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

RPG Superstar 2015

Weapons, Armor, and Stat Slots: The Progression of Gear


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

One thing that is just as or perhaps even more important than skills and leveling that I'd like to have a discussion on is gear. Gear of course makes up a huge part of your character and I would really like to see some open discussion on how people would like this part of the game to be handled. To make this clear we are purely talking gear for the purpose of stats here. I'm not talking things like ropes and tents that are for adventuring, overcoming obstacles, and role-play flavor. I'm talking, weapons, armor, stat slots like cloaks and jewelry mostly. Consumables aren't the main topic but I wouldn't mind touching on that subject as well.

Equipped Items and Drop on Death

The first subject revolves around our main confirmed feature concerning gear. Equipped items are not dropped on death. Everything in your inventory is. That is pretty straight forward but it does leave one area for questioning. What is considered equipped?

For instance say you have a barbarian who has a greataxe as his primary weapon but also has a bow for sticky situations where he needs a weapon with some reach.

If his bow is equipped and he dies will he drop his greataxe? If his greataxe is equipped and he dies will he drop his bow?

Personally I would like to see characters have at least two weapon configurations considered equipped. For instance a two two-handed weapons. Or a two-handed weapon and a 1-handed weapon with a shield. Or a one handed weapon with a shield and two one-handed weapons.

This will allow characters a little versatility without the fear of losing regularly used weapons when they die.

Gear Stats

This is the main issue I'd like to hit on. How would you guys like to see gear stats handled? Do you want to see level requirements? What kind of stats would you like to see? How should gear progress from the weakest gear to the strongest gear? How should player crafting tie into gear, especially top end gear? How much control would you like over your gear's stats and appearance? Should there be gear decay/how would you like it to be handled? How expensive should gear itself be?

From a personal perspective I feel gear should be the main thing that advances our character's strength. The skills we train should give us access to more abilities first and foremost. Stats like armor rating, health, damage, etc. should be handled at least 90% by gear.

I however DO NOT favor the use of a level requirement for gear. I think that if a level one can afford to outfit themselves with the best gear in the game and maintain it that they should be able to. Maintenance costs should be fairly high to balance this, but it should be possible. An older character is going to have access to abilities to make that armor more useful to them, and have more skills to make it easier to bring in the money required to maintain it. Beyond that I just don't think older players need THAT much of an advantage not related to personal skill.

I think gear progression should go at about this rate

No-gear= 10% PVP effectiveness
Fully equipped with cheapest gear= 100% PVP effectiveness
Fully equipped with best gear= 200% PVP effectiveness

So that basically means this. Say you are a melee based fighter. If you have no weapons and no armor you are 10% as effective as someone who has every slot filled with the most basic gear. Your low-quality iron chain-mail with a worn shortsword and wooden shield or whatever. That player is half as strong as a player equipped with the ABSOLUTE BEST items in the entire game.

I think this leaves good room for progression making it worthwhile for players to have nice gear but not having an entry barrier so overpowering that newbs might as well not even show up for fights.

Early on a player is going to advance rapidly as they pick up a full-set of gear. They likely might even start with some of it and surely will pick up some in their initial tutorial style quests. Once they have their initial gear it will likely take them longer to hunt down pieces of it and bring themselves up to that 200% and gain the wealth to maintain it.

For the 100% to 200% I think gear should be separated into two categories. Regular gear and heavy gear.

Regular gear starts with low initial stats, and is modifiable. Regular gear takes a lower upkeep cost.

Heavy gear starts with high initial stats, and is non-modifiable. Heavy gear costs a high amount to upkeep.

Every piece of craftable gear will have a regular and heavy version. A full set of the absolute best heavy armor for your class should bring you to about 190% combat effectiveness. A full set of the absolute best regular gear for your class should bring you to about 170% or even as low as 150% combat effectiveness with 200% combat effectiveness if fully modified with the best mods.

So for instance a heavy radiant steel longsword gives 200-250 damage per swing.

A regular radiant steel longsword might do 150-200 damage per swing. However it has say 4 modification slots. Now it does 150-200 damage +30 fire damage, +10% to healing done, +50% damage to undead, and mana regenerates 15% faster.

Those slots may be switched around to do other things as well. It would basically be +damage effect, +secondary effect, +massive PVE effect, +non-damage related tertiary effect.

So say you were a barbarian and all you want is damage. It might be +30 fire damage, +20 slashing damage, +50% against undead, and rage lasts 30% longer. for the same damage as a heavy weapon +minor bonus effects.

The reason I feel it's important to seperate things like this is ideally I see it taking no longer than 3-5 months to get up to the best heavy armor for every slot. It should all be 100% player craftable. I see it taking no less than 3-5 years to get the best upgraded armor for every slot. While the base items are still player crafted most of the best modifications should require hunting down rare bosses or beating difficult dungeons. This gives people something to go out and adventure and work for for a VERY long time without making the PVP entry barrier unreasonably high. Plus unlike most games, rather than having less and less control of your gear as you approach the "top tier" its the opposite. The cheapest gear is the least customizable while the most top end gear allows the most customization.

In order to make this process worth it I would say items DO need to be repairable, but in order to keep crafters in business I would say that getting an item repaired should involve going to a crafter's shop and them having to use some of the materials they used to make it to repair it. There should DEFINATELY be an anti-theft mechanism linked to this so the crafter can't just take your sword you spend 5 months upgrading to its current state.

I think all base gear should be tradeable. I am not sure on modifications. I really feel like the modifications should be a personal touch someone adds to their armor. It might even be that modification items are not displayed in ones inventory but rather in a stat-sheet. And when you right click a modification slot on an item it allows you to browse through your available item modifications and pick one. That way if you go through the 3-5 year process of earning the mods you want, and then decide to modify your gear based on a secondary class you took... you can still re-use at least SOME or your earned modifications. Also it means players can't come into the game and buy fully modified armor that should take them 3-5 years to get. They can only buy heavy gear or unmodified regular gear, making the upgraded versions more of a status symbol.

As far as appearance, the modifications should be limited but present. If you are wearing full plate the crafter should have control over how it looks (for instance should the shoulders be spiky or smooth), and you should be able to dye some components of it, but there should be no way to make it look like a wizard robe. It should retain the look of full-plate no matter what is done to it.

Goblin Squad Member

@Andius, you sure do like big posts.

My second observation is that this seems to be more in-line with what I'd expect from a Theme Park MMO, where the end-game "progression" (read: grind) is all about getting better gear.

For my part, I'd much rather see gear be less important overall. I always think of Aragorn pulling a stick out of the fire and using it to drive off five Ringwraiths. He didn't need a +5 Blazing Log of Undead Slaying. He just needed his Courage, his Knowledge, his Skill, and a stick on fire.

