Even if you have "all the cards", you're still only one guy. The real excitement in the game won't be how great your stats are, but how well your alliance does. In other words, as many have said, this is not the game for one-on-one combat.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Creating different damage types(slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) and armor weaknesses and strengths against those would in my opinion bring more meaningful choices. Creating universally tough characters will be the goal of all players and diverting from such characters appearing in the game should be the aim of development. This would allow players to create characters more to their liking, style and flavor instead of being forced to consider which would be a more powerful("meaningful") choice for a character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In real life, a dagger is better than an great-axe at penetrating platemail.(...)
The things that saw most effective use against heavy armor were things that could deliver ALOT of kinetic energy...many times it wasn't even so much penetrating the armor as delivering shock and concussion, through the armor to the wearer.
So big heavy weapons...Great-Axes, Great-Swords, maces, flails....warhammers were particulary popular for such use....lances of course (driven by force of the horse, not the weilder).
(...)
Big and heavy is fine for knocking down and breaking bones, but to actually penetrate armor you need concentrated force, preferably at a weak spot.
*Warhammer (and some polearms) is the best for penetrating, estoc (and dagger) better at finding the weak spots.
*Maces and flails generate a lot force, but if they were designed against plate they would have knobs or spikes on them - more warhammer-ish.
*Greataxes (viking bearded axe) are great against shield walls but worse than a mace against plate since the long edge is a liability. The solution is to put a spike on the back, which gives you a warhammer.
*Greatswords (zweihanders) are great against pike walls but to be effective against plate they have to be pointy and be wielded like estocs (which they do worse than the estoc).
but this discussion just makes me more excited about keywords!
Mace with 'knobby' keyword is better at penetrating plate, axe with 'spiked' keyword allows an armor piercing attack. Sword with 'piercing' and 'stiff' (or 'narrow' or 'triangular cross-section') are essentially estocs...
I'd prefer if keywords aren't only positive. The estoc is not a good sword in an unarmed fencing duel. I think the market/crafters would also benefit is some of the more powerful keywords have small drawbacks (if nothing else, that they use more threads).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Creating different damage types(slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) and armor weaknesses and strengths against those would in my opinion bring more meaningful choices.
This is already covered by keywords.
[speculation]:
"sharp" adds damage if you penetrate, is only for edged weapons, and gaining the benefit is a skill in the 'light swords' skill tree.
"armor piercing" helps penetrate, is only for piercing (or knobbed/spiked) weapons, and gaining the benefit is a skill in the 'heavy melee weapons' skill tree.
[/speculation]
of course armors have keywords too, and special moves will add a third set of conditions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is encouraging. I was concerned about button-mashing becoming the norm for combat. That would be a step backward, even if PFO limited the allowable combat actions to 6 or so per weapon.
I would like to see active combat, as much as possible. Reactive skills, Positioning, dodge rolls, chained skills that lead to better effects, cooperative feats that take more than one person to achieve, etc.
It looks like this is possible, and maybe even planned.
I would like it if, say once we reach veteran status and have far more skills than slots to activate them, we could combine them into chains, similar to a macro with suitable pauses triggered with a single slot.
That is, if I've mastered sword and shield I could combine (parry & pause & riposte & block & pause & shield bash & thrust) and trigger the sequence with one press of a button, leaving me free to attend to my positioning.
]Okay, so a guy spends four years of gaming to be highly flexible. What's wrong with that? After four years, I'd be shocked if the most advanced players hadn't invested in being ready for anything. Four years is a long time.Meh i've played the same games for 10 years on and off because of it's gameplay. A part of the reason why i am looking forward to this game is that there are so many different roles you can pursue, making you a highly specialized and unique being in the world. I was hoping this would also translate to combat. That you can't fill every role at the same time. That you can't be ''ready for anything''. If everyone are ready for anything, then everyone is equal and that makes for some pretty stale combat.
Hopefully the thread system and maintenance of weapons will stop people from being every card in the deck, from being the rock, the paper and the scissor.
