Goblinworks Blog: Murder by Numbers


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Rafkin wrote:
But we will know your biggest weakness based on the armor type we see you wearing.

It does look like that will be the case doesn't it? Hopefully there will be means of inverting expectations based on someone's armor type, either by glamer or enchantment.

Goblin Squad Member

Im honestly pretty disappointed. Now maybe there is some additional info they have left that could change my understanding, but this is just what I think based on what we have.

They are way too worried about keeping things to regular/fair. There is nothing wrong with a bit more randome chaos or at the very least a fairly significant rock, paper, scissors set up. The way they currently have it seems that people of equal "level" will be very very same-ish. I just envision a long math eqation for what basically amounts to attack and defense that with very little difference ( Char 1 = +5% damage and -5% defense vs Char 2 = -5% damage and +5% defense). It just appears unless you are fighting someone much weaker than you, then you'll just statically attack eachother til one or the other runs out of HPs.

The battle system appears to be a very fast paced system with tab targeting, and a stamina system in place of a GCD. But it still seems like you would be getting off attacks every 1.5 sec. or so. Even if you add in a few strategic elements like distance and direction, it really doesnt seem very strategic especially couples with the sameish (fair) stats per skill level. And also factoring in such a fast battle pace (very suprised by this decision actually), that in itself further reduces strategic choice and options. I guess at least its not twitch-based.

Keep the stamina system, and keep the no auto-attack. Those are good. But slow down the battle pace enough so that there is more time and oppertunity to introduce strategic elements (more thoughtful gameplay). Its just simply a fact that while a turn based game is not as exciting as a more actiony game, it introduces a huge amount of strategic and thoughtful gameplay. Dont misinterpret me, I dont want a turn based game either, but I was hoping for a cross between turn-based gameplay, chess, and standard mmo gameplay. This seems more like a bunch of passive and too fair numbers meets GW2 without cooldowns or active blocks and dodges.

Some questions to help me better understand the current system:

Are there deeper and stricter requirements for getting bonuses to damage or defense beyond direction or distance? Like time of day? Weather? Terrain? Day of the week?

And if so will they be significant differences so that an attack could be very weak or insanely strong based on your ability to utilize your skills and feats and stats effectively? Or will it be more of the same-ish differences where combatants stand accross from eachother in a futile race to statically whittle the other opponent down?

What about the use of stamina? Is there any benefit to timing or does it not matter if I spam all my feats and then have to wait for stamina to recharge vs spacing out my attacks so that I use just enough stamina to never run out?

What about any bonuses or penalties for skillful/unskillful play? (Like what TESO is talking about) Its basically the concept of getting rewarded or getting bonus attack power for playing well, vs not getting as much (or any) rewards or bonuses because you just mindlessly bash something to death while barely living.

Any thing like a combo system that gives you bonuses for using certain attacks togother?

Anything like a group combo system that gives significant attack power for coordinating specific attacks together as a group (skillful teamplay)?

Are there any utility skills? If so do they also use stamina?

Goblin Squad Member

Kyras Ausks wrote:

"We can do a lot more math. We can make systems that involve a lot more math than you would want to require people to do at the table. In the MMO, we can make much more complex and reactive models by making use of our ready ability to run numerous and complicated calculations.

We need the math to be more granular. We need to keep advancement meaningful over a long span of time, so we need a wider range of numbers to work with. If MMO players leveled up using the advancement system from the Pathfinder RPG, some players would go from 1st level to 20th in a matter of days; we need that to take years. Additionally, computer math using pure integers is faster and less prone to rounding sensitivity. That means we can work with really large integers—something the tabletop game tries to avoid in order to minimize human math errors."

WOW clone

there is nothing fun about "granular numbers" there is nothing better about "granular numbers" the only thing you do with "granular numbers" is two thing 1. make the whole system meaningless 2.be a WOW clone

some might see me as a jerk and if a derail i will move this idea but really this takes the cake

You make no sense whatsoever. This sounds really cool.

Goblin Squad Member

Greedalox,

Who says they are not using terrain, ranged weapons, height even. They just posted some details on the blow by blow math and mechanics (and hardly all of it I am sure) and everyone seems to be freaking out on a system that is still in the planning stages.

No wonder designers start to tune out the crowd. Too much bellyaching.


