A piano is a single keyboard row.
You just made we wish for a MIDI interface so I could remap keys to my old Roland. Sprint on the sustain pedal, crouch on the sostenuto and about 3 octaves of abilities. Literally playing it by ear in combat.
worst part is that it should be a fairly simple thing to code...
I have this one tiny worry:
The expendable system seems to give all classes "spellbook equivalents", which easily can turn into "everyone has their own special magic abilities", which eventually can turn into all characters feeling similar to play (ie feeling like casters).
Please someone reassure me that different roles will feel different.
Do we know anything about how to get rep in general?
If there are carrots, just not where you want them, there could be a reason for that...
In general, I think rep should be awarded for "generating good content for fellow players". That's a bit vague, yes. Building, conquering and defending settlements certainly is good content, though (makes the game exciting even for the innocent bystanders).
Maybe. It will certainly be a dance. Relative strength of charge vs opportunity will decide whether the two fighters are simply holding ground (and focusing on the fighter) or chasing the rogue.
My first thought was that coordinating the fighter team will be easier, but since the rogue buddy will almost certainly stand still and focus on the weakest foe, a good rogue player can lead the dance alone.
It may also be easier for the ftr+rog to focus fire since the two fighters will be vulnerable if they focus on the fighter, but focusing on the rogue may be hard. On the other hand, a rogue pulling back a little too far leaves his buddy outnumbered for an attack or two.
Revised hypothesis: a good rogue and a bad fighter will beat two average fighters but a good fighter and bad rogue will not.
It strips the event of meaningfulness for the other player.
Do you expect people to go: "Oh, some guy I don't know killed me - but he probably had his own reasons, so that's ok then" ??
Compare this to the scenario where I've been warned that "on Tuesdays Bluddwolf will kill players wearing green hats" (and I love my green hat). Do I submit? Heck no! Then I meet Bludd in the woods and go down proudly flying the green.
Still not understanding or agreeing with the motivation, my death is now meaningful and personal: I died because I chose pride (or vanity) over cowardice. And I may just run straight back flaunting an even bigger green hat just to show him he didn't break me.
I would even settle for "sometimes Bluddwolf randomly attacks people not wearing the same colour hat as he does".
But "killing for no apparent reason" (and the keyword is 'apparent') is functionally equivalent to "random killing".
Stephen Cheney wrote:
lots of answers in response to:
It seems Stephen Cheney replies can be summoned by putting questions in a structured format. Who'd have thought? (except Mbando, obviously)
1.So, based on the blog it sounds like even at max stealth skill, opponents will still be able to see us at at significant distances.
2.If that's the case, stealthers will never be able to sneak into melee range of anyone with basic perception training
3. That would be a problem because many players expect and want rogues and particularly assassins to work like in other MMOs, ie melee burst attacking from invisibility.
4. Do I have this right? Devs, could you adress typical expected viewing distances to help clear this up? Alternatively, could you adress your vision for what should be achievable by stealth in PFO?
(could you also possibly give an indication on whether maxing stealth and maxing perception will require roughly comparable effort?)
EDIT: in either this or the other thread, either works.
Only the lucky countries had vehicles. When my parents were young the land was covered by glacier. No vehicles and barefoot running was a sure way to die, the only way to commute to work was using mammoth tusks for skis. Unfortunately with the increase in traffic mammoths became extinct and they had to turn on the global warming.
They better put mammoth tusk skis in the game or it will only appeal to younger generations!
Shane Gifford wrote:
@randomwalker, the specific way you described bladesmithing wasn't how I saw it, but that could certainly be a way to do it.
Yes, sorry, I was suggesting a variation. There are many ways of doing it right I think, and until devs come with tangible info we should explore different ideas.
It might be interesting to list what exactly we want the system to achieve before wading into details on how to best achieve that. (ex: 'we want top crafters to specialize', 'mastering a craft should require [x]% as much effort as mastering a class').
If there is agreement on what to achieve, the rest is just an optimization problem.
Definately would love this amount of customization. Normally I don't have too many problems with HUDS in games, but MMO's tend to always create one that has you looking everywhere but at the game... well that is my experience anyways.
Give us also customization for the complete opposite reason: refining, crafting, trading and settlement management.
I'd love to have a minimal GUI for exploring, a bit more for fighting and option to go full clutter for hanging around and making money.
At the bare minimum, I would say that a wood, metal, stone, leather, and food cycle are required, with all of those resources being required to construct even basic buildings.