A few threads mention carrying multiple weapons to meet different types of situations. Looks nice on paper but it'll only take once losing those extra weapons before that strategy is shelved. Hopefully even with the myriad role combinations we won't see a universal character build.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If shield defenses and parry skills are already included in the mitigation calculations of attack effectiveness, perhaps it would be best if any shield block/parry, possibly reposte counterattack animations should be automatic?
That would help those caught in a lagfest situation to not just be standing there helplessly while their keystrokes are trying to penetrate a DoS-like situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few threads mention carrying multiple weapons to meet different types of situations. Looks nice on paper but it'll only take once losing those extra weapons before that strategy is shelved. Hopefully even with the myriad role combinations we won't see a universal character build.]Okay, so a guy spends four years of gaming to be highly flexible. What's wrong with that? After four years, I'd be shocked if the most advanced players hadn't invested in being ready for anything. Four years is a long time.Meh i've played the same games for 10 years on and off because of it's gameplay. A part of the reason why i am looking forward to this game is that there are so many different roles you can pursue, making you a highly specialized and unique being in the world. I was hoping this would also translate to combat. That you can't fill every role at the same time. That you can't be ''ready for anything''. If everyone are ready for anything, then everyone is equal and that makes for some pretty stale combat.
Hopefully the thread system and maintenance of weapons will stop people from being every card in the deck, from being the rock, the paper and the scissor.
I remember one of the blogs or dev posts on threads mentioning that a higher level character may be able to thread armor and a weapon, or all of his weapons. That tells me that weapons will not require as many threads as armor, but it will be significant amount. What I think will happen is that most character will keep a single high-quality main weapon and a lower-quality backup that can be more effective vs the something the main weapon will be weak against.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like it if, say once we reach veteran status and have far more skills than slots to activate them, we could combine them into chains, similar to a macro with suitable pauses triggered with a single slot.
I would also like to see this. I'm imagining a Sword Swing attack that makes a follow-up Shield Bash more effective. Then, once I'm suitably high-skilled in both of those attacks, I can eventually open up a single attack that is in essence a Sword Swing with an automatic Shield Bash follow-up.
Looks nice on paper but it'll only take once losing those extra weapons before that strategy is shelved.
If you're carrying around unthreaded T3 weapons, then I can see it only taking once. However, I think it will be very common for high-level characters to carry around unthreaded T2 weapons as situational backups, and to not worry too much if they lose them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Being & Nihimon,
That's kinda one of the things I dislike about the current design....that macro's may be neccesary or make sense. I'd prefer a less predictable system where you don't really know whether it's a good idea to follow up one move with another until you see the results of the first move.
So instead of something like:
Step 1 - Weapon Sweep.. draws opponents weapon out of the way.
Step 2 - Shield Bash... knock opponent silly now that his defences are down.
It'd be more like:
Step 1 - Weapon Sweep....
LOOK at results... Aw crap, I completely missed making contact with the other guys weapon. Now, my weapon is out of position and I'm vulnerable.
Step 2 - What do I do now? Do I jump back and fight defensively? Do I go for broke with a shoulder-slam or haymaker make swing? Do I try to tumble behind the guy or side-step him to setup an unprotected flank for next turn? What do I think this guy is going to do? How agressive is he?
I REALLY, REALLY HATE systems that are so predictable that you default to obvious rotations in combat 95 percent of the time.
I really, really would prefer a system that is not so fast paced that people feel they NEED to resort to macro's to play at a competent level...or frankly need to worry about jumping around and moving constantly.
That's another pet peeve of mine, the kind of circle straffing, jumping in and out or running through folks and turning that most MMO PvP seems to devolve down to is as cheesey and unrealistic as "bunny hopping" in FPS games.
