Do you guys really want to continue with this in a public thread about skills in PFO? (New thread or let it go, please).
I think some means of capturing officially a settlement is good as players would otherwise just respawn and fight to the "death". Perhaps part of this would be knocking the means for the settlement's defenders to spawn and populate the settlement ie its population falls below a certain level for a certain amount of time is conducive to attacking and claiming the hall additional to other conditions reached collectively?
Capturing the Hall effectively means you are in complete control of the settlement. Knocking down Civ index (to reduce player respawn rate) and Security index (to reduce npc guard respawn rate) are obvious routes to achieve that.
Incidentally I see this mechanic as an incentive to declare war on settlements with the same alignment, since many buildings may have alignment criteria and therefore be usable only by conquerors of similar alignment.
On the good side, it should make wars between polar alignments more about total destruction and wars between similar alignment more about conquering with minimal damage.
argument in favour of skinning skill etc:IIRC, in harvesting operations the quality of the material obtained will be MIN(node quality, harvester skill). "Harvesting mobs" should follow the same rules. The cost of training the skill (and requirements to get the badge) can be tuned to achieve the wanted impact on economy and behaviour.
(Is there any lore for mining dead earth elementals og sawing up treants? I would expect that to be top quality material)
If you need a 'settlement equivalent', why not a proper settlement? I see hideouts as (temporary) ambush sites built along the trade routes.
IMO any bandit group should be able to operate several hideouts a move between them. IMO hideouts should be constructable even in owned hexes (actually finishing it without being detected should be incredibly hard though), and claiming land should not destroy existing hideouts.
IMO hideouts are part of "personal PvP", not territory warfare.
The 'settlement' screenshot in the blog set thoughts in motion.
IF we can design our own bases, then layout is a big part of the strategy. A single gate to make it defensible, or multiple gates shorten the travel routes? Compact build for effectiveness or open build to make it harder for assassins (and save space for future additions)?
I'd also love to see buildings placed on the map directly relate to develop indices.
It is quite simple really: The ability to declare war requires a minimal settlement (assumption), but the ability to build and support siege engines or train advanced soldier skills requires advanced buildings and corresponding development indices.
I see no need for formal 'tiered warfare' since what you can bring to the battlefield depends on tiered buildings and settlements.
There is no permadeath for players, but there is permadeath for settlements. Since I regard wars as "settlement pvp", I get the following logic:
-only settlements can declare war. The minimum settlement structure to declare is the minimum requirement (fort?) to form a settlement.
-the war ends when one settlement ceases to exist (or when a truce is signed). If for argument sake your 1000 mongol archers operate out of a simple tent, I should be able to burn down that tent and formally destroy your settlement and end the war (ie removing the WAR flag for all parties).
-Any further hostile action by the losing warriors is formally banditry, and since they do not belong to a settlement any more they cannot declare war. If they should spontaneously all choose to join the settlement of the next tent (or the one rebuilt on the same spot), that is technically a new and unrelated war.
Taking this separately from the Spells blog thread:
Stephen in the Spells blog thread wrote:
Yes, only equipped gear can be threaded, not things in general inventory.
Wondrous Item slots are gear slots that you use for items that don't otherwise have a body location. There might ultimately be a big array of things to go in there, but initially it will at least include Bags of Holding and Spellbooks. You only get two, so effectively equipping a Spellbook means you're not increasing your encumbrance with a Bag of Holding or doing something else cool.
- so, a Bag of Holding in a Wondrous slot is equipped gear and therefore threadable?- does threading the bag protect everything inside it? Does the amount of threads needed depend on the contents or only on the capacity of the bag?
(I assume and hope the bags of holding are implemented as actual containers and not as an item that simply increases your carrying capacity)
For a dedicated crafter, trader, courier/smuggler etc. the stuff kept in the bag(s) is likely more precious than the weapons and armor worn.
