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


Pathfinder Online

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

Hudax wrote:


Maybe the ire toward teleportation isn't so much its existence as it is that people might be able to do it safely.

The safety is a huge part for me still about 75%, and I still have a huge problem with the mechanics of a teleport interupt, because it still is virtually useless for an ambusher. A large part of ambushing is picking your battles. A proposal is kind of needed to permit something similar to how hideouts trigger. IE the ambusher in the case of hideouts picks his battles and isn't forced to break the fast travel of an extremely powerful opponent with nothing of worth.

So do you have a proposal of any kind for how such can actually be implimented, without a guarantee to make the wrong enemies? The thing of banditry/piracy in most games, is picking the right targets is critical. Many guilds etc... can defend themselves simply by having a strong reputation of hunting down and killing people who have attacked their members.

PVP /assaults etc... is still another huge factor, namely the idea of being able to rapidly return to the scene of the battle after being killed.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Hudax wrote:


Maybe the ire toward teleportation isn't so much its existence as it is that people might be able to do it safely.

The safety is a huge part for me still about 75%, and I still have a huge problem with the mechanics of a teleport interupt, because it still is virtually useless for an ambusher. A large part of ambushing is picking your battles. A proposal is kind of needed to permit something similar to how hideouts trigger. IE the ambusher in the case of hideouts picks his battles and isn't forced to break the fast travel of an extremely powerful opponent with nothing of worth.

So do you have a proposal of any kind for how such can actually be implimented, without a guarantee to make the wrong enemies? The thing of banditry/piracy in most games, is picking the right targets is critical. Many guilds etc... can defend themselves simply by having a strong reputation of hunting down and killing people who have attacked their members.

PVP /assaults etc... is still another huge factor, namely the idea of being able to rapidly return to the scene of the battle after being killed.

I'm more familiar with Warhammer fantasy rpg than PF and that's colored my perception of magic. So I always tend to end up thinking of "big" magics as 1. costly 2. dangerous 3. high-level only 4. possibly forbidden and 5. potentially requiring several wizards for truly potent spells.

I'd think of teleportation certainly over distance to be categorized in the above. Obviously this is PF so maybe it works differently, but I'd suggest the above is a natural "fit" for mmorpg.

Then comes the problem if it's vanishingly useful/frequent, why bother including it all?

Demon summoning, teleporting groups, passing through different planes from the material ones, lots could go wrong is a good choice:

1. Material plane of travel: Long, slow but steady (& safer) (higher frequency of bandits (lower level hazard)

VS

2. Magical plane of travel: Short-cut, fast but more dangerous (& risky) (lower frequency of bandits but higher risk of high level hazard eg demon eating a character's soul...) ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Teleport should be the equivalent of EVE system jumping with capital ships, only on a grand scale and it should cost a lot so it won't become the standard way of traveling.

Warder

Goblin Squad Member

I don't see teleporting as inherently bad - as Blackwarder noted it exists in EVE. IT should be noted in EVE that teleporting (jumping) leaves a ship weakened immediately afterwards, which limits it offensively. (i.e. you shouldn't teleport into melee). There's also magic to defend against teleport (A-M field, dimensional anchor, etc...)

I'm also looking at the PF SRD for teleport. As most of us are aware, teleport (not greater teleport) carries with it some serious error that could make it... interesting to use. Specifically the whole "very familiar - seen once" spectrum. I expect "very familiar" to be places like your home settlement, where you collect resources frequently, etc... places you can completely visualize in your head. Mechanically, you can think of this as an in-game tracker of where you were. If you've spent 90% of the previous day at home, then that is very familiar. If you want to be fancy, you can add it a decay modifier (places you haven't seen in awhile are less familiar) as well as have the game count time you're logged off. (If you want to be able to teleport somewhere, log out there for a day). I'd probably keep your home settlement as a permanent "very familiar".
The real risk comes in with the Off-target (and I'd fold similar area into off-target for ease of coding). At "viewed once" you have a 25% chance of winding up some distance away from your target in a random direction. The distance is a percent of your original travelling distance.
Which means that if you want to travel 200 miles to land in the safe zone of the "Valley of Bloody Adventurer Corpses" and miss - you could miss by as much as 200 miles! Very much the Doctor Who moment.

