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!

Of Ropes, Torches, Axes, and common sense.


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

One thing that gets me about most MMOs is the jump factor and the wall of trees/ slightly steep hill factor.

How do you plan on handling explorability in that term?
Will there be instanced regions, with "walls" blocking you in between regions?
If you need to do a little mario action and jump up, can you lower a rope to party members below you?
Will your character be smart enough to climb or cut down a tree?

Will there be a darkness factor, where visibility will be determined by having a torch, and a race with dark vision would have a slight advantage, or even be blinded for, say, 5 seconds when going from darkness to light?
Will there be extinction factors, where over hunting a resource would cause it to a) no longer exist, or b) take longer to respawn?

Eager minds want to know.

Goblin Squad Member

Darkren wrote:

One thing that gets me about most MMOs is the jump factor and the wall of trees/ slightly steep hill factor.

How do you plan on handling explorability in that term?
Will there be instanced regions, with "walls" blocking you in between regions?

I believe they've said that they would like for regions to appear to be a seamless transition from one to the next, these statements were made before the decision of which middleware they were using, and I believe came with the disclaimer "If the middleware allows it"

Quote:


Will there be a darkness factor, where visibility will be determined by having a torch, and a race with dark vision would have a slight advantage, or even be blinded for, say, 5 seconds when going from darkness to light?

Someone KILL ME!!, sorry I'm guessing you weren't here durring the last few times this topic was beaten to death with a lead pipe, brought back to life, beaten to death again etc...


Darkren wrote:
Will there be extinction factors, where over hunting a resource would cause it to a) no longer exist, or b) take longer to respawn?

I like the idea of an extinction factor, but I would never want (in a game) to absolutely run out of a certain resource. For example, every time you cut down a tree you could gain several 'Sapling' or 'Seed' type items (multiple so it would be hard for a single person to cut down all the trees and be a barren wasteland) and could replant it.

Maybe have a forest grow back slower the more wood that is gone?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Onishi wrote:
Darkren wrote:


Will there be a darkness factor, where visibility will be determined by having a torch, and a race with dark vision would have a slight advantage, or even be blinded for, say, 5 seconds when going from darkness to light?

Someone KILL ME!!, sorry I'm guessing you weren't here durring the last few times this topic was beaten to death with a lead pipe, brought back to life, beaten to death again etc...

We need to find and destroy the phylactery of that topic soon!

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Onishi wrote:
Darkren wrote:


Will there be a darkness factor, where visibility will be determined by having a torch, and a race with dark vision would have a slight advantage, or even be blinded for, say, 5 seconds when going from darkness to light?

Someone KILL ME!!, sorry I'm guessing you weren't here durring the last few times this topic was beaten to death with a lead pipe, brought back to life, beaten to death again etc...

We need to find and destroy the phylactery of that topic soon!

Be that as it may, it does highlight something interesting: Limitations are can be as interesting as capacities (skills). But if players don't "agree" there's not much more to add to that line of thought!

I think simulating tree growth might be too granular a goal? There's details and there's loss of focus!


Quote:

Will there be a darkness factor, where visibility will be determined by having a torch, and a race with dark vision would have a slight advantage, or even be blinded for, say, 5 seconds when going from darkness to light?

Someone KILL ME!!, sorry I'm guessing you weren't here durring the last few times this topic was beaten to death with a lead pipe, brought back to life, beaten to death again etc...
>>>>>>

I read the thread a bit.
Too long, too many people throwing in their trash talk.

It was a question. Is that being considered to be included, or no?
For whatever reason. I understand that many games remove the darkness because of a simple game engine problem...
Too many light sources. Overloads the engine, creates lag and crashes.
So if it's not physically possible, cool.
If it is possible, and player base says no, no problem.
If it is possible, and they are doing it, well that's just peachy.

Goblin Squad Member

Darkren wrote:

Quote:

Will there be a darkness factor, where visibility will be determined by having a torch, and a race with dark vision would have a slight advantage, or even be blinded for, say, 5 seconds when going from darkness to light?

Someone KILL ME!!, sorry I'm guessing you weren't here durring the last few times this topic was beaten to death with a lead pipe, brought back to life, beaten to death again etc...
>>>>>>

I read the thread a bit.
Too long, too many people throwing in their trash talk.