In the MVP, scrolls and spellbooks could be parchment (ie. leather), all clothing leather and potions be 'food'.
+1 also to Decius inverted skill pyramid. Something very similar is used in Ryzom and I liked it for all kinds of reasons.
I typically end up as leatherworker and like crafting utility items.
Agree fully. But this is fine for the Minimum Viable Product.
My comment on scale: Those houses look huge and well constructed, perfect for rich and powerful city dwellers. But where do normal people live? I'd love to see smaller thatched-roof cottages, log cabins or other small faster-to-build houses as the first level of housing. (But not in the MVP).
The problem there isn't the rules but the jerks.
Making a game that doesn't appeal to jerks means a lousy game. Trying to force jerks to behave leads to gaming the system. Trying to make them into content for non-jerks sounds difficult but if GW say they know how I'm willing to try.
To Nihimon's questions: I believe yes (but I'm not a killer), as long as there are enough varied sanctioned pvp options. Wars, feuds, raids and the ever present risk of robbery would make life and economy interesting enough for most players.
I would argue that 4 is not gaming the a reputation system but a product of it working as intended. Any time you are using an average to represent anything, you have to accept that the larger the population the less each individual affects the average.
And any time you are using statistics, you can manipulate it to prove whatever point you have.
But I expect there will be mechanisms in place so that inflating a settlement population with zero-xp alts isn't a good business model (but filling it with new players is). The influence system seems to be a good beginning.
7. Bounty club (potentially). If fulfilling bounties gains more rep than the cost of creating them, there's a rep grinding business right there (at the cost of a few heinous strawmen). No idea if this will be the case. Potentially this could also grind lawful alignment.
Are there any girls there?
She saunters across the room and sits down right next to Harad Navar, facing him."I'll have whatever you're buying me - well, except Pumpkin ale".She leans in a bit more, flashes a smile, and in a lower voice purrs "You intrigue me, I can't wait to hear all about you".
Deianira notices the redhead has placed herself in a way that draws the men's attention away from Deianira.
Harad realizes he didn't actually notice her come in the door. Just before she locks her eyes on his he briefly glimpses a stiletto concealed in her bodice.
The alternative to strip mining isn't holding the post permanently.The alternative is taking the loot and running, which does not require 10 minutes, pvp superiority or gathering skills.
Not sure if this was implied, but I got the idea that resources accumulate in the outpost until collected. For an early morning raid, option A may then net you '8X' (if you can carry it), and in 20 minutes you may be raiding the next outpost for another '8x'.
The church (organizational structure) and the religion are not the same thing. Being a cleric should never require joining a faction, but I still think the different churches should be designed as factions. In fact I can't think of any better way of doing it.
If I want to play a devoted religious character, I should have the choice of working within the organization (like a priest, cloistered monk or ordered knight) or independently (like a friar).
I should also have a way for my smith to devote himself to Torag, rogue to Adabar and barbarian to Gorum - all without taking cleric skills. Factions seem to be an obvious way.
The inconsistency is that if have the church of Gorum as my sworn enemies, a Gorumite cleric outside the faction is not considered an enemy. However this seems to agree very much with the current pvp design: religious wars (like other faction wars) should be optional.
Proud gamer dad with 3 kids: 6+6 (boy+girl twins) and 4 1/2 (girl):
1) Two days ago they were playing their Lego Heroica game and the boy spontaneously started GM'ing: he told the girls he'd rebuild the 'level' and play the baddies. He made up some house rules, fudged the rules to let them beat his pile of goblins, and showered them with extra loot (including the One ring).
2) yesterday I let them discover my old DnD minis. The girls instantly asked if they could have one each, then one more, and immediately started spinning stories. Not the usual Barbie dramas...
3) Today I invented a little wargame with them: single d6 to move, hit and damage, 3+/4+/5+ to hit and 6-12 hit points (yes, it was also a cunning 1st grader math exercise). Things that made me smile the most:
* the 4 1/2 yr old moves her princess into a flanking position, saying "we are cooperating, now it's two against one". The brother responds by adding her roll of 3 to his 4 saying "we got 7, we hit!"
* little sister suddenly declares that her princess is a spellcaster, "but if I roll 6 I can cast a magic that shatters the rock monster [earth elemental] into little pebbles"
* the look on their face (and the jumping up and down) when they first got down to 50% health, then managed to kill the baddies.