And then there's always this line

PFSRD said wrote:
You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. The clearer your mental image, the more likely the teleportation works. Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible.

which can be employed to keep PCs out of wherever the devs don't want them to teleport to. (or to kick the error percentage up to 50% or 75%)

So teleportation isn't a hinderance if implemented properly and as the river kingdoms expand will be quite useful for the higher level characters.

Goblin Squad Member

hewhocaves wrote:

I don't see teleporting as inherently bad - as Blackwarder noted it exists in EVE. IT should be noted in EVE that teleporting (jumping) leaves a ship weakened immediately afterwards, which limits it offensively. (i.e. you shouldn't teleport into melee). There's also magic to defend against teleport (A-M field, dimensional anchor, etc...)

Fully agreed there I'm not opposed to it's mere existance, I simply think it's actual uses need to be figured out. Come up with what we intend it to be used for, and figure out how to balance it to be used for the intended purposes, and less likely to be used for undesirable purposes.

Quote:


I'm also looking at the PF SRD for teleport. As most of us are aware, teleport (not greater teleport) carries with it some serious error that could make it... interesting to use. Specifically the whole "very familiar - seen once" spectrum. I expect "very familiar" to be places like your home settlement, where you collect resources frequently, etc... places you can completely visualize in your head. Mechanically, you can think of this as an in-game tracker of where you were. If you've spent 90% of the previous day at home, then that is very familiar.

This is a spot I greatly disapprove of the idea of it in general, namely that it completely trivializes resource collection and transportation. IE it eliminates any chance of ambush at all between where someone is getting the most valuble goods, and where they secure them. IMO that is hugely endangering to the economy and a great risk to a very large portion of the general balance of resource collection, and more or less negating the entire concept of hideouts.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I don't believe that cheap teleportation from unimproved locations will be seriously considered by the development team.

For these purposes, "cheap" means that the cost is easily met by the largest group.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:


This is a spot I greatly disapprove of the idea of it in general, namely that it completely trivializes resource collection and transportation. IE it eliminates any chance of ambush at all between where someone is getting the most valuble goods, and where they secure them. IMO that is hugely endangering to the economy and a great risk to a very large portion of the general balance of resource collection, and more or less negating the entire concept of hideouts.

See, I just don't see that as happening - what with a 25% chance per teleport of missing wildly (on the order of several miles). Now granted that I'm assuming the really good resources have monsters guarding the approaches , etc.

I should have clarified - when I said resources, I meant the mundane things. Not the vein of mithril.

I also think that it's more dangerous for the person 'porting in - namely that if there's a slight cool-off period where they are disoriented - they can get sneak attacked and killed fairly easily. As a mage, I would never 'port in right to the mithril seam. I'd port in a mile away and set up all my defenses and then advance to the resource.

And again, if telport is put into the game, I fully expect there to be counter-measures put in as well. These measures would be both environmental AND there would me countermeasures that PCs could install for purposes of ambushing.

And yes, I think that's all very kosher from a 'sandbox' MMO point of view. While I am very pro-magic, I also am very pro "traps, tricks and countermeasures to minimize magic". Its all part of the magical arms race.

Goblin Squad Member

Fast travel as Ryan wrote works just fine, especially with the ability to pull people out of fast travel(also if you would have the ability to end your own fast travel in the middle), that can be dealt with. It would be instant travel that would seriously wreak havoc on the game.

Goblin Squad Member

hewhocaves wrote:
Onishi wrote:


This is a spot I greatly disapprove of the idea of it in general, namely that it completely trivializes resource collection and transportation. IE it eliminates any chance of ambush at all between where someone is getting the most valuble goods, and where they secure them. IMO that is hugely endangering to the economy and a great risk to a very large portion of the general balance of resource collection, and more or less negating the entire concept of hideouts.

