Goblinworks Blog: Blood on the Tracks


Pathfinder Online

251 to 300 of 348 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Well, as for that, I still think it would be a good option to allow offline characters to man a stall in the market square of a settlement, just like an NPC vendor only offering for sale whatever the player chose.
The problem with the settlement being infiltrated and an assassin making his strike on your character is just a risk like any other, such as logging out in a settlement and logging back in to find the settlement destroyed by siege and an opposing alignment built over the ruins.

Goblin Squad Member

<Snip>
Behaviors we want:

•Players able to play their alignment, but at the same time not grief players of opposite alignment. If one player is chaotic evil and another lawful good, each should not be able to abuse the other without limit or recourse.
<Snip>

I think this is a CRITICALLY important statement that I hope endures to the final game design.

I can imagine quite a few PvP centric types will despise this, but speaking as an avid PvPer myself I believe this is possibly one of the most important aspects of an alignment based game.

There NEEDS to be the freedom to play an alignment without using it as an excuse to grief.

This was a really great post. Thanks!


wow 6 pages and no mention of the only thing that really caught my attention.

"For each day a player does not lose any law vs. chaos points, they earn law vs. chaos points at a rate that accelerates each day, so the longer they remain lawful the faster they get points. Characters with high law vs. chaos can also give law vs. chaos points from their own pool to more chaotic players to reward lawful behavior the system can't quantify, though the amount is limited."

so I will gain lawful points for doing nothing, and if I have some extra Lawful points laying around I can just gift them to whoever I please?

will chaotic people be able to do the same? if bonehead the barb hasn't done anything chaotic today he might need those points :P

A person doesn't become more lawful from a lack of chaotic activity any more then a lawful person becomes more chaotic, they simply stay the same. if we palce a person in jail and do nothing else with him, he shouldn't come out lawful just because of a lack of opportunity. He should come out the same person as he went in. The policeman doesn't become more Chaotic if he doesn't make an arrest for a week

Also if we go back to the thread on settlement alignment, how could you maintain any chaotic settlement? everyone person there is automatically on the path to Lawful

Also with all these flags will there be a semaphore skill?

Scarab Sages Goblinworks Executive Founder

okimbored wrote:

wow 6 pages and no mention of the only thing that really caught my attention.

"For each day a player does not lose any law vs. chaos points, they earn law vs. chaos points at a rate that accelerates each day, so the longer they remain lawful the faster they get points. Characters with high law vs. chaos can also give law vs. chaos points from their own pool to more chaotic players to reward lawful behavior the system can't quantify, though the amount is limited."

so I will gain lawful points for doing nothing, and if I have some extra Lawful points laying around I can just gift them to whoever I please?

will chaotic people be able to do the same? if bonehead the barb hasn't done anything chaotic today he might need those points :P

A person doesn't become more lawful from a lack of chaotic activity any more then a lawful person becomes more chaotic, they simply stay the same. if we palce a person in jail and do nothing else with him, he shouldn't come out lawful just because of a lack of opportunity. He should come out the same person as he went in. The policeman doesn't become more Chaotic if he doesn't make an arrest for a week

Also if we go back to the thread on settlement alignment, how could you maintain any chaotic settlement? everyone person there is automatically on the path to Lawful

Also with all these flags will there be a semaphore skill?

This is primarily being discussed here: Goblinworks Blog: I Shot a Man in Reno Just to Watch Him Die

Goblin Squad Member

The links from the blogs back to paizo.com often point to the wrong discussion thread. That happened this time, and I'd be willing to be that okimbored got here via that link.


hmmm yep i did, where the hell? hmmm thats VERY annoying


Nihimon wrote:
I'd like to see something like that in the MMO. For example, by allowing my Wizard to specify what he's doing in his "downtime" when I log him off.

I think something like that is more than reasonable...

I would say that it DOES make sense to tie this 'crafting' (/whatever) activity to the skill that you are training while you are logged off.
If they match, then it makes sense, but you can't expect to be training in acrobatics when you are supposedly spending all your free time scribing scrolls.