* "Daddy, can we play again? pleeeeease?" (Followed by claims that the hyena should be on the good team, be hit only on 6+ and have 20 hit points...)
Having Druids implemented as a faction is the simple solution.
If we are talking about cosmetic racial/regional styles: absolutely! (When the art team has spare capacity). Vanguard system comes to mind.
If we are talking systematic mechanical differences, making the recipes trainable by anyone becomes a must. Being apprenticed to a dwarven master smith may be harder for a human, but once he has learned the secrets he knows them.
interesting thoughts and tesselations. The good ole' honeycomb still has some strong points though.
-can place settlement sites in 'irregular' patterns. ie not only every second hex, some places maybe 2-3-4 hexes deep border. Distribution of resources is irregular anyway so another 'imbalancing' parameter may be just fine.
all that said, it is not turn based strategy and battles will be for structures, not for moving lines in the sand.
spin-off from the factions blog thread.
If a settlement formally commits to a faction (or more), it seems obvious that could unlock faction-specific buildings. That's not the topic.
Topic is: what when say a LN settlement has so many LE or NN members who are members of the Norgober (NE) church that it becomes a significant part of the population? Should a Norgober-specific building (ie assasin trainer) then be unlocked? Should that building be built and governed by the settlement (ie like all other settlement buildings), or by a council of the highest ranked faction members?
Idea up for tearing apart:
-The availability and/or cost of options could be affected by number or percentage of faction members in the settlement, and by other factions present. However I feel a solitary high-ranking priest should have the power to build a shrine on his own if he can finance it.
-I think settlement leadership should have the power to tear down faction buildings (but not without pissing off the faction). Enemy factions should also have the power to eventually destroy the building.
-This system could even be linked to the settlement rep/rank system. For example maintaining rank 6+ privileges in a church could require you to manage a temple building in a settlement.
Ideally "settlement faction councils" would allow many more players to take part in the settlement politics game, as faction councils would have some (minor) influence on development of the settlement. It would allow churches and other factions to compete for influence without conquering settlements and making them theocracies. Golarion lore has factions for druids, adventurers, paladins, assassins, monks, merchants, bandits, lumberjacks, necromancers and more.
Funnily, I see it as the other way around, that conflict is there to support the other aspects. PvP without politics and trade can work fine, but politics and trade are meaningless without risk.
The core of PFO, as has been repeated so often, is meaningful human interaction, which in the GW worldview requires some level of conflict, but includes so much more.
With the proposed "attributes as earned prerequisites", it seems to me that racial stat modifiers would be a good place to start: it does not really give more bang for you xp, but allows some skill tree branches to be pursued earlier in the development.
It could also be possible to do something with training access along the lines of dwarves having easier access to dwarven trainers and harder access to elven trainers, but I'm not convinced that is a good idea.
As for direct mechanical effects, I'd prefer not to have that. If dwarves are known for being better smiths and elves better archers, then the mechanisms should be to give dwarves an easier path to master blacksmith and elves an easier path to master archery (such as +dex bonus).
good summary indeed!
A few more points i'd like to be explicitly mentioned:
-settlement warfare (large scale organized pvp) will likely be the largest driver for the economy, creating huge demands for gear, buildings and supplies.
-banditry and the accompanying risk of transporting goods allows price differences between local markets, making the trading game much more interesting for economically minded players.
ie the pvp is there to support the economy more than the other way around...
in terms of non-adventuring skills, settlement-dependent skills makes sense:
-a master smith needs a fully equipped and staffed smithy to produce quality items. Moving to a new village a setting up a small forge won't be the same, and putting it in a huge building with lots of unqualified staff isn't going to help much. Skilled workers and the right suppliers and supporting industries (ie DI) makes a difference.
-same for refiners, gatherers and even socialites. You can't make business deals in the opera house or golf course if all the town offers is a single tavern (and the elite think you are a country bumpkin).
-for adventurers the logic is a bit more tricky. Monks without a place to meditate, rogues without a safehouse, fighters without a place to spar, barbarians without a place to let steam off, bards without a place to gossip - sure they could be stressed/stifled enough to lose their edge after some time. But when they hone their skills in wilderness, dungeons and warfare everyday that logic is hard to buy.
if NPC's are ambience only, they may be created locally (and be turned off on low-spec systems).
what do I want? Player-designed flags and banners so that settlement owning companies can fly their colors. Also, ambient sounds from structures as suggested above.