It was a question. Is that being considered to be included, or no?
For whatever reason. I understand that many games remove the darkness because of a simple game engine problem...
Too many light sources. Overloads the engine, creates lag and crashes.
So if it's not physically possible, cool.
If it is possible, and player base says no, no problem.
If it is possible, and they are doing it, well that's just peachy.

Apologies, Darken, I asked the same Q re light/darkness - by "agree" (above) I was referring to some players who decide to cheat the game "rules" and bypass darkness and thereby lead to an exploit. Shame really, but c'est la vie with online gaming. Hope that clarifies why it's been asked (it's a cool feature) and why it does not go further (it's an easy exploit).

Goblin Squad Member

Darkren wrote:


It was a question. Is that being considered to be included, or no?
For whatever reason. I understand that many games remove the darkness because of a simple game engine problem...
Too many light sources. Overloads the engine, creates lag and crashes.
So if it's not physically possible, cool.
If it is possible, and player base says no, no problem.
If it is possible, and they are doing it, well that's just peachy.

Basically the TLDR version, is more or less that client hacking will almost certainly bypass it thus giving cheaters an undetectable unfair advantage, as a result it is better to not implement it at all and keep everyone on an even playing field.

"Ryan Dancey wrote:


Here's the one thing that means that darkness isn't worth building into a game design:

Players can easily run software that will render the surrounding areas as if lit. If a game actually shipped with "meaningful darkness", a player-built patch to remove it would be available within hours. Then the only people who would "suffer" from darkness would be the ones who are unwilling to "cheat", and the "cheaters" would have a huge advantage.

Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero could be done to stop this from happening. (Look up what happened when people figured out you could make the walls transparent in iD games if you're interested in the cat & mouse between developers and those wiling to cheat).

Did you know that World of Warcraft runs a hidden process on your machine that is designed to detect this kind of cheating? It's called "Warden" (you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_%28software%29

And even with this, people still hack the heck out of the WoW client.

Ask yourself if you really want Goblinworks to be that creepy, all for the un-achievable goal of making people have to worry about torches, lanterns and light spells.

After that it's a whole lot of bickering, people not wanting to accept that answer, people trying to figure out a way to encrypt data that a client could never counter, etc... etc...

After that the topic was revived in a very similar discussion on stealth mechanics

which pretty much went the same way

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Remember:

If your client knows where my character is, even if your client is told not to show you, enough people will cheat that being hidden is meaningless - and in fact the non-cheaters then play at a significant disadvantage.

Reasons your client might need to know where my character is:

* I have magical effects on me that affect you.
* You have magical effects on you that affect me.
* You run in to me and collide (or vice-versa).
* A pet you control can sense me (blindsight, scent, tremorsense, etc.)

Even stranger case: If there is a 3rd party involved who can see me, then that information can be passed to you and you will be able to know where I am as well. So being "hidden" needs to apply to every potential observer in the space, not just a subset.

You would have to know when I opened a door or triggered a trap, or attacked or was attacked by a PvE entity; all of which reveal my location.

In general, being "hidden" is an all-or-nothing proposition, where the server does not communicate any information about my position to your client, period. And when my "hidden" state ends, every client can access that information. Thus, as a game mechanic, its less than ideal and doesn't work the way people wish it would.

As a result of these threads, and probably another 3 or 4 variants of them that were created after them... that's why old timers like myself cringe every time we see someone say things that may fire up these arguements that went on waaay longer than they should.


Darkren wrote:
Will there be extinction factors, where over hunting a resource would cause it to a) no longer exist, or b) take longer to respawn?

The best way I can think of do this is a system where resources in an area are harvested less efficiently the more often they're gathered (and vice versa) compared to the average.

This avoids the problem of resource shortages/price inflation/the system becoming irrelevant as global player density shifts. It also adds minimal complexity to both design and players. From a design perspective, it requires keeping track of resources gathered from various areas and a few calculations. From a player perspective, it's "Man, these forests are really crowded! I'm only getting 30 logs per hour. My friend told me there's almost nobody logging near Townburg and he's getting 55 logs per hour. I'm going to go move there!".

This system adds an element of crowding inefficiency without making nodes hard to get/scarce, and scales with player density. *shrugs* it's a thought.

Darkren wrote:
Is that [darkness] being considered to be included, or no?

