Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

What will combat be like?


Pathfinder Online

201 to 250 of 251 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
So for the most part I would say this would be largely handled by the community. No it isn't a bullet proof I won't be killed mechanic and shouldn't be. It should make it hard for the surrendered person to switch back to attacking, but just like IRL, throwing yourself at someones mercy... well puts you at their mercy.

In my mind, why kill someone when you don't have to? From what we know, killing someone in PFO will let you loot part of their unequipped items. You get no XP, maybe you advance towards a merit badge. It has less effect on them than in most games. So if someone chooses to surrender, why kill them? Take 2 or 3 items of loot, same as you would have gotten if you were looting their corpse, and let them go. Maybe someday the shoe will be on the other foot. If you're at war, or hunting notorious bandits, sure. But if you're a bandit, you should have the option to be a mostly decent bandit or a notorious one.

But to do that, it would be nice if the game gave us (a) a cower or surrender emote, (b) a limited ability to inspect other character's inventory, if they surrender, or if we want to search people entering a settlement, or some limited number of reasons. and (c) related to the searching ability, show which items you would have gotten looting the person, some sort of highlighting.

(Maybe if you loot more than than normal you take an alignment hit. If we're going to have alignment, there have to be circumstances that we can make choices that effect alignment - but that's probably the subject of another blog post.)

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
We can progress from a point like this.

I'd like that.

Quote:
So I ask that you elaborate by what you mean in choosing the word "disengage" when referring to combat.

Imagine each character has a Stamina score, and that different abilities expend a certain amount of Stamina. I would like for there to be a Flee ability that can be used in combat and consumes a significant amount (40%?) of total Stamina in exchange for a short duration (15 seconds?) boost to run speed (+30%?) while also locking out attack abilities. I could use this to try to get away from attackers if I realize I'm in over my head. When I use this ability, anyone I was fighting is no longer in-combat with me, so that they can use abilities that require them to be out of combat.

I would think it perfectly reasonable to balance this by having an out-of-combat Sprint ability, that increases run speed (+25%?) for a slightly shorter duration (10 seconds?) at a much lower cost of Stamina (5-10%?).

I have a decent chance of getting far enough away that I can try to hide or disappear in the forest. If you're willing to spend the effort to Sprint after me, you'll be able to maintain your Sprint far longer than I can. Or you could mount your horse and immediately give chase, although you'd probably lose more ground initially which might allow me to get out of sight.

I chose 40% cost for Flee so that, if you did it quick enough, you'd actually be able to do it twice.

It would probably be a really good idea to bounce this kind of idea around among a bunch of different people to get their different perspectives. There are probably some things I hadn't considered.

Blaeringr wrote:
Additionally, you've given some clarification on what you meant by "several bad choices" in saying that simply leaving town amounts to this. So what about combat in town? Murder happens, sure, but that's not the only scenario where this is possible. What about if your town gets invaded? invaded by other players? invade by monsters? or what if you yourself are a criminal and may be legally slain in town? What about non lawful settlements where murder is not a crime?

What about them? I don't see a question in there.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Onishi wrote:


In my mind, why kill someone when you don't have to?

Right now I would say over 90% of the people discussing the game are RP/Tabeltop players, and most people here aren't planning to go on wilderness murder sprees.

When the game becomes a game, there will be a larger influx of other gamers. RP players have a loosely defined code of conduct, most everyone else does not, they will go around killing everyone they see because they think it's fun. It happens in every game with open PvP. People will always find location where 'low level' players are common and camp out there. I personally don't find it fun having to run to an area 10 times just to finish one activity, because i get killed by someone with a fully developed character killing me every time i go there that isn't able to compete with people on their play-level. And getting other 'nice' players to come clear it out is only a momentary bandaid, and guarding lowbie areas should not be common activity, or required for the game to be enjoyable for new players.

This is why I want random encounters that result in PvP easy to avoid. Territory disputes and caravan raiding should be the main pvp sources, not killing some random guy you run into. Another place would be an arena, kind of like CoH did, where other player can watch, and it opens up some gambling opportunities too.

Goblin Squad Member

The question is this: how should characters be treated differently when attacked in town versus in the wilderness when considering whatever specific idea you had in mind when talking about "several bad choices"

Goblin Squad Member

@Urman you post brings up an interesting point: if we can mug people without killing them, how does this impact using murder bounties and criminal tags as a deterrent for PvP in towns?

Would there be an equal penalty for mugging as for murder? Would it depend on the settlement or town?

Goblin Squad Member

@ Nihimon

I like this, It's along the lines of what i have been saying.

It gives you a chance to escape before you know for sure you will lose.

I might go as far as having it expend the remainder of your stamina and your speed and duration are dependent on how much was used. This way the longer you are in combat the less chance you have of escaping. There would be a point where using /flee would be slower than your attacker using /run and /run would expend less energy but your would have to be above the threshold where /flee is slower.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

@Urman you post brings up an interesting point: if we can mug people without killing them, how does this impact using murder bounties and criminal tags as a deterrent for PvP in towns?

Would there be an equal penalty for mugging as for murder? Would it depend on the settlement or town?

