Goblin Squad Member
|
Ya, trying to implement a function for simulating turns doesn't work so well with large groups of players and NPCs in the same area. It also doesn't go well with the spirit of trying to see what works for PnP and to leave it in PnP, and find what works better for a real time video game.
PnP roleplaying games are about simulating, and they do so well for something that is taking place on paper and in people's heads. Had they had fast computers and programing skills, Gygax and Arneson would have created a completely different set of rules for their game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Scarlette, I agree about the target list. Vanguard did this really well, I thought. If not a simple list of targets, then there should be some kind of tactical mini-map that shows all the targets I'm aware of and lets me select them without having to click them in the world.
I really, really don't want to have to become expert at moving my mouse around the screen during combat. I use the mouse to look, and I think it's an extremely good interface device to model "looking around". I just wish there was a similarly effective interface to model "looking at" someone/something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the non mouse spammers:
- Prior thing about having mouse handle view and numbers for attacks.
- Tab to change a target if you dont want to have to click
- Alternatively require a mouse down for view changing (this way you can still click things if it comes up) and keep the tab to change targets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I wish to see would be a target list where you could click your target. If some one initiates combat, people in a certain radius are asked, if they want to join in. Those who do get initiative and go on the target list. Exclusions from the list would be a person you character doesnt know to be in the area <stealth ie.>. Any person who aids either side go on the list. People involved in combat, but out of line-of-site are greyed out. Ie, the invisible cleric that healed the guy your fighting for the third time, you cant see him but you know hes here somewhere helping. Clicking a moving guy on the run just so i can try to hit him sucks. And tab-targeting just doesnt work well. Put his name on the list to target and let my character make the roll to see if he could hit him.
Also, earlier metioned, a 6 second GCD to limit movement and abilities per round. But it could be done in 3 second intervals for half actions to better real time play etc.
I agree with you on the target list idea, maybe it even being distanced based etc... (IE you know about anyone within 60' of your front and 20-30' of your rear etc).
As far as stealth/invisibility from what I've heard from Ryan on the forums, it sounds like it is unlikely that stealth/invisibility will be in the game due to the difficulties of judging what and when, and the fact that clients will indefinently be hacked to show invisible characters, and the difficulty of any effects from an invisible character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dark Age of Camelot used commands of Face, Stick and Follow that could be used here. Also there should be a highlighted circle around you showing movement limited of 30' and 60' so you know if you can reach some one and swing. Of coarse the radius would depend on your movement speed.
As far as stealth/invisibility from what I've heard from Ryan on the forums, it sounds like it is unlikely that stealth/invisibility will be in the game due to the difficulties of judging what and when, and the fact that clients will indefinently be hacked to show invisible characters, and the difficulty of any effects from an invisible character.
That's just too bad...
But can't the game be programmed so that the server just doesn't reveal the information on hidden characters until they are discovered? Like... every 5 seconds or so all characters perform an automatic check and send the result to the server. And the server sends the information only on the objects not hidden, or with their 'hide' values beaten by the check.Sounds like only adding a couple more operations to me. Though multiplied by the number of players it may be a lot, I don't know.
UPD: Found the stealth thread, will post there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as stealth/invisibility from what I've heard from Ryan on the forums, it sounds like it is unlikely that stealth/invisibility will be in the game due to the difficulties of judging what and when, and the fact that clients will indefinently be hacked to show invisible characters, and the difficulty of any effects from an invisible character.That's just too bad...
But can't the game be programmed so that the server just doesn't reveal the information on hidden characters until they are discovered? Like... every 5 seconds or so all characters perform an automatic check and send the result to the server. And the server sends the information only on the objects not hidden, or with their 'hide' values beaten by the check.
Sounds like only adding a couple more operations to me. Though multiplied by the number of players it may be a lot, I don't know.UPD: Found the stealth thread, will post there.
5 seconds is much to long. I would hope that Pathfinder is the polar opposite of the PnP when it comes to time in combat. The game would need to do a check for every 'hidden' character against every character in their perception range multiple times per second. It's possible with a large budget, but with low budget you have to reach the point where subscriptions are covering more than salary and server/ISP fees to add features like stealth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
5 seconds is much to long. I would hope that Pathfinder is the polar opposite of the PnP when it comes to time in combat. The game would need to do a check for every 'hidden' character against every character in their perception range multiple times per second. It's possible with a large budget, but with low budget you have to reach the point where subscriptions are covering more than salary and server/ISP fees to add features like stealth.