Short answer: No. Long answer: Rendering is client side, so players can hack to get around it, and it's not worth starting an unwinnable war against hackers for (which would be hard on honest players).


Nothing about tossing down ropes for part members in a dungeon, or climbing trees, or even walls?
Or spells like transmute rock to mud?


Or even polymorph into a bug and go into a crack in the wall ^.^
A personal favorite.

Goblin Squad Member

Nope, there's been very little in the way of details on utility spells or getting around in dungeons. Most likely that is a portion of the games mechanics that is so far from being planned out we won't know for a while.

Goblin Squad Member

Age of Wulan has some interesting z-axis movements ala crouching tiger, hidden dragon. I think climbing would be something I'd like to see. The old climb 5-10m (take a agility/dex test). Might be a nice option for evasion, infiltration, exploration, ambush, amusement etc...

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Darkren wrote:


Will there be a darkness factor, where visibility will be determined by having a torch, and a race with dark vision would have a slight advantage, or even be blinded for, say, 5 seconds when going from darkness to light?

Someone KILL ME!!, sorry I'm guessing you weren't here durring the last few times this topic was beaten to death with a lead pipe, brought back to life, beaten to death again etc...

What?!? No Darkness? Bah... =)

Waffleyone wrote:


Darkren wrote:
Is that [darkness] being considered to be included, or no?
Short answer: No. Long answer: Rendering is client side, so players can hack to get around it, and it's not worth starting an unwinnable war against hackers for (which would be hard on honest players).

So why not limit information the client has access to for rendering (or any purpose) to that the player should have? Seems to solve any number of design concerns and problems it raises can be overcome by prioritizing types of information when it does become available...I know, I know...impossible improbable implausible etc.

Just sayin...


@Darkren One of the great beauties of tabletop games is the realistically dynamic nature, which sadly doesn't translate well into video games. I expect areas will function to let you pass through spaces only in the ways explicitly intended. Climbing trees/walls/cutting down 'tree walls' tend to allow players to move in unpredictable and unintended ways. I expect spaces will intentionally attempt to constrain players (good design is successfully doing this without breaking immersion).

I like the idea of climbing type and other skills/mechanics allowing additional routes/possibilities of access. Imagine a spy has infiltrated a walled fort, throws ropes over the sides of the wall for a strike force to climb up, who then seize the gatehouse and let the army flood in.


Let's just skip the whole darkness thing.
Question has been answered.
You want to argue it, links have been provided to the other threads.


@ Waffley Ye.
Only recently came across this, and I keep reading that the designers want to work with the community, and want to make a sandbox, etc etc.

The thing about most MMOs that turns me off are those said walls.
Makes me feel like a cow being herded along.

It's my largest complaint about DDO.
DDO still has a INCREDIBLE combat system, and a decent trap system.
I'm hoping to see more of that here, with out the instanced city that everyone and their grandma seems to be interested in.

So I'm trying to get a feel for where things stand, and I'm finding it difficult to find the direct answers.

But I'm definitely started to get excited by what I'm hearing so far.

Seems the hardest part might be waiting out the 1 year, 5000 players max, "beta" test.
( I know, they don't want to call it beta.)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkren wrote:
... can you lower a rope to party members below you?

Throw me a rope, please!

DeciusBrutus wrote:
We need to find and destroy the phylactery of that topic soon!

You'd probably be better understood these days if you used "horcrux" instead of "phylactery" :)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:


You'd probably be better understood these days if you used "horcrux" instead of "phylactery" :)

Meh this is a paizo forum, jokes referring to tabletop games, shouldn't be that obscure.

Goblin Squad Member

Darkren wrote:


How do you plan on handling explorability in that term?

You'll find things you can't climb. Its an aesthetic way to create a fence.

Quote:


Will there be instanced regions, with "walls" blocking you in between regions?

Very likely.

Quote:
If you need to do a little mario action and jump up, can you lower a rope to party members below you?

That would be cool. Until Rings of Flying become commonplace. Then it's irrelevant.

An interesting design balance question. Will have to be determined much later in development.

Quote:
Will your character be smart enough to climb or cut down a tree?

Unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. If possible, all the cuttable trees would be gone almost instantly, so that's a lot of engineering and art that would be wasted.

But I could see a mechanic where as you harvested a forest the trees fell. As long as we could also accept that huge fully grown trees would reappear in a matter of hours so whomever comes along behind you could cut them down too.

