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

PaizoCon 2014!

Looting, and Salvaging, Intelligent and Yes, size should matter.


Pathfinder Online

201 to 236 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Another quick thought. Implementing auto subdual mode for newbie characters is another way of preventing/reducing griefing. As there is much less satisfaction if they can't destroy the majority of a persons inventory.

Goblin Squad Member

Unlikely to implement non-leathal damage.

Goblin Squad Member

Ravening wrote:
Another quick thought. Implementing auto subdual mode for newbie characters is another way of preventing/reducing griefing. As there is much less satisfaction if they can't destroy the majority of a persons inventory.

Maybe if there was a level or skill based system so that if you kill someone near your level, you get access to the normal loot, but if you kill someone far below yours, the selection is diminished or possibly even negated. The flip side is if you manage to take out someone higher than you, there are better rewards for the risk.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok so I just had another brainwave. Subdual mode could also be used as a part of awesome role-play. Imagine if once you’ve subdued a character you had the ability to move their body (aka kidnapping). Also imagine that if you took a subdued character to a special type of location (jail, dungeon etc.) that the character was bound to that location and automatically re-spawned there on login.

This would allow rivals (or player wardens) to capture and imprison each other and could be used as part of RP to simulate kidnapping, interrogation, jail, or something similar.

My only concern with having the ability to remove the subdued victim is the opportunity for griefing. They could be handled by writing a ticket to PFO customer services, or by only be allowed in the subdued victims agrees to it in an OOC context. So if you have a running rivalry with another gang or settlement, you might allow them to kidnap you for RP purposes. While you might decline the same offer if you’ve just been subdued by a random newbie.

Skills could also be developed in being an escape artist, which would allow you to escape the ‘jail’ but still leave you potentially in enemy territory.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Unlikely to implement non-leathal damage.

Bottom *sigh* a man can still dream I guess.

Goblin Squad Member

Ravening wrote:

Ok so I just had another brainwave. Subdual mode could also be used as a part of awesome role-play. Imagine if once you’ve subdued a character you had the ability to move their body (aka kidnapping). Also imagine that if you took a subdued character to a special type of location (jail, dungeon etc.) that the character was bound to that location and automatically re-spawned there on login.

IMO that leads to far worse griefing than taking someones gear. People learn quickly not to carry more than they can afford to lose. On the other hand, getting dragged into worse places, imprisoned etc for possibly hours outside of ones control, seems far more ripe of a griefing mechanic.

Quote:


This would allow rivals (or player wardens) to capture and imprison each other and could be used as part of RP to simulate kidnapping, interrogation, jail, or something similar.

My only concern with having the ability to remove the subdued victim is the opportunity for griefing. They could be handled by writing a ticket to PFO customer services, or by only be allowed in the subdued victims agrees to it in an OOC context. So if you have a running rivalry with another gang or settlement, you might allow them to kidnap you for RP purposes. While you might decline the same offer if you’ve just been subdued by a random newbie.

IMO all of the RP concepts can be dealt with 99% of the time with death.

Gear is only lost if you are looted. Meaning if you dueled in an arena, the players for both sides could very well agree to protect the corpse of the loser and not allow the gear to be looted, thus allowing the victim to recover his gear, and if the RP terms involved a prison etc... that could fully be accomplished.

Goblin Squad Member

@Onishi

Quote:
My only concern with having the ability to remove the subdued victim is the opportunity for griefing. They could be handled by writing a ticket to PFO customer services, or by only be allowed in the subdued victims agrees to it in an OOC context. So if you have a running rivalry with another gang or settlement, you might allow them to kidnap you for RP purposes. While you might decline the same offer if you’ve just been subdued by a random newbie.

I've played on NWN servers that were full PvP (and full looting) that had both lethal and non-lethal modes of attack. Non-lethal attacks were used the majority of the time, unless it was the final battle between rivals, after months and months of on-going hostilities. As a result of the final battle, the loser usually retired their character to simulate the final defeat.

Personally I feel death and losing most of your inventory as too harsh. The fact that Ryan disagrees with me, and has a different vision for PFO, doesn't put me off the game at all. I respect their right to make these types of decisions. I will play PFO, but if in the long run it doesn't suit my play style, I'll leave. Most likely my play style will adapt to the game, and I'll find ways of enjoying PFO even it isn't a perfect match for my style.