The time of the check is irelevant, and to avoid the tangent you can move the discussion on that topic to here.
that's actually kind of the 2nd major discussion on the topic the first one being here .
|
combat needs more tactical decisions (fire or ice or piercing?) and less repeat same combos all the time.
next make responses fast, if i suddenly try to jump away in the middle of a swing then my char should actually jump away while swinging, thus probably missing but not being hit by whatever i jumped to avoid (skyrim, halo, something like those)
its not so much that i want twitch its that i don't want to feel the real time "turns", and cool downs are entirely too common but aren't enough when appropriate.
as far as targets, should not have targets, should have area or cursor, a bolt flies out if it hits something then it dmgs( might need simple location comparison if not collision detection) or an area where anyone inside area gets hit(oops i just healed the bad guys) even an area big enough for only one person. a target should only be selected for things like charm person (npcs only)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... should not have targets, should have area or cursor...
Why?
In P&P I simply tell my DM which enemy I'm targeting. Why shouldn't I be able to just tell the computer - once - which enemy I'm targeting?
Why do you want me to suck at the game unless I develop the manual dexterity to hold my mouse cursor over an enemy?
I use my mouse to look, and frankly would prefer the cursor didn't even show on the screen. I never click anything unless the game forces me to, and it irritates me something fierce when the game does force me to click, or hover.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In terms of combat pacing and how "action oriented" combat is, it's great for folks to wish for whatever they want... but the reality is alot of that may be limited by purely technical limitations.
Firstly, they are going with a single shard model...which means they aren't likely able to geo-locate servers close to the clients...so network latency is likely to be a big consideration.
Secondly they are working with a limited budget, so they are likely going to have to go with 3rd party engines/software/middle-ware, which means they will be limited by whatever performance characteristics those engines have. Budget considerations may also end up affecting the kind of server infrastructure they can throw at supporting those engines.
Finally they are going to need to make some determinations based upon the audience reach they want to have in terms of what sort of minimum requirements (as well as geographic diversity) they are going to put on the client systems that support them.
Bottom line...the closer to real-time and "action oriented" you want to get... the more resources you need to put against that system all across the board (from network, to infrastructure to conding resources, to audience restrictions) to get that system to perform even close to adequitely.
Going with a slower paced combat system...tends to buy you alot of breathing room in terms of technical resources in order to get the system to perform decently. Those are resources that could be put to other areas.
|
|
I understand that actually achieveing what I suggested might be impractical but it never hurts to keep in mind what one wants to achieve even when they can only get halfway there.
@ Nihimon, I wasn't meaning for purposes of what your char shoots at but rather that if I shoot at something the arrow doesn't simply follow the target(except for patriot arrows anyway), And if I want to cast magic missile at the darkness I should be able to do so without needing to select a target and if it hits something unintended then it should actually hit.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I understand that actually achieveing what I suggested might be impractical but it never hurts to keep in mind what one wants to achieve even when they can only get halfway there.
@ Nihimon, I wasn't meaning for purposes of what your char shoots at but rather that if I shoot at something the arrow doesn't simply follow the target(except for patriot arrows anyway), And if I want to cast magic missile at the darkness I should be able to do so without needing to select a target and if it hits something unintended then it should actually hit.
For graphical rendering of flying arrows, either the location of the target at the time the arrow hits, or the flight path of the arrow (including where the arrow hits) has to be determined first.
If the flight path is determined when the arrow is released, either the target cannot move before the arrow hits, or the arrow will hit somewhere other than where the target is at that time.
Abstractly, the arrow was aimed (by the character) to be in the location that the target moved to. Concretely, where the target moved to was determined by player input after the arrow was released. Without time travel, curved flight paths are a fair compromise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know if anyone played FFXI here, but an "ATB" guage type thing would be pretty neat to have. The one in FFXI was hidden but basically it allowed you to act every few seconds kinda like a turn based thing, but you didn't really feel like it was. Running and positioning with this system need to be timed sometimes to get greatest effect (like a rogue needing to time his swing with a sidestep to crit a monster with backstab.)