Andius wrote:
... I feel gear should be the main thing that advances our character's strength.
Andius wrote:

I think gear progression should go at about this rate

No-gear= 10% PVP effectiveness
Fully equipped with cheapest gear= 100% PVP effectiveness
Fully equipped with best gear= 200% PVP effectiveness

I 100% disagree. I would much rather see something like this:

Improvised Gear = 80% (as low as 50%) PvP effectiveness
Basic Gear = 100% PvP effectiveness
Best Gear = 120 (as high as 150%) PvP effectiveness

Gear should give an advantage, but it should never be an overwhelming advantage. Combining Ryan's guitar analogy with WoW's color-coding system for gear: An unskilled player in all-orange (uber-epic) gear spamming his basic attack and basic defense open-string abilities should not really have an advantage over a well-skilled player in all-grey (worthless vendor trash) gear who is using an array of chords at the proper times for best effect.

I expect there will be Merit Badge requirements for certain gear, but I would prefer those requirements not be necessary to equip the gear, but rather to get specific benefits of the gear. I should be able to equip it even if I can't really use it effectively.

I believe it should be possible to trade all gear. However, I also think there should be a mechanic whereby gear gradually acquires penalties as it gets used. These penalties would be offset by bonuses to using the same gear. This will keep an older weapon very useful for a character who's been using it a long time, but will make that weapon less valuable to someone else of equal skill and wealth. However, even a well-used high-end sword would probably be valuable to a relatively new character.

All gear should decay with use. Crafters should be able to repair this decay, but at increasing costs. Eventually, it should cost more to repair it than it would to buy a new one. Basic gear should decay more quickly.

Most stat bonuses should be mechanical, not magical. For example, a wrist brace that increases accuracy with a bow, as opposed to boots that increase intelligence. Magical bonuses should align with the normal use of the gear.

Goblin Squad Member

I am far closer to Nihm on this, I actually really like the idea of increased cost for repairs that eventually it is cheaper to rebuild from scratch. If not I think it still needs to be far more then "some" of the materials. Building new weapons and armor, is what most crafters enjoy, and the bottom line is if there isn't constant demand for new weapons, that will quickly become the exception rather than the rule, you may argue that "well once the crafters have equiped wave 1 of players with everything, then they start building for wave 2 of players. Which is true, but then you effectively just made the first wave of players, the permanant only crafters, and eliminated wave 2 from having the option of starting their own crafters.

I still loved the old idea we came up with a while ago of a durability and maintinence idea

Personally I'd say we take that system, then have it cost and increasing amount of materials every time you repair durability.

Now as far as power level, I'm actually inbetween nihm and andius's view. Personally I would say the 200% is reasonable, IF specialized. say 200% against dwarves, 50% against elves, and a weapon vice versa. Create elemental armors (IE armor that reduces damage to fire by 75% but creates cold vulnerability), which I believe that would also add to some strategies, reasons for espionage etc... when planning out battles, spells, and make friendly fire both tollerable and create some deep strategy (IE a team can focus on all wearing the same element of armor, and having their wizard bomb their position with that element, but the enemy might have planned for it or figure it out and compensate via single target of the armors weakness spells etc...

I would say even specialized 200% is the most things should go, probably somewhere close to nihms 120% for the best all around items.


I like Andius' gear driven progression ideas because it lowers the barrier to entry. If much of the character's effectiveness comes from gear "catching up" on skill advancement or becoming stuck in a narrow specialization becomes much less of a concern. It makes your victory more about how you played instead of /subscribed time, while also making wealthy merchants with powerful magic wands and defensive equipment less attractive targets.

One of the problems sandbox PvP games face is that the most optimal path to advancement ends up being killing people. Sure, you could run a trade caravan, but the guy who just robbed you made more money than you would have (no initial investment) and can engage in a wider variety of activities.

The mechanism that prevents this from being universally true in Eve is the destruction of assets through combat. If only unequipped items are dropped only people who aren't looking for PvP will lose items. Knowing the merchant on top of the merchant caravan may have the wand equivalent of an AA12 and a ridiculous set of enchanted armor would go a long way towards making his life as viable as the lives of those who would rob him.

Under the systems as described the cost of defeat for those attacking a trade caravan or harvesting operation is a walk; or maybe later "bounty hunters" show up and make you "walk more". Still no loss. The victims could lose millions of gold worth of assets. In that equation all of the risk is on the people attempting to be productive. Which is more attractive to the average player? Exciting times raiding and stealing, worst that can happen is a walk. Or, working your butt off and constantly being robbed?

Goblin Squad Member

@Marou_, which is part of the reason why if someone loots your corpse after killing you they receive one random item from your inventory, then your inventory/body is destroyed. It's hard to gain through PvP when you could easily end up with eight stacks of torches as your only ill-gotten gains. Caravans though, we'll see where that goes.

In general I wonder if we all more or less want the same things, we're just worried about particular aspects. The game needs to make the participation of new players meaningful and fun, at the same time veteran players need to have some advantage over new players. The game needs to discourage griefing, but needs to allow banditry in most areas. Gear progression should matter, but shouldn't be the be all and and end all of success. Character progression should be meaningful, but shouldn't be so complex and long as to be frustrating.


Skwiziks wrote:

@Marou_, which is part of the reason why if someone loots your corpse after killing you they receive one random item from your inventory, then your inventory/body is destroyed. It's hard to gain through PvP when you could easily end up with eight stacks of torches as your only ill-gotten gains. Caravans though, we'll see where that goes.

In general I wonder if we all more or less want the same things, we're just worried about particular aspects. The game needs to make the participation of new players meaningful and fun, at the same time veteran players need to have some advantage over new players. The game needs to discourage griefing, but needs to allow banditry in most areas. Gear progression should matter, but shouldn't be the be all and and end all of success. Character progression should be meaningful, but shouldn't be so complex and long as to be frustrating.

For the most part I'd agree that we do all want the same thing. The devil is in the level of detail needed to turn those generic things into an actual game.

Some mechanics don't work at all towards achieving what we want, some sort of work, and some seem like they'd work until you think about it sideways and realize it actually has the opposite incentive when you're playing.

Goblinworks said, "We want to make a fantasy sandbox in the Pathfinder universe that captures the spirit of Pathfinder in a persistent player controlled world." in not quite those words. Our initial reaction was of course, "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY".

10 minutes later you start to think logically and recognize that the details are key to making that dream game into a reality. Since we all care; we nitpick details. It's all good spirited I think, and I've enjoyed posting here.

Goblin Squad Member

Marou_ wrote:


Under the systems as described the cost of defeat for those attacking a trade caravan or harvesting operation is a walk; or maybe later "bounty hunters" show up and make you "walk more". Still no loss. The victims could lose millions of gold worth of assets. In that equation all of the risk is on the people attempting to be productive. Which is more attractive to the average player? Exciting times raiding and stealing, worst that can happen is a walk. Or, working your butt off and constantly being robbed?