As well, I would want to have the mimimal limitation of such offline crafting activities depend on you logging out from a certain location, which could depend on the type of crafting, but would probably be a friendly settlement with certain types of buildings. That just means, if you want the benefit of this offline crafting, you at least need to travel back to this 'home base' in order to do so, so you can't just log in and out of wilderness areas, and never have to deal with the in-game reality of where settlements are built and those types of activities occur.

This also reinforces the importance of settlements, that characters want and need to have some settlement where they are on friendly terms (if not an actual voting member) so they can do this stuff offline there. If the settlement ends up destroyed or conquered, that offline training would end at that point, so you really should log in every now and then, and maybe do something to help out & defend the settlement you rely on for a space to do your crafting, etc.


okimbored wrote:

Also with all these flags will there be a semaphore skill?

I think this is an important issue that is overlooked in discussing the details of the implications of flags/other mechanics.

Expert players may be able to recognize the implications of certain visual 'flags' floating over a character, but I think it would be very important to have some 'mouse over' function which tells you what the implications FOR YOU (with your current flags, PVP status, etc) would be if you did certain things, e.g. attacked said character.

Of course, things like Reputation (relatively visible) and Alignment (relatively less visible, although if you are a caster and can cast a Detect Alignment spell, that may change that) change the exact repurcussions of actions, so it may not be able to tell you HOW MUCH the repurcussions will shift your own status (except for certain things like Reputation may be more clear, and Alignment may be clear in some situations to some people(casters)).


I think by the time a casual player mouses over and tries to figure out the flags he'll be dead ;)

Goblin Squad Member

okimbored wrote:
I think by the time a casual player mouses over and tries to figure out the flags he'll be dead ;)

Keyboard commands: F1-champion flag, F2 - Traveler flag, F3 - Assassin flag etc.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Just a couple of thoughts here.

1st on flagging and self defence.

I think a simple solution to the "alpha strike" is to put in a feature for weapons/implements to be sheathed/holstered etc... this way you can casually examine/target another player while your weapons and casting implements are sheathed, and have nothing happen, but if you have those items in hand when you examine/target someone then you're telegraphing hostile intent so you would get flagged as an attacker before your attack is even launched, but only for the targeted player. This way the intended victim has the opportunity to defend themselves even before an attack is launched because the attacker was overtly hostile.
To summarize:
Initial Scenario
Player A has weapons/implements drawn (or is in a combat stance for monks)and targets Player B
Player A immediately Flagged as hostile only for player B

Possibility 1
Player B attacks first, He gets flagged for Player A only this is effectively an informal duel
Player A does not gain attacker flag for the community at large
neither player gains a criminal flag (unless there are laws governing the use of weapons)

Possibility 2
Player B readies defenses but does not attack
Player A Attacks first Gains the Attacker flag and the criminal flag
Player B and everyone around is free to gank Player A

This works well for group mechanics as well Assuming there is a formalized party structure you can replace the word player with the word party.

Second thought:
The MMO of the future needs full multi-platform integration for all major portable OS's so that all functions like offline skill training crafting, inventory management, auction house, and player run shops can be managed from tablet or phone apps that are free for pay to play customers. This allows us to handle all the tedium of MMO play when we can't be infront of the PC so that our logged in time can be spent doing the fun stuff.


Andrew Kocher wrote:


Initial Scenario
Player A has weapons/implements drawn (or is in a combat stance for monks)and targets Player B
Player A immediately Flagged as hostile only for player B

Lets say you're fighting some wildlife out in your hex. There's a pack of wolves that you're engaged in. I come over and stand around you and the wolves, hoping that you'll target me by mistake (either by miss-click or tab-targeting the wolves). Boom! you're flagged as an attacker and I can kill you without consequence.

Your scenario is practical around settlements, but away from all the towns and roads, it seems like someone could use that to grief you.

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps there needs to be an "Attack" ability that begins hostilities but doesn't do any actual damage, so in essence the target of an attack gets one global cooldown to respond - if they're already prepared for the attack, that might be significant.

Then, Assassins would have an ability to make that first actually deal damage.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Pretty sure if we're in the wilderness you can nuke me regardless, you certainly won't get flagged as a criminal unless your within a community, and if you're out in the wilderness you could just gank me and then hide till the flag wears off, or log out.