You see any sort of hand-to-hand fight in real life...once two parties are engaged, most movement is of a very circumspect nature....large movements are extremely dangerous to the guy moving because, due to balance and momentem, they severely limit your ability to react to threats or take advantage of opportunities.... the only time you usualy see skilled combatants take them is when thier opponents have already over-commited to something they can't get out of. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I remember one of the blogs or dev posts on threads mentioning that a higher level character may be able to thread armor and a weapon, or all of his weapons. That tells me that weapons will not require as many threads as armor, but it will be significant amount. What I think will happen is that most character will keep a single high-quality main weapon and a lower-quality backup that can be more effective vs the something the main weapon will be weak against.A few threads mention carrying multiple weapons to meet different types of situations. Looks nice on paper but it'll only take once losing those extra weapons before that strategy is shelved. Hopefully even with the myriad role combinations we won't see a universal character build.]Okay, so a guy spends four years of gaming to be highly flexible. What's wrong with that? After four years, I'd be shocked if the most advanced players hadn't invested in being ready for anything. Four years is a long time.Meh i've played the same games for 10 years on and off because of it's gameplay. A part of the reason why i am looking forward to this game is that there are so many different roles you can pursue, making you a highly specialized and unique being in the world. I was hoping this would also translate to combat. That you can't fill every role at the same time. That you can't be ''ready for anything''. If everyone are ready for anything, then everyone is equal and that makes for some pretty stale combat.
Hopefully the thread system and maintenance of weapons will stop people from being every card in the deck, from being the rock, the paper and the scissor.
Yeah, that would be my plan at this point. Take a main weapon that compliments your training strengths....take a cheap backup or two to provide at least some coverage for things that your main weapon is simply ineffective against (e.g. if your main is a sword...bring along a cheap warhammer if you run into skeletons, etc).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Being & Nihimon,
That's kinda one of the things I dislike about the current design....that macro's may be neccesary or make sense. I'd prefer a less predictable system where you don't really know whether it's a good idea to follow up one move with another until you see the results of the first move.
So instead of something like:
Step 1 - Weapon Sweep.. draws opponents weapon out of the way.
Step 2 - Shield Bash... knock opponent silly now that his defences are down.
It'd be more like:
Step 1 - Weapon Sweep....
LOOK at results... Aw crap, I completely missed making contact with the other guys weapon. Now, my weapon is out of position and I'm vulnerable.
Step 2 - What do I do now? Do I jump back and fight defensively? Do I go for broke with a shoulder-slam or haymaker make swing? Do I try to tumble behind the guy or side-step him to setup an unprotected flank for next turn? What do I think this guy is going to do? How agressive is he?
Sounds like Tekken, or any other fighting game...
I really, really would prefer a system that is not so fast paced that people feel they NEED to resort to macro's to play at a competent level...or frankly need to worry about jumping around and moving constantly.
...in slow motion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was not trying to agree with macros. Rather, I was trying to suggest a way that macros could be avoided entirely, while still giving the "flavor" that Being seemed to be suggesting.
I'm also very much in favor of a system that encourages us to observe, orient, decide, and then act, rather than mindlessly spamming buttons in a particular rotation.
Relating this to my Aikido classes, as a beginner, one of the very first things we learn is to get off the line of attack. Then we learn to join with the energy of the attacker and redirect it. Then we learn how to redirect it in ways which take the attacker off-balance. At higher levels, these three concepts are combined into a single action.
Relating it to what very little I know of Roman Legion combat, I would imagine they first train to strike out and upward with their shields, driving their enemy's weapons up and out of the way. Then they might train to follow that up with a thrust with their short sword to the newly exposed area. Eventually, these two actions combine into a single, seamless act.
@Being & Nihimon,
That's kinda one of the things I dislike about the current design....that macro's may be neccesary or make sense. I'd prefer a less predictable system where you don't really know whether it's a good idea to follow up one move with another until you see the results of the first move.
So instead of something like:
Step 1 - Weapon Sweep.. draws opponents weapon out of the way.
Step 2 - Shield Bash... knock opponent silly now that his defences are down.
It'd be more like:
Step 1 - Weapon Sweep....
LOOK at results... Aw crap, I completely missed making contact with the other guys weapon. Now, my weapon is out of position and I'm vulnerable.