See, I just don't see that as happening - what with a 25% chance per teleport of missing wildly (on the order of several miles). Now granted that I'm assuming the really good resources have monsters guarding the approaches , etc.

I should have clarified - when I said resources, I meant the mundane things. Not the vein of mithril.

I also think that it's more dangerous for the person 'porting in - namely that if there's a slight cool-off period where they are disoriented - they can get sneak attacked and killed fairly easily. As a mage, I would never 'port in right to the mithril seam. I'd port in a mile away and set up all my defenses and then advance to the resource.

And again, if telport is put into the game, I fully expect there to be counter-measures put in as well. These measures would be both environmental AND there would me countermeasures that PCs could install for purposes of ambushing.

And yes, I think that's all very kosher from a 'sandbox' MMO point of view. While I am very pro-magic, I also am very pro "traps, tricks and countermeasures to minimize magic". Its all part of the magical arms race.

I think this is a bigger deal to me than I've actually so far realized in mmorpgs: Magic & Weapons.

Tangent on trivial combat in mmorpgs:
1st magic, in most mmorpgs or themeparks if you have played a few, the magic user is one of the tropes and you replace a long-range material attack such as bow and arrow with flaming fireball projective: They both do more or less the same thing eg AOE, DOT, STD (spike) etc... .

With magic the visuals give rise to great animations for the devs. However I find a lot of magic is really more like fireworks. It's nice looking but feels unmagical because it's so ubiquitous and namely trivialized: Too many hedge wizards?

2nd The similar situation to a lesser extent with normal weaponry.

So what I'm driving at is that the experience of using weapons and skills does feel too easily, despite nice visuals, of becoming ButtonA press skill + animation afterthought in my experience.

The reason I think this happens is many skills just boil down to using an energy resource &/or timer for skill use. The skills are intended to make a fight last a certain time to be entertaining for both players: not instant kill nor drawn-out grind.

It would be a nice departure to see weapons and magic have more meaning for eg the number of arrows for your bow, the amount of mana a wizard has spent on their last spell. Obviously aiming games add that dimension to the importance of each skill being used maximally.

So to come back to magic and teleportation, I think the big spells should be very big but sparingly used and teleportation would fit that category eg very useful for an attack to get maybe 10 ppl inside a settlement (that does not have a magical defense). So perhaps smaller spells could be less flashy, more utility-based? With a wizards role in combat to give a few super-normal moments to the teams? So lots of small indirect stuff plus a few big direct stuff?

TL;DR: Magic is more magical proportional to it's rarity.

As for weapons and skills to make these more impactful... if players have stamina/fatigue/ammunition to consider?


I unfortunately do not have time to read all 209 posts in this thread, Limited time at the library and this was the last thing on my list to do, lol. I apologize if this has been asked before, but yeah.

Is this alignment system going to have more incentives to keep characters in the good alignments, thus effectively punishing evil alignments? I know a lot of pragmatic choices have lead many of my GMs to shift my characters slowly along the evil alignments, then punish my decisions horribly. Despite claiming to maintain a balanced and fair, neutral based game, so I'm a little paranoid about that. Not to mention I've run across other online games that have some form of alignment system and 'evil' acts as defined by that world increasingly make the player isolated and alone (anything from decreasing the amount of healing received from clerics to being chased out of town you've never been in by the guards). So, yeah, a little paranoid about that. The lines of "Alignment will affect the kinds of religious services that the character can receive. Healing, restoration, and resurrection from some forms of death may require divine intervention." really made me uneasy, and indeed, the whole paragraph did.

I ask mainly because I like to play the intelligent, sort of Chess-Master kind of characters, as I've stated before elsewhere on the forum. They typically tend to try and go around for the greater good, but aren't afraid to set an entire village on fire if the enemy army has taken over and camped out in people's houses. I suspect in this alignment system I may find my main shifting ever so slowly over to LE or NE. Horribly, horribly concerned about effectively gimping myself for staying true to character type.

