Some ideas that might be worth input
So, current, strip mining seems to be a binary action, either it happens, or it doesn't. Though Tork Shaw and others have mentioned, the real world equivalent is more variable - exchanging short term harvesting for long term harvesting.
What if you make a couple variables stats for each resource at an outpost, and link them in such a way: collection speed, resource health, processing, efficiency, and integrity. Resource health might be the likelihood to produce higher quality resources, processing reduces the relative weight of goods for transport (lumber boards vs trunks, carved stone, milled grain), efficiency a generic multiple, and integrity of the outposts health.
If raiders simply want to deny resources to an enemy, simply raise the outpost, and move on. However, if you want to capture it, let raiders have some more discretion over the types of resources they have - they can sacrifice quality and efficiency for speed and processing, or integrity, processing, and speed for resource health. Each variable has a link with the others, as you raise or lower one, the others are adjusted in kind.
This allows for the same dynamic as strip mining, but more nuiance for each region.
I'm going to have to agree, taking the problem of getting new players up to speed, and designing an incentive to 'help new players' into one of the most important mechanics in the game is almost too perfect to hope for.
As long as any pitfalls are quickly squashed, this should definitely alleviate any sort of population stagnation concerns people might worry about.
Also, I love the idea of these new companies being named academies or universities - just imagine senior companies looking for new members, and asking "So, I see here you graduated from the Magister's Academy, that's quite the pedigree"
First of all, Ideas: Brilliant!
By the way, I'm curious, while we don't have much information about mass battles, and ideas on how assassins can play a role in those large confirmations. Is it possible that assissins that can slay certain commander types might be able to impact battles in more than making the person have to respawn far away - for instance, resting certain commander timers or imparing certain commander skills.
For that matter, is it possible to have assassins's kills of targets inhibit players in other ways - not necessarily make them unplayable, but neutralize certain key aspects of their roles for a penalty - such as carrying capacity, spellcasting, speed, etc.
Just some thoughts.
Considering Sorcs as less variable blasters, I could see them instead getting sort of 'supped up' cantrips, with less spells or less refresh. So, those low level magic missiles or firebolts are more deadly from a sorc, but they simply don't have access to other spells (or as many). Perhaps they get a wonderous item (like the bloodstone) that takes up a slot (so they can't slot a spellbook), and that increases damage/effect of cantrips and/or removes their component cost (which would fit with eschew components.
As for the keywords, from what I'm understanding is that they will be on a) the player via feats, an ability, and an item. So, what I imagine is whenever a player attempts to preform an action, the game checks the following:
player feats -- ability cast -- item
So, you may have the following setup
Feat (pyromancer) -- Fireball -- Staff of Flame
now, each of those has the keyword fire. One of them looks for the keyword, and assigns bonuses for each source that has it.
Does that sound right?
As a sidenote - how many rules lawyers have used that discrepency to try and pull off all sorts of crazy combo's in the Tabletop version.
what would be best is to have a game object that requires either a)a large investment of components and/or b) multiple players with specific feats/keywords interacting with the object that allows one person to cast spells scaled for siege damage
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Y'know, a good solution for those would be Necromancer armies would be to treat 'graveyards' or other mass places and an undead host as any other NPC faction - Players can gain Reputation faction with that 'alliance', and you can balance an undead NPC horde along the lines of any other monstours horde.
You can keep the one pet: one PC rule for combat, and this solution (flavored accordingly) allows you to keep the 'raised undead' army feel without introducing a new complex balancing act.
Even better since the alliance system already has in place rivalries (obviously, people who ally with the 'undead' won't exactly spend their time elsewhere), and various necromancers can gain rep in the alliance by doing 'deed's, themed around necromantic stuff.
So, I was watching GBTV, and they were doing a story on Wildstar and efforts to increase complexity in NPC fights. It got me thinking.
Something I would like to see GW work on is a sort of animation algorithim that takes a set of animations for each type of mob; specifically what needs to happen is that each type of action needs more than one animation - 3+ depending on power and number of actual attacks on a mob.
After that, what you can do it make each mob unique by randomizing those animation sequences between mobs (not necessiarily between each action - thought that might work for multi stage bosses). In either case, by selec tively controlling the animation sequence, you help to preserve one of the entertaining aspects of combat - Pattern Recognition.