Reputation is all about the RPG social contract, in PFO known as "players are the content"
High rep players should/will be the ones making the game more enjoyable, whether helpful veterans or villains with style. The ones you are happy to see online. Knowing Bluddwolf's band is nearby is likely to give me an adrenaline rush, and trying to get my goods safely to the next settlement (or negotiating for my life) can be "good meaningful fun" since I know they are somehow playing according to (their) rules.
Low rep players are the nuisances.
Playing evil with style is hard, since it often comes down to robbing and killing other players in a way that makes them enjoy it in the long run. It is possible, though, and is one of the things the rep system should be there to reward. GW has started giving some basic rules on how bandits and assassins should behave to make the game better for everyone.
Chaotic evil high-rep buildings should be totally awesome, since they will be achievable only through hard work providing fun for other players like me.
Mabinogi has ageing, but unless you think of 18 as "old age" it doesn't really count. Dying of old age would be the goal in a permadeath game, but dying from old age 1/day or so makes little sense.
to the topic: livestock!
I see the following scenario:
-the quality of wool (needed for enchanted cloaks) produced at my sheep farm depends on pastures (ie location), on my relevant skills and on the quality of the sheep.
For oxen (milk, beef, hides, pulling carts) and horses (packhorses, riding horses, warhorses) there could be similar scenarios.
Mechanically it should not be so hard to do. Balancing the economy and chore/fun ratio might the a fair bit of work though. I expect at least horsebreeding (and training) to make it to the game. Sheep and cows need recipes demanding quality wool/milk/meat to become meaningful, but if that is done then the door is open for livestock breeding.
I assume there are two kinds of bonuses from 'outposts' (adjacent controlled wilderness hexes):
Thus controlling a hill hex outpost with iron deposits may add to the 'industry' stat of the settlement, maybe allowing an extra smithy to be supported. Building an actual mine in the hill outpost may further increase the 'industry' of the settlement, but also generates iron ore (and the occasional balrog). Building the mine in an uncontrolled wilderness hex also gives ore, but I expect mining in controlled hexes to be safer (less balrogs spawned, more npc guards, lawful territory), in addition to boosting settlement stats.
Since each controlled hex boosts the stats of the owner settlement, there is a clear incentive to grab as much land as you can as early as you can, which triggers the "realm vs realm" game. Great design!
The (assumed) beauty of the design is that certain players care about certain escalation cycles, and would be willing to pay others to advance (or slow?) them.
-Leo the Legendary leatherworker wants some top quality colossal dire bear fur, and is happy to offer veteran players a 'quest' for this. Since the colossal dire bear only spawns at the end of a certain escalation cycle, he may even offer the players 'quests' to advance the cycle, chase away competing hunters etc.
-Lisa the lumberjack wants to harvest exotic materials growing in the dire bear woods. She has no interest in driving the escalation cycle forward (spawning the much too dangerous colossal dire bear), but offer players a 'quest' to protect her and her harvesting operation.
-Matt the Mayor sees that the neighboring escalation towards treants and colossal dire bears lowers his settlements 'civilization' rating, and offers players 'quests' to pacify that specific hex and build a watchtower there.
I really hope some cycles can go in different directions depending on how people interact with the PVE content. (ie inviting the evil cultists into your settlement; helping the dryads tear down player structures and chase away the harvesters; negotiating an alliance with the goblins...)
Big and heavy is fine for knocking down and breaking bones, but to actually penetrate armor you need concentrated force, preferably at a weak spot.
*Warhammer (and some polearms) is the best for penetrating, estoc (and dagger) better at finding the weak spots.
*Maces and flails generate a lot force, but if they were designed against plate they would have knobs or spikes on them - more warhammer-ish.
*Greataxes (viking bearded axe) are great against shield walls but worse than a mace against plate since the long edge is a liability. The solution is to put a spike on the back, which gives you a warhammer.
*Greatswords (zweihanders) are great against pike walls but to be effective against plate they have to be pointy and be wielded like estocs (which they do worse than the estoc).
but this discussion just makes me more excited about keywords!