<5% chance, by my reckoning.

Quote:
Will there be a darkness factor, where visibility will be determined by having a torch, and a race with dark vision would have a slight advantage, or even be blinded for, say, 5 seconds when going from darkness to light?

Likely. But we'll assume that you (the player) can always see everything and have perfect knowledge of your environment. So it would be an optical effect for your amusement, not a game mechanic.

Quote:


Will there be extinction factors, where over hunting a resource would cause it to a) no longer exist, or b) take longer to respawn?

There will almost certainly be effects from harvesting, clearing areas of monsters, etc. "No longer exist" isn't fun, is a waste of engineering and art resources, and leaves nothing for other players. So that won't happen.

But there will be effects. Those effects will be persistent.

RyanD


Thanks for the specific and direct feedback ^>^

One point though.
As rings of flying become common place, so do antimagic zones.

A enterprising player killer could wait for someone to come flying by way up in the sky, zap him/her with antimagic, and laugh as they fall.

Also, strong wind gusts make flying difficult/dangerous

Just saying. Fly is only a level 3 spell in 3rd edition Dnd.

Meaning people have 6 spell levels to figure out how to break it.

Goblin Squad Member

Flying makes platforming gameplay in an MMO lame.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Flying makes platforming gameplay in an MMO lame.

I wasn't aware that platform gameplay in an MMO needed any help...

Back on topic, how do you propose that there will be effects which are significant and persistent, but not to the scale of making a viable harvesting location not a viable harvesting location, nor of making an area which contains monsters not an area which contains monsters?

Are you perhaps taking about a system where the Tragedy of the Commons comes into play (e.g. as each player harvests more, they personally get more but after some point the total that everyone gets starts dropping; the limit as everyone approaches infinite effort for zero output is the Nash equilibrium.)? Given the right information to make informed decisions regarding harvesting, that would provide a very strong incentive to groups to control resource sources and protect them from poaching; those groups would get all of the maximum output from those sources, while any combination of groups that failed to manage the resource as well would total less output.

I see one style of management 'control a small number of nodes and balance them for maximum output' conflicting not only with the similar style 'Control a large number of nodes and keep them slightly overexpended to reduce their value to invaders', as well as the different style 'Quickly move on rich nodes, dig them until they peter out, then move on to other rich nodes.'

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:


I see one style of management 'control a small number of nodes and balance them for maximum output' conflicting not only with the similar style 'Control a large number of nodes and keep them slightly overexpended to reduce their value to invaders', as well as the different style 'Quickly move on rich nodes, dig them until they peter out, then move on to other rich nodes.'

Personally one of my preffered systems for such was in a web based game called pardus. Basically every space was a resource node, general open space was fuel, then there were energy tiles, nebula gas etc...

They generally all start and max out at 500, when they are at 500 each attempt to harvest from them gave about 30-75 depending on your harvesting skill and limited by cargo space, as it is still over 350 or so, it pretty much regens back to 500 overnight, If it is harvested down to 200ish, it generally only would come back up to 275ish overnight (and it takes more work to harvest from it, only giving about 15-30 per harvesting action), if it drops down to the lower hundreds, you get very little out of it, and it's pretty much only going to go up by about 20 in a night, strip it down below 20, and it is more or less weeks before it gets into viable to harvest reaches. Most locations had a law of what they defined as stripmining, IE they had a line drawn in the sand of which people should not harvest resources below.

Of course in pardus the general flaws were in the way the game is viewed, it was a web based game, you couldn't really see much of what others are doing etc... Actually seeing a ship passing by was an extreme improbability, and then actually knowing if he is the one gathering is imposible. Stripmining in that game was a very viable war tactic. In the game I agree that it should be a war tactic, I disagree with the extent of undetectability it has for the damage it causes.

PFO I would absolutely be in favor of a system like that, it gives people a tangible reason to protect and not want outsiders harvesting claimed nodes etc... Now obviously the resources in high sec, can't be subjected to that (or they can be so rapidly regrowing that it is irrelevant). Due to the obvious lack of ways to secure and fight over existing nodes. But for scarcer more valuble resources out in the middle of nowhere, a system in which taking too much, slows the progress of what is available tommorow is a logical system.