Well the consequences of attacking someone in the wilderness still apply.

Quote:

Attacker

The character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag. It denotes which character is the aggressor in PvP combat.

Anyone killing a character with Attacker does not suffer reputation or alignment loss.
Attacker is removed if the character is killed.
The Attacker flag lasts for one minute after combat ends.
If the character gets the Attacker flag he gets an Aggressor buff that lasts for 24 hours that has no effect besides being a counter. Each time he gets Attacker increases the stack of Aggressor by one.
If the character gets a high enough stack of Aggressor, determined by his Reputation, he gets the status Murderer, which lasts 24 hours and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Attacker, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.

If I baited you into flagging yourself as an attacker, I could kill you and not suffer any reputation or alignment loss. As well as not debuff myself as aggressor/murderer. Which is a way to circumvent the whole point of the reputation and flag systems. It's meant to deter players from indiscriminate, rampant killing; be it in a town or wilderness.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Simple fix, use a different hotkey for targetting Players than you use for targetting anything else. Thats an simple control to program in.

Beyond that you have to put some responsibility on the players themselves, If a person expects 0 culpability when they're not taking proper precautions thats just being unrealistic.

I think any player of the game needs to understand that the anonymity of online game play brings out the worst in some people and the percentage of the population that will actively try to break the system is much much higher than in real world environments. It behooves us as players to take steps to protect ourselves in a PVP environment. and if we can't, then we should be prepared to bring bloody vengeance down on those who bait kill so as to deter that kind of behavior.

I think one of the great things about this system is that it allows us to police ourselves. If I see an idiot out bait killing, I'm going to gather a posse and hunt the bastard down.


Quote:

Second thought:

The MMO of the future needs full multi-platform integration for all major portable OS's so that all functions like offline skill training crafting, inventory management, auction house, and player run shops can be managed from tablet or phone apps that are free for pay to play customers. This allows us to handle all the tedium of MMO play when we can't be infront of the PC so that our logged in time can be spent doing the fun stuff.

I wouldn't mind seeing something like EveGate which lets you log into your account and manage your characters offline activities, check on and Que up skills to train, minor things that can be quickly done while away from your computer or can't play for whatever reason.

That would be cool

Scarab Sages Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I don't recall seeing is whether flag times counted down while offline or if they only counted down while online. Personally, I think that they should only count-down while online to avoid the grief/log-off/wait/login/grief again cycle.

Goblin Squad Member

With reference to the flagging, do you get the flag as soon as you target someone? Sounds a bit odd to me if thats the case as you are in effect observing the target (closely or otherwise) regardless of whether your weapons are out, else all guards with weapons drawn/ready would be counted as aggressors. I think the flag should only come up once an attack has been initiated against the target (whether it hits, misses or is resisted is irrelevant)

Goblin Squad Member

It seems very unlikely you would be flagged for just targetting someone.

Goblin Squad Member

Dakcenturi wrote:
Personally, I think that they should only count-down while online to avoid the grief/log-off/wait/login/grief again cycle.

I love that idea.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Quote:
With reference to the flagging, do you get the flag as soon as you target someone? Sounds a bit odd to me if thats the case as you are in effect observing the target (closely or otherwise) regardless of whether your weapons are out, else all guards with weapons drawn/ready would be counted as aggressors. I think the flag should only come up once an attack has been initiated against the target (whether it hits, misses or is resisted is irrelevant)

With the system I propposed you would be flagged just for targetting but only if your weapons were drawn, you had casting implements in hand, or were in an unarmed combat stance(or casting stance if no implements are used); this flag would only allow your target to engage you "for free".

The reason for this is because having weapons drawn or entering a stance is an overtly hostile act.

In real life medieval societies if you tried to walk through the city gates with a weapon drawn you'd immediately be stopped if not attacked all together by the city guard. while this system doesn't simulate that degree of realism it does force a certain degree of civilized behavior which I personally find desirable not just because it would help prevent alpha strike attacks to a degree, it also adds a level of realistic immersion not present in most MMO's. While there is usually a function to sheath weapons there is often no good reason to do so.

for those who think this is too heavy handed, we could institute a passive perception vs. stealth, or perhaps a sense motive check to notice the hostile party before triggering the flag.