Good questions. Mugging someone is still a criminal act, last I checked. So maybe you get a criminal tag. Maybe there can be a bounty only for murder. Maybe there can be a bounty anyway, but some thieves could choose to be less greedy and hope their victims don't pursue it.

Mostly I just want choices and decisions, and to have some non-combat resolution options.

Goblin Squad Member

@Valkenr, I could go for that.

What about having it run you in a random direction, but not off a cliff or into a dead-end? I'm thinking of the phrase "running headlong", and of the possibility of having certain Fear-type effects automatically trigger this Flee effect.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
The question is this: how should characters be treated differently when attacked in town versus in the wilderness when considering whatever specific idea you had in mind when talking about "several bad choices"

If "town" is a "safe" NPC Settlement, then they won't be murdered there. If it's not, then they've already left safety.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

I like the idea of a Yield mechanic.

If I Yielded:

There would be a 60 second debuff on me. When this debuff first goes on, all my buffs are stripped and all of my existing debuffs on other characters are stripped. While this debuff is active, I am locked out of all of my abilities. I can speak normally and move at 10% normal speed.

There would be a 15 second effect on each character attacking me. When this effect first goes on, all of their damaging effects on me are suspended. While this effect is active, they may not use abilities on me. They can remove this effect by either Accepting, in which case all their effects on me are immediately eliminated, or Rejecting, in which case all of their effects on me are unsuspended and I immediately take any damage that has been saved up during the suspension. If this effect wears off over time, then that should be treated the same as a Reject.

If any character Rejects my Yield, or if any character attacks me, my debuff would immediately go away.

This mechanic could also be used to support Duels, which have been requested elsewhere.

I think that is where I mostly will disagree. Much like IRL when you drop your weapon and put your hands in the air, surrender is total submission. I would have actually described it as dropping your sword if it weren't for the implication that would imply possibly losing an equiped item, and just like real life surrender it isn't a guarantee of a better situation then death. Just like the conditions of surrender in real life usually involve yourself dropping your weapon, and ensuring you are in no position to pick it up regardless of what the other party is doing. It isn't surrender if you quickly are back in the action if the other party keeps fighting, or demands more then you intended to give up, it is a rude distraction.

I would say though if alignment is present killing a surrendered person should effect it, in lawful/marshalled areas killing a surrendered person should have a harsher sentance (IE longer criminal flag) etc...

I don't see a reason why surrender should inherantly put anything on the attacker at all. Especially when you add in complications such as 3rd parties near the battle etc... IE how would it handle someone who is near by but hadn't attacked you yet, but then attacks after the surrender "debuff" goes up.

Really I'd see the extra killing afterwards as something almost certainly to be handled by the community for 95% of situations, any group even half intending to be lawful or good will not take kindly to people killing the surrendered in their ranks. Organizations that do not have rules against killing surrenderes, would likely be known for this and people would quickly learn not to surrender to them.

Goblin Squad Member

@Onishi, the reason I put an effect on the attackers, and meant to include a very short duration invulnerability on me (the Yielder), is to make sure everyone actually processes the fact that I've surrendered, so they don't accidentally kill me, even with DoTs.

I understand your point about total submission, and I struggled with it. The reason I ended up thinking it might be best to allow me to resume attacks mostly boils down to RP. I can imagine a real world encounter where I drop my sword, fall to my knees, throw my hands in the air, and beg for mercy, only to pick up my sword and resume my attacks when my friends charge out of the forest yelling and screaming.

Even if it's just me and I've knelt in submission to someone, I'm going to resist them if they try to cut my head off.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

@Onishi, the reason I put an effect on the attackers, and meant to include a very short duration invulnerability on me (the Yielder), is to make sure everyone actually processes the fact that I've surrendered, so they don't accidentally kill me, even with DoTs.

I understand your point about total submission, and I struggled with it. The reason I ended up thinking it might be best to allow me to resume attacks mostly boils down to RP. I can imagine a real world encounter where I drop my sword, fall to my knees, throw my hands in the air, and beg for mercy, only to pick up my sword and resume my attacks when my friends charge out of the forest yelling and screaming.

Even if it's just me and I've knelt in submission to someone, I'm going to resist them if they try to cut my head off.

Which is why in general the first response of a person when you surrender IRL is to have you give them the weapon before they even begin to negotiate. Mainly because the fear is on both sides (IE the surrendered may be setting the person to walk towards him with his guard down, to stab him in the chest). The police don't yell for you to put your hands up, but allow you to keep your gun in reach, they ask for the gun to either be put down and walked away from, or handed/kicked over to them. Sheathing could still work, assuming drawing or sheathing a weapon takes say 2-3 seconds.

The dots I can see as a logical issue, but pretty unavoidable. Without knowledge of how many dots etc... are in the game I can't really see a workaround. As far as any mechanical debuffs/effects, they are all ripe for huge abuse in an open world. I mean even the auto stopping one attack, that can be enough just to throw someone off guard knowing they aren't going to accept the surrender, but delay them. And what happens if person A surrenders to person B, durring the 5 seconds of person B clicking to accept or reject, person C fires an arrow at B killing him.