It could even be done as sort of an all or nothing sort, IE harvesting too fast, the mine caves in, then you've got X amount of time of just clearing rubble before you can gain resources again etc... You can set the speed of harvesting, and the NPCs focusing on structural integrity etc... to either focus on speed or safety and effecting the odds of cave ins etc....

Goblin Squad Member

A simple example - and not one I'd say will actually be in the game, is that the more ants you kill, the more powerful the ants become. You never rid the area of ants but you persistently change their threat level.

An easy iteration on this is that ants which remain unskilled slowly decay back to baseline so that if you leave the area alone things will revert to the original state - your persistent effect was transitory.

Another easy iteration is that you kill all the ants in an area and they stop spawning there, but start spawning in a new area where there were no previous ants.

Another could be that if you kill all the ants, the area starts spawning dragonflies - a monster with different types of attacks and defenses.

There are meta effects. Killing a lot of ants might let you flood a market with anthide crashing its value and wiping out the asset value of a competitor who couldn't liquidate fast enough.

NPCs with ant-related quests might leave the area - no ants to fulfil them, or enough ant-related mayhem and harvesting completed to satisfy them.

Your reputation as an ant-slayer could impact your relationships with others. Formian characters might despise you as a baseline reaction. Lawful neutral NPCs might wonder what was wrong with you, while chaotic good NPCs offer to buy you drinks and share interesting rumors.

And so on.


Its clear the GW team has some good stuff in store for us in that vein! It will be very exciting to see what kind of systems end up in the game. Thanks for the response!

Goblin Squad Member

Sounds good. A nice middle ground between "wanting to feel like I have an effect on the world" and "not wanting to feel like I'm playing a different game every few weeks."

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
That would be cool. Until Rings of Flying become commonplace. Then it's irrelevant.

Wait... are rings of flying EVER going to be commonplace? I don't know. While I think implementing flying in this game is a good, and cool idea, I think once it becomes commonplace the novelty wears off quickly.

I would like to see a system where flying is something you do on rare occasions, or that you invest a lot of effort into learning/it has serious drawbacks.

Having some air support in most major battles sounds fun. Having every major battle take place with the whole damn army in the air sounds lame to be honest.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every time you write this:

Quote:
I would like to see a system where XXX is something you do on rare occasions

You make a puppy cry. That's single-player thinking, not MMO thinking.

Goblin Squad Member

Scratch that then. I wouldn't like to see flying in this game. This is Pathfinder not Aion. I've never played a campaign where we flew the whole time.

I think it would be a great thing to have sprinkled into the game in limited amounts but if anything not done every moment you're logged in is single player thinking, then I wouldn't waste your time on it.

The whole point of flying is it is the lifting of a restriction that is usually on us. The lifting of that restriction gives freedom, and a sense of thrill. It's like giving a wheelchair bound kid properly working legs for a while, it will blow their minds and they will love it.

But if that restriction is never there, then you take the lack of it for granted. Similarly if everyone is constantly running around with rings of flying they will never fully appreciate it.

Thus flying is only worth implementing on rare occasions, or it is simply not worth implementing at all.

Sorry but CEO or no CEO I'm standing my ground on this one. You had a point with the rare ore but I feel you are dead wrong here. What is the point of making a game with a beautiful map full of interesting scenery if you only see it from up in the air? And what is the point of only seeing it from up in the air if you are up there so much it loses all of the thrill?


How about if flying is done sparsely? As in, it's expensive and temporary, to be utilized as an occasional thrill, or for some specific purpose. Like if Rings of Flying are as expensive as a Fine Steel Boots and wear out after 10 minutes of flight.

Andius, Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think that is what you meant by "rare occasions" - A few players can do it often, and a lot of players can do it a small amount of the time. Unlike the "rare" that is bad for MMOs, "a few players can do it a small amount of the time", or the commonplace "a lot of the players can do it often" which would make it meaningless.

Goblin Squad Member

Waffleyone wrote:

How about if flying is done sparsely? As in, it's expensive and temporary, to be utilized as an occasional thrill, or for some specific purpose. Like if Rings of Flying are as expensive as a Fine Steel Boots and wear out after 10 minutes of flight.

Andius, Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think that is what you meant by "rare occasions" - A few players can do it often, and a lot of players can do it a small amount of the time. Unlike the "rare" that is bad for MMOs, "a few players can do it a small amount of the time", or the commonplace "a lot of the players can do it often" which would make it meaningless.