Beyond that, models look great, art looks awesome, loving the model of Seoni, detail's amazing, can't wait to see it colored :p.

Oh, one last question(s). Are the Crossblooded or Wildblooded archetypes going to be available at launch, or are they later? And are sorcerers going to be able to combine them? I'm really hoping I'll be able to play my Envenomed/Pestilence Sorc, probably the most fun character I've had mechanically at the table in years.

- Signed,
The unfortunate soul without the internet

Goblin Squad Member

@Artemis Moonstar - you should not have a harder or easier time playing the game regardless of your alignment. What you may find is that you have a harder or easier time grouping with the people you want to group with or going to the places you want to go based on your alignment.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:
@Artemis Moonstar - you should not have a harder or easier time playing the game regardless of your alignment. What you may find is that you have a harder or easier time grouping with the people you want to group with or going to the places you want to go based on your alignment.

And presumably that works both ways- you might have an easier time with some groups or locations being evil. Unfortunately I suspect that a lot of 'evil' players will choose evil characters and then try to justify their evil actions as being 'in character'. I'm hopeful that they will rapidly become the 'content' for players of good-aligned bounty hunters.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
@Artemis Moonstar - you should not have a harder or easier time playing the game regardless of your alignment. What you may find is that you have a harder or easier time grouping with the people you want to group with or going to the places you want to go based on your alignment.
And presumably that works both ways- you might have an easier time with some groups or locations being evil. Unfortunately I suspect that a lot of 'evil' players will choose evil characters and then try to justify their evil actions as being 'in character'. I'm hopeful that they will rapidly become the 'content' for players of good-aligned bounty hunters.

Just as I'm sure good, neutral and evil aligned characters will be content for evil characters. And that's just fine, imo. Claiming somehow that the person at the keyboard is an evil person for ignoring an arbitrary moral scale doesn't seem all that fairly judged.


I'd like to reiterate what I said in another thread:

It makes sense to alignment restrict parties, charter companies, etc., but I don't think it makes sense (from a gameplay perspective, from a roleplay perspective, or even from a REALISTIC perspective) to alignment restrict settlements/nations. Look at any city ever - whether in real life or in fiction - there are people of all walks in life, good and and bad, law-abiding and not in all of them.

It simply seems unrealistic and like it would take away from the ability of players to have meaningful interactions with each other if a city was somehow magically able to make sure there were absolutely no thieves or murderers and what have you within its walls.

Goblin Squad Member

Reliken wrote:

I'd like to reiterate what I said in another thread:

It makes sense to alignment restrict parties, charter companies, etc., but I don't think it makes sense (from a gameplay perspective, from a roleplay perspective, or even from a REALISTIC perspective) to alignment restrict settlements/nations. Look at any city ever - whether in real life or in fiction - there are people of all walks in life, good and and bad, law-abiding and not in all of them.

It simply seems unrealistic and like it would take away from the ability of players to have meaningful interactions with each other if a city was somehow magically able to make sure there were absolutely no thieves or murderers and what have you within its walls.

I took this to mean membership in what amounts to being the founding group in a settlement. Outside of some limited NBSI areas, the interaction is still possible and even likely - if the 'all but one' suggestion or my own suggestion for alignments is taken, it's quite possible that a player nation will have all alignments represented in its overall player population.

Keep in mind that hexes, compared to the overall size of major cities in the era, are actually kindof small. ~320 acres, 20 'visible' acres (at 1:4 scale the area is divided by 16). An extremely fertile farming settlement of this size might feed a population of a few hundred if it's nearly all given over to agriculture (assuming Golarion has a long agricultural tradition with associated high seed yield ratios). These are, in most cases, going to be the sorts towns or regions of towns where everyone knows everyone.

Extremely built-up capital settlements might be different, but some of these will have pressures against being NBSI areas.