There is quite a bit of risk involved in designing a system with such a low death penalty to those not carrying valubles. Which also is another reason why I think equipment damage is a must, and there are better balances inbetween the 2 extremes of "Everything you are using breaks on death" and "Everything remains in pristine condition on death". Going with the dura/condition system linked earlier, I would say a finite amount of dura damage dealt on death could be a very good hybrid. It eliminates the "got unlucky once now I'm back to square one", without eliminating "I've been a jerk, I am kill on sight to all major companies in the area, I better get the heck out or I'll be sent back to the stone age". Something like an average of 5-10% of equipments durability could be a very reasonable penelty, 1 bad luck event will happen all the time, 10-20 means you fit the deffinition of insanity (doing the same thing but expecting a different result).

I do think people are greatly underestimating the greatest drawback for a professional ambusher, Time and consistancy. A professional ambush party could sit in his hideout for 5 hours watching and waiting,
hour 1: Large group, good sized defensive army, nope can't attack
Hour 2: No passers
Hour 3: Same group from hour 1
Hour 4: Same group from hour one
Hour 5: Finally a solo harvester, ambush... oh crap he got away.

Meanwhile hour 1's group has delivered a huge bounty of resources and racked in a ton of coin. The ambusher has a chance to gather a huge plethora of resources, but he has 0 control of anything in terms of increasing the odds of poorly defended harvesters to pass by (odds are the smaller less defended harvesters will learn quickly not to travel on predictable routes, and will find a new route if their previous route was compromised.)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

@Andius, you sure do like big posts.

My second observation is that this seems to be more in-line with what I'd expect from a Theme Park MMO, where the end-game "progression" (read: grind) is all about getting better gear.

I would highly disagree. I feel my system is MUCH more in line with a sandbox. From 100% Combat effectiveness to 190% you can use 100% crafted items available to you from first level if you have the money. This system is VERY in line with a game such as Darkfall. The only part where it diverges and gets more theme-parky is in getting gear modifications, but this is something you can bypass entirely until 190% combat effectiveness. That last 10% and the customization it offers are nice, and worth your time if you enjoy PVE. If all you want to do is PVP you should be fine without it.

Andius wrote:
... I feel gear should be the main thing that advances our character's strength.
Andius wrote:

I think gear progression should go at about this rate

No-gear= 10% PVP effectiveness
Fully equipped with cheapest gear= 100% PVP effectiveness
Fully equipped with best gear= 200% PVP effectiveness

I 100% disagree. I would much rather see something like this:

Improvised Gear = 80% (as low as 50%) PvP effectiveness
Basic Gear = 100% PvP effectiveness
Best Gear = 120 (as high as 150%) PvP effectiveness.

Nihimon wrote:
Gear should give an advantage, but it should never be an overwhelming advantage. Combining Ryan's guitar analogy with WoW's color-coding system for gear: An unskilled player in all-orange (uber-epic) gear spamming his basic attack and basic defense open-string abilities should not really have an advantage over a well-skilled player in all-grey (worthless vendor trash) gear who is using an array of chords at the proper times for best effect.

First off I would like you to note something. 100% is THEE most basic gear. Generally you are going to get access to something better in-between and the whole system has a curve that makes it harder and harder and harder to get stronger gear as you go up. So when I say 3-5 months to get and be able to maintain the best heavy gear that means you will probably easily be able to maintain 160 or 170% gear by the end of your first month. Not too shabby considering most opponents aren't going to be far over 190% given the time it takes to reach 200%.

By being smart about earning money, or prioritizing which item slots will be most valuable to you in PVP you should be able to speed along this process as well. Thats 3-5 months for the average player.

I would lower the curve, but the fact is doing so would put armor-smiths out of business. Nobody is going to pay much for absolute top end gear if it is only a 50% advantage over the cheapest trashiest stuff. Also I have no problem for armor being more expensive to repair than to re-buy, especially on heavy gear. I just don't want people having to constantly replace their more legendary equipment. They might as well put drop all items on death if degrade to nothing is the system they want to go with. Plus if the cost on maintaining regular gear is higher than the cost of maintaining regular gear it disincentivizes people to go out and get upgrades. At a certain point the cost of maintaining an army entirely clad in heavy gear is just more cost effective.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:

I do think people are greatly underestimating the greatest drawback for a professional ambusher, Time and consistancy. A professional ambush party could sit in his hideout for 5 hours watching and waiting,

hour 1: Large group, good sized defensive army, nope can't attack
Hour 2: No passers
Hour 3: Same group from hour 1
Hour 4: Same group from hour one
Hour 5: Finally a solo harvester, ambush... oh crap he got away.

Meanwhile hour 1's group has delivered a huge bounty of resources and racked in a ton of coin. The ambusher has...

I can certainly agree with that. The most profitable trade in Freelancer were traders and smugglers, pirates couldn't even come close even after our server implemented a system that made pirates able to tractor up cargo dropped by dead traders. (Before they were relying on traders to pay them to live.) However camping roads doesn't have to be the way you go about it.

A lot of bandits might be less bandits and more evil adventurers or guards for smuggler caravans. They happen to see you out trading while they are on their way to the next dungeon or escorting their shipment of contraband, then they kill you and take over your wagon.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
I would lower the curve, but the fact is doing so would put armor-smiths out of business. Nobody is going to pay much for absolute top end gear if it is only a 50% advantage over the cheapest trashiest stuff. Also I have no problem for armor being more expensive to repair than to re-buy, especially on heavy gear. I just don't want people having to constantly replace their more legendary equipment. They might as well put drop all items on death if degrade to nothing is the system they want to go with. Plus if the cost on maintaining regular gear is higher than the cost of maintaining regular gear it disincentivizes people to go out and get upgrades. At a certain point the cost of maintaining an army entirely clad in heavy gear is just more cost effective.

I think here is where there is a disconect, the "gear lasts forever" mentality creates a different playstyle. People are used to wearing the absolute best items in the game 100% of the time. I personally think gear choice should be a risk/reward calculation.

IE these boars are a breeze, I could kill them with my eyes closed, my 100 coin spear should do the trick nicely. the damage will be probably 5 coin to repair my weapon, and I'll gain 10 coin from the hunt. If we used our epic grade gear however we'd be burning 5,000 coin and gaining 10.

This dragon's scales are worth 500,000 coin, we're bringing 5 people so 100,000 each of us, using our best gear we are 75% more likely to beat it, but it will burn 10,000 coin each on wear and tear, so a 90,000 coin profit.

I for one am sick of seeing uber flaming swords being used for mundane tasks, when your kingdom that has been worked on for years on end is being attacked by a formidable foe, you pull out all stops and hit with everything you've got. When your kingdom is being attacked by a small insignificant group with your groups numbers at a 10-1 advantage, you don't need to pull out all stops, you pull out the cheap gear and fight away.