Oberyn deLorenzo wrote:
With reference to the flagging, do you get the flag as soon as you target someone? Sounds a bit odd to me if thats the case as you are in effect observing the target (closely or otherwise) regardless of whether your weapons are out, else all guards with weapons drawn/ready would be counted as aggressors. I think the flag should only come up once an attack has been initiated against the target (whether it hits, misses or is resisted is irrelevant)

No, you're not flagged simply for targeting someone. But the point was raised; What if you somebody kills you before you had a chance to defend? If you're killed in 1 hit, there seems to be little you could do. You can't "defend" yourself before you get hit, or else YOU yourself are flagged as the attacker. So the idea that, if someone displayed hostile intentions (targeting with weapons drawn), would that be better as it would show the attacker flag and allow one to defend before taking the first hit.

In a way, it makes sense. If you're a ranged character, and you see a melee character charging towards you in an obvious attack; the current mechanics say that you have to allow yourself to get hit before you can attack - or suffer the consequences of attacker flag/rep loss.

But being flagged just from targeting someone seems to create a whole other set of problems. So for now, I guess your main options are to simply run away or get hit if you wish to avoid being the 'attacker'

@ Dakcenturi, I agree. If timers count down while logged out, that really defeats the purpose of flags imo.

Goblin Squad Member

An exception to the 'weapons drawn' scenario at a town gate might be the staff, which commonly has no sheath and must be carried.


I think this situation highlights the need for there to be a "ready" stance that a player can trigger which draws their weapon and assumes a defensive posture but does not take the initiate and begin an attack.

If the character, or mob, does attack, you aren't caught flat footed and have the ability to parry, riposte, dodge, whatever. Then combat can continue normally.

I don't think it would be hard to implement this and. I I think it would. Solve a few issues.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Basically it all boils down to stances, give each class/weapon/combat type a stance that must be activated before combat can be engaged. Effectively whether the swords are drawn staff is picked up into both hands, wizard plants his feat and raises his hands, monk drops into a fighting pose, or some combination of these is all a matter of how the individual animations are handled but behind the scenes it all boils down to a Stance and a simple on off command, and a passive perception check to notice the stance which is triggered by the enemy targeting you.

For example I'm a monk, I want to attack you so i drop into my stance and target you, this triggers a check for you which if successful flags me (and my party) as an attacker but only for you (and your party).

Additionally If I target you first it should trigger a perception check to let you know I'm examining you and then if i drop into stance and you noticed me I would immediately be flagged just as stated above.

This system should be fairly easy to implement and should function both actively and passively. Meaning if I want to be the aggressor I must at some point actively elect to be in a combat stance but if I am attacked (meaning actually subject to an attack roll) i drop into this stance automatically, additionally necessary stances would have to change automatically once combat was engaged as you queued up different actions like moving from unarmed to armed combat changing weapons dual wielding or casting.

A system like this allows for all sorts of interesting things like for example an easy way to execute a rogues Uncanny dodge, they would automatically pass the perception check to flag an attacker unless the attacker was higher level.

Goblin Squad Member

Alot of this assumes that attacking first is an overwhelming advantage, that the attacker is able to freely concentrate attacks on any defender they wish, and that there are no defensive counters to these.

Those conditions are true in most MMO's which have very simplistic combat system and are essentialy all about DPS.

They need not be true in other sorts of combat systems. You can easly give defenders options that prepare defenses but aren't considered "Hostile" actions. There are ways to allow defenders to limit the target options for potential individual attackers, which again need not be construed as "Hostile" actions.

Doing those things together will largely reduce the advantage of the attacker in striking first and orchestrating "Alpha strikes". There will probably still be some advantage...but it shouldn't be that huge of a deal.

Hiting an unprepared defender should yield a big advantage. One that actualy knows it is coming and has setup for it...shouldn't provide much if any advantage to swinging first....and you can actualy do that depending upon how you design the combat mechanics.

The concept of trying to adjucate what's "hostile" and what's not and how to time things so the "right" group gets the first shot is a never ending and complicated design spiral....a much easier and simpler solution is to simply make it not matter all that much who gets the 1st shot by reducing the emphasis on attacking in combat.