Good to know if I find myself sliding down the alignment chart (as I suspect I will be, despite my usual attempts to play some form or neutral), I'm not going to find myself smashed with a Helldoken from angry guard mages just for showing up. If I ever get a better computer (my most 'advanced' one is my 6 year old Acer laptop ><), I may just have to give this game a try after all.

I'll probably definitely want to play when the Gunslinger and Dhampir become available to play (if they do)... Got a bounty hunter character concept I've been itching to play xD.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
But there needs to be a way for an evil character to assassinate a good target in a good location.

What about a good or neutral character doing this to an evil target? Why send an army if one man could potentially get the job done, or even a small group (reflecting something akin to special forces)? I would have a great personal investment in this, if it were possible.

Goblin Squad Member

Carlos Cabrera wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
But there needs to be a way for an evil character to assassinate a good target in a good location.
What about a good or neutral character doing this to an evil target? Why send an army if one man could potentially get the job done, or even a small group (reflecting something akin to special forces)? I would have a great personal investment in this, if it were possible.

Don't worry, there will be "evil" assassins who will make their services available to good people. If making a contract with us shifts your alignment, don't worry: we'll simply make informal contracts rather than use the in game system.

Here, have my card.

Goblin Squad Member

If killing is evil, do two wrongs make a right?

Goblin Squad Member

Killing isn't evil. And it takes three lefts to make a right...

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Nihimon wrote:
Killing isn't evil. And it takes three lefts to make a right...

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Does that mean it's right?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Does that mean it's right?

No, it's left, left, left!

Goblin Squad Member

/battonpass

Goblin Squad Member

/battondrop

*grumbles*

Goblin Squad Member

Carlos Cabrera wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
But there needs to be a way for an evil character to assassinate a good target in a good location.
What about a good or neutral character doing this to an evil target? Why send an army if one man could potentially get the job done, or even a small group (reflecting something akin to special forces)? I would have a great personal investment in this, if it were possible.

Carlos,

Ryan has indicated in the context of PFO, that assasination is not simply killing, but something more (presumably with supernatural overtones). Simple killing is not neccesarly "Evil" especialy dependant upon the context in Pathfinder. If it was then every Paladin who ever fought a group of orcs or evil cultists would loose thier powers.

However, Pathfinder is a setting with absolute alignments...and use of certain Supernatural powers, regardless of the context in which it is done, can be an act with aligns with "Evil". At least that's my take on how GW has presented the concept so far.

So you could probably be an "Agent" who specializes in covert operations (even including taking out enemies) and be neutral or good aligned... but "Assasins" who perform "assasinations" are Evil, period.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Here, have my card.

Bless your entertaining soul.

Or, may your enemies fall before the oven is done.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
So you could probably be an "Agent" who specializes in covert operations (even including taking out enemies) and be neutral or good aligned... but "Assasins" who perform "assasinations" are Evil, period.

Thanks Grumpy. This aligns with having to be evil to take the assassin prestige class, and that makes a whole lot of sense. As does the flavor of the upcoming Wrath of the Righteous AP, where the "good guys have had enough" feel they're going for.

Overall I'm fairly confident with the direction PFO is taking.

Also, I pride myself in achieving tasks in MMOs either below the recommended level or without optimized equipment. Part of it is roleplay, and part of it is enjoying playing against type.


Gregg Reece wrote:


You're also allowed to start out at a settlement that best matches your alignment. There is the chaotic settlement (Thornkeep) in the woods, the good settlement (Fort Riverwatch) in the north, and the lawful settlement (Fort Inevitable) in the south. So, any evil characters would likely be split between Fort Inevitable and Thornkeep depending on your variety of evil.

Fort Inevitable and Thornkeep will be bloated with conflict between good and evil; with both holding Neutral Evil and Neutral Good characters as well as their own permissive allowance of Good and Evil. Fort Inevitable will also have paladins who might gang together to oust Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil characters.

I understand why there's no Evil settlement to begin with -- after all, evil will want to lay low til they have power. Still, wouldn't it be an interesting expansion to have a Neutral community as well as Evil community?

201 to 229 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.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online