Also, depending on various action speeds, this could be extrapolated to PC's. Imagine taking skills that increase the randomization of your skill animations, making your tells harder to predict.
A couple ideas I'd throw in.
In crafting, the process could happen in stages - at each stage, the crafter can be given an expected chance of success (which shrinks with each stage), and amount of materials returned if they cancel ahead of time. Various other mechanics can alter this to have greater success/salvage rates per trade - this allows some grainularity for beginning/master crafters as to whether or not a project will succeed, and allow materials to be siphoned out of the system.
The second idea, should be that as a crafters skill increases - to a certain extent they are able to use exotic materials, but they should also be able to BETTER utilize simplier, or otherwise inefficent components for otherwise harder objects. This would both keep beginner resources valuable, and allow crafters to make a premium off their skills. Anyone could make a high quality sword out of steel, but if you could make just as good a sword out of bronze and copper (and fairy dust for example), you can buy those components at a lost less, and charge the same premium.
Well, keep in mind that several feats will be turned into skills perhaps, and not as passives to be slotted (possibly fast movement, slow fall, purity of body)
Also, importantly is that tabletop characters were not designed around fighting each other - so chances are the PFO character will be relatively weaker.
Sounds like you would need a special contract to solve a clue.
Also wonders why kind of information would exist on one - would it merely be a black box that you test your skill against and wait for a solution? Can it fail?
If you do solve it, what information do you get (a name is easy, maybe you only get their race, their reputation value, or their affiliation)
What would be cool is that whenever you 'steal' something from a player, you automatically place a new weightless item into that persons inventory called 'Evidence' or 'clue'.
That item would have a variety of stats based upon the skill of the thief in question.
The player can then attempt to solve the evidence to detirmine information about the thief OR give it to another person to solve it for them.
Bad thieves have really easy evidences to solve, hence can be found quickly via tracking. Better and master thieves may have much harder ones to find, you may need multiples.
Sounds like a spell component pouch will just fall in line with other equipment on your character; i.e. should have a rarity, a cost to make and sell from base materials, a time to degrade (and be repaired/replaced), and have the ability to be threaded (if it is a very powerful component pouch).
Did I miss anything
OH, and not toughing that hunger/thrist thread again....I still have players debate it's merit in actual tabletop games, let alone an MMO.
So, let's see if I got this straight:
Player A has Criminal Reputation of 100/100 with region X, (no crimes).
Player pickpockets Player B, and recieves a flag from that player for action, their reputation is droped by, let's say 5 points. Player B also informs Player C that Player A is a thief, player C rates player A as a criminal as well. player A's rep drops to 90/100. Repeat until player A's rep falls to 50/100; player A can now be targeted for looting as a criminal while in Region X. However in Region Y, player A still has criminal rating of 100/100
How close am I?
A Paladin who finds himself trapped in a dungeon without food and water should be able to die of hunger and thirst so he can get out of there without committing suicide and thus losing alignment for killing a good character (himself).
This is unfortunatly the problem - take this to it's conclusion: you die of hunger/thirst. In PnP games, this means roll new character, so it's important. In an MMO, it means respawn.
Death isn't as big a deterrent. Effectively, this would be viewed as a 'pay resources to keep your stuff' mechanic.
I can see food/water being useful in certain areas, but as a general mechanic, I don't see it bring any enjoyment to playing.
At the very least, the spell component pouch would have to degrad - all weapons and armor, from what I understand, go into disrepair after a long enough time, limiting their effectiveness. Right?
That sounds nice, I'll admit, but I think it's unfeasible at this point from a technical perspective. The problem is that rather having one criminal status that goes through a limited set of variations, you would then have mutliple versions of a criminal status for each person/organization. Effectively, you need to create a social status between each person for every person.
For example, for a population of let's say 5,000 - EACH avatar needs to have data storage for the current status of 4,999 individual flags, plus additional ones for each organization. Now multiply that for each player, and you quickly have data that might take a lot to store. I can't say for certain how BIG such a notification would be, but it's easy to see that having to track each relationship is far more than having one per avatar that is adjusted serially.
Does that make sense?
As Uthreth said, we all can come back from the dead in the game, the 'raise dead' spell would simply be a more convient solution, and having a price corresponding reflecting it accordingly.
As for the complications you mention - I mean no disrespect but I don't see those as problems per se, but rather cost/benefits of various spells.