I'd prefer if keywords aren't only positive. The estoc is not a good sword in an unarmed fencing duel. I think the market/crafters would also benefit is some of the more powerful keywords have small drawbacks (if nothing else, that they use more threads).
i will try to answer Clynx (though i'm not really pushing for flight)
-the ability to soar up and view the map from above
and from the perspective of a ground-hugging melee guy: bolas or tanglefoot bags to bring the pesky fliers crashing down. Failing that, Tenser's Floating Disk that gives you full cover from above...
What is the expected motivation for new harvesters to start harvesting after the game has fully started? Will there remain a market for level 5 swords after several years, when I suspect that it will have been completely edged out by the production of level 50 swords for the same price?
* level 5 swords may require less threads to bind, and may be as good if you don't need the extra keywords (or a certain quality level to qualify for an enchant).
* level 5 crafters get the same use of lvl 5 mats as from lvl 50 mats
* possibly each weapon come only i 3-4 qualities so that lvl 50 and lvl 5 swords are functionally identical and you need to go to lvl 100 to get any mechanical 'masterwork bonus'. Your point remains, but to a lesser degree.
on the other hand, if there is a market for harvesting simple materials in safe zones, that market will be taken over by bots.
How does a 300 skill crafter make a 300 quality item if there are no other 300 quality resources, miners and refiners about.
He cannot (unless he spends another 18 months training gathering and refining skills). He will be sure to find high-level refininers and encourage them to skill up though. The situtation is unlikely though as many guilds will have gatherer+refiner+crafter teams hit 300 simultaneously.
This is very much the point of the economic game.
right now it seems there are several different angles to the economy game, all interesting in their way.
suggestion: a finite amount of npc instructors for each obscure high-end skill (but growing with the number of players trained).When a new settlement opens a similar training facility, the capacity of yours may therefore decrease due to competence being lost to competitors. Getting the trainers back could require warfare, sabotage, diplomacy or economic incentives (and success would reduce the training capacity of your rival, leading to a reaction from them).
my understanding is that the problem is not the graphics but the bandwith, is the server synchronizing all the actions and consequences. The heartbeat and pace of combat then matters a lot more than graphic detail, and the reason EVE 'dots' don't give lag isn't because you don't see what they look like, but because you don't see much of what they are doing.
If the video card is indeed the bottleneck, you just need a setting where graphics and animations become very simplified once player density reaches some critical level (or when joining a formation). Stick-figure battles >> zerged by lag monsters
knee-jerk response: it would still be a crime, so that the Enforcers get a free pass to kill your killers. Hardly a 'free pass' to me.
2nd thought: would it solve the problem if only flagged Champions were exempted from the penalty? ("oh noes, a paladin, quick hide the skeletons in the closet!").
Ideological basis: assassins, slavers and necros killing each other smells more like backstabbing betrayers than fighting evil. Lawful Neutral enforcers stomping down on heinous non-crimes may or may not be regarded as good officers. Chaotic neutrals fighting freeing slaves may be seen as doing good but may as well be seen as violent and dangerous. The champions of good OTOH are expected to strike out against evil and will be seen as better for doing it.
If you only count 100% safe at start of early enrollment, yes.But a month after settlements are added, expect to see some strong lawful settlements where both members and visitors will be protected by npc and pc enforcers.
Warfare is the "epitome of pvp" indeed, but if you are not a member of either settlement you should be able to avoid it.
Personally (95% PVE/craft/trade, 2% self-defense, 3% running away), I expect to be able to "safely" travel in a good chunk of the game world. But my definition of "safe" includes speed, stealth, knowing where to go, friends, guards, paying attention to my surroundings and speccing to avoid combat.
Landon Winkler wrote:
This is great thinking!
Simplified idea: when your SAD is accepted you gain a certain amount of rep. If the caravan is later robbed or fleeced again, the rep gain turns into rep loss.