Goblin Squad Member

@Ravening: As Ryan mentioned ppl most likely just learn to estimate risk a lot better and therefore only lose what they are/were prepared to accept possibly losing every so often.

I hope it's possible for a bandit to put in the request: "Stand and deliver." before any serious looting needs occur!

Goblin Squad Member

Ravening wrote:


I've played on NWN servers that were full PvP (and full looting) that had both lethal and non-lethal modes of attack. Non-lethal attacks were used the majority of the time, unless it was the final battle between rivals, after months and months of on-going hostilities. As a result of the final battle, the loser usually retired their character to simulate the final defeat.

That works very well in a heavy roleplay community with a 100:1 or less GM/player ratio. But just a quick glance into the massive corpse campers in WoW, taking the time to grief with no personal gain involved, the mass hyjinx played in EVE, many of them with little more in mind than to prove a point etc... and of course entirely ignoring f2p accounts etc...

If we are talking a game that is intended to pass 100k players... I just can't imagine this as remotely feasible.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:


That works very well in a heavy roleplay community with a 100:1 or less GM/player ratio. But just a quick glance into the massive corpse campers in WoW, taking the time to grief with no personal gain involved, the mass hyjinx played in EVE, many of them with little more in mind than to prove a point etc... and of course entirely ignoring f2p accounts etc...

If we are talking a game that is intended to pass 100k players... I just can't imagine this as remotely feasible.

I completely understand that PFO is going to be very differnet (in both a positive and negative way) from what I've played previously, and I understand that the player base will be different from what I'm used.

I now undestand that it is unlikely PFO will implement non-lethal damage. I don't have to agree with it, but I accept it. And I'm still looking forward to playing PFO.


Ravening wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Unlikely to implement non-leathal damage.
Bottom *sigh* a man can still dream I guess.

The idea of non-lethal damage with some looting but not inventory destruction sounds good to me. It'd certainly allow for a wider range of semi-hostile interaction... although the difference would make lethal damage interaction substantially more offensive. I acknowledge the unlikelihood of this addition.

I think consensual non-lethal PvP (sparring/combat/military training) is a very valid feature to add, however (after all, it doesn't make sense for people to be killing each other in practice).

Example implementation: People in sight range can be invited to a spar by a host or those given privileges by the host. The host can determine how many parties there are if more than 2, move characters between them, and assign characters privileges to move characters around. The battle goes until one side is victorious, via all enemies knocked down or forfeit, or the host/someone ends it (and participants can leave at their own discretion). Players could also be invited by way of groups - for example, squad leaders/captains. Marshals would either ignore this or stand nearby keeping an eye out in case someone decides to actually kill somebody (the keeping an eye out could be exploited to have marshals extra close to dangerous situations though).

This would give players a fairly safe environment in which to spar and practice for PvP without substantial consequence. PvP is different than PvE, and encouraging players to be prepared for unwanted PvP experiences by giving them an avenue to do so seems like a great idea (Nobody wants to feel like 'I couldn't have prepared for this'). This would also allow for training for organized combat.

I suppose these latter things could be done without non-lethal damage, but it doesn't make sense for players to be killing each other over and over in practice. Organized preparation for war and combat seems completely in line with the spirit of the game.

With this in place, I could see players who are great at PvP and instructing others setting up combat schools for military and protection purposes: perhaps even giving certifications to players' reputations. A player could be certified as a mid-level effective combatant by Bob's Training School, and players in need of guards would be able to find that out, though they would also need to know if Bob's Training School is any good (or if they hand out certs to anyone who gives them coin). This could make hiring guards for important shipments less of a shot in the dark, without requiring the buildup of personal relationships. Perhaps the cert thing would be unnecessary with the reputation system already in place, but i like it.

(This is almost new-topic-material, but i'll put it here for now.)

Goblin Squad Member

"Performance" RPers will still be able to simulate non-lethal combat simply by agreeing to stop at 10% health.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon is correct. There are certainly ways to achieve pretty much the same goals with GW's proposed mechanics. Nothing says you have to keep fighting until you deliver the killing blow. If you've delivered alot of damage to someone you could simply stop attacking before you kill them. That would be a way to handle sparring or non-lethal duels...and as far as "gentleman bandit" types, it's a simple matter to say "Look the next couple blows will kill you, I don't want to do that, hand over 50 gold and I'll let you go on your way in peace." or something of the equivalent. Given that death and looting means the loss of a persons inventory, a fair number of people might be tempted to pay something to avoid that. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GrumpyMel wrote:
Nihimon is correct. There are certainly ways to achieve pretty much the same goals with GW's proposed mechanics. Nothing says you have to keep fighting until you deliver the killing blow. If you've delivered alot of damage to someone you could simply stop attacking before you kill them. That would be a way to handle sparring or non-lethal duels...and as far as "gentleman bandit" types, it's a simple matter to say "Look the next couple blows will kill you, I don't want to do that, hand over 50 gold and I'll let you go on your way in peace." or something of the equivalent. Given that death and looting means the loss of a persons inventory, a fair number of people might be tempted to pay something to avoid that. YMMV.

