin and Main are permanently linked. The Twin gains when the Main in gaining. They are either both on, or both off.
You should be able to log-in to all your characters at once.
You should only get a few to start, probably 2-3. Then you have to purchase any further slots. There will be people that create a lot of alts, but those people will be getting extra accounts anyway.
Bottom line, GW makes more money off of these people.
Also, it would be nice to get a clarification on the Destiny's Twin thing. Can we have them both online?
Q3 = Q4 in game development announcements. If something comes out on time, that usually means it was rushed, and this isn't a release game, so no reason to try and hit the holiday shopping season.
When I thought they would start in September, I was expecting them to have already given out the first two rounds of invites to the alpha backers by now, and have at least half the EE map open. Unless there is some mega-update next week, I'm hoping for late October, and expecting November.
After watching every other MMO I've played from beta crash and burn due to rushed development, I want this one to take its time. I've already been waiting 2 and a half years, whats another six months?
Back to the matter at hand,
I still think the Landrush should end at an undisclosed time. Force people to put up all the votes they can accumulate, and put in their real pick-lists.
At very least, I think they should lock the top 10 spots early.
Alpha is only supposed to run Thursday afternoon to early early Saturday morning, unless GW decides to extend it.
They need weekend breaks too!
<kabal> Bunibuni wrote:
Alpha hasn't even hit the first hardware expansion, and only covers a small portion of the EE starting map. Don't expect anything that soon.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I'm not implying anyone, I'd be more worried about the quiet ones, not the jokesters. I'm hardly following the forum politics and my limited experience with Kabal was learning how BuniBuni managed to find the one BestBuy salesman that though "gaming computer" was synonymous with "minitower with intel HD graphics."
It's not that major, it just tells people to get their entire groups on now if they want the best positioning they can get. For the honest participant, it changes nothing.
People should be recruiting just as hard now, as they would be the last week.
The only upset would be for people trying to make an upset.
I've left the bottom 3 views open so you can select which other streams you would like to view.
The current alpha streamer channel names: (All use Twitch.TV)
TEO Cheatle wrote:
Also, I want to note that Valkner totally murdered like 1300 Bandits over the course of three days....lol
...and got the ~2500(can't remember exact, i think 8 or 9) bow achievement... It was an eventful weekend.
Mindless grinding is a good way to pass the time, and stock up on loot.
For the OP, Removing grinding would ruin the game. At their core, video games are a time-sink, if you can do everything in a few days (*cough* DCUO *cough*) then things get boring quickly.
The killing 10,000 goblin achievements should be something you wouldn't need the points for until over a year down the road, when you are probably close to that anyway through normal gameplay.
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
I think the progression was around 1, 3, 15, 50, 125, 250, 500, 1250, 3250, 6300.... or something like that for what I consider "minion" level enemies.
Hardin Steele wrote:
I was thinking that there would be around 2000 or so shots per adventure, I would say that covers about 100 enemies on your own. I'm guessing an adventure to clear a hex shouldn't require 50 trips back to camp, and will involve a thousand or so enemies.
Health bars screw up any kind of realistic logic when it comes to archery in video games.
If you want more realism, bows need to be ridiculously OP in comparison to melee weapons so you don't have to fire as many arrows.
The way I read the original "rules" was that a settlement gains a % depending on its position, that % is permanently attached to their group as long as they keep that location. So if you are moving around the list, you gain a % every week.
So if you build up a 100% boost at the bottom of the list for a while, then grab 100 members out of the blue, even TEO couldn't unseat you.
But it seems like groups are purposefully killing other's hunker bonuses, so the system seems pretty pointless now.
I, personally, would have not made roster size public, and the pick list would have only been visible to the owner.
It will take a month or two to be competative to older characters. But they aren't invincible to lowbies, you just need more new characters to take down old characters. It's not like themeparks where there is an exponential increase it power, it's the inverse.
How do you zone between hexes? Does it feel like not "zoning", in a gamey way?
Everything is seamlessly connected. Some dungeon areas may be instanced.
How extensive will the PvE and lore game play be? I know it's early, I'm looking for the concept more than what's in at this point. And related to that, is the plan to have antagonists of old lore come back to destroy the world and that sort of thing? Will there be mystery and discovery involved?