Actual mechanical effects of a surrender all bring with them huge flaws and exploits, potential tricks and abuses pages long, and it only magnifies for every combatant added to the mix.

The way I see it surrender is a "Chance" to not be killed. It's meant to be an absolute last resort, still dependent on your opponent having a sense of honor, and in some cases paying enough attention to stop when he sees it (it isn't uncommon in the millitary for people attempting to surrender to still get gunned down by someone not paying attention with too much addrenaline running), the animation could be made very obvious/apparent.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
The way I see it surrender is a "Chance" to not be killed. It's meant to be an absolute last resort, still dependent on your opponent having a sense of honor, and in some cases paying enough attention to stop when he sees it (it isn't uncommon in the millitary for people attempting to surrender to still get gunned down by someone not paying attention with too much addrenaline running), the animation could be made very obvious/apparent.

Surrender is the option you take when you can't outfight your foe, you can't outrun him, and your last respawn set was 5 hours back. And you don't want to redo all that time. So with a human foe *maybe* you just lose some loot, maybe you get told off. Maybe he has something he'd rather be doing. Worse possible outcome is that he kills you; any other outcome might be an improvement.

Goblin Squad Member

@Onishi, you're right. It would be an unacceptable outcome to let someone use the Yield mechanic to game the system and actually win the fight as a result.

I agree that the Yield mechanic should really do nothing but make it glaringly obvious that you're surrendering, and remove your own ability to attack for a time.

I still think it would be nice to have a Grant Mercy mechanic as well, that would stop all my attacks. It would be really nice if it could also dispel all my DoTs. And it would be really cool if I could tell my Paladin to automatically Grant Mercy whenever an opponent Yields.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
And it would be really cool if I could tell my Paladin to automatically Grant Mercy whenever an opponent Yields.

I hope that the game has alignment and alignment triggers. People who want to roleplay can work within the rules, like you suggest, to maintain paladinhood. Those that see alignment as a great big bother get to play a fighter or barbarian.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

@Onishi, you're right. It would be an unacceptable outcome to let someone use the Yield mechanic to game the system and actually win the fight as a result.

I agree that the Yield mechanic should really do nothing but make it glaringly obvious that you're surrendering, and remove your own ability to attack for a time.

I still think it would be nice to have a Grant Mercy mechanic as well, that would stop all my attacks. It would be really nice if it could also dispel all my DoTs. And it would be really cool if I could tell my Paladin to automatically Grant Mercy whenever an opponent Yields.

I do agree with that, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have an optional setting to stop attacks when a surrender is flashed. Dots is still largely debatable, mainly in that we don't even really know how many or what dots are likely to be in the game if any.

Urman wrote:
I hope that the game has alignment and alignment triggers. People who want to roleplay can work within the rules, like you suggest, to maintain paladinhood. Those that see alignment as a great big bother get to play a fighter or barbarian.

I do have to differ on alignment effecting class abilities. Namely because no automated alignment system won't be gamed. Paladin's are also widely known to be guards... what is a guard to do when someone walks past with no weapon held and their hands in the air? No automatic system can differentiate between guarding and attacking. If X company has officially declared legal rights to say a mine, gathering from that resource is their sworn duty to defend, but only a human judge can determine what is defending and attacking. When you tie in huge things like class abilities etc... to a persons alignment, you give griefers a specific line to abuse it. If alignment is a minor more personal thing with small consequences, then you negate the reasons for people to strongly game it.

Goblin Squad Member

I actually think there's a bit of room for automated differentiation between Attacking and Defending.

I can see a system where a Defender basically stakes a claim on previously unclaimed territory, and then any attacks inside that territory are considered Defense.

This fits in with a lot of my ideas about controlling territory, even if it's a moving caravan, being integral to the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
I do have to differ on alignment effecting class abilities. Namely because no automated alignment system won't be gamed.

Yes, people will try to game rules, that won't be new. In my mind the nastiest anti-paladins are exactly like that, the ones who remain inside the order, but twist the religion and rules to their benefit. :)

Onishi wrote:
Paladin's are also widely known to be guards...

Sorry, you've got me here. In all of the PnP I played, paladins were very rare characters, with very tight limits on behavior. Yes, I've seen some MMOs that have used "Paladin" to mean "Tank-part-of-the-Trinity". But I'd think PFO can define "Paladin" any way they want to; I hope they stay closer to the PF definition.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Onishi wrote:
I do have to differ on alignment effecting class abilities. Namely because no automated alignment system won't be gamed.

Yes, people will try to game rules, that won't be new. In my mind the nastiest anti-paladins are exactly like that, the ones who remain inside the order, but twist the religion and rules to their benefit. :)

Onishi wrote:
Paladin's are also widely known to be guards...
Sorry, you've got me here. In all of the PnP I played, paladins were very rare characters, with very tight limits on behavior. Yes, I've seen some MMOs that have used "Paladin" to mean "Tank-part-of-the-Trinity". But I'd think PFO can define "Paladin" any way they want to; I hope they stay closer to the PF definition.