I think this self entitlement of "I worked hard for this epic sword, so I should be using it for everything from picking my teeth, clearing the rats out of my house, to fighting dragons" is a rather silly system MMO's run into these days.

Goblin Squad Member

I like the way they did armor in Mabinogi. No level restrictions, light, medium, and heavy armor tend to have similar defense in their tiers (on Mabinogi, they used Defense/Protection, Light/Clothing was 2/0, Medium/Light Armor was 4/1, and Heavy Armor was 6/2. Better quality armor/clothing resulted in slightly better quality (heavy could be 6/4), and have more durability)

Same thing from Mabinogi for weapons. There are various weapons with various stats (The main stats are damage, speed, critical, and balance.)
Damage = had a range of how much they did (IE 14-34)
Speed = How fast you swung the blade and for how many hits (IE Fastest 3, slow 2)
Critical = the more likely you'd do critical damage
Balance = hard to explain, but you have a range of damage you can do, such as 45-90. If you have low balance, you'd only do around 50 most of the time, with some lower or higher damage occasionally. If you have a high balance, then you could do around 70, with the occasional 90 or 52.

The weapons were pretty balanced, some were better for damage, some for critical hits, similar to DND/Pathfinder.

Of course, it's up to them. They won't be able to please everyone. I'm still curious on how the damage is scaled (will the fighter have 12 hp at level 1 and 204 at level 20, or 120 hp at level one and 2040 hp at level 20?

Goblin Squad Member

I like the way they did armor in Mabinogi. No level restrictions, light, medium, and heavy armor tend to have similar defense in their tiers (on Mabinogi, they used Defense/Protection, Light/Clothing was 2/0, Medium/Light Armor was 4/1, and Heavy Armor was 6/2. Better quality armor/clothing resulted in slightly better quality (heavy could be 6/4), and have more durability)

Same thing from Mabinogi for weapons. There are various weapons with various stats (The main stats are damage, speed, critical, and balance.)
Damage = had a range of how much they did (IE 14-34)
Speed = How fast you swung the blade and for how many hits (IE Fastest 3, slow 2)
Critical = the more likely you'd do critical damage
Balance = hard to explain, but you have a range of damage you can do, such as 45-90. If you have low balance, you'd only do around 50 most of the time, with some lower or higher damage occasionally. If you have a high balance, then you could do around 70, with the occasional 90 or 52.

The weapons were pretty balanced, some were better for damage, some for critical hits, similar to DND/Pathfinder.

Of course, it's up to them. They won't be able to please everyone. I'm still curious on how the damage is scaled (will the fighter have 12 hp at level 1 and 204 at level 20, or 120 hp at level one and 2040 hp at level 20?

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:

I think here is where there is a disconect, the "gear lasts forever" mentality creates a different playstyle. People are used to wearing the absolute best items in the game 100% of the time. I personally think gear choice should be a risk/reward calculation.

IE these boars are a breeze, I could kill them with my eyes closed, my 100 coin spear should do the trick nicely. the damage will be probably 5 coin to repair my weapon, and I'll gain 10 coin from the hunt. If we used our epic grade gear however we'd be burning 5,000 coin and gaining 10.

This dragon's scales are worth 500,000 coin, we're bringing 5 people so 100,000 each of us, using our best gear we are 75% more likely to beat it, but it will burn 10,000 coin each on wear and tear, so a 90,000 coin profit.

I for one am sick of seeing uber flaming swords being used for mundane tasks, when your kingdom that has been worked on for years on end is being attacked by a formidable foe, you pull out all stops and hit with everything you've got. When your kingdom is being attacked by a small insignificant group with your groups numbers at a 10-1 advantage, you don't need to pull out all stops, you pull out the cheap gear and fight away.

I think this self entitlement of "I worked hard for this epic sword, so I should be using it for everything from picking my teeth, clearing the rats out of my house, to fighting dragons" is a rather silly system MMO's run into these days.

While I see the point of your sentiment I would like to bring up two major points.

1. PVP can happen anywhere, any time, for any reason.
2. Items carried in your inventory are dropped on death.

For PVP people are going to want the uber-flamesword of justice. They can't just switch out their uber-flamesword of justice for 100 coin spear or else they risk dropping their uber-flamesword of justice.

I know with the system you are talking about I would run around fully geared the full time and just refuse to take part in any mundane task that isn't absolutely necessary. The only time I would take my gear off, is to suit up and practice gear and train a recruit, PROVIDED there was somewhere that I could store my uber gear with 100% chance of it staying safe.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:


1. PVP can happen anywhere, any time, for any reason.
2. Items carried in your inventory are dropped on death.

For PVP people are going to want the uber-flamesword of justice. They can't just switch out their uber-flamesword of justice for 100 coin spear or else they risk dropping their uber-flamesword of justice.

I know with the system you are talking about I would run around fully geared the full time and just refuse to take part in any mundane task that isn't...

Yes PVP can happen anywhere at anytime... but it also has varying degrees of value. When you are going out killing something of little value, why do you need your uber flamesword of justice that is worth 200 times anything you are carying? Are you expecting the bandits to seriously be using the uber flamesword of justice when ganking random strangers in the middle of the wilderness with no expectation of their targets having anything of value?

Now if you are defending a carravan with 5,000,000 coin worth of goods, yes you wear your best stuff, and a group of bandits planning an elaborate operation to take down such a caravan would do the same. But all forms of PVP have different levels of things at stake, and I think that massively overgearing for every circumstance, should render anyone bankrupt in weeks.

This isn't WoW where if you die with nothing on you, your PK rating goes down. The value of a win or loss in PK, should be entirely varied on what you are carrying/doing. In war, one can win every battle, but then lose the war due to poor management of resources. You can kill 5 of them for every 1 of you that dies, but by them using cheaper more easilly replacable items, they have the last laugh, or in some cases you could leverage your stronger items, and just slice through cheaper weaker offenses like butter. It all comes down to depth of strategy, and who valued what more. Chose your battles wisely, not everything is worth commiting 100% for.

Also I'm not sure what you are getting at with the items carried in your inventory are dropped on death, unless you are just saying that you won't be carrying your uber sword of justice in your pocket while slaying boars. Exactly, nor are the bandits who randomly jump you when you are slaying boars. You shouldn't have much on you of worth, as far as the bandits are concerned killing you, is as valuble to them as killing the boars, as all you are likely to have on you, is boar meat/skins.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never want to see a damage number on a weapon. Damage is a function of sharpness, hardness, weight, strength of user, location of hit, medium contacted, and more fun variables that are tweaked by the physical properties of the weapon, and the abilities of the user.

I don't want to see stats on any equipment related to any type of 'resistance' 'defense' 'effectivness' I want to see its physical properties.