At least for me, I've always viewed magic as a risk/reward thing - it shouldn't be just BETTER, but giving advantage at the cost of something else.
Don't know if that helps.
Just go by normal Pathfinder rules, most spells as long as you have a spell component pouch you are fine. Then there are some spells such as stoneskin and raise dead that have costs. Do it that way.
So, most spells would just have a stamina cost, and then (most likely your utilities) would have 'component' costs - This would actually work if you can adjust the availability of those components in order to allow spells to be learned by many people - but only castable by a small portion of the population to balance for how powerful they might be (raise dead for example).
Uthreth Baelcoressitas wrote:
Bluff (opposed by Sense Motive) and Disguise (opposed by Perception) could both be used in different ways to help hide your negative flags from being displayed. I like this idea, it still penalizes people because if they happen to die in pvp they won't be able to flag the attacker regardless of whether the attacker knew they were a criminal or not. It also allows for people to choose to be a bandit or villain and some people won't be able to tell that they are a criminal. Of course, word will get around socially and they will be blacklisted I'm sure, but not from everything and not by everyone. Very interesting idea, and a good one.
Yeah, let's say there is perception to notice that you've been pickpocketed, and Sense Motive/Insight to detirmine WHO stole from you.
I could see badges for thieves where at certain skill levels, they get a bonus to performing SOME types of crimes (corpse stealing or pickpoceting) and assassins (on killing).
I also imagine that regardless if you can delay the criminal flag (social), that you will automatically get an alignment hit (moral). So, you cannot be a GOOD thief, but you can be wanted, fugitive - and possibly balance your evil acts of stealing with good acts of giving or support (robin hood style) to balance out your alignment.
The important thing you would need is to have it that even a really good criminal can't be untouchable, they just need to be met with an equivenant vigilante (paladin with high percept/insigh) to find the criminal.
Finally, having flags eventually degrade allows for two things - allows people to reform if they want to change their chacter AND provides an eventual means to stop endless potential counter griefing via the bounty system.
Honestly, spell components really just need to be treated like ammo, they are hard to manage in PnP because small item tracking is generally hard at a table top - however this is very EASY for a computer.
Have a sensible set of components, and various grades of each (maybe 12 categories), and then have various spells need X amount of Y component per cast.
Adjust price accordingly and done.
For extra, make some versions of components cheap, but just perform basic acts of spells, and more expensive components that enhance a spell.
So, to sum up here, we have 3 status that can be applied to a character: Alignment (good/evil on a spectrum), Criminal (possibly temporary, nominal based on select actions), and thief (most likely this is a type of criminal category).
From what I gather, being flagged as a criminal allows for various actions to then be done on your character (attacked without receiving a future flag, target of bounty, looted without flag).
The other is that the flag is visible, thereby damaging your ability to conduct future non-criminal actions with others.
I think that there is some room to have characters minimize these penalties - this has to be done, however, in such a way as to circumvent the intention of the system in general.
What I see are a couple options - delay flags, hide flags, and remove flags.
Delay flag would be worked into a skill, let's say subtly. It works by reducing the time between when a criminal act occurs, and when the flag is registered. I imagine the min-max time for this ranging from a few seconds, to a maximum of an hour
Hidden flags would be the ability hide the display of your flags to other players corresponding with a difference in skills. Let's call this skill Guile - any player with a perception lower than this skill doesn't see your criminal flag (might make exceptions if they were a victim of that particular person, or give them a bonus).
Finally, remove flags. I imagine this as a sort of in game statue of limitations. I suspect that criminal flags would eventually decay over time regardless (over many days, weeks, or longer). Taking this skill, lets call it notority, allows you to reduce the time it takes for a criminal flag to disappear. A caveot would be each new crime resets the trigger AND time spent logged out doesn't count. Basically, if you commit a crime, and can hide long enough, it is no longer valid, until you make a new one.
Thoughts on these?
The best part about this possible development is that it would really make traditionally farming 'hard'; as soon as a large enough population of players developed the trick of wiping out a whole group of NPC mobs, they would 'evolve' (cause that's effectively what this is) a new attack or defense method, likely negating the players advantage.
This in turn would require the players to adapt, probably necessitating new weapons to be made, new routes to be made, new resources to be farmed.
In fact, I'd dare say that this idea isn't just great, it's neccessary to keep an economy robust, and just a little volitle.
Kudos to the idea
Any capability that allows the player base to flat out make more content for themselves is good idea.