Well on the guards I tend to be thinking more on the lore side of things. When someone needs something from falling into the hands of evil they tend to be guarded by paladins in many cases. I'm reffering to neither the trinity roled MMO's nor what common PC's are.

As far as gaming the system I was more reffering to people gaming the system against paladins. IE forcing situations where a paladin would have to cause himself to fall or lose his kingdom. Like say walking in with their hands up and just taking what they want to steal etc...

Also on the attacker/defender side, maybe it is a bit less clear cut then that, what about the area between 2 kingdoms on a hex, how far out does a kingdoms territory reach. There's quite a few grey areas in regards to who's territory should what be, especially when it comes to mines and resource nodes, rare spawns etc...

Even assuming a solid line is drawn... what about say a monster that starts on kingdom A's territory, they get it down to 10%, and then he retreats into kingdom B's territory. Is kingdom A the aggressor when they protect their kill?

When you are talking something like a paladin falling, that can temporarally or permanantly ruin 2.5 years worth of work and acheivements, you better be darn sure that every possibility is accounted for.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
The question is this: how should characters be treated differently when attacked in town versus in the wilderness when considering whatever specific idea you had in mind when talking about "several bad choices"
If "town" is a "safe" NPC Settlement, then they won't be murdered there. If it's not, then they've already left safety.

But they've already confirmed that it's possible to murder someone in town. Not advisable, but entirely possible.

Goblin Squad Member

@Blaeringr, when it comes to the three "safe" NPC Settlements, I believe it's actually been stated that it will be flat out impossible to murder someone in town. The Marshals will make it risky to do it anywhere near town.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon I'm pretty sure that's not so. But seems we need to find citations now before this turns into a circus.

Goblin Squad Member

Ok, I stand corrected. Here's a quote about it:

Quote:
In the hexes containing and immediately adjacent to the NPC settlement, magical effects make it impossible for one character to attack another unless the characters are in war—warfare being a future blog topic of some length!

Alright, so moving on.

The question remains, is it considered a "bad decision" to leave town into the "relatively safe" but not completely safe wilderness adjacent to town? or just to go outside of lawful hexes? (into the high reward/high risk hexes)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

@Valkenr, I could go for that.

What about having it run you in a random direction, but not off a cliff or into a dead-end? I'm thinking of the phrase "running headlong", and of the possibility of having certain Fear-type effects automatically trigger this Flee effect.

Sorry the board was unaccessible to me yesterday, i think a router wen't down somewhere along the line

I'm not for a random direction. If a player is trying to prevent you from advancing forward, you shouldn't have a chance to blow past them while trying to escape.

I want random mechanics to be few and far between, and i don't want to see the game taking control of the player often.

The fear mechanic I like is one that is constantly changing the calibration of your movement(up turns to down, then it turns to left, then it's up, and then down again, It's like flying a helicopter.)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pardon this delayed response, I also suffered from a technical outage to the site (silly paizo internet upgrades)

I guess one of the problems I have in understanding the retreat/surrender/yield option as an actual mechanic of the game, is I assume that everyone will get access to it. If so, then my guess is the option to retreat at the first sign of true danger will trump the desire to put down your attacker. Its always easier to run off than to engage in a bit of surprise PvP or wander monster battles. To my mind this seems like a hedge against death and the summary potential to lose everything in your bags. Nothing makes gamers less happy (in my tabletop experience anyway) than the perception that you've taken away their stuff. I've had people honestly profess a preference to perma-death in a game than to having a massive disjunction nuke all the pretty gear.

I wonder if there was no looting of other players, this emphasis on an escape mechanic would be felt.

My expectation has been from moment one of reading the blogs, that death and so on would be essentially unavoidable. I support some of the ideas of attempting retreat and so on, but I'm hesitant at contemplating a mechanical option, rather than a simple turn and bail out. If for example there was no mechanic, and everyone had approximately the same speed (heavy armor notwithstanding for this example) If the retreater were to quickly assess the situation and decide to bail out, only extraordinary persistence or fully surrounding with superior numbers would result in that person actually getting caught/dead.

Any thoughts? Am I off base in some of these assumptions?

Goblin Squad Member

I have also seen it, from the start of the matter, as a hedge against death. There are attempts to sell this idea that only make sense if, as you point out, the target always chooses to fight back, at least a little.

I predict, however, that people will deny that's what they're suggesting, and then continue on suggesting it. That's ok though, I don't mind, just as long as it's as transparent to the devs reading it, then it all just amounts to words.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

I have also seen it, from the start of the matter, as a hedge against death. There are attempts to sell this idea that only make sense if, as you point out, the target always chooses to fight back, at least a little.

I predict, however, that people will deny that's what they're suggesting, and then continue on suggesting it. That's ok though, I don't mind, just as long as it's as transparent to the devs reading it, then it all just amounts to words.

I'm your huckleberry!

*chews a piece of straw*

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
I wonder if there was no looting of other players, this emphasis on an escape mechanic would be felt.

I know I would still want the mechanics I've asked for.

I think you're spending too much time trying to puzzle out the underlying motivation for something, rather than addressing it directly.