Interesting. I think I am most dubious about the 'always has some effect' thing for non-HP-damage debuffs.
Making HP damaging attacks always hit (and just the damage varies, instead of hits/misses varying for same net effect)
isn't a big deal, because you can act 100% normally when you have lower HPs.
(changing that would be an interesting mix-up to the dynamics, essentially making HP damage be an inherent de-buff)

But effects that Entangle you, or Stun you, etc, are extra debilitating...
I think having a substantial chance (against equal or superior opponents) for them to not do anything substantial is needed.
The idea of 'downgrading'/weakening the effect is a good one, and that feels viable to use (especially with weakened durations < 1 round),
but I think there should also be a possible outcome of 'really' not having any effect on the target.
Certainly for abilities which combine damage AND side-effect, the side-effect should 'degrade' much more easily, including to 'nothing', since the action IS always doing damage...
(I didn't quite understand how the Blog was describing combo damage+rider effects working, that somehow the resistances applied twice or something to disproportionately weaken the rider effect, or something...?)

AoE/multi-target debuffs also have a distinct dynamic from single-target, single-effect spells/attacks, and should have a higher chance to simply not debilitate a given target (IMHO), since SOME (probably multiple) targets WILL probably suffer some effect of the spell. Perhaps that could partially be addressed by AoE/multi-target effects usually applying some negative modifier to the attacker's relative skill/tier (in compensation of targetting multiple people with one spell/action).

Perhaps the '3 Tiers' approach could be used, like the tabletop's game 'confirming a Crit' concept, if 2 or 3 of the 3x d200 'rolls' are 'confirmed Misses', the controlling effect could be ruled a 'total failure'? Or instead of 'Confirming' with multiple individual rolls, it could 'confirm' the given roll (based on Tier) with the TOTAL (or average) of all 3 rolls... That would make Total Misses (or extreme Crits if it uses this) much more rare, especially for Tier 1 characters (who use the lowest of 3 rolls as their primary roll).

Ultimately, I think there is more room for some level of misses/null effect, along with Crits (although that doesn't use a separate roll in the system described), because death itself is just less meaningful/difficult to deal with in PFO than in the tabletop version of Pathfinder. Given that, I think a combat system which allows for more of that variation, as well as abilities keyed off of that dynamic (allowing more powerful abilities) will just make combat more interesting, and not just a 'grind each other down' type of thing. Sure, Crits/Total Miss events mean you can get unlucky and totally miss several actions in a row, and die because of it, but dying is a common thing in this game, and there is many means to enact vengeance if you so choose... Might as well make things as dynamic and exciting as possible.

-------------------------------------------------------------

So... How does Casting work, if not Vancian spell slots?
How does that effect the power of, or what you can do with a spell? (if you can cast it many more times/day)
Even the most radical variation of Vancian, like Spell or Psionic points, are severely restricted on usages/day, but I don't see that flying in this sort of game. How do you compensate? Obviously, healing also being less limited compensates to a certain extent, but I think that still leaves the issue of peak nova balancing, if characters can return to 100% health state many more times/day.
I honestly think that finding some way to enact signifigantly long-duration spell resets/cooldowns especially for the more powerful spells a given character can access, i.e. more closely following the tabletop game, would be the most interesting approach, but obviously there is going to be some sort of major difference from the tabletop game.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
We don't want people to be in a position to have to decide whether they're actually outclassed, or whether the random number generator is throwing them a string of unlikely misses.

+1 for more intuitive combat.

It's going to be much more fun to realize I'm losing and change tactics/run away/call for help early in the fight than the MMORPG standard of stand where you are, keep doing what you are doing, and pray for crits, dodges, and misses.

I think I feel the same about secondary effects always applying. I'd be fine if they weren't reduced to a lower form (simply duration reduced) but having the effect reduced to a lower form is kinda cool, at least. For silence: Maybe it can be reduced to silencing to only that particular school of spells?

The argument to include misses because they prolong combat is compelling, but since all attacks will be specifically selected by the players (no auto-attacks), I think I'm happier with no misses.

Thanks for the great blog, I'm glad you showed us the numbers!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greedalox wrote:

Keep the stamina system, and keep the no auto-attack. Those are good. But slow down the battle pace enough so that there is more time and oppertunity to introduce strategic elements (more thoughtful gameplay). Its just simply a fact that while a turn based game is not as exciting as a more actiony game, it introduces a huge amount of strategic and thoughtful gameplay. Dont misinterpret me, I dont want a turn based game either, but I was hoping for a cross between turn-based gameplay, chess, and standard mmo gameplay. This seems more like a bunch of passive and too fair numbers meets GW2 without cooldowns or active blocks and dodges.