Agreed to that, though admitted it will depend quite a bit on combat speed and pace. Namely if there are no chat macros, IE you can expect it to take 2 seconds for a fast typist to say "Surrender now or I will kill you". and one person every 1.5 seconds dies in combat... obviously not a good system.

I do personally hope for was one discussed a long time ago, a surrender emote. Basically a very clear emote to show surrender that puts the person surrendering in a position he cannot fight back. The equivalent of in real life throwing your weapon across the floor (but of course without actually giving up the weapon). Something that lets the non-surrendered have the time and opportunity to state what they would like, without risking losing the fight while asking the demands.

Lantern Lodge

GrumpyMel wrote:

...I see it as a bit of "anti-ganking" mechanic. If you can loot everything a player is carrying ..

That is why I suggested each player only getting to select a few items, the rest stays on the body for someone else or my self to collect. Yeah a group could then atk a player but then they have to split the loot among their entire number which is far less profitable.

Making everything go poof is a great way to grief someone even if you don't get it all. Also during big battles dead players will have to take the time to restock before going out because their stuff will be gone, making the time to get back to group during a battle much longer.

Leaving the uncollected loot on the body relieves both of those issues, and maintains continuity (by avoiding non-sensical unexplainable events.)

Also the other part of the suggestion is to be able to select which first item you loot instead of randomly chosen (so if you had a nice weapon get looted you can reliably go get it back, by force if need be)

Lantern Lodge

I like that idea Onishi.

Goblin Squad Member

DarkLightHitomi wrote:


Also the other part of the suggestion is to be able to select which first item you loot instead of randomly chosen (so if you had a nice weapon get looted you can reliably go get it back, by force if need be)

There is a huge flaw in that one, it dosn't apply to weapons though (due to the fact that the power of weapons is most likely going to be in a crafted consumable (so they will kind of fade out of the ecnomy even if they were 100% looted every time. judging by ryan's last post. But towards anything that isn't consumable. The absolute best items, would pile up in the economy as they would be selected every time. The system in description mostly allows and encorages the best items to regularly disapear keeping the crafting harvesting and adventuring businesses working on getting more of the good stuff as well as the average and poor stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Leaving the uncollected loot on the body relieves both of those issues, and maintains continuity (by avoiding non-sensical unexplainable events.)

Isn't it a "non-sensical unexplainable event" that there is an item on that corpse at my feet that I can't loot, but that my buddy can.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Leaving the uncollected loot on the body relieves both of those issues, and maintains continuity (by avoiding non-sensical unexplainable events.)
Isn't it a "non-sensical unexplainable event" that there is an item on that corpse at my feet that I can't loot, but that my buddy can.

I also agree, the only system that leads to realism, is absolute full loot, which leads to worse gameplay problems (namely obtaining a full set of armor weaponry etc... for a single kill, sure as heck is more time efficient than having to earn each piece separately). As well as has a huge lacking of the ability to remove things from the economy longterm.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I generaly like realism....but lets face it, there's no "realism" in running back to your own corpse in the first place.... alot of your equipment would be wrecked beyond repair after no more then a couple combat encounters...and there would be a decent chance that even a small flesh wound would turn septic and kill you a week after to combat. Not to mention that a good portion of your forces would be falling victem to cholera or dysentry rather then the enemy ;)

At a certain point, realism needs to give way so you can end up with a good and fun game. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
... realism needs to give way so you can end up with a good and fun game.

A familiar refrain, and true enough on its merits - but it's not that black and white.

Instead of throwing any attempt at realism out the window, let's back away from the realism when and where fun is suffering directly because of it.