Being wrote:
An exception to the 'weapons drawn' scenario at a town gate might be the staff, which commonly has no sheath and must be carried.

Sorry, somebody had to.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

That may work, but will probably result in a loss of excitement in combat. Lets be honest here, Online role-playing (which de-emphasizes combat and promotes character driven stories) is fun and there is a large market for it (NWN persistent worlds showed us this a long time ago) but unfortunately the lions share of paying subscribers in an MMO are there for one thing to flex their combat muscle and show how they built the ubererest character. Cut into that and players will rapidly look elsewhere resulting in depopulated servers and defunct games.

Goblin Squad Member

It sounds that this idea revolves around body language. If there were a hostile or "ready for action" stance for each archetype its use might turn on a "Hostle" PvP flag. On the other hand you might also be able to have a "friendly and open" body stance to get a "Friendly" PvP flag. A "Neutral" PvP flag is the default and not shown. These flags could be important with NPC interaction when using the Diplomacy Skill.

However, I do not favor of requiring a "Hostile" PvP flag before attacking. You can't give away the farm.

Goblin Squad Member

Zayvian wrote:
That may work, but will probably result in a loss of excitement in combat. Lets be honest here, Online role-playing (which de-emphasizes combat and promotes character driven stories) is fun and there is a large market for it (NWN persistent worlds showed us this a long time ago) but unfortunately the lions share of paying subscribers in an MMO are there for one thing to flex their combat muscle and show how they built the ubererest character. Cut into that and players will rapidly look elsewhere resulting in depopulated servers and defunct games.

I don't think it has to make combat less exciting, just more tactical. Frankly nothing is more boring then "Everybody Target A ..it's dead...Now Target B...it's dead...Now Target C..., etc". It might be semi-interesting for the first day or two...but after that it gets mind-numbingly boring. Look at the popularity of something like World of Tanks...which while pretty arcade-like actualy does have some tactical elements and where typical 12 vs 12 combat match with no respawns can easly take 20-30 minutes.

Goblin Squad Member

I wonder how well it would work if everyone had a 'defensive' mode that was triggered automatically when being attacked which would automate the defenses with parries and blocks, even if the player was afk. The attack ability of the attacker is compared with the defensive skill of the defender and attacks get through or are deflected based on the characters' relative skills. Auto-defense should still burn stamina.

Then voluntary attacks could be triggerable skills activatable only when your stamina level is high enough to afford it.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Personally not a big fan of stamina mechanics, but to each their own.

Goblin Squad Member

Im open to new ideas but Id be leery of mechanics that essentially translate to 'What you looking at? You looking at me? YOU LOOKING AT ME?? IM GONNA KILL YOU!!!!!!' :P

On a more serious note, having weapons sheathed or drawn has usually been a cosmetic thing. If it starts having tangible impact, then it needs to be emphasised and communicated. Further, there are some potential problems with that and any sort of 'look at character' or 'investigate gear' options. Perhaps you just wanted to see what that cool armor was and forgot that youd just put down a rabid rabbit a moment ago.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps you just wanted to see what that cool armor was and forgot that youd just put down a rabid rabbit a moment ago.

To that I say, people will learn not to make those mistakes.


My reason for suggesting a ready stance was to prevent the impending doom feeling of being somewhere and finding yourself being approached, or just believing you may be the victim of an upcoming attack. Some examples to help visualize this.. Your with a caravan that is pulling out of a harvesting site when you spot a medium sized group approaching slowly. You can't tell by their dress what their intent is.** Your making your way back to your inn late in the evening through the deserted streets of a city when you see a dark figure round a corner and begin slowly making their way toward you, looking behind you, you notice that a second figure is approaching from behind.

So I really didn't intend on having a flag, or even targeting anyone specifically, although I don't see why you couldn't have someone targeted. With this stance, if the approaching PC just passes you by and continues on their way, then you resume your journey or whatever you were doing.

The stance could be made into a pre combat stance that flags you, but I would really like to see a non specific general ready stance that doesn't initiate a combat action as well.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it makes a lot of sense to be able to declare that you're using Total Defense against another character without triggering any Flags.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I think it makes a lot of sense to be able to declare that you're using Total Defense against another character without triggering any Flags.

