Goblinworks Blog: RESPECT: Find Out What It Means to Me!


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:


To do anything of this nature, I think the game can't allow dropping items into piles anywhere. All items are in inventory, on corpses, or in building storage. Gear could be transferred through company or settlement storage, of course, but alignments of the characters would meet the group norm, and the group could boot a character with a really poor global reputation.

I's imagine that is still flawed. Stores, selling etc... If someone is selling something below market value, or with no set market value, (IE things rare enough that their value fluctuates unpredictably). Sellers can't be expected to run a background check on everyone they sell to, nor can they be certain their sales price meets a set predictable standard. So more or less all anyone has to do to avoid reputation contamination, is to bring money into it.

Weakness 2, looting. I certainly expect heros to raid a bandits den, kill crooks and take their stuff. They certainly won't be taking rep hits for that. All a criminal would have to do is to only carry the one item he wants to give before bestowing justice upon his other self.

IMO the shoddy reputation goes where it belongs more or less. While it is true the wealth dosn't go to the person doing the dirty deeds, the rep does, which is who the victims need to watch out for. If you are making a big deal with a week or less old newbie, you pretty much get what you deserve, as if you make a deal with a long term bad repped person.

Oh another weak point, if it is only a partial rub off, then a chain would work for that too. Joe does something horrific, is at minus 10 rep, trades with bob, who loses 5 rep for dealing, deals with tom who loses 2 rep, deals with Officer joe who loses .5 rep.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Murder is the act of killing someone without justification. Justification doesn't include "he's being mean to me" or "she's a disciple of a god I hate". Justifiable reasons include a declared war, a bounty, killing a criminal, etc. Murder is evil, killing is not.

That's a more restrictive framework than I had expected, but very interesting, and I appreciate the clarity. Thanks for responding.

Goblin Squad Member

Has any thought been given to loot drops? Will a wolf drop a plate mail chest piece and a bear have a magic scroll? I would like to see drops that make sense in a game world .Modern mmo's have gotten silly with all the loot you find on mobs.Peter found a gold coin in a fishes mouth but that was a miracle.

Goblin Squad Member

There have been a few threads where it was discussed but none of them were awesome enough to reference Peter :)

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
Andius wrote:


I'm guessing well need a high end computer to run them at that quality but still. Those pictures are really making me look forward to playing this game. I can't wait to see what you do with the scenery.
From my limited expertise, these images are far to high rez for actual gameplay. The type of renders shown could possibly be used in a cinematic or somesuch, but would likely be downscaled in order to make for a playable model. The bright side is once the hard work of a model like the ones shown, the downscaled versions can still maintain the illusion of high detail pretty effectively.

Doesn't matter much to me either way. My computer would explode trying to run graphics like that and I have no plans to buy a 5000$ rig just to run this game at max graphics. The base model looks great though, and I'm sure the scaled down model will still be visually refreshing.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan wrote:

We'll need to think about how to let players know when they've entered a Hex that is settled, and what the Settlement considers acceptable and unacceptable behavior in that Hex.

It probably starts with something simple such as an indicator that the Settlement has chosen either NBSI or NRDS. Over time I could see this becoming a very complex system, which could be good or bad - there is a rabbit hole of metagaming here that I want to carefully avoid.

To me that is something that could be required at the main route to a "settlement". Posted laws of the land. Transitioning from "hex" to "hex" would happen in wilderness, would it not? To me that is the only thing that makes sense, at least in the very beginning. Indication should be tied to entrance of the immediate settlement area. There should still an indication in other areas of the hex, but a less pronounced indication... thus keeping wilderness truly wild.

Transitioning from one hex to another should be something that is learned, not indicated.

NBSI / NRDS could be manipulated and abused, but what if the adoption of NBSI were to carry significant impact for all members of the charter? Limited economic expansion? Something to that effect. We should all have to rely on one another in some form or another.

As far as alignment goes, are there going to be significant actions such as assassination for other alignments? Like a Paladin smiting a champion of his patron's rival? That would be something that is on the level of assassination just inherently "good" as opposed to "evil".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
The question becomes: Do we want a contiguous map, or do we want to have a patchwork map connected by some kind of gates? There are merits to both, and frankly I'm not going to worry about it much until I get 256 Crusader Road hexes figured out first. :)

I agree Crusader Road comes first but just to weigh in a bit on those options...

One of the great appeals to PFO for me is the idea of trade caravans, troop movements, very regional based markets, and remote parts of the map truly being remote.

As much as I would love to see jungles, and oceans, and frigid lands to the north the idea of our trade caravan passing through a giant magical gate to get from the River Kingdoms to ocean really...... is highly unappealing.

I say take things slowly like LOTRO... we can wait a decade or two ;). Have all parts of the map you release connected by real hexes and not magical gates. It may test some player's patience but it insures that when you release the Realm of the Mammoth Lords or The Shackles or even just The Exalted Woods that you will have time to put a lot of thought and development into that region to give us a new and exciting experience rather than regurgitated River Kingdoms models and scenery.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
As much as I would love to see jungles, and oceans, and frigid lands to the north the idea of our trade caravan passing through a giant magical gate to get from the River Kingdoms to ocean really...... is highly unappealing.