Goblin Squad Member

@GrumpyMel, Maybe some destroyed gear would be a better system than hordes of players killing everyone so they can loot everything you have.How important is gear going to be compared to your characters skills? If PVP is just going to be about trying to get someone's gear then the game will lack any depth to it. I agree with having a big death penalty but making the PVP about looting gear is lame, it should be for more strategic reasons like control of an area.

Goblin Squad Member

@Notmyrealname, Not sure why that was addressed to me, I support GW's currently proposed design that most of your stuff goes poof when someone other then you loots your corpse, they only get 1 or 2 random items from you.

Lantern Lodge

@notmyrealname - Well you either end up with gear being so useless that no one buys or you have that problem, all you can do is to minimaze the problem or just make gear nothing more then for looks.

@Nihimon - That is the point where compremise comes in. I agree with go grey somewhere in there, but also if you could select even 1 item then that doesn't seem so bad. Your buddy got it because you passed it up. And of course then you don't have to split what you looted with your buddy, he can loot his own share.

Also, there is no need to worry about permenent items because they all have durability. If they went with my idea, then looting an item could damage durability. Either way the item in question will reach 0 eventually.

The reason I think selecting first item is a good idea is because you can have couriers taking packages that get intercepted. Then a good courier might be able to track down the thief and get the pacakage back.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
"Performance" RPers will still be able to simulate non-lethal combat simply by agreeing to stop at 10% health.

I agree this is a great conecpt. However, it assumes we can actually tell what a players HP's are and that we can stop combat in time before we accidentally kill them. Not a huge deal I guess if it's consensual, as the downed player will respawn and then come back to his husk and get his inventory again.

The other thing to bear in mind, is if there is no sparring system them you'll only be able to simulate sparring in a player settlement. Accidentally kill a player near an NPC settlement and you'll get a short and painfull visit from a warden. Which would be quite amusing really :)

Goblin Squad Member

One possibly solution to the whole sparring duelling issue, is to tie it to a building. Such as a barracks, combat training ring etc. This would allow sparring and duelling with accidental death.

A similiar building option would be to build an arena. If players enter the 'ring' then the could choose between full pvp or sparring matches. Whatever the choice no warden would be summoned if a player was killed. You could also intergrate a soul-binding point to a part of the areana so players can respawn there.

Goblin Squad Member

If we have the ability to apply healing potions to other characters, and as long as the character that gets killed doesn't release their corpse, then we should be able to simply heal the person who got killed and say "Okay, you lost".

I would love to see a full system built up with tools to support Performance RP, but I don't expect it in PFO and I understand that it's not feasible given the budget goals.

Goblin Squad Member

Rafkin wrote:

Can we assume a spell component pouch is considered "in hand"?

If a wizard dies what happens to his familiar? Respawns too or do you have to go through the process of getting a new one?

Sorry about getting off topic.

I'm quoting this because I'd really, REALLY like to get an answer for it, as it was ignored back on Page 3.

What happens to a spell-component pouch, or your arcane bond, or your familiar, or Nethys-forbid your SPELLBOOK when you die?

Goblin Squad Member

Harrison wrote:
Rafkin wrote:

Can we assume a spell component pouch is considered "in hand"?

If a wizard dies what happens to his familiar? Respawns too or do you have to go through the process of getting a new one?

Sorry about getting off topic.

I'm quoting this because I'd really, REALLY like to get an answer for it, as it was ignored back on Page 3.

What happens to a spell-component pouch, or your arcane bond, or your familiar, or Nethys-forbid your SPELLBOOK when you die?

It's WIP aka Work In Progress: Ryan answered in context in this post: there's no way the above specific eg has been designed to that level of detail, but the concept IS explained and compared to eg EvE.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Harrison wrote:
Rafkin wrote:

Can we assume a spell component pouch is considered "in hand"?

If a wizard dies what happens to his familiar? Respawns too or do you have to go through the process of getting a new one?

Sorry about getting off topic.

I'm quoting this because I'd really, REALLY like to get an answer for it, as it was ignored back on Page 3.

What happens to a spell-component pouch, or your arcane bond, or your familiar, or Nethys-forbid your SPELLBOOK when you die?

Assuming that those things are implemented, I would treat them as analogs to those things that we can make analogies about. If spell component pouches are like weapons, then expect them to be treated the same as weapons; if they have effects similar to belts, expect them to be treated the same as belts.

Assuming familiars are implemented, I would guess that they would be treated in a manner similar to the way ranger pets or animal companions are implemented. I'm not sure how that would be at the moment...