Why: my main concern is not '1 cp bandits' preventing banditry, but '1cp banditry' as reputation laundering business! If a bandit guild can build free rep by transfering money back and forth with SAD...
Landon Winkler wrote:
this!If you're going to be attacked anyway, the heinous flag is trivial but the ghouls make a difference.
LE armies will be scary if they have a rear line of necromancers generating reinforcements. If I run a LE settlement, I'll welcome them with open arms.
Necros and other villains, I don't see the big problem.
Outcast from LG and CG settlements, well, yes. But you can still enter if you dismiss the zombies.
-in a LE settlement it all depends on the law. If killing heinous people is a crime then the pesky Champions lose the champion flag, become criminals, and are executed by the Enforcers (perfect place to tornment paladins). Necros can live happily there, protected from crusaders by the law.
-in a CE settlement you're as safe and protected as anyone else. Safer actually, if you can trust your minions. A Champion venturing into CE territory may have his alignment protected by his flag, but is risking his life.
I'm sure one of the first player settlements we will see will be a LE one where necromancy is legal.
@ alignment drift:
*Should alignment/rep drift faster when actually playing and slower when logged off?
*Should alignment/rep drift at all if offline and not training?
*If aligment drift to LG represents you living peacefully in your settlement between adventures, should it drift if you are not a member of a settlement? If you are a lone ranger in a hideout in the wilderness, should it drift to neutral? What if the ranger furnishes the hideout with a shrine to Lamashtu?
*More generally: should alignment drift towards LG, the settlement alignment, to the alignment of the temples in the settlement, to your chosen religion or towards a value selected by the player?
My feeling is that alignment/rep drift rate should stop after a time without activity. F2P characters should still be in the alignment game -if active- , but not unlimited free alts or abandoned .
My feeling is that since LG is both deafult and "the best" alignment, players should be able to select their ideal or "drift alignment" or alternatively find/make a settlement that caters to them.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
"Cheap flags, cheap flags! Get your fleeced here, only 10gp and you can travel safely for 20 mins".
the irony is that this fleece-seller would become CG and not LE!
The elegant solution here would be the real bandits posing as merchants, getting asked to SAD and then attack the undercutter.
NB: that requires a declined SAD to count as an attack, so that the undercutter cannot just walk away from those that refuse to pay and bank on his high rep and good alignment to protect him.
Why limit escalation to unchecked populations?
If the orc vanguard is killed but the land not settled, why wouldn't they return in greater numbers?
If the normal predators are killed, there may be enough prey for a larger monster to move in.
If the cult is chased from their hidden shrine, wouldn't they plot revenge and start summoning demons?
If you kill all the monsters in the land, the mother of all monsters may decide to send you new and bigger ones.
Collision detection is only needed in combat!
Most important is no collisions between formations. You simply cannot charge through a shield wall unless you break it.
Second importance is "no griefers blocking the door". Unless they are actually starting a fight with you to prevent you from going in, they should not block you. "Elastic collision" (you can move through, but not stay) is ok between neutrals/friendlies, but it is simpler to implement disadvantages for overcrowding.
For small scale combat, the relevant actions could be implemented as combat abilities:
I would love to see a fighter skill tree focused on controlling the ground or enemy movement.
Dodge is a type of bonus with associated rules, but DEX doesn't give you a dodge bonus to AC so you can clearly dodge with AC without having a dodge type bonus.
Very well, since we both insist on playing it out this way:
Dex and dodge bonuses contribute to touch AC. Armor bonus does not. So your full plate thong apparently makes it easier to dodge my fist but harder to dodge my hand.