Consider this: I am convinced that a significant part of the game will be transporting goods from one place to another for profit. I am also convinced that those goods will be 100% lootable by my attackers if they run me off. I'm not proposing any mechanics to lessen that pain. Is all of that consistent with me being motivated by the fear of losing what's in my bags?

I'm not the only one who's said straight up in this thread that the reason we oppose save-or-die spells, or inescapable combat, is because it removes our own ability to have some control of our destiny.

Maybe that really is the true, underlying motive.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Consider this: I am convinced that a significant part of the game will be transporting goods from one place to another for profit. I am also convinced that those goods will be 100% lootable by my attackers if they run me off. I'm not proposing any mechanics to lessen that pain. Is all of that consistent with me being motivated by the fear of losing what's in my bags?

Just clarifying what was in the blog: only a fraction of your stuff is lootable, but it's all subject to be lost. From the traveling merchant's view, a distinction without a difference, maybe.

If you get to your husk before anyone else, you'll be able to get all your stuff back. However, if another player finds your husk before you do, they'll be able to loot it. They won't recover everything that you had in your inventory—just a random selection—but the rest of your inventory will be destroyed and removed from the game.

Goblin Squad Member

@Urman, that statement applies to loot in your inventory. I'm talking about loot being hauled in wagons.

the blog wrote:
And while some conveyances will allow you to move a lot of stuff at one time, the draft animals that pull them generally move at less than walking speed.

That implies that there will be "conveyances" such as wagons that exist outside of any players inventory. I fully expect the contents of those conveyances to be 100% lootable by attackers.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:

I guess one of the problems I have in understanding the retreat/surrender/yield option as an actual mechanic of the game, is I assume that everyone will get access to it....

I support some of the ideas of attempting retreat and so on, but I'm hesitant at contemplating a mechanical option, rather than a simple turn and bail out...
Any thoughts? Am I off base in some of these assumptions?

My suggestions regarding flee/surrender/yield options are driven in part by this section:

Ryan Dancey wrote:
...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.

If we have lag issues (and we will), some fraction of the turn-and-run are going to become turn-lag-and-die once encounters get above a certain size. That's my guess anyway, and we might as well have the flee and pursuits be determined by a dice roll as by a hiccup in the internet.

I'm looking for a game that allows me to explore and build. I'm not particularly interested in PvP and zerg-rush and endless-respawn fights. It's just not how I usually will want to spend my available gaming hours. Give me a optional button to see if I get away and I'll go play in another section of the sandbox.

Nihimon - Ah, gotcha. Yeah, wagons might be more at risk.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Nihimon wrote:

@Urman, that statement applies to loot in your inventory. I'm talking about loot being hauled in wagons.

the blog wrote:
And while some conveyances will allow you to move a lot of stuff at one time, the draft animals that pull them generally move at less than walking speed.
That implies that there will be "conveyances" such as wagons that exist outside of any players inventory. I fully expect the contents of those conveyances to be 100% lootable by attackers.

Not lootable, but they can take over the wagon and mules, and redirect them to the attacker's hideout... subject to another ambush on the way there.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

@Urman, that statement applies to loot in your inventory. I'm talking about loot being hauled in wagons.

the blog wrote:
And while some conveyances will allow you to move a lot of stuff at one time, the draft animals that pull them generally move at less than walking speed.
That implies that there will be "conveyances" such as wagons that exist outside of any players inventory. I fully expect the contents of those conveyances to be 100% lootable by attackers.
Not lootable, but they can take over the wagon and mules, and redirect them to the attacker's hideout... subject to another ambush on the way there.

I would say, 'not lootable' in the sense that there is no way you can carry all that stuff in your inventory.

I this POS F2P MMO that was my first, called Silk Road, had a trade system as it's end game where you take stuff from Point_A, and transport it to !Point_A, and the further away !Point_A was, the more money you got. And you would often see thieves that bring their own faster transport mounts.

With that said, I would also like the ability to sabotage or have the transport-vehicle damaged to a point it can't be used(aoe spells/devices). So attackers are forced into getting a vehicle of their own. There should also be an ability to destroy the goods, or have them damaged by fallout of the fight. You never know, that wagon you just stole with the magically sealed containers might blow up with you on it while you are going to you friendly wizard.

For every facet of PvP, I want there to be a reason not to do it, and a high risk involved in doing it. Really ramp up the risk, for a reward that is only slightly better than doing it your self.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

@Urman, that statement applies to loot in your inventory. I'm talking about loot being hauled in wagons.

the blog wrote:
And while some conveyances will allow you to move a lot of stuff at one time, the draft animals that pull them generally move at less than walking speed.
That implies that there will be "conveyances" such as wagons that exist outside of any players inventory. I fully expect the contents of those conveyances to be 100% lootable by attackers.
Not lootable, but they can take over the wagon and mules, and redirect them to the attacker's hideout... subject to another ambush on the way there.

I would say, 'not lootable' in the sense that there is no way you can carry all that stuff in your inventory.

I this POS F2P MMO that was my first, called Silk Road, had a trade system as it's end game where you take stuff from Point_A, and transport it to !Point_A, and the further away !Point_A was, the more money you got. And you would often see thieves that bring their own faster transport mounts.