A good piece of gear is one that maintains its quality longer.

And i never want to see a separation of PvP and PvE mechanics.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
In war, one can win every battle, but then lose the war due to poor management of resources. You can kill 5 of them for every 1 of you that dies, but by them using cheaper more easilly replacable items, they have the last laugh, or in some cases you could leverage your stronger items, and just slice through cheaper weaker offenses like butter. It all comes down to depth of strategy, and who valued what more.

Yup, it's important to remember that winning doesn't always mean being victorious in combat. Sometimes it means burying the other guy economically. For an example, see Goonswarm in EVE Online. They aren't winning because they have a better military, they are winning because they have dedicated more people and resources to conquest.

Goblin Squad Member

I think me and Onishi are partially on the same page. I do agree with large durability hits from being defeated, and expensive repairs to follow. I also agree it should be more expensive to run high end gear than low end gear.

But I am not sure I agree with the durability hits from using high end gear for low end tasks should be raised. Higher end swords are going to be made from harder metals that will hold an edge longer. You aren't going to damage it that much decapitating a boar.

My main question would be if you are decked out in legendary metals with awesome modifications on it why would you want to kill boars anyway? When I'm on way to my quest I don't want to feel like. "OH NO! ITS A GOBLIN! IF I KILL THIS GOBLIN THE LOOT HE DROPS WON'T PAY FOR REPAIRS!!!" I want to hack aside the goblin and any other lesser challenge that stands in my way without a second thought that by the time I get to the dragon my armor will be worthless from fighting lesser enemies.

Lesser enemies with lesser rewards should = lesser durability loss.

However I AM in favor of having things like a flat 25% durability loss whenever you die. That way if you run into noob-lands to grief people in your uber armor and you get hunted down by bounty hunters or zerged by some newbs who unify against you, you have to pay a ton in repairs, even though the newbs dropped squat.

That entirely covers resource management when going into battle. Especially given the curve of armor costs.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:

I never want to see a damage number on a weapon. Damage is a function of sharpness, hardness, weight, strength of user, location of hit, medium contacted, and more fun variables that are tweaked by the physical properties of the weapon, and the abilities of the user.

I don't want to see stats on any equipment related to any type of 'resistance' 'defense' 'effectivness' I want to see its physical properties.

A good piece of gear is one that maintains its quality longer.

And i never want to see a separation of PvP and PvE mechanics.

I don't think not showing damage fits particularly with with D&D. Many of the ideas from our hated "theme parks" came from D&D. As did many of the ideas for sandboxes.

I don't think this game needs this game needs to stay true to the model of sandboxes or the model of theme-parks. I think this game needs to stay true to the model of pathfinder... which displays damage.

Also the only separation of PvP and PvE mechanics I am calling for is damage against specific enemies. If you want bonuses against undead, dragons, orks etc. these are all things that are not going to fit well into PVP as players are not undead, dragons, or orcs. If you were instead to allow humanbane or increased damage against evil its going to require PVPers to take these stats or suffer in PVP.

Therefore some PVP/PVE separation is necessarily. I don't think having a modification slot that allows you to choose which of various NPC types you want the weapon to function best against is overdoing it.

I am not calling for a PVP-stat like TOR Expertise.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I could see the reduction of enemy hitpoints being a function of a weapon quality (sharpness, heft) and the ability used. Stabbing with a mace isn't going to do much, even if it's made of pure adamantine and studded with skydiamonds cut into tiny figurines of gods.

Coming up with every property that should be on every weapon is a project unto itself, but one worth development resources.

Goblin Squad Member

You aren't 'not showing damage' it is still there, but it isn't labeled 'damage' and it is a variable number depending on what and how you are attacking.

If you are using sword with a sharpness of 1pm width and a convexly sharpened blade, attacking a target with cloth armor you are going to do serious damage. If you attack a target with Iron Plate, you are going to probably damage your weapon.

If you are using a mace that weighs 100 pounds, and hit someone wearing plate armor, you are going seriously hurt them

If you are using a bow that has a 100 lb draw, you are going to hit with a lot more force than a bow with a 30 lb draw, but the 30 lb draw will exhaust the player less.

You will just never see: this weapon does xx damage, and this armor reduces xx damage.

you have to think: "what will my weapon do in this situation"

It's nice when a game forces you to expand your intelligence, use logic, and seriously think through situations instead of handing you everything on a silver platter.

This also opens up a portion of the game where players create training dummies, and outfit them with gear(or go the spartan way and use slaves) and test out your weapons on them to see how they hold up.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
What is considered equipped?

The weapon you're wielding, and the armor you're wearing.

Quote:
For instance say you have a barbarian ... If his bow is equipped and he dies will he drop his greataxe? If his greataxe is equipped and he dies will he drop his bow?

Yes.

The intent is not to make it "safe" to play. The intent is to make it reasonably possible for you to get your stuff back if you happen to die.

Quote:
I however DO NOT favor the use of a level requirement for gear. I think that if a level one can afford to outfit themselves with the best gear in the game and maintain it that they should be able to.

You will need to have the requisite merit badges to equip most gear. You will get those merit badges by training skills and by accomplishing in-game deeds. You won't be able to just use whatever you find or can buy.

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:


But I am not sure I agree with the durability hits from using high end gear for low end tasks should be raised. Higher end swords are going to be made from harder metals that will hold an edge longer. You aren't going to damage it that much decapitating a boar.

My main question would be if you are decked out in legendary metals with awesome modifications on it why would you want to kill boars anyway? When I'm on way to my quest I don't want to feel like. "OH NO! ITS A GOBLIN! IF I KILL THIS GOBLIN THE LOOT HE DROPS WON'T PAY FOR REPAIRS!!!" I want to hack aside the goblin and any other lesser challenge that stands in my way without a second thought that by the time I get to the dragon my armor will be worthless from fighting lesser enemies.

Oh I certainly am not expecting things to depreciate to the point where 1-2 battles will wear them out, nor advising that to be the case over the short run. More like if you are leaving town with the intent of killing a horde of goblins over time the expense would add up moreso then the rewards for it. My suggestion more then implies that a run-in against a large powerful foe in which you want to use your best stuff for, more then covers up for the cost of fighting him, and signficantly more then what you can reasonably expect to face along the way, the reward for success should be 10x the cost of the engagement. I certainly am not implying 1% a hit or weapons expected to be 1 time use. More like a weapon expected to last say 2 weeks of use as the weapon you use all the time. Not enough that, OMG a pack of kobalds stands between me and the dragon I am going to lose money. But significant enough that if you are going out to hunt a pack of kobalds with no expectation of finding anything difficult that has a high reward, it would be best to leave the ubersword at home.

Goblinworks Founder

Gear shouldn't be the thing that makes you the best; skill should play the overwhelming factor.