Barter has a place both when there is too little coin and too much coin. I except that the highest quality components initially will not be sold on the open market and bartering for something of equal value/rarity will be the best way to obtain them.
Barter in the simplest form is the simple trade window and requires both parties online, adjacent and carrying their goods with them.
Advanced barter can be done through contract system. We only need
This should allow me to a) enter a barter agreement and b) deliver my goods without even being online at the same time as my trading partner. (S)he could likewise deliver goods to my storage while I am offline or otherwise occupied.
Is not the OP wish mostly granted by the 'building manager' system?
-each building in a settlement gives increased benefits if there is a character (passively) managing it.
I expect this is a hard limit of large plots. GW want 'meaningful choices' and promotion of player interaction. A hard cap on large buildings gives a very meaningful choice + early turns the focus towards alliances and trade rather than self-sufficiency.
I see a picture emerging where you may well want to travel to a neighbor settlement for training because your hometown is focused on different classes (but where you don't want to move). Trade, diplomacy and politics ahoy!
"Tanking" as in low-dps + extreme survivability should be easily done.
In Pathfinder RPG, a sword and board defensive fighter is typically the foe you charge past and plan to come back to after killing the casters. Fighters aiming for battlefield control ("aggro management") often go for reach weapons rather than sword and board.
The sword and board juggernaut is the perfect tank only in narrow tunnels, but is also excellent for leading assaults and soaking up opportunity attacks and missile fire, holding the breach or capturing halls.
GW certainly seem to be be working on mechanisms like the Opportunity system that should help fighters 'lock' their targets in melee, but the typical MMO picture of 5 mobs all focusing on the most armored target I think has to go.
In most MMOsm rogues are all about stealth and high (front-loaded) DPS.
In many MMOs, the easiest target for a rogue is another rogue, the rogue is also the easiest target for many other classes. The one big advantage of the rogue is a higher chance of picking their fights.
For the record, pathfinder rogue is generally accused of being a very underpowered class.
OK, I am lazy and did a rough scan through 240 some posts...
There are some few key things you didn't catch in your rough scan.
-EE is a head start in every way. (But we have to pave the road ourselves).
-there will be a single world (on multiple servers). This seems a key point in Ryan's philosophy: the pvp'ers, the pve'ers and the traders all have to be in the same world in order to get the interesting dynamics.
The feel of combat is not just UI but opponent behaviour.
PvE mobs are likely to stand there and exchange blows, combat becomes a game of pressing the right buttons at the right time (timing is important and moves interact).
For PvP, the most interesting thing to me is the 'opportunity' system (based on pnp rules).there are attacks that specifically target people who move around in melee. Fighters will specialize in this, which may allow some sort of 'holding aggro' in pvp and may hopefully discourage circle strafing and other pvp-dances. (On the other hand, mobility will give increased dodge when moving).
I can't recall solid info on whether casting and archery will be harder/slower/impossible if moving, but I expect it.
The 'slow pace' (1-2 sec between attack animations), no 'default action' and incentives to make people stop and face their enemy should be enough to make combat feel more like a RTS.
Ryan has taught us that the sandbox way it to focus on the tools first and add the content later.
Races are content (but highly important content). The minimum is not the minimum to play the game, but the minimum needed to make the world believable as Golarion.
Classes are... somewhere in between. Limiting viable playstyles is not something they will want to do, but at the minimum viable level "core four" cover the basic roles (melee, skills, arcane, divine) and niches can be emulated by combinations (ie pala=ftr+cl)
Core game play elements ("ways to meaningfully interact") is exactly what they have said they will focus on. If anything, them being so willing to cut the non-essentials to the bone tells me they have their priorities sorted and makes me less worried!
Very evil. But done right it is the BBEG being evil, not the GM, and bringing the BBEG to justice becomes personal.
Just don't strip the paladin of all abilities with no chance for redemption - that would be cruel GM'ing.
But don't forget that some players may opt for the portal (whether as a kamikaze crusade, or because he "thought that where the story was going").
we love wasting time on this forum, but I otherwise agree.
A take-home message is:
Another observation is that it is much easier to fall than to redeem yourself. But if you act in such a way that your active alignment becomes evil, you may be better off changing your core alignment and enjoying the benefits of that. If your two alignments clash, you will not be able to use any alignment-specific abilities that you can train.
The only benefit I see in setting a core alignment clashing with your behaviour is to fit into a settlement (ie maintaining core alignment of LG to fit into a NN settlement despite acting CE).
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.