[...]
Any thing like a combo system that gives you bonuses for using certain attacks togother?

Anything like a group combo system that gives significant attack power for coordinating specific attacks together as a group (skillful teamplay)?

It seems to me like you're already assuming the answers to your own questions are "no" and complaining about it, when the blog itself already presents examples of "yes":

Blog wrote:
In addition to having varying amounts of damage, activation time, and cost, attacks differ based on what kinds of secondary effects they have. A power attack leaves the attacker briefly unguarded in exchange for more damage, while a wrathful swing leaves the target unguarded, but deals less damage than a similar attack with no effects.

So 2 guys attacking one target, one of them hits with a "wrathful swing", and then the other comes in immediately after with a "power attack" while the target's defenses are lowered. Sounds to me like advanced tactics and teamwork are built into the foundation of the system, with a lot of variety to challenge players moment to moment instead of simply clicking "auto-fight" and watching the bars go down.


Nihimon wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
I hope jumping and excessive movement takes alot of fatigue too. Otherwise you'll have people running and jumping in cirlces around opponents hoping to get a pixel or two on your backside for precision damage.

Don't forget about movement provoking attacks of opportunity.

From Goblinworks Blog: A Three-Headed Hydra:

Lee Hammock wrote:
* One of the core mechanics we are working on for the fighter is a version of attacks of opportunity. The idea is that certain actions, such as running, casting spells, ranged attacks, etc put a debuff on the target called Opportunity. This debuff has no effect other than when certain attacks (particularly fighter attacks, and to a lesser extent Rogue) are used against a target suffering from Opportunity they do a lot more damage and can stun/slow/etc the target.

Please please please include Sta. drain for jumping!

I'm a little concerned about my Rogues ability to survive if you take away dodge and misses. It likely will work out as you've described, but I just can't see the system based on the math alone, so ill have to wait until we can see it play out in the arena environment.

I will miss the randomness in combat a bit. Most players are used to missing, and to crits sometimes doing huge damages, so I find it somewhat strange to be concerned with players getting frustrated over missing when getting killed when your trying to harvest or just going from point A to point B will frustrate people a lot more. Not taking shots at the combat system or your plans. Just making an observation, it wouldn't bother me to have my character miss and getting mad cause you got killed isn't very productive in a PvP game <g>

Honestly I wouldn't mind seeing Block assigned to a key players can press. It would fit well with the no auto attack Stamina regen system your planning.


Rafkin wrote:

But we will know your biggest weakness based on the armor type we see you wearing. I suppose thats true of most games but then most games aren't this predictable. Ah well, system sounds good to me.

Just consider changing Freedom or everyone will spec for one physical control and one mental control and its Stun Wars all over again.

+1 for both of these.

Tabletop doesn't include any of this heavy armor vs. caster robe differentiation for protection against energy/etc.
A caster probably is likely to have that type of protection more often (or in larger doses) because they don't have need to get fancy heavy armor, but it doesn't need to be made impossible/capped/inflated in price for heavy armor types to get it (it's already on top of the price they put into their keyword'ed armor to begin with).

A unitary control-lock reduction mechanism seems preferable IMHO, perhaps some class' actions may not be as affected by some types of control, but I think just a single mechanism is preferable here... Especially if the mechanism will be able to 'downgrade' effects to their weaker version, besides affecting durations, a unitary mechanism seems more than do-able (you will still 'see' the effect of the other classes of control, the total result will just stay more balanced).

Goblin Squad Member

Hardin Steele wrote:

Greedalox,

Who says they are not using terrain, ranged weapons, height even. They just posted some details on the blow by blow math and mechanics (and hardly all of it I am sure) and everyone seems to be freaking out on a system that is still in the planning stages.

No wonder designers start to tune out the crowd. Too much bellyaching.

1st. Im a crowdforger...... Im crowdforging.

2nd. Im not bellyaching, Im asking very relevant questions? If I was bellyaching you'd know it. And if this game ultimately follows a direction I disapprove of Ill just leave. I wont stick around and complain and whine, just leave. But we are still crowdforging arent we.

3rd. Read my first paragraph. I admit that I might not have all the pieces. The problem is that this blog didnt clear anything up and left me with more questions than answers.