The lore is the Paizo lore. The game is based around player interactions, PvE instances are planned but far in the future. Don't expect some overarching story, that takes too much money to develop and is not in the game plan. We know there will be some "boss" type characters that some players (right now $1000+ backers) will be able to control for sort-of-pve events.
One of the things I would love to be a part of is a grand depository of knowledge. A library/research center with members that seek out such things and documents them, seeks artifacts, and the like. Is that viable in this game?
The Seventh Veil is planning this. Our settlement is Phaeros. While we know of nothing in-game to help with this, yet, we are hosting a wiki, and will probably help a little with the PFO section of the Galorapedia.
From: KNEEL BEFORE ZOG!!!!
Week 1 - 2 = Internal, friends and family
Week 3 - Alpha backers
First Load increase - Each Alpha backer gets 1 invite to give away
Further increases - give more invites to alpha backers (not clear on if invited people get invites to give away too)
Close to Early Enrollment - Random selection of Month 1 EE (Kickstarter backers), they get some friend invites (presumably to give to other month 1 EE backers)
Right before EE - All EE backers (Not clear on if just KS, or all new EE backers as well, IMO it seems cruel to let the month 2 people in for a week, then kick them out for a month.)
My guess is that EE backers will start to be let in a week or two after the Alpha moves from Zog to the EE hardware.
I have a feeling everything on this list is already on GW's list.
This test was about seeing if the software works.
1. ) You should never really expect to keep a persistent character in an alpha. I would imagine the real balance and training testing will have no persistence, and we will be given commands or an npc that boosts our xp. In fact, the best way to test out "leveling" is to force everyone to re-do their skills every time they log-in.
2.) Notice all the TODO, those are on their radar.
3.) who you can see on your minimap should be based on your perception. Getting separated and lost should be a feature. Stick with your people!
4.) Early Alpha, of course these are very basic and limited.
5.) I would rather just see the NPCs added to the map, still as stated above, your perception should determine what you see. There should be map-making functionality for players to get a better layout. Information overload is the problem with modern games, they make it too easy to find things.
6.) Probably a focused test with the guild owners. The three towns that are in now, are probably similar to the proto-settlements.
The only thing I would like to see is a serious increase in Thornguard presence and power, to keep pvp away from the towns.
The whole point of this system is controlled growth. The people that GW wants in early are the people that can afford it. Ryan said it a few times a while ago, their target audience is people who can afford to shell out more than your average subscription. They need people early on that give them more income per player than most games get.
We do not need a bunch of bargain hunters flooding the game for 3 weeks, then leaving a heap of useless hardware sucking up funds.
Rust is not an MMO. MMO's require a lot more work and money. You can't compare costs.
I doubt steam would even sell this game for EE. For one it will have no ESRB, and second I have never heard of a limited release game selling on Steam. Maybe when OE comes around, and the gates are completely open.
Meh, game mechanics matter more now. Everyone has played "The Theampark" and now it's just a competition to make the newest shiniest one for people to throw money at.
Basic Graphics + Awesome Mechanics = Largest Audience
People aren't used to seeing alpha footage. Most of the times alpha's are behind very closed doors, and the only visual releases are high quality renderings.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
It would be terrible to have one-shot kills in an MMO.
What about a rank 20 archer against some idiot running around naked?
I agree, one-shots suck for 50% of the people that participate in them. But if the lowest defense, against the strongest attack doesn't result in a one-shot, there is little motivation to advance you character very far, if the last 2 years of their training result in a 5% increase.
What happens a year down the road when a new patch comes out introducing a new role or two?
Settlements aren't going to be saving space, that's a waste of DI. They aren't going to be advertising that "rogue support is dead when monks come out" because that either creates community members with no real stake, or simply drives people away.
Here is the main problem:
Guild Land Rush
Go find 200 guilds that are all interested in this game, and have a community that is only planning to cover 1/4th of the roles.
GW explicitly set to target guilds from the start, now they are expecting those guilds to lower their total fun-factor, even more than alignment does, by limiting what classes the guild can play. I'm guessing that most guilds are/were planning to dip into every role, so they could cover all the bases.
I'm going to say this again:
If every settlement cannot support every role, then every role needs to be perfectly PvP balanced at all times
Having a Rogue/Wizard settlement needs to be just as viable in PvP as a Fighter/Cleric settlement. A settlement needs to be able to fight for itself.