I also agree with andius, I wouldn't mind it as say something with a long cooldown, something that works for brief stints of time etc... But I do agree, flying loses it's cool factor very quickly when you can spend 95% of your time in the air.

IMO flying if implimented could be done as something like 4 minutes of air time, can be used once an hour or so, but otherwise it does kind of create long extents of oddities that just don't seem right for the setting. I mean I think warfare in a D&D setting, I imagine things like city walls being a factor, not a decorative piece, and yes like Andius, I would prefer no flying at all, over most people are always flying.

Goblin Squad Member

Flying probably is only relevant for higher level chars anyway.

That said, a faux-flying I'd really see as easy and beneficial to implement would be a Druid "warg" ability when a "pet/companion" bird could be used as an "eye-in-the-sky" and "driven/flown" around to scout an area. :) So it uses the engine's camera mode and is passive/indirect flying and informational not interactive.

Something for the wilderness that would be very immersive.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:

Flying probably is only relevant for higher level chars anyway.

That said, a faux-flying I'd really see as easy and beneficial to implement would be a Druid "warg" ability when a "pet/companion" bird could be used as an "eye-in-the-sky" and "driven/flown" around to scout an area. :) So it uses the engine's camera mode and is passive/indirect flying and informational not interactive.

Something for the wilderness that would be very immersive.

Level of chars is irrelevant, and something as drastically power level changing as flying pretty much removes lower level players from having any impact on the battle... well at least any that focus on melee weapons or touch spells.

Something as drastic as consistant flight, is a skill at the grade of "You aren't really in the same league until you have this ability" level of power. To which it does need to get there early, if the overall intent of the game is to have all players in the same league, and able to have a meaningful impact on the match. (Note my definition there is not saying that everyone should be equal, when I say the same league, I am meaning that the low levels should not be merely cannon fodder for high level characters to just cut through on their way to a real opponent.

Goblin Squad Member

I really hate systems where things like riding horses are gated by level. I expect it will be based Merit Badges in PFO, but I still hope that the primary gate on these things is having the coin to buy them.

In fact, I really hope that I'll be able to take a brand new character, give him lots of coin, and have him riding the best, most expensive horses without having to wait several hours first.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:

Flying probably is only relevant for higher level chars anyway.

That said, a faux-flying I'd really see as easy and beneficial to implement would be a Druid "warg" ability when a "pet/companion" bird could be used as an "eye-in-the-sky" and "driven/flown" around to scout an area. :) So it uses the engine's camera mode and is passive/indirect flying and informational not interactive.

Something for the wilderness that would be very immersive.

Level of chars is irrelevant, and something as drastically power level changing as flying pretty much removes lower level players from having any impact on the battle... well at least any that focus on melee weapons or touch spells.

Something as drastic as consistant flight, is a skill at the grade of "You aren't really in the same league until you have this ability" level of power. To which it does need to get there early, if the overall intent of the game is to have all players in the same league, and able to have a meaningful impact on the match. (Note my definition there is not saying that everyone should be equal, when I say the same league, I am meaning that the low levels should not be merely cannon fodder for high level characters to just cut through on their way to a real opponent.

Sorry, my statement was very throw-away and vague. I was thinking that flight as in superman flight would be too OP and trivialize the world. So the type of flight then possible if it's not proxy flight (eg warg), could be 1. Dragon/flying animal rider 2. limited "flight" aka domestic chicken leap!

But in both cases, I was assuming they'd both take a long time to reach that sort of skill training. One requires a lot of pet development as mentioned elsewhere eg Dragons, and the other as a magical possibility (I only remember DnD's 5m flight iirc?) again took a while to train up and improve to say 20m flight?

@Nihimon: Perhaps there will grades of mount riding? Eg first grade, you master riding a docile but short-legged pony or donkey instead of straight up charger! :) Perhaps more accomplished horse-riders will add eg speed, go through types of terrain and do other interactive things while mounted?

Goblin Squad Member

On flying, I really think it's going to trivialize large portions of the game. Here are my preferences in order of descent...

1) No flying implimented at all, period.

2) Flying as a self-cast only, high level spell (i.e. no rings of.., scrolls of..., potions of..., etc) that is VERY short in duration (e.g. 10 seconds) , so more like a "Jet Pack" Jump then real flying with a very expensive material component.