Seconded. One of the biggest turn offs for EQ was the Planes of Power expansion. It completely ruined immersion for me. It took away the fun of running through the danger zones where I knew I was completely out-matched. I basically took a huge fun aspect out of the game for me and replaced it with the convenience so people would stop complaining about corpse runs.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
The question becomes: Do we want a contiguous map, or do we want to have a patchwork map connected by some kind of gates? There are merits to both, and frankly I'm not going to worry about it much until I get 256 Crusader Road hexes figured out first. :)

I agree Crusader Road comes first but just to weigh in a bit on those options...

One of the great appeals to PFO for me is the idea of trade caravans, troop movements, very regional based markets, and remote parts of the map truly being remote.

As much as I would love to see jungles, and oceans, and frigid lands to the north the idea of our trade caravan passing through a giant magical gate to get from the River Kingdoms to ocean really...... is highly unappealing.

I say take things slowly like LOTRO... we can wait a decade or two ;). Have all parts of the map you release connected by real hexes and not magical gates. It may test some player's patience but it insures that when you release the Realm of the Mammoth Lords or The Shackles or even just The Exalted Woods that you will have time to put a lot of thought and development into that region to give us a new and exciting experience rather than regurgitated River Kingdoms models and scenery.

I tend to agree - actual hexes, not gates.

Goblin Squad Member

We don't have to limit ourselves to just wahoo crazy gates. We could have several sections of the River Kingdoms under development in parallel that were connected by gates. That would let us bring in a variety of different experiences without leaving our fundamental "home base".


Andius wrote:
I say take things slowly like LOTRO... we can wait a decade or two ;). Have all parts of the map you release connected by real hexes and not magical gates. It may test some player's patience but it insures that when you release the Realm of the Mammoth Lords or The Shackles or even just The Exalted Woods that you will have time to put a lot of thought and development into that region to give us a new and exciting experience rather than regurgitated River Kingdoms models and scenery.

A potential problem with this is regurgitated River Kingdoms scenery is exactly what we could get for several years before the world map became big enough to get anywhere else.

Obakararuir wrote:
Seconded. One of the biggest turn offs for EQ was the Planes of Power expansion. It completely ruined immersion for me. It took away the fun of running through the danger zones where I knew I was completely out-matched. I basically took a huge fun aspect out of the game for me and replaced it with the convenience so people would stop complaining about corpse runs.

Somewhere Ryan estimated it would take about 30 minutes to get from one side of the map to the other. As the world gets bigger, travel is going to have to get faster or the world will become unnavigable--taking literally hours to get from one side of the map to the other.

Whether increased travel speed is done through gates or not, I don't much care. But if I'm in the arctic and my friends are expecting me at the equator and my ETA is 3 hours, I won't bother and neither will they.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:

Seconded. One of the biggest turn offs for EQ was the Planes of Power expansion. It completely ruined immersion for me. It took away the fun of running through the danger zones where I knew I was completely out-matched. I basically took a huge fun aspect out of the game for me and replaced it with the convenience so people would stop complaining about corpse runs.

I had the same reaction--remember the first time you ran from Freeport to Qeynos? I can still remember exquisite terror trying to get through the Gorge of King Xrobb, and exultation when finally doing so.

I think PoP completely pulled the covers off the theme-park--any illusion it wasn't a series of rides vanished.

Goblin Squad Member

Hudax wrote:
Somewhere Ryan estimated it would take about 30 minutes to get from one side of the map to the other. As the world gets bigger, travel is going to have to get faster or the world will become unnavigable--taking literally hours to get from one side of the map to the other.

This to me is a good thing. I would love a map that took me weeks (or even more!) to explore...and I do not see what anyone "looses". If you do not have time to sit down and run across the map, play in your 30 minute circle and be happy...how is that any difference than limiting the size of the world to your 30 minute circle?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan wrote:
We don't have to limit ourselves to just wahoo crazy gates. We could have several sections of the River Kingdoms under development in parallel that were connected by gates. That would let us bring in a variety of different experiences without leaving our fundamental "home base".

To me, this cheapens the region. 4x travel is enough. It should take hours to get across the map. Teleportation and utilization of a gate system should come at a high cost... otherwise you are importing the wrong theme-park elements into your game. That's my opinion on it.

Instead of teleportation, develop it in another form. Develop the routes to those locations and litter it with hints at what the remaining "hidden" hexes contain. Make the trek an adventure. That is half the fun. I can deal with the fact that to my right and left things are still under construction and I can't go there yet. Unlocking a single road through a hex is less immersion breaking than teleport stations.

Everquest had that right from the start. Then they fixed the wrong problem with insta-travel. It was the pain of the corpse run and the inability to move your respawn point that was the real issue. Manifest death differently or don't make it such a pain to recoup your body/gear.

Hudax wrote:
A potential problem with this is regurgitated River Kingdoms scenery is exactly what we could get for several years before the world map became big enough to get anywhere else.