With that said, I would also like the ability to sabotage or have the transport-vehicle damaged to a point it can't be used(aoe spells/devices). So attackers are forced into getting a vehicle of their own. There should also be an ability to destroy the goods, or have them damaged by fallout of the fight. You never know, that wagon you just stole with the magically sealed containers might blow up with you on it while you are going to you friendly wizard.

For every facet of PvP, I want there to be a reason not to do it, and a high risk involved in doing it. Really ramp up the risk, for a reward that is only slightly better than doing it your self.

That also would be cool if carts simply had containers that couldn't be identified until opened, the rogue trap skill could be used for both creating boobytrapped crates, and detecting them. The merchant himself would know that he put boobytrapped crates in slots 1, 4, 7 and 2 in the cart, but a criminal stealing might have no idea unless they also had a rogue with an equal or greater trapfinding skill to the one who created the traps. (the trapped crates could be a craftable sellable item).

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Gruffling wrote:

I guess one of the problems I have in understanding the retreat/surrender/yield option as an actual mechanic of the game, is I assume that everyone will get access to it....

I support some of the ideas of attempting retreat and so on, but I'm hesitant at contemplating a mechanical option, rather than a simple turn and bail out...
Any thoughts? Am I off base in some of these assumptions?

My suggestions regarding flee/surrender/yield options are driven in part by this section:

Ryan Dancey wrote:
...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.

If we have lag issues (and we will), some fraction of the turn-and-run are going to become turn-lag-and-die once encounters get above a certain size. That's my guess anyway, and we might as well have the flee and pursuits be determined by a dice roll as by a hiccup in the internet.

I'm looking for a game that allows me to explore and build. I'm not particularly interested in PvP and zerg-rush and endless-respawn fights. It's just not how I usually will want to spend my available gaming hours. Give me a optional button to see if I get away and I'll go play in another section of the sandbox.

Nihimon - Ah, gotcha. Yeah, wagons might be more at risk.

In this context, multi-second latency will apply across the board, so there's no reason to think too many of those attempts at retreat will result in turn-lag-and-die. The lag inspired might actually enable an escape if the attacker system experiences the greater of the two.

My real concern is the addition of this as a mechanical option. Once a mechanic is installed, it can and most likely will be used in ways they are not intended. And if a mechanic is asymmetrical (as some have been described here with various levels of complexity) that can heavily influence the behavior of the playerbase. If the chances of success in banditry are reduced significantly and the risk is increased that's presenting a world with little to no banditry. If the converse is true, that bandits can rampage and profit at will, well obviously the world will be a hellish place better suited for staging in the Worldwound than River Kingdoms. If we get a system where banditry is simply a method of play that has approximately as much success as does defending one's possessions, then both typs of players can co-exist throughout the entirety of the world (probably not so much in close proximity :P ).

Goblin Squad Member

@Gruffling, part of the problem is that players who choose to play as bandits will likely specialize their characters for that purpose, while their victims probably won't, so there's already a bias in favor of banditry in that direction. As I said earlier, I fully expect wagons to be 100% lootable by the ambushers if they manage to drive off the guards, so there's another bias in their favor. It doesn't seem too unbalancing to ask that players be given the option of trying to escape in a way that forces the ambushers to decide whether they want to secure the wagons or chase the fleeing guards.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
@Gruffling, part of the problem is that players who choose to play as bandits will likely specialize their characters for that purpose, while their victims probably won't, so there's already a bias in favor of banditry in that direction. As I said earlier, I fully expect wagons to be 100% lootable by the ambushers if they manage to drive off the guards, so there's another bias in their favor. It doesn't seem too unbalancing to ask that players be given the option of trying to escape in a way that forces the ambushers to decide whether they want to secure the wagons or chase the fleeing guards.

i agree that scenario of wagon defense is going to be key, and I'm really interested in actually playing that sort of thing, I'm just concerned that any asymmetrical approach unbalances the gameplay, and that any symmetrical escape mechanic is just a layer on top of the normal mechanics. If everyone can go 120% speed for 20 seconds, then everyone might as well just go at 100% forever... who knows maybe there's a fun interaction there and a choice for both sides if we do have a sprint function. I can see that working well to drive choice.

I also somewhat dispute that bandits will specialize, and that presents a bias. Its just as likely a merchant will hire or in fact be a specialized defender of the wagon. Without specifics we can only bandy about impressions on that, so its kinda moot. What I'd like to see is fair gameplay for both sides, so the choice to be a bandit has as much satisfaction and meaning as the choice to be a transportation specialist... merchant... whatever the inverse of a bandit is.

Another thought on the sprint/escape mechanic as it regards a wagon; If the attackers are forced to choose between looting/capturing the wagon and redirect it, and chasing down the former owners to end them ultimately, I can see a value choice there. Then the Merchant could potentially mount a counter attack, and even reclaim their goods. If the mechanic has symmetry then the back and forth could go on for some time, and the wagon could end up being its own node of adventure. This is the type of thing I greatly support. If the wagon is destroyed in the process... well I find that to be a bit of a bummer that looks to end the gameplay rather than enhance it.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
Urman wrote:
Onishi wrote:


In my mind, why kill someone when you don't have to?