Yup, you probably make it so that you can't move while in Defensive Stance or something similar, so characters aren't tempted to be running it ALL the time.

Essentialy you put yourself in a mode where you are expecting trouble...but you don't actualy have any hostile intent toward anyone.


Or you just stick to the way the tabletop works and just force them to move very slow. I think that would do the trick. If a merchant wants to slow his transport to a crawl in exchange for a defensive boost, that's his call.


Thar wrote:

Being,

My open mind ended when i read the developers are in favor of allowing other players to steal items i have gathered. i do not have alot of time to play games, so when i do get to relax a bit i do not want to waste my time doing things in a game just to have someone else steal it.
Unless they change it they have lost my support for this game. Well at least i'll get the print copy.
Personnally i cannot beleive the developers wish to alienate any paying customers but apparantly they do. So therefore i will take the ks donation as i just bought the books and minis and go elsewhere taking my friends with me.

When I'm p(l)aying to adventure with friends and have fun, accumulate wealth and items, and someone else is p(l)aying to kill my character and take my wealth and items, only one of us is getting what we p(l)ayed for.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That is the crux of conflict.

If you don't want conflict you don't want plot, you don't want story, and hence you don't want content.

Where the players are the content we must each make a decision to accept that there will be conflicts of interests where there will be a winners and losers.

This isn't to be pee-wee league where nobody loses and everyone gets a meaningless trophy.


My trophy says "Monstrous Race Most Often Played When Other Races Aren't Available"! Hooray! :D

Goblin Squad Member

Gee... <-sniff-> I dinnint get one...

Goblin Squad Member

Oberyn Corvus wrote:

Im open to new ideas but Id be leery of mechanics that essentially translate to 'What you looking at? You looking at me? YOU LOOKING AT ME?? IM GONNA KILL YOU!!!!!!' :P

Actually that was the way I made my char join a P&P party once.

The GM was out of ideas of how he would include me in the group and I made my CN warrior just look at the party cleric on the street shouting:

- Hey man are you looking at me? Do I know you?

- No I´m not looking at you at all.

-So you are ignoring me! Who do you think you are to ignore me like that? I'm going to kill you!

- *granted power > calm emotions *

- *sucessful saving throw* Stay calm?! I am calm,very calm! If I was not you'd be dead by now!

-*granted power > Calm emotions*

- *sucessful saving throw again* Priest, can you stop saying me to calm down and fight me like a man?

In the end, the party´s bard used his charisma to convince him to not fight, and follow them to get some gold by searching a missing guy.

--------

Back to the thread subject, I look foward to know details on combat mechanics such as how weapon range will work (for lances, spears halberds etc), how bows and crossbow attacks are going to work etc


Being wrote:

That is the crux of conflict.

If you don't want conflict you don't want plot, you don't want story, and hence you don't want content.

Where the players are the content we must each make a decision to accept that there will be conflicts of interests where there will be a winners and losers.

This isn't to be pee-wee league where nobody loses and everyone gets a meaningless trophy.

That's odd. I've played TTPRGs for a long time, and never had a shortage of conflict, and I remember the incredibly rare instances where the source of the conflict was my fellow players as being the least fun times I've had.

It sounds like interlayer conflict is Goblinworks lazy way of avoiding creating story driven conflict, which is usually caused by having an actual plot and content - much in the way all the APs and modules have done for years.

I wasn't under the impression this was to be a league at all, but a Pathfinder game, in which there ARE no winners and losers. That's one of the foundational principles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:
When I'm p(l)aying to adventure with friends and have fun, accumulate wealth and items, and someone else is p(l)aying to kill my character and take my wealth and items, only one of us is getting what we p(l)ayed for.

The latter player's motivations seem exactly identical to those a 'bandit' might have in a PVE/GM-driven game. Are NPC 'bandits' off-bounds from games then? If not, why should this be out of bounds in an MMORPG? PFO is up-front, explicitly, a PVP-based sandbox game. If you can't handle that, it's not the game for you. If you can, then this is exactly the sort of thing you expect in a sandbox game. If we are talking sandbox games, it is simply incoherent to say that a player CAN attack and loot some goblin, but can't do so for any other entity, PC or otherwise.