The River Kingdoms as a whole isn't all that diverse when it comes to terrain, so I don't see teleportation solving this "problem". Even still, that is just terrain. The content of the hexes won't get regurgitated or at least it shouldn't.

I'm not objecting to the use to teleportation at all, just as a common means of travel.

Mbando wrote:

I had the same reaction--remember the first time you ran from Freeport to Qeynos? I can still remember exquisite terror trying to get through the Gorge of King Xrobb, and exultation when finally doing so.

I think PoP completely pulled the covers off the theme-park--any illusion it wasn't a series of rides vanished.

My first character never went past level 18 and I loved it. He was a Druid and once he got SoW he ran all over the place. Then my dark elf rogue... I loved having to earn the trust of the people of Kelethin. I could come up with my reasons as to why I was there. I knew I still had to watch my back because not everyone was tied Kelethin's faction.

I actually stopped playing after Velious for a while and came back after Planes of Power had been in play. First thing I noticed is that the East Commonlands tunnel was vacant. It was NEVER vacant. Then come to find out there was a big Bazaar somewhere else. The players established that tunnel as an area that they were going to conduct trade... why change that?

That is where I hope to see changes. I hope that when we do something that GW didn't expect or intend, as long as it isn't breaking a system or exploiting a loophole that they embrace it. I think they will.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
It should take hours to get across the map.

This would require them to actually fill out the entire map between the regions that are being prepared for us to play in. I think that's what Ryan is saying they might not wish to do. It's not like the gates are going to open up instant travel within the initial or expanded map areas - at least, I haven't read anything to lead me to believe that's what Ryan's talking about.

Personally, I would find a "tunnel" of hexes that led to the next area worse than a gate to it. To me, that's the very essence of "on rails" since I literally can't turn left or right.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree, I hope they just keep adding hexes in layers extending into the River Kingdoms. There will always be someone waiting to make them their home.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
Develop the routes to those locations and litter it with hints at what the remaining "hidden" hexes contain.

No it wouldn't require them to "fill in" the hexes and it would be no more "on rails" than a teleportation gate where you have to rationalize why you couldn't just do the exact same thing to all the hexes that are undeveloped. Basic teleportation is 100 miles per level. Yes, that is table-top and I get that rules won't transfer. Once you include teleportation for something as trivial as travel to a location then why we can't just teleport to any of the yet designed regions. That is just as immersion breaking as not being able to turn left or right.

Ryan wrote:
We could have several sections of the River Kingdoms under development in parallel that were connected by gates. That would let us bring in a variety of different experiences without leaving our fundamental "home base".

This just sounds like the type of themepark style Ryan and crew are always talking about avoiding. I know that theme-park elements are going to be included and it may end up different once it's designed, but the way it has been described so far is a long way from appealing.

The only way I see it working is if it is done once and then they fill the gap. Original map to new location then fill in the hexes to connect the two, then do it again. It would take enough time to where it wouldn't trivialize teleportation and since it was a significant event storyline could be created to explain it more rationally than if it were commonplace. The same reason I didn't agree with Kingdoms of Sky being EQ2s first expansion. Why would you go to the moon first? Kunark, Odus, Faydwer, Velious... any of those would have been more acceptable than the friggin moon. Develop what is around you first... tie remote region development to something significant plot wise and make it significant not trivial.

The problem with doing this in PFO is that the singular gate could technically fall into one group's control, thus controlling the linked location. One answer is to make multiple gates, thus trivializing teleportation. Another is to allow some players the ability to teleport at will, also a trivialization.

Maybe I am thinking of this in the wrong context and a "gate" isn't teleportation under a different name. If so, please clue me in to what the actual idea is.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:

Maybe I am thinking of this in the wrong context and a "gate" isn't teleportation under a different name. If so, please clue me in to what the actual idea is.
....

The gate would be when you ride up to the edge of the map and see the road goes on so you click on it and you are sent to the other map. It just represents the road travel without you spending the time.As it is now, it looks like the map will have to have an invisible barrior all the way around it. No mountains or whatever blocking the way. That isn't ideal but I like the idea of using the same map for the mmo.

Goblin Squad Member

That is just teleportation under a different guise. Auto-pilot travel is unappealing.


Obakararuir wrote:
That is just teleportation under a different guise. Auto-pilot travel is unappealing.

It sounds like there will be plenty of reasons for people to get out in the world and explore for exploration's sake. But I can think of zero compelling reasons why trying to get to a specific destination should take hours. Being forced to run for hours when you're just trying to get somewhere is just as much a railroad as anything anyone else has described. I'm abstractly defining railroad here as being told what is fun.

Sometimes the journey is fun, sometimes it's not. When you have a specific destination, it's not as fun.

I'm not saying we should be able to teleport to our corpses, or to instances. Only certain key areas of the map. How many such areas there are, how difficult it is to port there (think of the difference between taking the book to the Great Divide vs. skilling up pottery to make Thurgadin port potions), how often you can port, all of those things and more can be variables. Porting doesn't have to be as black and white as people are trying to make it out to be.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hudax wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
That is just teleportation under a different guise. Auto-pilot travel is unappealing.
It sounds like there will be plenty of reasons for people to get out in the world and explore for exploration's sake. But I can think of zero compelling reasons why trying to get to a specific destination should take hours. Being forced to run for hours when you're just trying to get somewhere is just as much a railroad as anything anyone else has described. I'm abstractly defining railroad here as being told what is fun.