This sort of thing would allow for "turn based" mechanics to be used while still fighting multiple targets. Each acts on its "turn" every few seconds and if he doesn't then his turn becomes "auto attack until I figure out what I'm going to do."
If someone D/Cs in the middle of combat with a raid boss, then at least you know he'll auto attack while he's reconnecting. And perhaps, taking it a step further, we could set up macros allowing us to program tatctics into our characters so that they preform certain functions in the event of us not being able to act quickly enough. I know that leads to a "why am I gaming if I'm not playing" sort of problem, but I am just shooting from the hip here anyway o_-
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon, I wasn't meaning for purposes of what your char shoots at but rather that if I shoot at something the arrow doesn't simply follow the target(except for patriot arrows anyway), And if I want to cast magic missile at the darkness I should be able to do so without needing to select a target and if it hits something unintended then it should actually hit.
I see what you mean, and I totally agree about being able to fire off an arrow, or a spell, or just simply throw a punch, without having to have an actual target.
As for arrows that get dodged, I think you really need to step back and think about this realistically. Modern compound bows can travel 250-300 feet per second. Human Response Time is averaged at 1.5 seconds for road accident reconstruction. Let's pretend arrows only travel 100 feet per second, and that our characters are special and can react and respond in 1 second. We're talking about someone possibly being able to dodge out of the way of an arrow that was fired at 30 yards, which is usually close to the max range of abilities in most MMOs.
You are definitely not going to be casually moving out of the way of an arrow's path, regardless of whether the devs animate it to make it look like you should be able to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would great if this game controlled like skyrim with a cast bar. or pseudo DCUO with a larger ability bar.
I'm not a huge fan or twitch based mechanics in MMO's, they're fine in a 30-40 person server, but mmo servers have to handle much more so delays are longer. So I would be more for DCUO style controlling, where you lock onto targets and the computer simulates your ability to hit them based on many variable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that one of the dead-ends that has been thoroughly explored and found wanting is the idea of open world sandbox play with lots of PvP that requires player skill and fast-twitch responses. Sounds great (to some folks), but in practice its not commercially viable.
First, if you want those kinds of games, the FPS market is waiting for you. They do it better than Goblinworks would ever be able to.
Second, while it is not obvious, in most MMOs there's a multi-second latency between actions. Most MMOs hide this in the animations (you feel like you're in total control but actually the client is showing you pretty pictures while it waits for the next cycle in the command queue). This latency makes aiming, and fast-twitch responses work much more poorly than you intuitively think they should which generates complaints about "lag" and "unresponsive controls". The larger the number of participants in a given game space, the more commands need to be received by the server, processed, and the results transmitted to the clients. Combined with inherent latencies in the internet, these multi-second intervals are effectively a requirement (and they're the reason that you don't see games like Battlefield or Call of Duty scale above a couple of dozen fighters).
(EVE has apparently solved one of their longstanding problems with lag in huge fleet battles (more than 1,000 active participants on the same battlespace) by actually expanding the length of the command queue. They call this "time dilation", and it effectively slows down the action to allow the server and clients to process more commands between each "tick" of the queue. Everyone moves more slowly, and it takes longer for cooldowns to expire, but you can actually play with some meaningful level of interactivity as opposed to either watching a slide-show, or being disconnected due to timeouts. When we scale up to anything approaching that size, we may find ourselves needing a similar solution. This potential makes "player skill / fast-twitch" games even less viable.)
Third, because of market segmentation (see point #1 above), the audience for open world / sandbox MMO play contains relatively few people who actually want this kind of game style, compared with the total number of folks who are interested in the general concept. Catering to it tends to alienate the majority, and never really satisfies the target minority.
So don't expect it in Pathfinder Online.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Valkenr, what exactly do you mean by "controlled like Skyrim"? I haven't played a single player game since the first time I logged into EverQuest...
If you mean setting an "active" ability that is activated by right-clicking the mouse, I think that's a fantastic idea, as long as that's not the "required" way of activating abilities. That is, I still want to be able to activate the ability directly from hitting a key or key combination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would say that one of the dead-ends that has been thoroughly explored and found wanting is the idea of open world sandbox play with lots of PvP that requires player skill and fast-twitch responses. Sounds great (to some folks), but in practice its not commercially viable.