4th. Im not gonna get fooled and let my eyes glaze over just because they used a lot of pretty math. All that math did was scream "Every character is functionally the same and stats are ballanced to be fair and square"!

Additionally I really feel for developers, game designing is not easy, and I do not envy the struggles they have or the masses they must face. I am just honestly stating my feeling, and wanting some clarification from the devs about the current system. And yes, expressing my view on the direction of a slower more strategic pace.

CEO, Goblinworks

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyras Ausks wrote:
WOW clone

You keep using that word...

Goblin Squad Member

@Tuoweit
It seems to me like you're already assuming the answers to your own questions are "no" and complaining about it, when the blog itself already presents examples of "yes":

Answer:
Pardon me if I made it sound that way. Im excitable over this topic and I do get a bit passionate sometimes. I am allowed to voice my opinion though correct? And I truly believe something approaching more close to a turn based pace would have created much more depth.

So 2 guys attacking one target, one of them hits with a "wrathful swing", and then the other comes in immediately after with a "power attack" while the target's defenses are lowered. Sounds to me like advanced tactics and teamwork are built into the foundation of the system, with a lot of variety to challenge players moment to moment instead of simply clicking "auto-fight" and watching the bars go down.

Answer:
All I have to say to this is with the same-ish math and shallow power curve I do worry to what degree this kind of scenario will be true. And I really really hope you are right, but if there is one thing I have learned: dont wait!! Always speak up and hopw the devs listen, dont assume somethings well in hand or that the devs have everyting figured out or trust that their ideas are great. They might be (emphasis on the might), but by god they are just as human as you or me and therefore not perfect.

Goblin Squad Member

I do want to point out that there are some very real positives in this blog. I particularly like the detail in skills / feats that each weapon has, and the different qualities and how they all work to modify the d3x200 rolls.

This will lead to a more thoughtful approach to what feats to train and then when to use them during the combat round. But more interesting to me was this:

Quote:
Attack feats do not have cooldowns. You can use them as often as you have the time, stamina, and other requirements (and this is another reason there is no auto attack). Some attacks intended to be used less often may be fatiguing—temporarily reducing your maximum stamina—or may apply other very detrimental effects on the attacker that you'll only want to risk if the situation is optimal. Most stuns, immobilizes, and other crowd control effects additionally give the target a temporary resistance to repeated applications.

I like the fact that the affects do not so easily stack, thus making it difficult to nearly infinitely stunning or immobilizing your opponent, or having that done to yourself.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greedalox wrote:
What about the use of stamina? Is there any benefit to timing or does it not matter if I spam all my feats and then have to wait for stamina to recharge vs spacing out my attacks so that I use just enough stamina to never run out?

When I first read Ryan talk about this stamina system he was clear that (I'm paraphrasing)if a character spams his attacks he will waste stamina because it pulses ful every six seconds, whereas the fighter who gets into the right rythmn in his rotation he will maximise his use of stamina. That sounds very much like spamming attacks will reliably lead to loss.

Frankly the system reminds me of some of my best bouts, back when I fenced.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:


We don't presently have a concept for a complete miss/block for the same reason we don't have critical hits that double damage: it introduces an element that can make combat extremely unpredictable, and which are unfun for the person on the other side. Nobody wants to pull out an expensive attack only to see MISS and no effect. We don't want people to be in a position to have to decide whether they're actually outclassed, or whether the random number generator is throwing them a string of unlikely misses.

High-defense and block-type effects are getting incorporated as an across the board mechanism, but our actual balancing takes them into account the same way we would a miss/block chance. If we had a binary miss/hit system, the same defense that would give you a 10% chance to take 0 damage on any given attack (and full damage for all the others) will just let you take 10% less damage overall on every attack. It's less exciting for the guy that got the perfect block, but he's taking the same reduced average damage overall while keeping the other guy from having a very frustrating moment.

This breaks with just about all my understanding of how combat works with sword, shield, armor, and bow. It also breaks with all the combat modeling I've seen in RPG's. It may still be succseful but I think you have an uphill battle with this.

Goblin Squad Member

I think many are still thinking from the old model of meaty guys beating the tar out of each other when the model has changed a bit. It is going to require experience probably to get it right, and that experience is coming to us in the Pits.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Greedalox wrote:
What about the use of stamina? Is there any benefit to timing or does it not matter if I spam all my feats and then have to wait for stamina to recharge vs spacing out my attacks so that I use just enough stamina to never run out?