I agree with you in a themepark in which you actually have to go to another area to find the next ride. In a sandbox I disagree because not only does the vast size take nothing away from those who have no desire to traverse the entire map (many people do not care about exploration), but it does create dynamics such as regional economies and politics which I think does add to the game. If you can just teleport about instantly, then the world really is much smaller, and everything becomes global instead of regional.

I personally like it when my people and I can find some out of the way corner in which to do our own thing...unbothered by others. Instant teleportation removes this ability by removing all the corners.

Goblin Squad Member

Hudax wrote:
Being forced to run for hours when you're just trying to get somewhere is just as much a railroad as anything anyone else has described. I'm abstractly defining railroad here as being told what is fun.

I'm not saying getting from one place to another should take hours. I am saying getting from one side of the full intended play area to the other should take a few hours. Mounted? An hour. At 4x speed that is four hours of travel.

Starting out, this won't be the case. 11-12 miles can be covered in an hour by horse, so maybe 15 mins tops. For the initial map area, which is 11x12 miles.

Hudax wrote:
I'm not saying we should be able to teleport to our corpses, or to instances. Only certain key areas of the map.

I agree with this for the most part. We seem to agree on the idea that teleportation shouldn't be commonplace.

Introducing the Crusader Road wrote:
Even though the Crusader Road is just a tiny part of the River Kingdoms, which in turn is just a small part of the Inner Sea Region, which in turn is just a small part of Golarion, that red rectangle is plenty big. And for a world where horses are the primary means of transportation, crossing this map is a pretty significant journey.

That's all I want. For crossing the map to be a significant journey. It can include teleportation. But for it to be talked about this early just gives me the feeling that some of the things that I am looking forward to because of the way they were described in the blog won't actually happen.

It also seems like alignments are shifting back to being handcuffs. It would be very upsetting if we can't play the characters we want to play with the people we have started to forge a community with because of alignment. I get that our actions have consequences and that affects our reputation and I agree with that. I would just like to know what is going to happen when a character in a company shifts from good to neutral to evil? Are they going to get kicked out? If so, what happens to their property? What are the end effects big picture wise of alignment shifts in regards to the work they've put into a community?

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:

It also seems like alignments are shifting back to being handcuffs. It would be very upsetting if we can't play the characters we want to play with the people we have started to forge a community with because of alignment. I get that our actions have consequences and that affects our reputation and I agree with that. I would just like to know what is going to happen when a character in a company shifts from good to neutral to evil? Are they going to get kicked...

Well to this i still have to note, they haven't implied any reason you can't team with an opposite aligned person. I believe that even the chartered company level is OK, and I believe Ryan mentioned that a CC and settlement do not have to be deeply connected (If I am understanding right that means a CC could have 6 LG people residing in settlement Paliland and 6 CE people residing in Murderville. They would still get their own chat, but would obviously be bringing their goods to different places when they break from a party at the end of the day.

Hudax wrote:
Sometimes the journey is fun, sometimes it's not. When you have a specific destination, it's not as fun.

Now as far as the teleport argument goes on if the land gets much larger, I am also in the camp that Since you aren't ever forced to be at X location, how long it takes to get to X is pretty irrelevant. Odds are teh only thing you won't be able to find an equivalent of in your half of the world, would be a RL or in game friend you know who dosn't reside on the same side of the world, and to that it is worth pointing out, divide any travel time being referred by 2. (as obviously you can both travel to the center of your locations). Apart from specific human players what is a "specific place you need to go" that isn't likely to have an equivelant or a replica within at minimum every 15 minutes from where people are.

Goblin Squad Member

Ride with an Oulaw, die like an Outlaw.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
Hudax wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
That is just teleportation under a different guise. Auto-pilot travel is unappealing.
It sounds like there will be plenty of reasons for people to get out in the world and explore for exploration's sake. But I can think of zero compelling reasons why trying to get to a specific destination should take hours. Being forced to run for hours when you're just trying to get somewhere is just as much a railroad as anything anyone else has described. I'm abstractly defining railroad here as being told what is fun.

I agree with you in a themepark in which you actually have to go to another area to find the next ride. In a sandbox I disagree because not only does the vast size take nothing away from those who have no desire to traverse the entire map (many people do not care about exploration), but it does create dynamics such as regional economies and politics which I think does add to the game. If you can just teleport about instantly, then the world really is much smaller, and everything becomes global instead of regional.

I personally like it when my people and I can find some out of the way corner in which to do our own thing...unbothered by others. Instant teleportation removes this ability by removing all the corners.

I agree with Forencith's stance here.

If you want to coordinate with people the spatial relationship has to be considered first as part of the plan unlike in themeparks where the ride is almost the only important thing. I know there is fast travel of some sort, but I'd prefer if this is some form of infrastructure thing requiring a lot of cost, time and effort to establish and potentially to be subject to degradation, and also increasing with distance and limited to "suitable" areas to construct and limited destinations in total (not over mountains for eg and forests might be a poser also?).