3) Flying more widely implemented but requiring a VERY expensive consumable to fuel. So individuals COULD fly but it's not something they would chose to do on a routiene basis. E.G. You could hoof it to a location in 20 minutes for free or you coul fly there in 10 minutes for 10,000 GP (the same price that would BUY you 10 masterwork bows to equip an army).

Those would be my personal preferences. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

I really hate systems where things like riding horses are gated by level. I expect it will be based Merit Badges in PFO, but I still hope that the primary gate on these things is having the coin to buy them.

In fact, I really hope that I'll be able to take a brand new character, give him lots of coin, and have him riding the best, most expensive horses without having to wait several hours first.

Horse riding takes actual skill. Riding one at speed and over obsticals takes even more skill. Controling a mount in combat or other stressfull situations takes even greater skill.

So, my vote would be that riding is a merit badge like any other earned in game, with different gradations for use. Not sure if PFO has any plans to impliment Mounted Combat, but if they do that should DEFINATELY require merit badges. YMMV.

Edit: So buy and own a quality horse gated by coin, definately...actualy do much with it, no... should require the character invest in skill training and merit badges.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:
@Nihimon: Perhaps there will grades of mount riding? Eg first grade, you master riding a docile but short-legged pony or donkey instead of straight up charger! :) Perhaps more accomplished horse-riders will add eg speed, go through types of terrain and do other interactive things while mounted?

That sounds a lot like WoW's system, where you could get your first horse at 20, but it was kind of slow. Then you could get a fast horse at 40. Then you could get a slow flying mount at 60. Then you could get a fast flying mount at 80.

I hated that.

What I really, really want is for the restriction to be based on wealth instead of level. I don't mind if it's based on a Merit Badge as long as there's not some ridiculously long list of prerequisites that really serve as a proxy for making it level-based.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon: What GrumpyMel says. The way I put it, it does sound like a level-grind, after re-reading it. Ouch. Perhaps wealth comes into it for the expensive upkeep costs of those large warhorses? But perhaps freedom to choose what type of mount you prefer, that seems workable. Although I'm assuredly reminded of a The Far Side cartoon with a horse covered in huge spikes and with a mace for a tail, standing in a cowboy's yard and a dad saying to his son, "There he is: Big Red. Sure he's tough, but if you can ride him, he's yours." ;)

Goblin Squad Member

I missed GrumpyMel's post while I was writing mine. I totally agree that it takes skill, and that I ought to have Merit Badges to unlock any kind of special abilities my horse might have - like running fast, etc.

What I hope to avoid is a situation where the high speed Merit Badge is effectively limited to higher "level" characters - by having a prerequisite that you have 100 hours of general skill training time, for example.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I could see flight as common but expensive: the price of scrolls of flying does not change, is measured in something in addition to coin, and flight provides an advantage proportional to the logarithm of its cost.

In other words, everyone can fly, but nobody can afford to.

SWG pulled off rarity with Jedi. Most players never even saw a Jedi, and 0% of people got to play one.

Goblin Squad Member

A person who has never ridden a horse before could technically climb up a knight's destrier and sit atop its saddle - for about 30 seconds, before being bucked off, swayed off, bounced off, or jumping off in terror.

Earning the right to use various kinds of transportation is a reasonable way to reward characters as they advance in ability. I'm virtually certain that will be a feature of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Waffleyone wrote:

How about if flying is done sparsely? As in, it's expensive and temporary, to be utilized as an occasional thrill, or for some specific purpose. Like if Rings of Flying are as expensive as a Fine Steel Boots and wear out after 10 minutes of flight.

Andius, Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think that is what you meant by "rare occasions" - A few players can do it often, and a lot of players can do it a small amount of the time. Unlike the "rare" that is bad for MMOs, "a few players can do it a small amount of the time", or the commonplace "a lot of the players can do it often" which would make it meaningless.

Yes that is what I meant.

Goblin Squad Member

I tend to lean away from flying altogether. In general I'm opposed to anything that makes the world smaller. That's why I like the direction they're headed with fast travel (not instantaneous and vulnerable to attack) I don't see the point in designing a massive, beautiful world if everyone can skip the majority of it once they unlock a certain ability. Personally, I wouldn't even make mounts that fast, probably something similar to Skyrim. Sure it's faster than walking, but you can't just gallop in a straight line, and you'll have some trouble on narrow paths and ledges.