When I first read Ryan talk about this stamina system he was clear that (I'm paraphrasing)if a character spams his attacks he will waste stamina because it pulses ful every six seconds, whereas the fighter who gets into the right rythmn in his rotation he will maximise his use of stamina. That sounds very much like spamming attacks will reliably lead to loss.

Frankly the system reminds me of some of my best bouts, back when I fenced.

Thanks Being. This is a helpful response. It sounds interesting but Id like it if we could get specifics. Immediatly what jumps out to me about it though is the word "rotation". This makes it seem less about strategy and more about maximizing DPS. Its not that good DPS is bad so much as I am tired of a DPS rotation race being everything. Id prefer more tactical gameplay where you cant just press the same 4 buttons over and over again. Again, not saying this is the case, but the word "rotation" puts me on gaurd.


Will there be trainers who teach 'universal' things, i.e. feats usable by all/many classes, e.g. Power Attack could be used by anybody, most likely Fighter, Barb, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue... For magic, some things like Concentration could be universal amongst Caster classes... Or will every trainable feat be 'class' specific, even if people can easily 'multiclass'?

Is the training of Saving Throws meant to be totally modular, i.e. instead of levelling up in a normal tabletop class, you pick which saves you want, what BAB and HD/HP you want, and what abilities... or is it merely for 'auxiliary' save bonuses (akin to Iron Will in tabletop game), and Saves are otherwise linked to class ability progression?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Regarding armor Tiers:

Will a given armor be the same Tier for all defenses, or can e.g. a robe be very effective against magical attacks but ineffective versus physical attacks?

Goblin Squad Member

Greedalox wrote:
...Thanks Being. This is a helpful response. It sounds interesting but Id like it if we could get specifics. Immediatly what jumps out to me about it though is the word "rotation". This makes it seem less about strategy and more about maximizing DPS. Its not that good DPS is bad so much as I am tired of a DPS rotation race being everything. Id prefer more tactical gameplay where you cant just press the same 4 buttons over and over again. Again, not saying this is the case, but the word "rotation" puts me on gaurd.

Oh sure, glad to be a help.

If it is any consolation when I spoke of 'rotation' there I was actually not thinking about game, but sport. In fencing when you are well matched you and your opponent counter each other move for move, rotating your parries and thrusts, and usually you win or lose because one or the other of you breaks rotation unexpectedly with a new move, a riposte or lunge. The thing about such rotations is that they are as hypnotic as good music or dance, and it is very dangerous to allow yourself to permit complacence with your routine.

I wasn't at all thinking of min/maxing, but of deception and feint.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

After reading the blog one thing that I notices was the importance of timing. That suggest that you will need a good internet connection or a very low overhead for the combat process. Lag spikes could be a real problem.

Goblin Squad Member

Rafkin wrote:

Is there any reason to be concerned that the system is TOO predictable? Once player A figures out a rotation that beats Player B won't he alwyays beat him?

Or once I know Pauls weak vs. Fire won't I always beat him until he earns xp or re-gears?

Maybe just a concern vs. NPCs who can't change tactics.

Probably, it would then be up to pauls team to change the rotation so that paul and you don't line up with eachother in the next bout. Tim's combination may be especially effective against you.

Remember this isn't a solo game, even if rogue beats wizard, or whatever combination 100% of the time, that isn't necessarally a flaw. 1v1 is the odd exception not the rule.

Goblin Squad Member

@Decius,

I'm fairly certain the item itself is of a particular tier. What you're describing sounds like it will be expressed via combinations of keywords.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm pretty happy with what I read. Although I have the same concern as many others here, with light armor. If we ALWAYS get hit, but the damage gets reduced, whats happens to my nimble assassin who can't even take many reduced hits?

Goblin Squad Member

It may be that your assassin isn't quite a squishy as you thought in PFO.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

I like the whole setup. A lot of thought and effort have gone into it to make combat more than just a click fest and it looks like an experienced player with a weaker character could quickly even the odds against a more powerful foe with only one or two real strategies.

What does bother me is the 3d200 system. The averages are not 50, 100, 150 for taking the lowest, middle and highest rolls respectively. At tier 1 you will roll under 40 almost half the time. Your chance of getting 100 or more is 1/8. Once you hit tier 2, there's a mighty sudden jump in skill. And tier 3 is the opposite of Tier 1- you get over 160 almost half the time. Hopefully, these numbers won't seem so extreme once they've been enmeshed invisibly into the system. The never missing just means you do lots of low damage most of the time. Could get frustrating very quickly, but we'll see.