So if you decide to live in the North but your circle is established in the South, that's going to create headaches should be perfectly acceptable imo. That allows dispersal of different groups to play a major factor in how the map is colonized and connected: "You can't be everywhere at once" being a major limitation for players to accept and then deal with is the best approach imo.

The alternative in maps of procedural generation (eg minecraft, galaxies in Elite and other space games) are ALL designed to do this job for the player: A small agent operating in a vastly bigger world that is (infinitely) explorable. So PfO does not use this technique it must rely on the total size of the map, the density of content (determined by a hex's status and location) and the movement speed of the players.

So from this finite postion, the world can only get smaller and smaller.... and I think fast travels need to balance with this through some form of proportional cost?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan wrote:
Ride with an outlaw, die like an outlaw.

So I take it the reverse is true? If an "outlaw" was found with a group that is held in high esteem and they vouched for him, he would be fine.

Not necessarily the outlaw in the context of "criminal" in regards to the status on PFO but I would also like to think you would not get a criminal flag for jaywalking or like "misdemeanor" offenses.

AvenaOats wrote:
So if you decide to live in the North but your circle is established in the South, that's going to create headaches should be perfectly acceptable imo. That allows dispersal of different groups to play a major factor in how the map is colonized and connected: "You can't be everywhere at once" being a major limitation for players to accept and then deal with is the best approach imo.

This only makes sense if logicistics are going to play a meaningful role in the game... which it seems like it will. I get the impression Hudax doesn't want to deal with the timesink involved in normal travel and Ryan is looking for a way to create and maintain interesting content while not having to develop everything from point A to Z.

If you are looking to get away from the theme-park style of WoW, one of the ways to do so is to do away with insta-travel. Have people walk from point A to point B. This allows them to get side tracked. "Hey lets go investigate that worn down Guard Tower." I can still remember the hair on the back of my neck standing up when I first stumbled upon the entrance to Blackburrow in the shape of a giant gnoll head. The rush of having to book it through Kithicor if you entered the zone too late...those are the sorts of things I want to happen again.

Ringing a bell and suddenly appearing in Lavastorm. Unexciting. Seeing that island out in the distance and knowing I would have to jump if I wanted to explore it. Exciting.

Goblin Squad Member

So many references to the good things, the good memories of EQ. I love it. =)

Goblin Squad Member

That is what I'm trying to get people to realize... they may have not been a part of what we remember so fondly and so they don't see how wandering around trying to get from one place to another can be fun, exciting, and such a pivotal aspect of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
That is what I'm trying to get people to realize... they may have not been a part of what we remember so fondly and so they don't see how wandering around trying to get from one place to another can be fun, exciting, and such a pivotal aspect of the game.

Agreed entirely, as well the entire pro instant travel argument is more or less purely based on the theme park idea. IE you are after X, location Y is the place to get it, Y is a hotspot that you will constantly be going to to get X. Sandbox mentality, location Y might be the best spot for X today, Z is tomorrow, K the next day. In general your best strategy would be to check your own back yard first, as the world is in constant flux caused by a mixture of players actions and time. Situations where you actually know exactly where you are headed, will most likely be the exception not the rule.

Goblin Squad Member

I personaly think circumventing the difficulties of travel (i.e. implimenting instant teleportation) would HUGELY detract from some of the gameplay elements that can develop in a sandbox game like PFO.

Themepark games need to rely on gimmicks like insta-travel because the landscape and content within a specific region are completely STATIC. Thus the ONLY way players have to experience something different and new (i.e. not get bored) is by adding in new a different areas that players can access. The same dynamic need not exist in PFO, since game-play within an existing region will hopefully be quite dynamic.

Instead, players should be encouraged to pick a "home-base" where they plan to conduct most of thier play out of and in surrounding areas......travel to distant areas should be considered a moderately big deal and something which is purposefully planned with consequences accordingly.

Thus the act of long distance travel becomes an adventure and a gameplay element in and of itself...not just another (yawn) UI element to be clicked at the players convenience.

That said, I don't mind the existance of some temporary gates/portals or fast travel routes from fixed point to fixed point, IF GW feels they need them to add a little more variety to thier initial map. As long as those points are the exception not the rule as far as travel goes. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:


That said, I don't mind the existance of some temporary gates/portals or fast travel routes from fixed point to fixed point, IF GW feels they need them to add a little more variety to thier initial map. As long as those points are the exception not the rule as far as travel goes. YMMV.

I also agree with this point, though it is also a secondary challenge as far as not turning these into choke points etc... I suppose it could be done with multiple gates, but each one having their own set destination. IE 5 gates on one side, 5 gates on the other, and 5 gates on the other side, but to avoid them being used as insta travel (IE jump out and back) they also need to be specifically set to one spot, IE A in zone one to A in zone 2. Players can not be allowed to go to A in zone 1, to A in zone 2 and hop back in and get to B in zone 1.