First, if you want those kinds of games, the FPS market is waiting for you. They do it better than Goblinworks would ever be able to.
Second, while it is not obvious, in most MMOs there's a multi-second latency between actions. Most MMOs hide this in the animations (you feel like you're in total control but actually the client is showing you pretty pictures while it waits for the next cycle in the command queue). This latency makes aiming, and fast-twitch responses work much more poorly than you intuitively think they should which generates complaints about "lag" and "unresponsive controls". The larger the number of participants in a given game space, the more commands need to be received by the server, processed, and the results transmitted to the clients. Combined with inherent latencies in the internet, these multi-second intervals are effectively a requirement (and they're the reason that you don't see games like Battlefield or Call of Duty scale above a couple of dozen fighters).
(EVE has apparently solved one of their longstanding problems with lag in huge fleet battles (more than 1,000 active participants on the same battlespace) by actually expanding the length of the command queue. They call this "time dilation", and it effectively slows down the action to allow the server and clients to process more commands between each "tick" of the queue. Everyone moves more slowly, and it takes longer for cooldowns to expire, but you can actually play with some meaningful level of interactivity as opposed to either watching a slide-show, or being disconnected due to timeouts. When we scale up to anything approaching that size, we may find ourselves needing a similar solution. This potential makes "player skill / fast-twitch"...
What bout a system like DCUO, it's not twitch, but it's fast paced and you don't feel like you are casting spells for every action. Using your weapon makes up a majority of your actions, and weapon doesn't have to be a sword or the like, it can be a staff that cast's a certain low level spell, and you combo up to higher damage spells with the staff. The target/ability bar has really been done to death and i think a lot of people are looking for a new feel. I think another game that is using the system is TERA.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The target/ability bar has really been done to death and i think a lot of people are looking for a new feel.
I don't disagree with that. I think there's a huge design space to be explored. We just won't be exploring the one where you aim with player skill and twitch in response to stimuli.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@ Nihimon, I wasn't meaning for purposes of what your char shoots at but rather that if I shoot at something the arrow doesn't simply follow the target(except for patriot arrows anyway), And if I want to cast magic missile at the darkness I should be able to do so without needing to select a target and if it hits something unintended then it should actually hit.I see what you mean, and I totally agree about being able to fire off an arrow, or a spell, or just simply throw a punch, without having to have an actual target.
As for arrows that get dodged, I think you really need to step back and think about this realistically. Modern compound bows can travel 250-300 feet per second. Human Response Time is averaged at 1.5 seconds for road accident reconstruction. Let's pretend arrows only travel 100 feet per second, and that our characters are special and can react and respond in 1 second. We're talking about someone possibly being able to dodge out of the way of an arrow that was fired at 30 yards, which is usually close to the max range of abilities in most MMOs.
You are definitely not going to be casually moving out of the way of an arrow's path, regardless of whether the devs animate it to make it look like you should be able to.
I play paintball a lot, and I regularly dodge out of the way of objects with a ~280 FPS muzzle velocity from distances of less than 100 feet. I can't identify them as a threat, determine their destination, and then get out of the way, but if I have already identified where they are coming from and where I need to be to avoid them, I can get behind nearby cover in a small fraction of a second.
As would be the case when firing an arrow at someone who is running behind a tree. At the time the shot is fired, the shooter has a clean line of fire, but a quarter of a second later, the line is broken.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Decius, maybe I was misreading the intent, but it sounded like there was a desire to be able to notice an arrow being fired, and then dodge out of the way. There's a world of difference between that and noticing there's someone with a bow, and then getting out of their line-of-sight.
Firing a bow at a moving target is like firing a gun at a moving target, and it's pretty simple. You just need to either 1) keep the bow moving at the same rate the target is moving while you fire, or 2) lead the target by an appropriate amount. In both cases, there's really just not enough time for the target to react to the firing of the weapon and respond by changing direction in the time the arrow is in the air.
At the time the shot is fired, the shooter has a clean line of fire, but a quarter of a second later, the line is broken.
This is the part I'm taking issue with. If the target is moving into cover, and will be in cover by the time the arrow reaches them, then it's simply not true that there was a clear line of fire at the time the shot is fired.