That said, seeing the combat system does tempt me to consider dabbling with a more martial character.

Goblin Squad Member

They are scalar, and granular, so I would not expect a big leap between 99 and 101, but instead a very gradual improvement. I suspect the 'tier' system is just an artificial reference.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:

@Decius,

I'm fairly certain the item itself is of a particular tier. What you're describing sounds like it will be expressed via combinations of keywords.

I'm just not currently comfortable with a new wizard robe giving a significant benefit vs. getting smacked with heavy sharp things.

Goblin Squad Member

What if it could do that through enchantment? Maybe with a tradeoff?

Goblin Squad Member

@tigari

well one way would be to make dodge part of resistance.

so you have two players McSmashface and Mrnimble.

McSmashface wears heavy armor and a shield and mitigates 80% of the incoming damage. Nearly all his resistance comes from his armor and basically none comes from dodge.

Mrnimble wears light armor and has trained for stupidly high dodge. He also mitigates 80% of the damage, however most of his resistance is NOT from armor but from the dodge bonus.

Also there could be a speed difference. So Mrnimble wears light armor and does not suffer a speed penalty, so he can dance around Mcsmashface and basically choose when to engage. McSmashface could get rid of this penalty by using boots of speed or something, but then thats a trade off to using other boots (so Mrnimble maybe has boots of DD for when he gets into trouble since he doesnt want to waste the slot on speed, OR he can use boots of speed to give him more mobility).

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
They are scalar, and granular, so I would not expect a big leap between 99 and 101, but instead a very gradual improvement. I suspect the 'tier' system is just an artificial reference.

Actually, I think the tiers will be a rather large leap due to the 3d200 system. In tier one you use the lowest result, tier 2 the middle, and tier three the highest.


Pryllin wrote:
What does bother me is the 3d200 system. The averages are not 50, 100, 150 for taking the lowest, middle and highest rolls respectively.

They did say they simplified some numbers specifically for the blog. Saying '46' or '157' doesn't really help comprehension of the basic idea.

Quote:
Once you hit tier 2, there's a mighty sudden jump in skill.

On it's own, any instant switch from 'lowest of 3' to 'medium of 3' is going to be a sharp jump. But any 'jump' in effectiveness can easily be smoothed over by the existence of Tier 2 items with Resistance ratings BELOW the highest level Tier 1 items. And if you have other sources of stacking Resistance bonus, or special 're-roll' (pseudo-Tier boost) abilities, lower Tier items with very large Resistance bonuses could very well be attractive enough to consider using for longer than you'd think (especially if their cost is lower because most people want to move on to the next Tier). Supply/demand will always apply... so even with stratified Tiers of Armor, there will be a broad array of other items/training/etc that will provide a smoother continuum of usevalue:goldspent.

Since it was said that if you don't have the relevant training, you will treat higher Tier items as the lower Tier (you have training for), I expect that to go for all skills related to using that item... So you may buy a Tier 3 sword or set of armor, but you may still end up using Tier 2 trip for a while, because you aren't able to train that right away... same for special defensive abilities... So the effectiveness of Tier2/3 armor or any item will take a while to 'come into it's own'. Since everybody will be dealing with that dynamic, and only be able to immediately take advantage of the higher Tier with a small subset of their abilities (that they can immediately train up-Tier), the perceived value/price will match the reality.

Quote:
That said, seeing the combat system does tempt me to consider dabbling with a more martial character.

We don't know that much about spellcasting yet, but from what I've seen, I would say it seems it will be much more on par with the 'martials' than it is in tabletop... From unifying Saves/AC to everything being a similar skill check vs. defence, to martials also having 'debuff' attacks available, they seem much more equivalent than the tabletop version (a good thing, the tabletop version 'balances' martial vs. caster, if at all, in a very wonky way not very amenable to MMORPGs).

Goblin Squad Member

Pryllin wrote:

I like the whole setup. A lot of thought and effort have gone into it to make combat more than just a click fest and it looks like an experienced player with a weaker character could quickly even the odds against a more powerful foe with only one or two real strategies.

r.

Except that the veteran character has lots of different keyword damage types and multiple weapon sets. So all he has to do is hit the lowbie once with each of his weapons and see which does the most damage snd stick with that set.

Where the lowbie has one weapon set, few keywords, so his only chance of winning is if gets lucky and his weapon happens to match up against the veterans defenses.