Quote:
It sounds like interlayer conflict is Goblinworks lazy way of avoiding creating story driven conflict, which is usually caused by having an actual plot and content - much in the way all the APs and modules have done for years.

No offence, but it sounds like you are a lazy reader. GW has flat-out stated from the very begininning that this is exactly what they are doing, it isn't some surprise, so that you are still discussing this is as bizarre as if they had announced My Little Pony MMORPG and you were still disputing the desirability of a My Little Pony theme MMORPG.

As they directly explained, it is not simple 'laziness', but a coherent plan that takes into account the economics of the entire game development cycle and what is feasible within the market. What is feasible within the MMORPG market just doesn't really allow for Gaming Provider-provided plot to the depth of plot allowed in a GM driven game... Much less in a sandbox manner, where all players' actions have persistent relevance for all other players, and all events happen in a connected world, rather than instanced content repeated mechanically for each player.

Yet the emergent behavior of a player-driven MMORPG like EVE allows for infinite plot dynamics. EVE is alot more hard-core than the dynamic they're going for with PFO, but it shows that peristent, deep, rich plot dynamics can happen simly from emergent behavior in a player-driven sandbox. Why wouldn't GW consider using that model, where 'players/customers having fun' inherently produces 'content' for more players to have fun?

They've consciously decided to go for the latter because they don't see any viable way to go for the former: any decent result at themepark requires vast sums of money up-front, being a disproportionately risky investment, and continues to place high demands on ongoing investment... All such development of plot and content is totally 'undemocratic' and hierarchically subjugated to the company developing it, so any failures in the business model and cash flow WILL impact content and plot development negatively (unless the company like a poker player decides to anty up more money on the bet, money which the company may not have access to). Player-driven, emergent-behavior sandbox games aren't so crucially dependent on the business model succeeding, the company can actually do poorly for quite a while, and not be able to afford as much development as is ideal, yet player-driven dynamics are much less impacted, and 'plot development' can continue... Which can actually help turn the game around on it's own. This is based on the results of MANY MMORPGs who pursued these different approaches and analysing their success/failure and sustainability over time.

But there will continue to be themepark games, where players' actions CAN'T fundamentally alter plot development in a true sandbox fashion, but basic game play can easily be coralled into PVE and PVP sections. That type of game might be good for players who want that Gaming Provider crafted content (whether or not it is repeated/regurgitated ad nauseam for every player as if the other players didn't exist), even if economic limitations of the model mean that content might not be as rich as would be ideal, and for players who are repelled by the idea of another player doing the sort of actions that they can accept from a scripted NPC bot (who are all designed to be defeated, unlike other players, who are presumably on par with other players, roughly speaking).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I ask again. Is this not the subforum for the MLP MMORPG? I'm starting to think I'm on the wrong forum here.

Goblin Squad Member

Davick wrote:
Being wrote:

That is the crux of conflict.

If you don't want conflict you don't want plot, you don't want story, and hence you don't want content.

Where the players are the content we must each make a decision to accept that there will be conflicts of interests where there will be a winners and losers.

This isn't to be pee-wee league where nobody loses and everyone gets a meaningless trophy.

That's odd. I've played TTPRGs for a long time, and never had a shortage of conflict, and I remember the incredibly rare instances where the source of the conflict was my fellow players as being the least fun times I've had.

It sounds like interlayer conflict is Goblinworks lazy way of avoiding creating story driven conflict, which is usually caused by having an actual plot and content - much in the way all the APs and modules have done for years.

I wasn't under the impression this was to be a league at all, but a Pathfinder game, in which there ARE no winners and losers. That's one of the foundational principles.

TTRPG = a few players around a table more or less?

MMORPG = 00,000's of players. There's bound to be more conflict simply by numbers and relations unless you have a PvE only game. SWOTOR apparently has the most content and most story-content and it cost huge amount to make and is considered a "let-down" on various measures (albeit I bet the actual stories are brilliant if perhaps a bit similar too each other and very finite).

Anyway more on this subject: Narrative is not a game mechanic

I don't see it as winners/losers - I see it as players caught up in events far greater than themselves and how they as characters can and choose to react!