Right now I would say over 90% of the people discussing the game are RP/Tabeltop players, and most people here aren't planning to go on wilderness murder sprees.

When the game becomes a game, there will be a larger influx of other gamers. RP players have a loosely defined code of conduct, most everyone else does not, they will go around killing everyone they see because they think it's fun. It happens in every game with open PvP. People will always find location where 'low level' players are common and camp out there. I personally don't find it fun having to run to an area 10 times just to finish one activity, because i get killed by someone with a fully developed character killing me every time i go there that isn't able to compete with people on their play-level. And getting other 'nice' players to come clear it out is only a momentary bandaid, and guarding lowbie areas should not be common activity, or required for the game to be enjoyable for new players.

This is why I want random encounters that result in PvP easy to avoid. Territory disputes and caravan raiding should be the main pvp sources, not killing some random guy you run into. Another place would be an arena, kind of like CoH did, where other player can watch, and it opens up some gambling opportunities too.

I think there are several assumptions in here that won't neccesarly hold true for PFO....

- There likely will not be nearly as much power differentiation between levels as most people are used to from MMO's....meaning the "ganking the lowbies" game doesn't work nearly as well as in most games, because the "lowbies" are fully capable of fightig back effectively... potentialy against even Max level characters.

- There probably will be "High Security" areas, where it's impractical to engage in combat, even for high level players due to the rapid response of NPC Guards....any activities that a low level player "needs" to engage in will probably be achievable in these areas. Anything outside these areas, by design is intended to carry a risk of conflict. So you don't go into these areas unless you are prepaired to fight.

- The game looks to be primarly PvP focused... So I wouldn't neccesarly expect the standard... "You must go to the Bog of Balek and collect 10 rat tails in order to advance" type quest/grind mechanic that most MMO's require of characters to advance. So if some area is made dangerous by hostile players...you probably don't ever ACTUALY NEED to go there to complete some activity as a low level adventurer...because it's not the "Go here to complete X activity type of game." If an area is unsafe for you to be in....as a low level player you likely have no need to be there...and have plenty of other options to advance whatever it is you are trying to advance.

Goblin Squad Member

@Gruffling,

On your point about the mechanics of any system, I agree that the mechanics must be tuned to give us a world with some bandits. In PnP there is the concept of surprise, and I'd hope that would be considered in any combat system. When bandits attack from a hideout, for example, the target group could be rooted for a round/some seconds after the bandits appear, to mimic the prepared ambush. Rangers and barbarians might have skills to avoid the rooting.

On the other hand, when two groups encounter each other moving through the woods, an ambush might not be possible, so neither side is rooted.

In response to the idea that both sides share in the risk of lag: I'd guess lag-and-die would create more of a negative impression than lag-and-fail-to-kill, just because of the way our psychologies work; losses are more significant. As the story goes, the fox might miss a meal, but the rabbit loses everything. (Or in PFO as we understand it, the person who lags and dies loses all loot, the person who loses a kill because of lag misses out on a couple items.)

Goblin Squad Member

@GrumpyMel

There will always be "high" and "low" players. There is no way around this in a combat oriented game. More developed characters are going to have access to stronger equipment and know how to use it more effectively.

What i gleaned from what we have been told is that the 'catch up' time will be short for starting players. But to catch up you will have to focus few things, like short-swords, leather armor, and trap finding.

The only places you will see a truly level playing field are in twitch based FPS games, MOBA's and some MMO instanced PvP scenarios.

Open PvP will never be on a level playing field. Hopefully in PFO tactics will play a larger role lessening this effect.

Goblin Squad Member

@Dancey Do you consider DDO "twitch style" and have you played it(it's free to play)?

Goblin Squad Member

i tried out DDO now.. i'm not convinced though.

the way tera treats combat is way better, no more running around watching tv on my second screen while i kill monsters.

you actually have to engage in the combat.

hopefully paizo is considering adding something like it


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The goal, as far as I understand it, will be to create an MMO unlike any MMO before (or at least break the sterotype). As such I hope they pick a combat system that relies on more skill but still balances you the different classes. Therefore combat isn't only gear and upgrades but also strategy and cunning. Point and click animations are fine but nothing quite beats the thrill of knowing that it was YOU and not gear, dps, and xp farming that was the decisive aspect in a difficult battle. You don't see much of that online (the only one I can think of is DDO) but we'll see.

Goblin Squad Member

@DiskOrd Tera is definitely a step above DDO in terms of engaging combat, just like DDO is several steps above WoW's combat.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree I believe an action combat system is doable. As an MMO veteran since the days of AOL's NWN to now lag exist, it affects play no matter the style of combat. I think most of us are tired of tab target and clicking. At least I think most are.

I believe the action style combat can cater to all playstyles non-twitch and twitch alike. I mean strategy can be involved at all levels to that more cerebral players can have an advantage in a fight just as a twitch style player. I mean fighters in the world are more physical than wizards who are cerebral. The game play style should reflect this.