A giant coming at your with a club and you use a sling to throw the rock and hit the giant in the right spot to take him out. The odds were against you but you had the skill to hit the right spot.

Against all odds when you are out matched by what they wear, your knowledge of spells or tactics should win in the end of some fights. Not saying all fights, but gear should never be the defining point of combat.

Goblin Squad Member

@Reader, sorry this jumps around a bit...I have a lot of ideas I tried to cram in here.

I am with Nihimon up top...and Valkenr below. A weapon is a tool. As such all it can do is augment my ability to do something. Weapons should have their own stats and my proficiency with it is simply a sum of my abilities/stats and the weapons.

For example:
- My chance to parry with a sword is based upon my respective sword skill (as specific on sword type as allowed), DEX, and any other feats I have that might contribute...minus penalties based upon encumbrance, armour limitations, etc.
- Weapon stats should weight, range, durability, keen-ness, etc...and include design features for any base action one can take with the weapon. For instance, these might include parry, slash, pierce, blunt. Crafters can then optimize designs for specific combinations of weapon stats (and materials should be designed such that there are not optimal characteristics for everything, high durability leads to high weight etc...).
As mentioned here:

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I could see the reduction of enemy hitpoints being a function of a weapon quality (sharpness, heft) and the ability used. Stabbing with a mace isn't going to do much, even if it's made of pure adamantine and studded with skydiamonds cut into tiny figurines of gods.

Coming up with every property that should be on every weapon is a project unto itself, but one worth development resources.

- Base score for all weapon stats is 100 (simply meaning 100% of your skill can be used), a score of 50 makes your characters skills half as effective. higher scores, such as 200 would make your skills twice as effective. This simulates designing weapons for specific purposes (the basic appearance of the weapon could also be based upon the quality of the craft, the materials used, and design features: more durable weapons appear slightly larger, parry weapons have hooks or holes in the blade, high quality weapons have gild, material determines color/gloss/matte, etc).

- This requires people to optimize their weapons for their play style...parry warriors will want weapons optimized for parrying, block warriors will not want to waste other stats by optimizing parry. Therefore, even though both are using long swords, they will ideally be of completely different design (if optimized).

This means a new warrior and experienced both can use a sword with 120 parry, but the experienced will get much more benefit from it. (Yeah, I agree no level/skill requirements, unskilled weapons can be used at penalty to base scores.)

I am also all for increasing repair costs and even limiting weapon HP to 90% (rounded up) upon repair. This means a 100 HP item, upon the first repair would only have 90 HP from then on. Technically you can keep these items for ever because 90% of 1HP will always round p to 1HP.

One of the earlier comments made me think of something, improvised weapons is a feat I would like to see carried over. GW could dictate the nature of an improved weapon in any environment (picking up an improvise weapon in the woods would get you a log or club) and the stats are randomly generated on a bell curve (highest percentage middle road stats, but leaves open the tiny chance a club will have a high blunt multiplier...or even parry).

Other notes, I would like to see piecemeal armour. Allow us to equip different armour for individual arms, legs, etc, maybe even determine armour penalty by weapon arm.

So, no gear progression at all...only refinement of gear based upon your play style.

Goblinworks Founder

Figured weapons after so much use, would eventually not be as effective with use. That weapon that's beginning to chip just doesn't do the damage it use to, or glide through the air the same way; then it falls to pieces because you failed to get it repaired.

Goblinworks Founder

I thought about this, some more. If you're trying to stick to a game that has it's own rules following D&D then it has to spill into the game in ways.

You will never have an effective PvP gear because of all the ways you can be attacked. Rogue with some kind of miss chance (like blur) then you would want True Strike weapons, invisible - true sight goggles and so on. Wizard using fireballs and other fire spells well i'm going to have fire resist (chance to avoid spell) /spell resist (Should be hardest enchant to do just for what it can do, also how it affects every spell like healing)/ or fire absorption (damage is absorbed before hitting you).

I don't want flat resistance bonus's on items unless it's enchanted with them. Armor/items should have limitations on how many enchants and never enough resistance (total of all items) to make them a value of 100% or a resist damage that would negate the whole amount no matter how high it was. Need some limitations.

So unless you know what you're going to fight in PvP you wont' know what to wear. You won't be wearing spell resist gear against an archer; nah you'll have Protection from Arrows enchanted on it. Well unless that archer has frost arrows and you have frost resist armor to negate that damage.

You would have numerous magical armor for protection either on you because you know you're going to fight a big raid or guild battle and know the types of fighters there.

Items should have some limitations for usage. I don't want to see new players wielding flaming swords. They should learn what the item is (it's name for example), how to activate it (reading books/scrolls or being told), detect magic to find some information, identify spell to get even more information and makes effective use of materials and costs of having them replaced for the work. If the item has a spell, then it should only be effective as the level of the person, or open up when the the knows the user is effective enough in the actual use of the item.

Goblin Squad Member

My one problem with "Resist cold, but weak to acid" or "+10 vs dwarves, -10 vs gnomes" is it leads to bloated item stats and overcomplicated strategies. "Oh, the encampment is full of kobolds now? But I just finished crafting an ogreslaying spear!" And the elemental rock-paper-scissors idea is nice, but it runs the risk of turning into rock-paper-scissors-airplane-lizard-Spock-Jesus-banana.

Just keep it simple and effective.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Arbalester wrote:

My one problem with "Resist cold, but weak to acid" or "+10 vs dwarves, -10 vs gnomes" is it leads to bloated item stats and overcomplicated strategies. "Oh, the encampment is full of kobolds now? But I just finished crafting an ogreslaying spear!" And the elemental rock-paper-scissors idea is nice, but it runs the risk of turning into rock-paper-scissors-airplane-lizard-Spock-Jesus-banana.

Just keep it simple and effective.

Simple and effective are mutually exclusive. It needs to be multidimensional rock-paper-scissors to be effective.


Ryan Dancey wrote:
Andius wrote:
What is considered equipped?

The weapon you're wielding, and the armor you're wearing.

Quote:
For instance say you have a barbarian ... If his bow is equipped and he dies will he drop his greataxe? If his greataxe is equipped and he dies will he drop his bow?

Yes.

The intent is not to make it "safe" to play. The intent is to make it reasonably possible for you to get your stuff back if you happen to die.

Quote:
I however DO NOT favor the use of a level requirement for gear. I think that if a level one can afford to outfit themselves with the best gear in the game and maintain it that they should be able to.

You will need to have the requisite merit badges to equip most gear. You will get those merit badges by training skills and by accomplishing in-game deeds. You won't be able to just use whatever you find or can buy.

RyanD

On paper there would seem to be a large disincentive towards activities like say, guarding a caravan, or a harvesting node. As, unless they could pay more than the value of the goods being protected it would be more rewarding to just rob them.