Though I do have to wonder, what type of areas would said gates give... I'm not an expert on the river kingdoms, but in an area the size of main, I see that as huge in terms of development, but rather small in terms of global factors. I can't really fathom say a hot desert to the south and a cold mountain range to the north.

Goblin Squad Member

I think there's a huge difference between "circumventing the difficulties of travel (i.e. implimenting instant teleportation)" generally in the main map, and doing so between main maps.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon - seems obvious to me too.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with some of the statements about instant travel. I think that mass implementation of fast travel in MMO's ruined a lot of games. I miss the adventure of having to travel. Instant travel and other things added for "convenience" in a game make the game seem much smaller than it actually is. People may like the option of being able to go somewhere fast, but it eventually spoils them.
In everquest the Spires of Luclin weren't as bad, because they were on 30 minute timers and you could get killed by other players while you were waiting for a spire, though it was seriously pushing it, unfortunately they had to add it unless they were just going to put in one access route to the moon. However the plane of knowledge comletely ruined that game.

Goblin Squad Member

One significant feature that gates could allow for is the earlier access to a more varied terrain and environmental detail. I love the forest as much as the next guy, but in the first 4 seconds after I gatecrash to a rocky desert I'm going to be in pure visual bliss just from the variety.

Additionally there's plenty of justification in the lore for such gates, even besides the obvious implications for gameplay. Personally, I like the idea to go from major zone to zone rapidly, as any other option is just punishing. I've traveled in the real world, significant distances (6-7k miles in less than a week), and after an hour of following curves at my computer, I'll pretty much just get up and walk away. It doesn't add anything fun, and although it is more "immersive" that also means its more painful and punishing.

At the tabletop you can abstract a ton of things into a few dice rolls and 15-30 minutes of interaction. An MMO is realtime, and has different ramifications for the player.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:


This only makes sense if logicistics are going to play a meaningful role in the game... which it seems like it will. I get the impression Hudax doesn't want to deal with the timesink involved in normal travel and Ryan is looking for a way to create and maintain interesting content while not having to develop everything from point A to Z.

I think that word journalists like to use in warzones, "embedded" comes to mind: If travel is real logistical and security concern, every player is embedded somewhere in the map in their corner of the action. That is very atmospheric and prevents the world becoming trivialized (see flying pets in wow).

The Romans were famed for their Roman roads for good reason (nice and straight!) and can be appreciated still to this day with modern roads using them with tarmac now. :)

That "Hang'em high! clip" reminds me of the importance of horses in transport in the Wild West and the swift application of local rules for transgressors in a territory!


Obakararuir wrote:
I get the impression Hudax doesn't want to deal with the timesink involved in normal travel

You have the wrong impression then.

There needs to be a clear distinction drawn between "destination" based play and "journey" based play. That distinction is NOT the same as distinguishing between a theme park and a sandbox. There was NOTHING sandboxy about EQ before the existence of the Plane of Knowledge and all the zone portals. The game wasn't even much bigger--buying a port from a wizard or druid was easy and didn't cost much. In fact, the ONLY thing PoK took away from EQ was easy money for wizards and druids.

The distinction is exactly the same as when people go shopping. People shop in two different ways. One is "destination" based--going to a specific store for a specific thing. The other is just walking around with money burning a hole in your pocket.

You can do both at the same time. You can start off doing one and end up doing the other. Because they're not exclusionary, they're COMPLEMENTARY.

AvenaOats wrote:
So if you decide to live in the North but your circle is established in the South, that's going to create headaches should be perfectly acceptable imo.

That's the crux of my argument actually. I'm NOT inexplicably choosing to live in the north, continents away from my settlement and friends. I'm ADVENTURING in the north! Doing exactly what Obakararuir wants! Meanwhile, my friends are doing the same, adventuring in the south and want me there. On a different map. Thousands of miles away. Suddenly I have a destination.

One way of designing travel allows me to play with them in a reasonable amount of time. Another does not. It's really that simple.

Goblin Squad Member

Hudax wrote:


That's the crux of my argument actually. I'm NOT inexplicably choosing to live in the north, continents away from my settlement and friends. I'm ADVENTURING in the north! Doing exactly what Obakararuir wants! Meanwhile, my friends are doing the same, adventuring in the south and want me there. On a different map. Thousands of miles away. Suddenly I have a destination.

One way of designing travel allows me to play with them in a reasonable amount of time. Another does not. It's really that simple.

So in your example you chose to inexplicably wander thousands of miles to the north for no apparent reason while your friends happened to wander thousands of miles to the south.... On the current map size we are hearing of, Now of course ignoring the detail of size assuming you were just being very general in exadurating, (the entire map for the starting game is 11x12 miles, assuming they multiply it by 10 we still are roughly 200 miles from the farthest NE to the furthest SW point).

Personally I am fine with a fast travel system that is roughly 30 minutes to move from any base to any other base, so long as they ensure potential for planned ambushes (as in the attacker has to actually have time to look and decide whether to ambush or not, not set up a magic interupter that cannot tell a soldier hauling manure from a diamond merchant). The other key thing is the time does need to be substantial enough that one can't simply spam it to move a huge amount of goods back and forth. I would say that could be a huge issue with any time under 5 minutes, a notable risk under 15 minutes, an improbable factor at 30 minutes, and down right ridiculous over an hour.