I don't have a problem with this but I'm not ready to buy into the whole " newbs have a chance vs. vets" thing. (Talking characters, not players)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@rafkin

I dont see the issue with that. Having a dozen weapons with various keywords...guess what, thats part of the advantage of playing for longer than someone else.

On the other side the vetern running around with a dozen high powered weapons and armor runs the very real risk of losing them all whenever they die. So you have to be smart about it.

Secondly we dont know how difficult having lost of keywords will be. So either you carry dozens of weapons or you carry one really powerful one, which sucks up your threads and opens up other gear to being lost.

Not only that but will there be a skill lockout for swapping weapons in the middle of combat?

Goblin Squad Member

@Rafkin, one on one I doubt newbies will have a chance, nor would I expect them too. But if that newbie has a few other friends, well now it gets interesting.

CEO, Goblinworks

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Relatively unskilled characters will not beat relatively well equipped high skilled characters in fights. But they should be able to try to run away without always being killed no matter what. And a low skill character and a medium skill character working together should be a good match for a high skilled well equipped character; not a 50/50 fight, but a high enough chance of victory that the high skilled character has to consider death a reasonable potential.

We want a flatter power curve than most of the theme park games. But not a flat one. The case we're trying to avoid is high skill character one-shotting every low-skill character it fights, and low-skill characters being totally unable to do any (meaningful) damage to a high-skill, well equipped character.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Pryllin wrote:

I like the whole setup. A lot of thought and effort have gone into it to make combat more than just a click fest and it looks like an experienced player with a weaker character could quickly even the odds against a more powerful foe with only one or two real strategies.

What does bother me is the 3d200 system. The averages are not 50, 100, 150 for taking the lowest, middle and highest rolls respectively. At tier 1 you will roll under 40 almost half the time. Your chance of getting 100 or more is 1/8. Once you hit tier 2, there's a mighty sudden jump in skill. And tier 3 is the opposite of Tier 1- you get over 160 almost half the time.

Just as a point of fact, the arithmetic mean (average) just about exactly 50, 100, and 150. The median is slightly more extreme (In the 40's or 160's, but 10% of all rolls will be on the other side of 100, and 20% are above 80 or below 120 (for low and high, respectively).

That means that 10% of your attacks will hit for full damage with a T1 weapon against T3 armor (assuming your attack skill is equal to their defense skill), and another 10% will do at least 95% of full damage. The median attack will miss by about 110, and do almost 90% of full damage. Conversely, the T1 weapon vs. T3 armor will do 100% of damage virtually all of the time... for very little additional damage over time.

There are complicating factors- like the fact that average attack and average damage don't correspond in a simple manner, but currently five characters with T1 weapons and armor and base skills eat four characters with T3 equipment for lunch. (Again, assuming base skills and not accounting for the effects of properly used keywords) the more numerous group has about 110% of the DPS of the larger group, and 125% of the HP.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:

@tigari

well one way would be to make dodge part of resistance.

so you have two players McSmashface and Mrnimble.

McSmashface wears heavy armor and a shield and mitigates 80% of the incoming damage. Nearly all his resistance comes from his armor and basically none comes from dodge.

Mrnimble wears light armor and has trained for stupidly high dodge. He also mitigates 80% of the damage, however most of his resistance is NOT from armor but from the dodge bonus.

This is true, and I didn't even think of adding dodge as a "static" stat into resistance instead of it being a random chance. So McSmashface and Mrnimble have the same resistance, but Mcsmashface may have a higher HP pool, were Mrnimble may have a higher dmg output. so the fight comes down to types of armor and weapons (keywords) and player skill.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I'd really love to see an entire blog about Combat Maneuvers.

Yes!

Goblin Squad Member

As someone with borderline carpel tunnel, having to spam keypress to make ANY attacks whatsoever with no autoattack feature = physically unplayable game.

Thanks for wasting my time and money.

Nice of you to consider older players in your game design.

Can I get a refund?

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Sooo, keywords. I noticed in the blog that the basic longsword had the “slashing“ keyword (or, at least, might have) and I thought “what about axes?“Axes, like swords, deal damage via slashing. However, an axe has much less finesse than a sword, and they end up being used completely differently. As such, axes and swords should have different feats or skills or whatever associated with them. I can see them having some common feats at low level, as your average joe swings his sword much like your average bob swings his axe. But in higher levels, the use of axes and swords are quite different.