Can you share some of the systems that will be in place to prevent this, or is it by design? We know about the bounty system, but I fail to see how dying matters much in most cases if you are running around looking for PvP. A team of mages comes to mind wearing nothing valuable. Pop the target, allied salvagers come in and kill the mages looting the ill gotten gains from them without taking a lawful hit, profit.

Goblin Squad Member

Arbalester wrote:

My one problem with "Resist cold, but weak to acid" or "+10 vs dwarves, -10 vs gnomes" is it leads to bloated item stats and overcomplicated strategies. "Oh, the encampment is full of kobolds now? But I just finished crafting an ogreslaying spear!" And the elemental rock-paper-scissors idea is nice, but it runs the risk of turning into rock-paper-scissors-airplane-lizard-Spock-Jesus-banana.

Just keep it simple and effective.

Actually, it sounds to me like that's your player choice, and that you would choose items that didn't have the drawbacks and therefore didn't have significant bonuses either.

I think that's a reasonable choice, and one I would probably follow myself. But I think it's fine for there to also be more powerful items that do have the drawbacks that players can choose whether or not they want to use.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
But I am not sure I agree with the durability hits from using high end gear for low end tasks should be raised. Higher end swords are going to be made from harder metals that will hold an edge longer. You aren't going to damage it that much decapitating a boar.

I largely agree with this. A high-end magical sword shouldn't be damaged by cutting through simple flesh and bone. It should take magical armor to put up enough resistance to damage it. Same with magical armor; it should turn away mundane weapons without being damaged much, if at all.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Marou_ wrote:


On paper there would seem to be a large disincentive towards activities like say, guarding a caravan, or a harvesting node. As, unless they could pay more than the value of the goods being protected it would be more rewarding to just rob them.

Can you share some of the systems that will be in place to prevent this, or is it by design? We know about the bounty system, but I fail to see how dying matters much in most cases if you are running around looking for PvP. A team of mages comes to mind wearing nothing valuable. Pop the target, allied salvagers come in and kill the mages looting the ill gotten gains from them without taking a lawful hit, profit.

Of course, once you rob once you don't ever get any guarding jobs ever again. Market forces which disincentivize gathering raise the price of gathered materials, which helps to offset the drop in participation caused by the disincentive. Something to note is that once a group hijacks a cartload of material, they still have to defend it until it reaches the destination. If there are three groups such that no one group or set of allies can take all the others, ideal play results in the ones that currently have the wagon taking it all the way in without any engagement.

Goblin Squad Member

Marou_ wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
info

On paper there would seem to be a large disincentive towards activities like say, guarding a caravan, or a harvesting node. As, unless they could pay more than the value of the goods being protected it would be more rewarding to just rob them.

Can you share some of the systems that will be in place to prevent this, or is it by design?

The main system to prevent anarchy are the guilds.

The statement "it would be more rewarding to rob them" assumes that the risk is the same. Which any competent caravan owner will make sure is not the case!

Consider a caravan with 5 guards, 3 of whom are in the same guild as the caravan owner. For any one of the guards it makes no sense to attack the rest, while doing the job builds trust. For any small bandit group it would also be risky - and any organised bandit group attacking might be starting a guild war they may not want.

The paradox about economics is that the more people try to steal from each other instead of producing, the more valuable the loot becomes - and also the produced goods.


randomwalker wrote:
Marou_ wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
info

On paper there would seem to be a large disincentive towards activities like say, guarding a caravan, or a harvesting node. As, unless they could pay more than the value of the goods being protected it would be more rewarding to just rob them.

Can you share some of the systems that will be in place to prevent this, or is it by design?

The main system to prevent anarchy are the guilds.

The statement "it would be more rewarding to rob them" assumes that the risk is the same. Which any competent caravan owner will make sure is not the case!

Consider a caravan with 5 guards, 3 of whom are in the same guild as the caravan owner. For any one of the guards it makes no sense to attack the rest, while doing the job builds trust. For any small bandit group it would also be risky - and any organised bandit group attacking might be starting a guild war they may not want.

The paradox about economics is that the more people try to steal from each other instead of producing, the more valuable the loot becomes - and also the produced goods.

Yeah, the effect of similar systems in other sandbox PvP games such as Mortal Online has been that *everyone* is unlawful / KOS to everyone else, and lawful characters are anomalies. This in spite of the fact that game has harsher death penalties for unlawful characters that theoretically act as a deterant to such behavior. Those penalties fail to perform their design function since in spite of them the risk/reward ratio is very slanted towards the aggressor achieving a more favorable outcome/reward.

Goblin Squad Member

Marou_ wrote:
On paper there would seem to be a large disincentive towards activities like say, guarding a caravan, or a harvesting node. As, unless they could pay more than the value of the goods being protected it would be more rewarding to just rob them.

1: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Who would pay for caravan guards or harvesting guards with a reputation for betraying their employers? If you want to pursue that career, you'll need to avoid becoming known as someone who betrays trust. Sure, you could get away with it occasionally (maybe just once, depending on how picky your employers are) but you couldn't do it as a regular gig.

It will not take long for some groups to get the "reputation" as trustworthy guards, and those groups will get the contracts (and the coin that flows from them).

2: Murdering [edited!] other characters is an evil act.

Why would you hire an evil character as a guard?

3: There will be a robust contract system. One element of a contract will be an escrow fee. To accept a guard contract, you may be required to post an escrow fee that's larger than the value of the goods being guarded. On successful completion of the contract, the escrow would be refunded. If you betray your employers, you'd forfeit the escrow, so there would be no economic advantage in taking that action.

4: The value in helping your social group - party, chartered company, settlement or kingdom - to achieve its goals means that there's going to be a division of labor. You'll find that having some people who specialize as guards and some people who specialize as teamsters, and some people who specialize as harvesters will make your organization much more efficient than those comprised of generalists.

So why would you attack your friends, and set back the attainment of your own goals?

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

Marou_ wrote:


Yeah, the effect of similar systems in other sandbox PvP games such as Mortal Online has been that *everyone* is unlawful / KOS to everyone else, and lawful characters are anomalies.

My observation is that this is a degenerate game form. It happens when the rewards for being productive are lower than the rewards for being destructive. It also happens when the mechanisms to identify and punish bad behavior are lax - you become what you hate because its the only way to stay alive in a game where the strong always dominate the weak.

This also is a condition that afflicts games that fail to achieve a critical mass of players, or that attract early on players who are solely focused on PvP griefing. Once a game starts to degenerate, unless the developers actively put a stop to it either via game mechanics or by actively banning the troublemakers, it's almost impossible to recover.

Sometimes developers are too wrapped up in how "perfectly balanced" their game designs are, or who think that "letting the players develop the world" excuses any degenerate behavior. I've decided after watching these games for a long time that you have to have a steady, controlling hand on the tiller in the beginning so that the game forms productive and fun play patterns which become strong enough to act as a real check against degenerate behavior.