There is nothing in the RAW stating how much coverage you need to get AC (except of course if you actually try to take cover behind something), but the SRD does describe what full plate looks like:
"This metal suit includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor".
meh, this is a waste of time
-dwarven mine offering cheap ore/metal (and maybe buying food/drink/fuel?)
as in Kingmaker AP, some random encounters could have benefits of the type "if you start a settlement while the pilgrim is here, you get a free shrine in your settlement"
My feelings on first-person perspective:
"i wonder where my legs are, would be nice to have a clue before trying this jump"
An over-the-shoulder view at least gives you some visual feedback to compensate for the loss of kinesthetic/touch/balance/temp. A standard 3rd person view gives more.
How stealth is implemented is a separate discussion. Forcing first-person perspective is not a good solution. (minimap+hacker addon would alert you anyway, or we would have people by default doing pirouettes instead of standing still).
during my very short period trying Ryzom, I joined
-a royal wedding (major RP event with non-scripted drama),
In PFO i expect lot of the action to take place within settlements and kingdoms. I enough people realize that the purpose of playing the game is not to win but to have fun - then I have great hopes.
there are a lot of related but different topics here. Forgive me for trying to unclutter my mind a bit. What I have seen so far is at least:
1: The original question: how should you select targets: tab-cycle through a list or having to actually click on/near them (ie have LOS and be aware), or something else.
2: should you even have to select a target to attack what's in front of you, or should at least melee attacks hit whatever you are facing (whether closest to cursor, closest to lower middle of the screen or whatever).
3: should you be allowed to target someone behind you (either by target cycling or by targeting and then turning your back)?
3b: Should you be able to use target cycling to detect enemies?
4: should we have 'assist'? (most voices say no)
5: how will/should cover and concealment be implemented? Some seem to assume tab-cycling means no cover/concealment applies. The relevant questions should be whether cover/concealment should restrict targeting itself or just hit chance, and how the server will know.
6: discussions on how alternate targeting systems may affect friendly fire etc. (but with assumptions made for how (soft) cover is implemented with various targeting systems.
7: should formations affect what/how you can target? (ie should being in a formation allow you 'assisting' or tab-healing your squad?)
8: should combat be more reflex/skill based? (this is really a separate discussion where GW has stated that it is not going to be twitch-based)
thanks for your patience.
for reference, my own opinions are
ooh, nice thinking.
"like every other skill" implies
- Normal racial languages (if implemented at all) require some skill training in linguistics and potentially in-game actions (aka. merit badges) like finding teachers, talking, etc.
-Secret or exotic languages are not trainable until you unlock them. Learning druidic may require taking druid badges or living in a settlement with a druid grove. Learning infernal may require getting a good rep with the Hellknights or living in a settlement with Asmodeus temples. Learning ancient Azlanti...
-training languages goes on the expense of training adventuring and/or craft skills, so not everyone will bother learning every language (a very good thing IMO!).
Further on my wish lists:
-books, player-written books, dungeon wall inscriptions and other lore items should be in specified languages. Mobs may give verbal hints to their behaviour. Being a translator should be a viable (but probably not very lucurative) business option.
What we are (were?) talking about is not ways to 'blue gank' people, but rather a mechanism where you are rewarded for giving pests a fair warning before attacking them.
@alignment debate: It's not about who can do what to whom, but about what consequences that gives. Attacking someone because they annoy you is certainly not a good action. Giving them a fair warning first makes it less chaotic though. The lawful good xenophobic settlement should not last lawful good too long.
Do I want jump/climb implemented in game? Yes, absolutely!
Do I want PVE jumping puzzles where you need perfect timing and a little lag makes you fail? No thank you!
Caveat: I *do* want PVE situations where having one character with movement skills (climb, jumb, swim) or spells gives a large advantage, f.ex jumping across the pit trap to pull the bypass lever on the other side. But those situations should be more about character skill than about player skill.
Saint Caleth wrote:
umm, the implication that civilization is better than anarchy? the implication that a well planned and governed system works better than just winging it? Or the implication that society works better if people follow the rules than if they do what they want?
The question is whether efficiency is just better than freedom.