It has been a while since I read the quote exactly, I cannot remember for certain if ryan was reffering to the small map, or the longterm plans for the game when he gave the figure of about 30 minutes to get from one place to another.

Edit: After looking up the post, plus the context

Daniel Powel wrote:


How long do you think it should take to travel to a bank from the most remote location? Minutes, hours, or days?
Ryan Dancey wrote:


Minutes. Not more than a half-hour.
Ryan Dancey wrote:


There are variances in market values in EVE, where it takes less than a half-hour to get anywhere.

I would say that it isn't imposible that 30ish minutes could be a possible timeframe even for your hypothetical example in which you somehow wandered out of the river kingdoms all the way up to mendev.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the Fellowship of the Ring could have just 'ported to wherever Frodo was at any given moment, Tolkien could have finished the trilogy by the end of the first book. But maybe distance and time can make for a better adventure.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:
If the Fellowship of the Ring could have just 'ported to wherever Frodo was at any given moment, Tolkien could have finished the trilogy by the end of the first book. But maybe distance and time can make for a better adventure.

Indeed, not to mention the story pretty shortly after they introduced flying mounts, got hard to keep it worth playing after that.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
If the Fellowship of the Ring could have just 'ported to wherever Frodo was at any given moment, Tolkien could have finished the trilogy by the end of the first book. But maybe distance and time can make for a better adventure.

There is already a game for this type of IP, you may have heard of it.

The two opposing opinions have been pretty well made at this point; Some think its mean and irritating to force players to spend extraordinary amounts of time traveling long distances manually. Others think relocating over these dramatic distances is immersion breaking, cheapens the value of the underlying content/space and believe in the value of a slower experience. Given that any sort of Elf-gate, teleporter or "off the map" experience isn't going to be available anytime near to launch, its probably not much of an issue anyway.

That said, there are plenty of paradigms in normal PFO from the table that would allow for teleporting over dramatic distances, and at the same time we can all agree within the "small" scale of the current Crusader Road area, Fast Travel is fine, but Teleporty travel should be right out.

Goblin Squad Member

I think if you are able to cast teleport you get it. I also think it should follow the rules outlined in the book. But, that's just my opinion.

Goblin Squad Member

The way I see travel across a map is what end of the scale do you deem approximates the PFO world.

One way perhaps is if movement rate is contextual and reduced over certain terrain and increased (or fast travel actively possible) over other types? So field is normal, woods is half, mountains 1/4 and roads x2 for eg?

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
So in your example you chose to inexplicably wander thousands of miles to the north for no apparent reason while your friends happened to wander thousands of miles to the south....

Or, maybe he makes new friends who are on the other side of the world?

Is that a good enough reason that you'll allow him to have a different opinion?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Onishi wrote:
So in your example you chose to inexplicably wander thousands of miles to the north for no apparent reason while your friends happened to wander thousands of miles to the south....

Or, maybe he makes new friends who are on the other side of the world?

Is that a good enough reason that you'll allow him to have a different opinion?

I wasn't intending to criticize him for having an opinion, but I have a tendency to point out holes in logic as well as poke minor humor at overstatements. Assuming ~30 minutes or less of travel, should be enough for 99% of situations, possibly longer if hauling carts etc... I was actually supporting a shorter point than the who cares if 3 hours to go to the far ends philosophy that was prior in the thread, leaning towards a meeting in the middle.

I certainly didn't intend for it to sound like I was stating he wasn't entitled to an opinion. Simply looking for a point that actually does work.

At less than 30 minutes to get to your friends, that isn't a huge hinderance to any game-play mechanic. It is a reasonable amount of time to meet up with friends, doesn't bypass ambushes, can't really be abused for either PVP or PVE scenarios where travel time is intended to be a difficulty. Instant travel on the other hand, is an entirely different level of can of worms, and the scenerios where ~30 minute travel time would not work, but instant would be needed for, are rather few and far between.

Kryzbyn wrote:


I think if you are able to cast teleport you get it. I also think it should follow the rules outlined in the book. But, that's just my opinion.

This statement I mostly agree with, in that pretty much anything recognizable as teleport in pathfinder tabletop, would be very game breaking in an open PVP game in which resources are valued. In the sense that the game would probably be far better off not trying to offer to the players any skill with the name teleport.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I think there's a huge difference between "circumventing the difficulties of travel (i.e. implimenting instant teleportation)" generally in the main map, and doing so between main maps.

If I am going between maps I wouldn't consider them "main" maps. They are secondary or tertiary depending on the interface.

The way I interpret what is written, the River Kingdoms will be topographically displayed on the main map. Secondary maps will include the map of the Crusader Road and like areas. Tertiary maps would be of individual hexes.

If we are only going to be using the River Kingdoms, why would there be more than one main map?