Goblin Squad Member

@Harrison - too soon to tell.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
... too soon to tell.

I love language :)

This reminds me of an old SNL skit centered on the phrase "you can't stare at <x> too long...".

Does he mean "it's too soon for us at Goblinworks to be able to see that answer for ourselves", or does he mean "it's too soon for us at Goblinworks to tell you forum posters the decision we've already made"?

Not that it's important, I'm just a word nerd :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Theres also the thought of Wizards carry spellbooks witch are insainly valuble vrs sorcerers that use their bloodlines... Will wizards drop their spellbooks?

Not to mention a 50g silver symbol of your deity to cast divine spells vrs you keeping your 1g cleric vestment armore... I would rather be naked with a necklace.

There is also the thought of monks do not use weapons and wear next to nothing in armore will this mean it is more economicle to be a monk who needs nothing to go into battle? I don't want to nitpic on keep your weapon and armore but some classes will see this as an advantage to playing certin classes and might make an uneven playing field. You could say monks need special wrappings to fight bare-handed and wizards have silver soul cords around their books but we want this to be a REAL pathfinder experiance. You are rigth it will be fun to see how you figure out how to get around this.

Goblin Squad Member

Arlock Blackwind wrote:

Theres also the thought of Wizards carry spellbooks witch are insainly valuble vrs sorcerers that use their bloodlines... Will wizards drop their spellbooks?

Not to mention a 50g silver symbol of your deity to cast divine spells vrs you keeping your 1g cleric vestment armore... I would rather be naked with a necklace.

There is also the thought of monks do not use weapons and wear next to nothing in armore will this mean it is more economicle to be a monk who needs nothing to go into battle? I don't want to nitpic on keep your weapon and armore but some classes will see this as an advantage to playing certin classes and might make an uneven playing field. You could say monks need special wrappings to fight bare-handed and wizards have silver soul cords around their books but we want this to be a REAL pathfinder experiance. You are rigth it will be fun to see how you figure out how to get around this.

While I can't speak for Goblinworks, I would say for balance in an MMO in which wealth/level is not a set line, All classes pretty much have to be equally gear dependent. Monks are likely going to need gloves or something, Sorcerers will likely have some type of staff or something they need for their magic to be effective. A naked monk will have to be comperably ineffective to a naked fighter. Otherwise we will absolutely have huge issues of naked monk suicide attackers, who will just hope for one kill and run, and lose nothing on a failure.

From the descriptions of Goblinworks, the "Consumable portion" of weapons and possibly for armor gives a huge window for that. The weapons and armor themselves can't be dropped anyway, if the monk needs oils/magic dust, for his fists in the same way... it negates any imbalance at all.


Suicide attackers wouldn't need to be naked to lose nothing: being minimally armed (carrying what you can't drop) would be just the same. In that way if a weapon/armorless monk/caster is better than a weapon/armorless fighter its OK, because the fighter wouldn't have any reason not to wear a weapon/armor. They just need to be comparable at the "as well equipped as they don't drop on death" point, and beyond.

Nihimon brought up something interesting that I hadn't thought about: are killed players going to be revivable? Will this be difficult? *contemplates*

Goblin Squad Member

Waffleyone wrote:
Suicide attackers wouldn't need to be naked to lose nothing

Not required, but much more fun. Suicidal Nudists of the world unite!

Goblin Squad Member

Waffleyone wrote:

Suicide attackers wouldn't need to be naked to lose nothing: being minimally armed (carrying what you can't drop) would be just the same. In that way if a weapon/armorless monk/caster is better than a weapon/armorless fighter its OK, because the fighter wouldn't have any reason not to wear a weapon/armor. They just need to be comparable at the "as well equipped as they don't drop on death" point, and beyond.

Nihimon brought up something interesting that I hadn't thought about: are killed players going to be revivable? Will this be difficult? *contemplates*

I can't answer on difficulty in getting it, cost of casting etc... but according to the blog, yes.

Goblinworks Blog: To live and die in the river kingdoms wrote:


When your character dies, your corpse will turn into a soulless husk on the spot. At the moment of death, a timer will begin to count down giving you a minute or two before anything else happens. If a nearby friend has the necessary magic, you may be restored to life right on the spot without any further drawbacks. If you are alone, or have no companions capable of resurrecting you, you'll have to deal with the fallout.

201 to 236 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Looting, and Salvaging, Intelligent and Yes, size should matter. 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.