I suppose I got the completely wrong personality (pve/social/explorer/carebear) for thinking like a ganker. Anyhow, currently I just see a lot of mechanisms to spoil ganker fun:
-crime tag, meaning everyone else (ganker or carebear) gets rewarded by the system for killing you, and also restricts your movement
on the other hand:
There seems to be niches and incentives for ruthless player killer powergamers to contribute constructively to the game - maybe not quite "white hat gankers" but certainly grey hat.
Fellow PVE-carebears: don't dismiss open world pvp until you have felt the adrenaline rush from simply having survived a trip to the next town (but remember to invest in stealth or speed). Real emotion is better entertainment than virtual loot!
the immediate points that i can see
1- To maximize social interaction! The more generalist, the less you need others and the less you can add to the group. Single class encourages following one specialized path that also fits a useful role in most adventuring parties without becoming a one-trick pony. (monk/rogue haters: assume GW will do magic).
2- it is more PnP/Golarion flavoured.
3- (dubious statement) it makes it easier for content makers to anticipate the abilities available in groups, and match the challenge. (ie it is easier to write adventures for the four basic food groups than for every conceivable party composition.
4- (dubious as well) more specialization = sharper scissors, heavier rocks and larger papers in pvp. Good as long as single class cookie cutter builds do not end up limiting the spectrum of characters and tactics.
5- it is a convenient crutch for players who do not have a specific character concept and get intimidated with too many options.
Ryan, I'm not sure what message you want to send out, or how you define this phase.
-Delta launch etc catch the essence that this is a different kind of launch somewhere between beta and full public release.
My issue with 'Pilot' is that I see the Tech Demo as being a pilot. Pilot smacks of "we made this to see if you like the concept enough that we should develop a full game". It feels the wrong name for a phase where 5000 people are playing the actual game and starting to shape the persistent world.
A name that covers both the world-shaping, player base growth and game development could be "buildup phase"
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I love this! I see a lot of people suggesting we should have the freedom to choose whatever looks we want (the hulking brute str 6 wizard), and that restrictions are inherently bad.But what I want is the simple concept that choices have consequences, which requires that you can't have it all (at least not immediately and effortless).
I love the concept that my looks express who my character is, ie. the choices I have made in the game. Along with titles, looks can tell your history. That ranger is skinny because he survives on his own in untamed wilds. That merchant is obese because he runs some very profitable gathering and crafting operations. That barbarian is bulging with muscles because of years of working out with his greatsword.
I like the implication that there could be entire paths of 'cosmetic merit badges'. Clerics being tonsured (or tatooed?) after being initiated into the order, fighters getting scars from duels or mass battle, etc.
In short, the GOOD effects in my opinion far outweigh the BAD effects.
PS: if certain looks are tied to prestigious achievements, then the disguise skill...
Agree with darkrunner, nice consistent cartoon is better than failed attempt at hyper-realism. Also, something that doesn't require a dedicated gaming rig but can be played on a decent laptop.
What I absolutely would *not* like to see is the huge WoW style weapons, shoulderpads, boots, spikes - and monsters. That's a big immersion breaker to me, blowing things to unrealistic proportions in an attempt to make it look more powerful (or at least more visible for bragging). Like Darkrunner, I'd also prefer a grittier look with less 'special effects'.
The more cartoonish the style, the more 'unrealism' I can accept before immersion is broken.
Religion as justification certainly made it easier to mobilise soldiers (and still does), but that doesn't mean religion is the real or main reason.Xenophobia and greed typically are the ultimate causes, but differeces in religion, ethnicity, language and culture increase the xenophobia and also give easily defined boundaries for "us" vs "them".
It makes me frustrated when people do not distinguish between faith and church, ideas and institutions. The crusades have as much to do with the christian faith as Stalin's cleansings have to do with Das Kapital. The problem is not the -isms themselves, but rather that power corrupts, or at least makes it easier to be evil, and that (quote ciretose)" -ism make people shut their mind off and follow".
-i started doing the same for the rest of you list, but wall of text was intimidating even to myself...