Again, I could be wrong, but it sounded to me like there was a desire to be able to be standing still right next to cover, and then notice the arrow being fired, and then move into cover before the arrow got there. If that's the desire, then it is highly unrealistic.
|
|
Not unrealistic just difficult and requires training, your brain receives information in parts, first you see movement, then you see size and color then details start to fill in, if you wait for the details (as most people do) then things occur like you said but if you train yourself to respond to partial information then you can exhibit extraordinary reflexes.
there was one experiment I heard about several years ago, they took a martial artist and put him in front of 4 pads with lights when the light went he hit the pad as fast as possible. this was to measure response times in trained people, the martial artist was so fast that it "appeared" as though he was swinging before the light came on to hit as it came on.
reason being is he didn't need to know what color the was or anything just if it was on, in car accidents are usually dealing with untrained common folk who are used to being slow, and they usually think it wont happen to them which also slows down reaction time.
I was traveling 70 mph on a freeway about 4-6 car-lengths behind a guy with a trailer when a piece of rebar fell off and came heading for my windshield, I was in the next lane before I realized where that bar was going to hit. I only needed to know to move.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While novel, the anecdotes cited only serve to accentuate the argument against an accuracy/collision/twitch based combat system. The expectation of speed in a twitch style game becomes quickly unenjoyable when latency exceeds a relatively low amount, because the player is mentally tuned to an experience more closely resembling the driving example, and because the competitive nature of the gameplay punishes a non-local connection. If a player has the constant stream of choices to make, a game can feel fast paced even if twitch mechanics are not implemented.
|
|
My comment wasn't intended as an encouragement for twitch.
But can they make the phased turn work with the illusion of no phased turns?
Oh, and don't make it impossible to escape a pve encounter. I hated that in wow, if I got in over my head, I often saw it in time to run or if I didn't want to waste time killing something, but no matter what I did any creature I ever ran from could catch up and keeping attacking till I was dead. I don't need a sure thing escape but it shouldn't feel impossible either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I totally agree about being able to escape. IMO, your character should only die in PvE if you make several bad decisions and/or ignore several indications that you're in over your head. Likewise, even PvP matches should not be over so quickly, or leave you stun-locked for so much of it, that you never have an opportunity to flee.
In fact, I'd really like there to be a Flee ability that has a very high chance to disengage you from your current encounter (even PvP), but leaves you not entirely sure which path you took to escape. Perhaps it could give you a personal speed boost equivalent to traveling on a road, since you're effectively running for your life, and extremely unlikely to be careful not to trip or break your leg by stepping in a hole.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I totally agree about being able to escape. IMO, your character should only die in PvE if you make several bad decisions and/or ignore several indications that you're in over your head. Likewise, even PvP matches should not be over so quickly, or leave you stun-locked for so much of it, that you never have an opportunity to flee.
In fact, I'd really like there to be a Flee ability that has a very high chance to disengage you from your current encounter (even PvP), but leaves you not entirely sure which path you took to escape. Perhaps it could give you a personal speed boost equivalent to traveling on a road, since you're effectively running for your life, and extremely unlikely to be careful not to trip or break your leg by stepping in a hole.
There's a lot in your post that could get the designers working on more complex encounters.
- if a player flees from a brute-intelligence defending its home, the brute is likely to give up the chase after a short distance.
- if a player flees from a brute that is hunting (like a pack of wolves), the brute will follow further, especially if they are closing.
- if a player encounters and flees from an intelligent lair (like bandits), that lair should be on heightened alert for some amount of time, and venturing right back in might result in a close range ambush.
- when the player flees and gets lost, the player's in-game map could be *temporarily* unavailable. The map would be restored when the player got to a significant landmark, or sooner with the right skills/badges.
Likewise, even PvP matches should not be over so quickly, or leave you stun-locked for so much of it, that you never have an opportunity to flee.
That is one of my main wishes for the combat system. A 1 on 1 encounter should not end in 15 seconds, 10 of which one of the players is in stun-lock. This is one of the reasons I'm absolutely against save-or-dies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
- when the player flees and gets lost, the player's in-game map could be *temporarily* unavailable. The map would be restored when the player got to a significant landmark, or sooner with the right skills/badges.