And I don't think it can be ignored that GW /is/ implementing measures against PVP banditry and aggression, even if they are allowing it to exist in the game.

The Bandit PVP flag is basically the 'honorable bandit', and means that besides the hassle of 'killing' the target, they can't loot whatever they can get away with, but are limited to asking for gold (if the target doesn't go along with it, then they can try normal violent banditry without reputation penalty).

Besides alignment and reputation which provide positive and negative incentives for this type of behavior, things like bounties - and more specifically, death curse (which consumes reputation, and thus will only be used by people with non-low reputation), mean that 'griefers' will be open to vindication which can uniquely remove their threaded items... which players otherwise assume are 100% safe from being removed from their person, so this is a significant penalty: if your threaded items are no longer actually safe then you can no longer safely equip high end gear without the danger of potentially losing it.


Quandary wrote:
it's not the game for you.

That's what I'm saying.

Quandary wrote:
No offence, but it sounds like you are a lazy reader. GW has flat-out stated from the very begininning that this is exactly what they are doing, it isn't some surprise, so that you are still discussing this is as bizarre as if they had announced My Little Pony MMORPG and you were still disputing the desirability of a My Little Pony theme MMORPG.

I don't understand what you mean by "still discussing." I've only recently STARTED discussing it. I was unaware that my opinions were invalid because they aren't as old as others. Nor did I say I was surprised by this. I merely said it's not the game for me and why.

Quandary wrote:
As they directly explained, it is not simple 'laziness', but a coherent plan that takes into account the economics of the entire game development cycle and what is feasible within the market.

So then, it's complicated laziness. It still sounds like they're saying, "It is beyond our means to create content for this game, please, do it for us by killing each other."

Quandary wrote:
MMORPG like EVE...

My knowledge of EVE extends only far enough to know that it is a game in which people are frequently screwed out of real money due to in game bureaucracy and economics and it is a game in which a new player was so frequently PVPed to death that he pleaded with his attackers to leave him alone, at which point they trolled him to commit suicide in real life. And that's what I expect to happen.

You see, ideas like an all PVP all the time world would work well, if this were real life and not a game, and your vested interest in your kingdom was greater than what a game allows. Because that is precisely what leads to the wrong kinds of conflict and an utter lack of content. When one player can (and come on, will) gain control of a vast kingdom, and then shut out everyone or scam everyone who is connected to it because he's done playing the game, it is both unrealistic (therefore bad narrative/conflict) and unfun. Speaking of unrealistic, tagging people "BANDIT" is a cure for a problem that the game itself created and didn't need, and being the guy tagged "NOOB" also sounds unfun.

Quandary wrote:
'griefers' will be open to vindication which can uniquely remove their threaded items... which players otherwise assume are 100% safe from being removed from their person, so this is a significant penalty: if your threaded items are no longer actually safe then you can no longer safely equip high end gear without the danger of potentially losing it.

See, that doesn't sound like a solution to me. It sounds more like restating the problem with a longer explanation of why it's a problem. You must have PVP so now you've got to have a way to punish people who do it, and a way to protect items from looting. These require more meta systems, and now we're crashing them into each other so you can PVP the PVPer and it's all good. Why even want bandits in the game in the first place if you're going to penalize them in the metagame for doing it? It's just unfathomable to me to play a character who would say "Ok, if I want to rob the rich prince I better use my weaker gear because it'll be unthreaded and I may in turn be robbed when a BANDIT sign appears above my head and I don't want to lose my good stuff, also I'll be unable to take anything good that he has because it will be threaded." It makes no sense. So you can talk about threading and flags and PVP making for a good game, if you're into that, but don't talk about it making a good experience, or a good Pathfinder.

As for Narrative not being a mechanic, I notice the author still says that narrative is very important. He is also talking about his opinion and I don't really agree with it. His opinion is that games should be about systematic problems, and interactive movies are "bad." But lots of games, notably the ones he uses as examples, are much more in the vein of interactive movie than a series of systematic problems. Since games are an art form, neither is superior to the other, and neither is the wrong kind of game.

251 to 300 of 348 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: Blood on the Tracks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.