Traveling should be something you have to consider and plan for, not something to let the game do while you're microwaving a hotpocket.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Earning the right to use various kinds of transportation is a reasonable way to reward characters as they advance in ability. I'm virtually certain that will be a feature of the game.

All I'm asking is that it be possible for me to focus my skill-training on, for example, riding destriers, without having arbitrary prerequisites that don't have anything to do with riding destriers.

I'm not going to pick up my toys and go home if you decide to gate access to superior mounts the same way that every other game does. I'm just asking you to consider not doing so.

[Edit] Or at least consider gating it for the Account rather than for each Character on the Account.

Goblin Squad Member

If you think of a mount as a platform, not a car, I think you get closer to what I'm envisioning.

All horses basically go the same distance in a day. But within that envelope they do all sorts of different things. Some can carry more weight or pull more weight than others. Some can charge effectively, or jump, or carry a couple of riders, or respond to commands, or just look pretty.

Your newbie character on its basic pony and my old, skilled vet on his well-packed, well-trained, combat experienced adventuring mount are going to end up at the same inn at the end of the day at roughly the same time. But along the way we may have very different experiences.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

If you think of a mount as a platform, not a car, I think you get closer to what I'm envisioning.

All horses basically go the same distance in a day. But within that envelope they do all sorts of different things. Some can carry more weight or pull more weight than others. Some can charge effectively, or jump, or carry a couple of riders, or respond to commands, or just look pretty.

Your newbie character on its basic pony and my old, skilled vet on his well-packed, well-trained, combat experienced adventuring mount are going to end up at the same inn at the end of the day at roughly the same time. But along the way we may have very different experiences.

Hey Ryan, interesting thought. You could make storms/weather/different environmental effects or even the presence of mobs in the general area dump the player out of fast travel depending upon the quality of thier mount and the riders ability, as the mount gets spooked and refuses to push ahead. So for example, if there was a goblin in the general vacinity, the experienced rider on the warhorse might get a dialogue as to whether he wanted to stop fast travel while the inexperienced rider on the basic saddle horse would just get dumped out and have to either clear the area or get rid of the goblin before he could get back into fast travel mode.

P.S. Are you guys thinking about implimenting Mounted Combat at some point? It could add an interesting element to the formation fighting element you talked about in Mass Combat.


Mcduff wrote:
I tend to lean away from flying altogether. In general I'm opposed to anything that makes the world smaller.

What do you think of flying as something that you'd do for utility, not for speed of travel - I'm thinking "same speed as walking/running, except you get to move vertically too. Use it to get up cliffs, over walls, escape pits, navigate caves, avoid monsters, flee from bandits while your guards dispatch them (maybe able to flee bandits by becoming airborne?), get an eye-in-the-sky overview of a nearby area, spot troop formations. Not normally used for more than a minute at a time, and often less than that.

Nihimon wrote:
I'm just asking you to consider not [gating access to superior mounts].

I like the idea of scrapping the linear mount power system, and instead having several types of mounts, which serve different purposes, and require more/different skills. Some horses would be ride-able with no skill, and others would require substantial skill. In all cases there would be benefits to having riding skills. Each type would have different quality tiers, gated not by skills but by price.

Example horse types:
Jennet: Easily ride-able horse, bad for combat. Very low skill requirements. Panics near combat, and even with good skill will not be involved in combat.
Rouncey: All purpose horse. Low skill requirements to ride, moderate skill requirements to use near combat.
Coursers: Standard warhorses - maneuverable, fast, and strong. Moderate skill requirements. The standard for those who ride their horses to battle.
Destriers: Heavy Warhorses - big, strong, combat trained, a little slower than Coursers. Higher skill requirements. My best descriptive word is "tanky". For those who make mounted combat their profession.

Hauling horses (while we're at it!):
Pack Horse: Carries stuff on its back. Good for moderate hauling.
Draft Horse: Big, strong, pulling horses. Fantastic for heavy transport.
I guess these could be ridden? They just wouldn't provide substantial bonuses.

Maybe this is going WAYYYY too in-depth =\

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
All horses basically go the same distance in a day.

Music to my ears! (Err, eyes?)

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Of Ropes, Torches, Axes, and common sense. 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.