While I agree with everything else, this seems an arbitrary limitation that works exactly opposite to how the regular discovery of map areas usually goes. Its good to remember while getting chased by wolves in real life is likely to result in panicked loss of orientation and direction, we are talking about a game. I can't see how reversing exploration rules in certain circumstances results in superior game play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you're going to ask for it to be insanely hard to kill other players, because spin in any way you want, that is what's being asked, then may as well make the rewards higher, like being able to loot equipped items as well.
If you want to run away, then run away. It makes no sense that you should be able to outrun one, or for that matter many foes who are just as fast as you, and no reason they shouldn't be able to attack you because you're "fleeing". That's just silly.
They have already confirmed a sure-fire way to not get in over your head in PvP conflicts though: stay in lawful, low risk/low reward areas.
I predict these forums are going to light up with complaints from the same folks asking for no save or die spells after the first week of the game being up. They're going to be complaining about some group of wizards ambushing them and all using area of effect damage spells and torching them before they can fight back. They're going to be asking for everyone's character to have a million hit points, and we'll need a better mechanic to warn us of any kind of ambush (and when I say ambush, like earlier I don't just mean fast travel ambush), and how stealth isn't fair, and blah blah blah.
Goblinworks, go ahead and listen to the complaints if you're trying to build a My Little Pony clone, but please don't take the vocal minority as representing an actual desire by most gamers out there to be coddled and protected everywhere they go in what has already been declared to be an open PvP game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you're going to ask for it to be insanely hard to kill other players, because spin in any way you want, that is what's being asked, then may as well make the rewards higher, like being able to loot equipped items as well.
No one is asking for it to be extremely hard to kill other players, I'm not certain on pursuit mechanics etc... but it is certainly within reason to believe that there can be enough ranged attacks, slows, roots etc... to make it so that someone can't run from every battle, without either the fight ending in 1-2 shots, or making one person unable to fight back at all after the first shot is landed (IE stunlocks etc...)
I really don't get how you do not see a difference from people who want a fight to be a battle, as people who don't want a fight at all. I have heard absolutely 0 people who have a problem with numbers advantages being advantageous, but somehow you seem to place that as what people will hate if they don't also like fights to end in 1 shot 90% of the time.
It also isn't a vocal minority... If you actually look at the save or die thread, there is more or less just about every regular poster on the against side... and 2 people on the for side who make up almost half the posts. Which side is actually the vocal minority?
Anyway the point is, there are ways to make running away difficult, without also ensuring that the battle ends on the first shot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one is asking for it to be extremely hard to kill other players
Really? You sure about that?
I totally agree about being able to escape...even PvP matches should not be over so quickly, or leave you stun-locked for so much of it, that you never have an opportunity to flee.
In fact, I'd really like there to be a Flee ability that has a very high chance to disengage you from your current encounter (even PvP)
Emphasis added. That's EXACTLY what he's asking for. Add to that he's asking in another thread for a game that plays itself for him.
Some players clearly haven't honestly accepted that this is going to be a game with risk in it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
when the player flees and gets lost, the player's in-game map could be *temporarily* unavailable. The map would be restored when the player got to a significant landmark, or sooner with the right skills/badges.While I agree with everything else, this seems an arbitrary limitation that works exactly opposite to how the regular discovery of map areas usually goes. Its good to remember while getting chased by wolves in real life is likely to result in panicked loss of orientation and direction, we are talking about a game. I can't see how reversing exploration rules in certain circumstances results in superior game play.
The ideas behind that suggestions are:
- Getting lost is an adventure in itself. It can yield some good stories.
- An in-game map or minimap pretty much makes getting lost impossible, so probably needs to be disabled to make the character lost.
- Ranger-like outdoor skills could protect a character from getting lost during flight, and should certainly help a character regain her bearings more quickly.
- If a player is intimately familiar with an area, his character is less likely to truly be lost, minimap or not.
I generally was thinking about characters only having a chance of getting lost when fleeing from a fight. I'd imagine there could be other things that cause the same effect; weather like thick fog or snow, or a magic spell intended to disorient the character.
However the game handles a character gaining knowledge of areas over time, I'd think losing knowledge and having to regain it is a bad mechanic. Losing the minimap for 5 or 10 minutes could be disorienting, but once the player makes it back to the crossroads next to the Pink Pony Inn, he's back in business.
Blaeringr, while I'm not for excessive coddling and making ambushes almost useless, I do believe individual players could use some love.