Goblinworks Founder

Nihimon wrote:


Imagine each character has a Stamina score, and that different abilities expend a certain amount of Stamina. I would like for there to be a Flee ability that can be used in combat and consumes a significant amount (40%?) of total Stamina in exchange for a short duration (15 seconds?) boost to run speed (+30%?) while also locking out attack abilities. I could use this to try to get away from attackers if I realize I'm in over my head. When I use this ability, anyone I was fighting is no longer in-combat with me, so that they can use abilities that require them to be out of combat.

I would think it perfectly reasonable to balance this by having an out-of-combat Sprint ability, that increases run speed (+25%?) for a slightly shorter duration (10 seconds?) at a much lower cost of Stamina (5-10%?).

I have a decent chance of getting far enough away that I can try to hide or disappear in the forest. If you're willing to spend the effort to Sprint after me, you'll be able to maintain your Sprint far longer than I can. Or you could mount your horse and immediately give chase, although you'd probably lose more ground initially which might allow me to get out of sight.

I chose 40% cost for Flee so that, if you did it quick enough, you'd actually be able to do it twice.

It would probably be a really good idea to bounce this kind of idea around among a bunch of different people to get their different perspectives. There are probably some things I hadn't considered.

You just described Warhammers fleeing system. Replace stamina with action points and it's almost identical. To flee combat, you hit a button, it drained your action points and increased your run speed by 30% for approx 10 seconds. Action points worked very similar to an energy bar though which is different to your fatigue concept. Either way I would be in favor of a fatigue or Action point system as it is One universal ability resource instead of multiple (mana/energy/rage).


i would like to back blaeringr in most of his posts throughout this thread .

1) I would like a tera/ddo/GW2 engaging combat and not an wow/sotr/eq type of "combat" .the mechanics of tab , press 2 and watch the toon execute the action ,is really outdated. i do not favor fps combat for those worried about it.i just want something more engaging and immersive than autohits.

2) combat should have the open-world pvp in mind ,friendly fire ,cover ,terrain, flanking should be taken into consideration or we will end up with "whoever has more guys wins the fight" . autohit combat is a step in the wrong direction here , you can tab to target someone behind a tree , you can cast a spell and it does not check line of sight , you cannot have backhits or flanking. it is definitely a no go .

3) it is clear that some people want to avoid combat , simplify it , or make it a non-issue .i am not sure if those people have played EVE or any other open warfare mmo. combat is what makes the world go round in this kind of games .it needs solid mechanics to make sure everyone feels that the game was fair. eve does this very well, everytime i died in eve it was my mistake.i misjudged a situation , i was ill prepared , i was overconfident ,but i could never blame the game.the thrill of losing something if you are careless is what makes you want to get better , more careful ,more prepared , more social .

Taldor Goblin Squad Member

insorrow wrote:


2) combat should have the open-world pvp in mind ,friendly fire ,cover ,terrain, flanking should be taken into consideration or we will end up with "whoever has more guys wins the fight" . autohit combat is a step in the wrong direction here , you can tab to target someone behind a tree , you can cast a spell and it does not check line of sight , you cannot have backhits or flanking. it is definitely a no go .

To be fair WoW still requires you to have LOS to cast spells, and they did have a system for rogues to establish if you were 'behind' someone.

Now, it's been so many years since I've played that I can no longer remember how well those were implemented but I agree about things like flanking/cover. I think trying to shoot someone behind the lines of melee combat should be harder (Players provide cover for each other for ranged attacks if there are enough of them in the way). Similarly, shooting someone who's in melee combat has always incurred a penalty.

I am curious to see if there will be ANY sort of 'grapple' based system.
With the way pathfinder changed grapples (You no longer move your target into your square, they're adjacent to you) I would imagine that a target who is 'grappled' would simply have a debuff on them preventing them from moving out of 'melee range' of their grappler (And of course losing their Dex to AC if that's a thing). They would still be able to move about within that range, but it might add some interesting character types. (Tetori Monk anyone?)

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

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

...

CCP has had much press about a recent event already called "The Battle of Asakai" where due to one incorrect button push a super carrier jumped into hostile territory, setting off a cascade of reinforcements until there were over 2800 ships in the fight at one time. Without the "Time dialation" Ryan mentioned above the fight would have been unmanageable. However time dialation slowed time down to 10% of real time (the maximum reduction possible under the current structure). It was a molasses fest, but using time dialation the fight was fair and nobody has really complained the it was a total lagfest causing their untimely death. It worked, and is a real innovation in a huge multiplayer battles.

It is possible that if huge battles are foreseen on Pathfinder Online, this type of solution might have to be introduced.


I will not attempt to reinvent an MMO combat system, but I can say what I like:

Skill chains (FFXI, DAOC)
Reactive skills (DAOC)
Positioning skills (DAOC)
Active dodge (GW 2)
Aiming (Darkfall)
Fewer hot bars (GW 2)
Group special attacks (FFXI, GW 2)

What I dislike:
Tab targeting (although I understand its uses)
20+ combat abilities (that are all usable at once)
Spamming attacks

I have not played them, but Tera online, Neverwinter online, and Elder Scrolls online look like they have great systems.

201 to 250 of 251 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / What will combat be like? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.