Now you have created a system for cookie-cutter nations, everyone will use the most optimized setup to cover the entire spectrum in as few settlements as possible.
I do not think there is a group of developers out there that can create a 24/7/365.25 balanced system. The best option is to give each side the exact same toolset, so they can both be OP in the same way.
The only reason I see for limiting what roles can live in a settlement, is to force high reputation for high rank skill usage. A much better alternative is to require high reputation to slot high rank skills. Blame it on Phrasma.
Training, and Markets are all the forced interaction you need to create. And alignment restrictions limit what a guild can do more that most people would like.
Role support is a great idea, don't get me wrong, but something like that needs to be one of the listed features in the game's first press release.
If you have to travel for 20-40 minutes, just to play with friends, there is an issue. That adds about an hour of wasted time.
The settlement you 'live' in should have nothing to do with it's functionality, it should be about the people in it. The functionality of a settlement should just be its source of income.
The alignment system already limits current groups of friends enough. I'm guessing 10-15% of most gaming group's members are having to change their play style if they want to stay with the group.
The system as described would work great if everyone came into the game with no prior associations, and no friends.
Remember, it takes 2.5 years to fully train a role, ignoring everything else. It's not like GW doesn't have time to think up better ways to make us interact.
Since i am wholeheartedly against reputation limiting power potential, I can't support that reasoning for keeping role support.
People are already organized into groups, most of them are called guilds. Its already been enough of a headache mapping into company/settlement. We don't need another headache splitting up groups so they don't have to compromise their play style just to stay together.
There are people that want to play together, and they want to play largely different roles. This idea GW has would be great if everyone was coming into the game with no friends.
I guess the biggest reason not to have support structures, is that you have to be a balancing ninja. No classes can be better than others, they all have to be equal at all times or certain settlements get unfair advantages. If every settlement can support all classes, all settlements can have equal power potential no matter the balance.
Class/Class balance should never be expected in PFO
1v1 balance should never be expected in PFO
Every build should have a few situations it is good for, and a lot that it isn't.
As long as each side has access to the same tools and the same mechanics, combat is balanced.
Though I don't blame GW for wanting to create more avenues for conflict, 99% of organization-to-organization discussions are about creating friendly areas and working together without war.
I think that the silent majority isn't as friendly as people on the forums, so I'm not as concerned as GW.
You should be able to carve out your area, and be able to produce 70-80% of what you need within 4 or so settlements with 30-40 POI's. It's up to GW to make sure that no area of the map contains enough variation in hexes to allow a nation to be self sustaining.
Don't have time to read all the posts here, so sorry If I'm repeating.
I haven't been a fan of this "character upkeep" system since it was announced.
I don't like the idea of forcing settlements to choose what classes they support, I think that every settlement should be able to house every class to the max level.
I think the focus on "character upkeep" should be entirely consumable based, like EvE. And there can be some things that don't require consumables, but they require much more effort, and are not as powerful as the consumable-based counterparts.
Your ability to play a role should not be determined by your location. That is too restrictive.
We can assume our characters are better than your above-average human, and presumably our 20th level characters will be above the skill of the dude you are talking about.
Yes, aiming using sights/down-the-shaft is not possible while mobile, but look at at quick-draw artists, they shoot from the hip, not down the sights. It just takes lots of practice to get the intuition of where you shot is going to land, it's like any other muscle-memory training.
Kiting should be very effective, why does every fight have to end with one character killing the other? Taking necessary death out of PvP interactions would add to the "meaningful interaction" stance. I would like to see most PvP interactions involve one person realizing they are outmatched, and running away. A ranged character has (and should only have) two defensive options:
There's a difference between keeping someone away: kiting, and keeping someone locked down: no fun for anyone. The key is making it so that chasing after someone, puts the archer in a vulnerable position.
If you are in anything less than plate armor, you shouldn't even think about engaging with an archer. If you are in plate armor, the archer should have no problem keeping you away and escaping. The only time you should engage an archer (or any ranged toon) one on one is when you catch them flat footed.
Ranged isn't OP, people need to learn to tank-and-flank.
I guess my point is: Keep a distinction between a fight where you have no chance at winning, and a fight you have no chance at escaping. The former isn't a mechanical balance problem, the latter is.