Kay, my thought processes aren‘t exactly straight, so I‘ll get to the point.

I think that weapons that deal damage in a similar way could (and maybe should) have the same keywords at low levels (eg. Slashing for swords and axes, piercing for raipers and spears) but should have unique keywords for each weapon group at higher levels (eg. Razor for swords, deadly for axes, bashing for hammers.)

That way people can choose to specialise in one weapon group and deal increased damage with them in exchange for a lower damage output with other weapon groups.

It could be taken even farther, with skills that look for keywords that are only found on a specific weapon (greatswords, waraxes, etc.)

Goblin Squad Member

one thing that could happen is basically take a bit from 4E, you can have different weapon feat lines where you get different bonuses based on weapon type.

overall i didnt care for 4E, but i did like those weapon feat lines.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Relatively unskilled characters will not beat relatively well equipped high skilled characters in fights. But they should be able to try to run away without always being killed no matter what. And a low skill character and a medium skill character working together should be a good match for a high skilled well equipped character; not a 50/50 fight, but a high enough chance of victory that the high skilled character has to consider death a reasonable potential.

We want a flatter power curve than most of the theme park games. But not a flat one. The case we're trying to avoid is high skill character one-shotting every low-skill character it fights, and low-skill characters being totally unable to do any (meaningful) damage to a high-skill, well equipped character.

Any veteran is going to have one physical control and one mental control ability, so that's two consecutive full power controls to lock down someone who runs under the current Freedom design.

Obviously I don't have enough info about crowd control to judge this system but I am concerned about the separate Freedom stacks for physical and mental.

I have no issues with the power curve.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

What?! You want PFO to be a successful product?! WoW clone!

What?! PFO is going to have smooth and responsive controls? WoW clone!

What?! PFO will have more then 2 players interacting at a time? WoW clone!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Summersnow wrote:

As someone with borderline carpel tunnel, having to spam keypress to make ANY attacks whatsoever with no autoattack feature = physically unplayable game.

Thanks for wasting my time and money.

Nice of you to consider older players in your game design.

Can I get a refund?

It's a PVP based MMO. Did you not expect to have to quickly push multiple buttons??? Even with AA, you would have to do this.


Papaver wrote:

What?! You want PFO to be a successful product?! WoW clone!

What?! PFO is going to have smooth and responsive controls? WoW clone!

What?! PFO will have more then 2 players interacting at a time? WoW clone!

What?! The game actually is WoW and I'm on the WoW forums making a fool of myself? WoW clone!

;D

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

This whole approach just reeks of good design. It's intuitive and relatively simple from a player's perspective - what tier, what keywords, am I skilled enough use effectively? It provides ample levers for the devs to tweak for balanced fun outcomes - base damage, attack bonus, resistances, damage factors...

Good design, and I look forward to the crowdforging process that helps steer execution.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Papaver wrote:

What?! You want PFO to be a successful product?! WoW clone!

What?! PFO is going to have smooth and responsive controls? WoW clone!

What?! PFO will have more then 2 players interacting at a time? WoW clone!

What?! The game actually is WoW and I'm on the WoW forums making a fool of myself? WoW clone!

;D

No John you are the WoW clone!

On a more serious note: This sounds like a reasonable approach for a system. The 3d200 tiered thing made me raise an eyebrow but I guess we will see how it plays out once the combat test hits.

Goblin Squad Member

Tigari wrote:
Summersnow wrote:

As someone with borderline carpel tunnel, having to spam keypress to make ANY attacks whatsoever with no autoattack feature = physically unplayable game.

Thanks for wasting my time and money.

Nice of you to consider older players in your game design.

Can I get a refund?

It's a PVP based MMO. Did you not expect to have to quickly push multiple buttons??? Even with AA, you would have to do this.

He's been a hater for months now, so there's not much use trying to talk him out of it.

Anyway, there are controllers such as the Belkin Nostromo n52 & Logitech G35 which have a bunch of programmable keys. Besides being more ergonomic than fumbling on a keyboard, they can resolve the nonexistent* 'spamming' issue. You can set them to repeat a macro, either once, repeated while the key is held, or repeated until the next time you press the key.

*It's nonexistent because if you were to just beat your keys as fast as you can, you'd blow all of your stamina on poorly-timed attacks and then end up waiting the remaining 5 seconds with nothing to do.

51 to 100 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: Murder by Numbers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.