If the River Kingdoms is going to be broken down by regional "main" maps and quick travel is going to be implemented at that level, players will be "quick traveling" everywhere. What is the point of acquiring hexes if you have to establish a column or rank in order to prevent being circumvented? For a game that is suppose to have us drive the story, all that does is make it even easier to avoid player interaction.

So once the assassin has done his job, he just quick travels around enemy territory until things cool down.

I think there is a big difference between someone stealing my car or my identity... either way it still sucks. It doesn't matter what level insta-travel is implemented in, it's theme-parkish and will detract from the game.

Case and point.

Nihimon wrote:

Or, maybe he makes new friends who are on the other side of the world?

Is that a good enough reason that you'll allow him to have a different opinion?

He can have a different opinion all he wants, but when he and 100 of his buddies in the north decide to visit new friends in the south, that's when I have a problem.

You see, me and a few of the CDC crew are held up in a fort fending off his "new friends" and right now we've got the edge... barely. His back up is already traveling at 4x. They are going to get here soon enough. They need to hit every single random encounter that they SHOULD hit. From point A to Z, they should not get a break... I sure in the hell am not. I can't auto-pilot when I'm under seige, not if I want to have a fighting chance. Is this hypothetical scenario somewhat worst case? Yes.

If I'm way off the mark, then please, tell me and break it down barney style, because it clearly isn't all that "obvious" for me and a few other people. Otherwise, we would all be on the bandwagon. I mean it's not like we would object to something we thought would help make the game better as opposed to worse.

Goblin Squad Member

Hudax wrote:
I'm ADVENTURING in the north! Doing exactly what Obakararuir wants! Meanwhile, my friends are doing the same, adventuring in the south and want me there.

That's right... you do what I want and your friends too. You and them doing what I want. Hey, at least I have it in writing although I don't think it will stand up in court :)

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
This statement I mostly agree with, in that pretty much anything recognizable as teleport in pathfinder tabletop, would be very game breaking in an open PVP game in which resources are valued. In the sense that the game would probably be far better off not trying to offer to the players any skill with the name teleport.

AS long as everything that prevents it in the table top like dimensional anchor is also available in PFO, it would work.

Goblin Squad Member

Kryzbyn wrote:
Onishi wrote:
This statement I mostly agree with, in that pretty much anything recognizable as teleport in pathfinder tabletop, would be very game breaking in an open PVP game in which resources are valued. In the sense that the game would probably be far better off not trying to offer to the players any skill with the name teleport.
AS long as everything that prevents it in the table top like dimensional anchor is also available in PFO, it would work.

How does dimmension anchor, allow any risk in teleporting from friendly town one, past wilderness/hangout, into safe ally 2 on the south side. As written in core, this is implying the ambushers within line of sight of the person teleporting, vs along the path such as ambushes from hideouts are designed. As written dimension anchor solves 0 problems, does it prevent say 5 wizards from bringing in parties past your defenses at once? As well as immidiately returning to every battle after dying once, IE extra lives. Does it balance risk/reward for goods transportation? Dimmension anchor solves a problem that hasn't even been brought up, which is people who want to teleport away AFTER being attacked, it does not solve people who want to ensure they are never attack-able, or people who want to lead an attack.

Now hypothetically lets make up a spell that pops people out of teleport by casting it in advance. The issue with this, is it takes away every part of choice in targets that an ambusher would need to differentiate whether it is actually a good idea or a horrible idea to ambush this person.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:

The way I see travel across a map is what end of the scale do you deem approximates the PFO world.

One way perhaps is if movement rate is contextual and reduced over certain terrain and increased (or fast travel actively possible) over other types? So field is normal, woods is half, mountains 1/4 and roads x2 for eg?

To extend this thought, a horse might x4 speed on road (aka fast travel), x2 on fields, 1/4 in woods and impassable in moutains 0. Likewise a Ranger might become x1 normal (or x2 even) in woods compared to the standard x1/2 movement rate?

That seems a reasonable way to make the map "PROPORTIONALLY" explorable. Ie map in distance looks like:

12x11 miles

map in actual movement rate looks like:

Eg Highway = x2 or x4 (horse) speed == x1/2; x1/4 minutes
Eg Woods = x1/2 or x1/4 (horse) speed == x2; x4 minutes to the base speed or duration.

Ie different geographical features if it's a map of speed/time would appear larger smaller if drawn this way.

====

Hudax wrote:
Thousands of miles away. Suddenly I have a destination.

Yes. But '000's =/= .0 or 0 of a mile(s).

I certainly think there should be an infrastructure option of fast travel eg Caravan or Ship (or bloody ritual to open the warp gates) down that river in the West... but it should still be

1) Costly
2) Duration proportional to distance
3) Duress (ie ambush, waylay chance etc)
4) Limitation of destinations A->B in suitable routes

So it's do-able but it's still a physical reality much like a Mountain Range or something. I think a map approximates a world much better if the distances to explore mean this travel has the distinction between a A journey (known to known) and an B expedition (known to unknown).

If A is too prevalent there is no or little B. So it's a question of how much A is convenient but leaves enough room for B, imo.

101 to 150 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: RESPECT: Find Out What It Means to Me! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.