The problem with all these hardcore pvp games is they fail to create a believable model of society where killing a person actually means something. Can't blame developers though, because in games it really doesn't. Anyway, it always results in players killing each other for NO real reason.
Such failure, or rather impossibility, to recreate the relative protection by society and morals can be considered a legitimate reason to balance the situation by helping out the victims.
Of course if Paizo manages to make safe zones large and with enough content for more peaceful players to spend 95% of their time there, then it is ok to leave the wilderness to hardcore PvP'ers with their rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Blaeringr, while I'm not for excessive coddling and making ambushes almost useless, I do believe individual players could use some love.
The problem with all these hardcore pvp games is they fail to create a believable model of society where killing a person actually means something. Can't blame developers though, because in games it really doesn't. Anyway, it always results in players killing each other for NO real reason.
Such failure, or rather impossibility, to recreate the relative protection by society and morals can be considered a legitimate reason to balance the situation by helping out the victims.
Of course if Paizo manages to make safe zones large and with enough content for more peaceful players to spend 95% of their time there, then it is ok to leave the wilderness to hardcore PvP'ers with their rules.
Having full unrestrained pvp is a good way to never see a mainstream population. I would like PFO to be a medium for bring people from games like WoW into the sandbox environment. After about 3-4 years the developers and the players should be able to make an environment that is friendly to gamers who don't want to risk their work.
I think a good target is to have the top 5% of the game require the player to go into unsafe (from player attack) territory when the game is a few years old.
I agree with aiming low for the start, but the goal should to become a mainstream MMO.
Having full unrestrained pvp is a good way to never see a mainstream population. I would like PFO to be a medium for bring people from games like WoW into the sandbox environment. After about 3-4 years the developers and the players should be able to make an environment that is friendly to gamers who don't want to risk their work.
Can't disagree with this. If I wanted EVE, I would be playing EVE right now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's not full unrestrained PvP. read Goblinworks' "To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms" blog. It simply explains safe zones and a bounty system.
Your character will re-enter play at the soulbinding point holding and wearing whatever gear they had equipped when they died, so you won't have to start without your armor, or the weapons, wands, or staves you were using.
So not all of your work is lost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Valkenr, what exactly do you mean by "controlled like Skyrim"? I haven't played a single player game since the first time I logged into EverQuest...
If you mean setting an "active" ability that is activated by right-clicking the mouse, I think that's a fantastic idea, as long as that's not the "required" way of activating abilities. That is, I still want to be able to activate the ability directly from hitting a key or key combination.
Just noticed your post, looks like it was made while i was writing mine a while ago.
What I mean is a system where your weapon is controlled by a few buttons, swing, block, dodge and combinations of these buttons create different actions. So if you hit 'block' then 'swing' you can parry the next attack within 1 second or so, and if you follow that by an additional 'swing' in perfect time with the parry you would preform a riposte.
It removes the puppet strings and gives you direct control over your character. It's less commanding and more doing. If you want to check out a similar system download DCUO, it's free now, because that's what happens when you have a hasty launch and don't live up to your promises(hint hint GW) or design a game to be F2P, never really admit it, then slap a subscription fee on it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you're going to ask for it to be insanely hard to kill other players, because spin in any way you want, that is what's being asked, then may as well make the rewards higher, like being able to loot equipped items as well.
If you want to run away, then run away. It makes no sense that you should be able to outrun one, or for that matter many foes who are just as fast as you, and no reason they shouldn't be able to attack you because you're "fleeing". That's just silly.
They have already confirmed a sure-fire way to not get in over your head in PvP conflicts though: stay in lawful, low risk/low reward areas.
I predict these forums are going to light up with complaints from the same folks asking for no save or die spells after the first week of the game being up. They're going to be complaining about some group of wizards ambushing them and all using area of effect damage spells and torching them before they can fight back. They're going to be asking for everyone's character to have a million hit points, and we'll need a better mechanic to warn us of any kind of ambush (and when I say ambush, like earlier I don't just mean fast travel ambush), and how stealth isn't fair, and blah blah blah.
Goblinworks, go ahead and listen to the complaints if you're trying to build a My Little Pony clone, but please don't take the vocal minority as representing an actual desire by most gamers out there to be coddled and protected everywhere they go in what has already been declared to be an open PvP game.