RyanD


Does that imply PCs will be able to somehow see or "know" the alignment of another PC without doing something special like casting detect alignment?

Goblin Squad Member

Buri wrote:
Does that imply PCs will be able to somehow see or "know" the alignment of another PC without doing something special like casting detect alignment?

Actually what I'm most currious of on the same topic. Does that mean say 2 kingdoms perpetually at war with eachother will rapidly become evil? Will there be exceptions to this rule, IE declarations of war etc...

Prior to the last post here, I was under the impression that killing in NPC territory was penalized, but the wilderness and player territories were player judged. This is the first hint of a PK alignment shift, in non-controlled territory.

To which i have to ask... how do you intend to differentiate self defense, deliberate attacks, war etc...

Goblin Squad Member

@Onishi, it's not really the first hint.

I believe the Marshall/Bounty system was always described as being based around the NPC Settlements, but Ryan has always been clear that "griefing" would be dealt with by moderators taking action up to and including banning accounts.

For the very reasons it's impossible to program against "griefing", it will also be unlikely that we'll get a clear, unambiguous definition of "griefing".

I'm actually really glad to read Ryan's last post because I've long argued that it's going to be critical for the "moderators" to establish the right mood in the game from the beginning and it's very comforting to read that they have every intention of doing so.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or does it mean that Detect Evil will be a regular part of the hiring process?


Ryan Dancey wrote:


Sometimes developers are too wrapped up in how "perfectly balanced" their game designs are, or who think that "letting the players develop the world" excuses any degenerate behavior. I've decided after watching these games for a long time that you have to have a steady, controlling hand on the tiller in the beginning so that the game forms productive and fun play patterns which become strong enough to act as a real check against degenerate behavior.
RyanD

I think you hit the nail on the head there. No matter how great the design was on paper it needs adjustment and a guiding hand in game to see it through.

No matter how cool the original idea is, if you crowdsource hundreds of people into exploiting it mercilessly it's going to turn ugly without adjustment.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

@Onishi, it's not really the first hint.

I believe the Marshall/Bounty system was always described as being based around the NPC Settlements, but Ryan has always been clear that "griefing" would be dealt with by moderators taking action up to and including banning accounts.

For the very reasons it's impossible to program against "griefing", it will also be unlikely that we'll get a clear, unambiguous definition of "griefing".

I'm actually really glad to read Ryan's last post because I've long argued that it's going to be critical for the "moderators" to establish the right mood in the game from the beginning and it's very comforting to read that they have every intention of doing so.

Agreed but I think it is also well understood that there is a huge difference between "griefing" and "Killing". I certainly agree that killing a cart you were hired to protect could be considered griefing, but just plain "Killing" could effect everyone from protectors defending an area, soldiers fighting wars etc... At least by a vague definition of "Killing", the only unevil kill is to kill someone who has been in lawful territory, and gotten a bounty placed on him, or earned a criminal flag.

I always viewed griefing as killing someone who did not opt to take the risks. Entering non-secure territory is an acceptence of the risk IMO.

I am assuming things aren't really going to be this blanket "Killing bad" moral system, as by this definition, spotting a pack of bandits before they attack you, and killing them first, is by definition evil.

Goblin Squad Member

Well let's say they are bandits, and you know this because the game-system has tracked their prolific crime spree, and now they are considered Outlaws, and can be killed by anyone, anywhere, with impunity.

Would that work?

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:


Actually what I'm most currious of on the same topic. Does that mean say 2 kingdoms perpetually at war with eachother will rapidly become evil? Will there be exceptions to this rule, IE declarations of war etc...

Yeah, I already edited my post to change "killed" to "murdered". A murder is an unprovoked unlawful killing. Deaths of PCs in wars are neither, so they won't have alignment penalties.

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
I am assuming things aren't really going to be this blanket "Killing bad" moral system, as by this definition, spotting a pack of bandits before they attack you, and killing them first, is by definition evil.

Yeah, I don't expect to see that definition.

It does sound like they'll put a stop to it if they see players engaging in "degenerative behavior". I think that's a good thing, and I'm not really interested in trying to get Ryan or anyone else to define "degenerative behavior". If they define it, degenerate players will simply game the definition and claim their innocent because their emergent behavior doesn't fit that definition.

I know, to a metaphysical certitude, that my actions will never qualify as "degenerative behavior".

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Onishi wrote:


Actually what I'm most currious of on the same topic. Does that mean say 2 kingdoms perpetually at war with eachother will rapidly become evil? Will there be exceptions to this rule, IE declarations of war etc...

Yeah, I already edited my post to change "killed" to "murdered". A murder is an unprovoked unlawful killing. Deaths of PCs in wars are neither, so they won't have alignment penalties.

RyanD

Any chance you can be a bit more specific on the definition of "unlawful" at this point. Up till now I still was under the assumption that unlawful meant within the juristiction of a kingdom with laws against murder etc... But this being brought up in the context of transporting resources of which the most valuble ones are going to be far from civilization how does murder apply?

Is it the recently mentioned contracts that allow the laws reach to stretch outside borders? IE the bandits in the distant woods, may be immune to the alignment shift, but the contracted guards are not. Or something along those lines?

I am still kind of baffled on the ideas of alignment, outside of governed territory.

Goblin Squad Member

I would assume unprovoked entails:
-The player is not of a warring faction
-The Player did not strike the first blow
-The player did not cross any property lines defined by a built structure.
-The player is not flagged as a criminal

If you want to raid caravans, you will become evil
If you want to attack people fast-traveling, you will become evil
If you don't want a player to stand near you and you throw a todler fit "THIS IS MY SPOT AND NO ONE ELSE CAN ATTACK THE ENEMIES HERE EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO SOLID STAKE IN THE LAND.*stomps wildly*"

If you become evil, you will probably have a difficult time finding any help from reliable sources.

If you are looking for a game where its just a huge FFA PVP arena, this probably won't be the game for you. Ryan made it clear in a recent post he doesn't want this game to turn into that. He is giving us the ability to PVP and some tools to keep it civil.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:


Any chance you can be a bit more specific on the definition of "unlawful" at this point.

The Laws of the River Kingdoms are:

1 Say What You Will, I Live Free
2 Oathbreakers Die
3 Walk Any Road, Float Any River
4 Courts Are For Kings
5 Slavery is an Abomination
6 You Have What You Hold

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/River_Freedoms

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

Skwiziks wrote:
Or does it mean that Detect Evil will be a regular part of the hiring process?

Please!

Goblin Squad Member

Hmmm, if Oathbreakers die, and players can set up contracts between each other, then if someone fails to complete their end of the contract, do they get flagged as a criminal?

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Weapons, Armor, and Stat Slots: The Progression of Gear 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.