I can see this being a possible MTX either directly, or as part of modules you may run; it seems something I would definitely pay for and a pay wall would discourage people who wouldn't be very committed.
So, a very interesting idea is using social PvP as a proxy for propgaganda - I still think that a larger audience needs to be involved when you take communication skills and try to put computer mechanics on them.
The places I can most likely see people competing is over resource areas and personal reputation. At an individual level, social PvP would be about slow, methodical attacks against a players reputation or alliance levels - imagine spreading lies or terrifying people to avoid X player (changing their alignment, faction rank, or rep). In effect, you are inhibiting a dimension of their existance; converserly, you could have people support you as well.
As you get higher levels, you could attack camps, charters, settlements, or kingdoms - in these cases what you are attacking is the willingness or effectiveness of commonfolk to assist either parts of a camp or settlement, or an entire one; a sort of backdoor assault on a hex; perhaps a cold war type of attack as a precursor to total war.
As far as social 'combat' or PvP is concerned, I think it's important to remember that those skills were designed in PnP games as an abstract and fair means for DM's to mediate decisions made between Players and NPC's. Even in those cases, I find it too hard to use to resolve disputes between players.
You also have to consider all of the implicit and explicit resources that effect regular combat - the 'skill of the player (reaction time, knowledge), their items, their character attributes and training, and all of the resources that supplied those.
I'm not sure what "arena" social PvP would occur in, and over what. Are they competing over resources - if someone lost a diplomatic combat to control a point, why not just kill the opposing force then? Maybe it would be useful in protected areas, but then what is to fight or compete over. As a system being borrowed from PnP, and mostly laid out above (not counting a rep system, which I like) social PvP seems like a solution in search of a problem for this type of game.
That being said, one avenue it COULD be useful is if their is an NPC audience to influence - depending on how much GW let's the NPC commonfolk population influence escalation or spawn rates or anything within an area, this may be a unique means to have social PvP: in this case, people are not competing with each other directly, but operate their social skills and rep to 'influence the masses'; either by honest appeal, deceit, or intimidation.
the social skills as we know them are really designed only for interaction with NPC forces, but if those forces could play a significant impact within a hex or kingdom, then it might be worth it. Anways, that's my $3.50
*Casting Revive Thread
I was hoping to see if there has been any change on this notion of being part of multiple guilds. I am hoping to start a small company that is mostly a financial endeavor, and the 'member's are merely just a listing of clients who are on active status - I want to use the charter system because of the ability to create multiple bank accounts with different limits in order to control influx and payout of funds. I won't be able to do that if I can only join one group.
Having played Guild Wars 2 since launch, I can say that they are doing multiple guilds just fine - and as these previous comments show I would be fine with allowing guild to determine for themselves if they want to have exclusivity or non-competition clauses.
In addition, I would be fine with players being only able to join one settlement/kingdom (being part of a nation state is different than of just a company)
I am of the opinion that being able to be able to organize is VERY important, but becomes hindered if you limit yourself to one organization. Is there a way to give charter leaders who want dedication what they want, and people who want varied services and memberships what they want as well?
Forgive me, I made that first comment after only reading the first page or so (more informed currently).
I think overall, there are some general problems that prevent people from reaching a solution. We need working definitions for the concepts of a0 'Griefing' and PvP
On the topic of griefing, this (as was mentioned above) is a subjective term. As such, it's definition will not be decided by the player base (at least inially), it will be decided by GW. From there, the effects will be measured, and adjusted.
As for PvP in General, let's break this down: PvP stands for Player vs. Player (duh of course, but...)
What situations can result in a combative player vs player sitation
Faction War, Mercenary War, Assassination, Criminal Robbery, Retribution (Bounty, or just lawfully allowed revenge killing), and consensual duel/brawl (however that may or may not be allowed).
Of those, they can be broken down further. My question to everyone in general is....of those types of PvP, is there some experience you see MISSING?
Ryan Dancey wrote:
You.....I like you :)
Seriously, though, good for you on not taking the bait. I see to many developers who feel bound by their first iterations on design, and I think most people here apprecaite your feedback on this matter. As long as you are clear on both your Intent and your methods, I don't think issues like this confusion will be large.
And personally, I think the current set up is great - I expect no shortage of griefers and pvpers; for those who want 'consensual' pvp - it's called a WAR, try that.