No, sorry to dissappoint you, but I think turning your back on an active opponent in combat should be about the riskiest thing one can do.... it was in real life...the vast majorty of a loosing armies casualties came during route, not while it was still standing and fighting.
Withdrawing from combat should be possible only if you are faster then them....or lucky or skillfull enough to distract/disable them for a long enough period (maybe a "Slow" Spell or something similar) of time to make good your escape.
I still don't want any save or die spells.
Neither an "I win" or an "I escape" button are very appealing game play mechanics for me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm attacking ideas. Funny you should bring that up, considering how that Save or Die conversation went. I have plenty to say about that, but as I said there, I'm done discussing it with someone who has repeatedly resorted to direct and undisguised insults.
What tactical advantage does win (100% chance) provide the game? You know, when me and ten friends all launch a fireball at you and you don't even know yet that you're being attacked? The only tactical decisions there is "do I attack the group that's the same size as mine, or wait for something smaller?" and "do I tell these guys I'm going to attack them, or smile and wave til they turn their backs when I launch everything I have at them?"
Of course Goblinworks could coddle you so that it takes a 100 attacks to kill anyone, and so that you don't have to fight back - your character does - and you only die if you don't run away with plenty of warning that you're going to lose, and so on.
People are going to find a way to kill other people's characters. That's kind of implicit in an open PvP game. Remove save or die spells, they'll find what works best.
Again, don't get hung up on the Save or Die discussion. Let's say for a second that I have no issue with the Save or Die spells being removed, what's been requested here goes so far beyond that in asking to be protected and coddled everywhere you go.
The difference is that one requires recruiting and organizing an ambush by a party of 10 like minded individuals. Placing yourselves so that your ambush is not spotted/detected by the target beforehand and then coordinating the timing of your attack so that the individual does not have sufficient time to react when the ambush is launched.
The target has the option to be skillfull or stealthy enough to detect and avoid your ambush if you are not carefull....or travel in a large enough group with proper spacing...that your ambushing party would be defeated if it engaged. He also might arrange a "counter-ambush" by purposefully sacrifing himself by moving ahead of his party...letting you and your freinds spring your ambush...waste your spells on him....and then have his party engage and destroy yours while you were waiting for you manna/spell-timers/etc to recover.
By contrast, the other simply involves you being a Wizard of the appropriate level and clicking a button...... and the targets only tactical counter is to hope the random number generator is kind to him at that moment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think turning your back on an active opponent in combat should be about the riskiest thing one can do.... it was in real life...the vast majorty of a loosing armies casualties came during route, not while it was still standing and fighting.
Withdrawing from combat should be possible only if you are faster then them....or lucky or skillfull enough to distract/disable them for a long enough period (maybe a "Slow" Spell or something similar) of time...
If there is a flee combat button, there should be a pursue button.
The ability to actually get away would depend on how long of a head start you have, terrain, the two parties speed and number, etc. And like you hint at, if the pursuit catches the flee-er, there's a free attack or two on the flee-er's back.
Player1: "Oh, but I'm looking back as I run." GM: "OK. I'll reduce your run speed then, ok?" Player2: "I'll be running full out until I hear his screams."
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think turning your back on an active opponent in combat should be about the riskiest thing one can do.... it was in real life...the vast majorty of a loosing armies casualties came during route, not while it was still standing and fighting.
Withdrawing from combat should be possible only if you are faster then them....or lucky or skillfull enough to distract/disable them for a long enough period (maybe a "Slow" Spell or something similar) of time...
If there is a flee combat button, there should be a pursue button.
The ability to actually get away would depend on how long of a head start you have, terrain, the two parties speed and number, etc. And like you hint at, if the pursuit catches the flee-er, there's a free attack or two on the flee-er's back.
Player1: "Oh, but I'm looking back as I run." GM: "OK. I'll reduce your run speed then, ok?" Player2: "I'll be running full out until I hear his screams."
Ideally, the 'flee' and 'pursue' could be the same button- I recall SWG had a /burstrun ability which granted a large bonus to speed at a high cost to action and a long cooldown. You could outrun any normal speed player or enemy while it was active, but you had to recognize that you needed to use it pretty early or hitting it would knock you out immediately.