Step 2 - What do I do now? Do I jump back and fight defensively? Do I go for broke with a shoulder-slam or haymaker make swing? Do I try to tumble behind the guy or side-step him to setup an unprotected flank for next turn? What do I think this guy is going to do? How agressive is he?
I REALLY, REALLY HATE systems that are so predictable that you default to obvious rotations in combat 95 percent of the time.
I really, really would prefer a system that is not so fast paced that people feel they NEED to resort to macro's to play at a competent level...or frankly need to worry about jumping around and moving constantly.
That's another pet peeve of mine, the kind of circle straffing, jumping in and out or running through folks and turning that most MMO PvP seems to devolve down to is as cheesey and unrealistic as "bunny hopping" in FPS games.
You see any sort of hand-to-hand fight in real life...once two parties are engaged, most movement is of a very circumspect nature....large movements are extremely dangerous to the guy moving because, due to balance and momentem, they severely limit your ability to react to threats or take advantage of opportunities.... the only time you usualy see skilled combatants take them is when thier opponents have already over-commited to something they can't get out of. YMMV.
I'm totally with you on all the crazy leaping Gnome crap during combat. The bunny hop is a dance isn't it? Definitely favor -'s to combat for excessive movement.
The combat system you describe sounds really cool. It would require a lot more focus then most combat, I agree with it. I think though that even if you slow down the pace of combat, many would label it twitchy simply because it requires a lot more focus and attention to what your opponent is doing.
I'm not sure how open GW is to altering their combat system, but it would be cool to see more combat based on visual cues instead of what combo the number crunchers figured out works best.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Dario - I think that last post more or less nails my conceptual preference for how combat should work/play/feel in PFO.
1st concentrating on the problems of pvp combat in other mmorpgs:
I REALLY, REALLY HATE systems that are so predictable that you default to obvious rotations in combat 95 percent of the time.
I really, really would prefer a system that is not so fast paced that people feel they NEED to resort to macro's to play at a competent level...or frankly need to worry about jumping around and moving constantly.
That's another pet peeve of mine, the kind of circle straffing, jumping in and out or running through folks and turning that most MMO PvP seems to devolve down to is as cheesey and unrealistic as "bunny hopping" in FPS games.
Better worded than I could have said. Agree strongly with these problems of mmorpg combat. I think automating combat via macros suggests a short-circuit in making it complex/deep decision-making? Also speed for sake of speed has no value imo. Finally the sort of micro'ing movement that reminds me of Starcraft is too much about the game controls than decision-making.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being & Nihimon,
That's kinda one of the things I dislike about the current design....that macro's may be neccesary or make sense. I'd prefer a less predictable system where you don't really know whether it's a good idea to follow up one move with another until you see the results of the first move.
...
Yet you have multiple slots for various tactical choices you could select from, and each of those could be designed to handle a particular situation OR have standalone skills to select if the 'normal' case you built your combo for is not suitable.
Look: anyone can come up with specialized use-cases where your optimal rotation is not ideal. That is a given: macros are not flexible enough.
That doesn't mean that in most situations you would be using anything but your normally optimal rotation. So why not build in the macroing feature so everyone can use it easily if they prefer?
Are you really going to sit there and tell me you wouldn't macro your best rotation that is optimal for 90% of your melee encounters?
I would however also want any live input to interrupt the current macro so I could resume full control if the situation turned out to be not what I expected.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know how the synchronisation of actions will influence this blog description. One thing to consider is stances for on the defence and on the attack to reduce or increase damage? I think possibly having the timing to flip these would enrich combat and tr attention needed by the player on combat at any given time?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regarding Macros, the limitation of a weapon to only allow 6 abilities linked to it should cut down on the need for macros in itself. If you are used to playing WoW or ST:TOR where you may have 25 active abilities to choose from each with different cooldowns and proc timers having macros is a requirement to manage your toolbars, because there are just so damn many of them.
Isn't there a possible 22 buttons to use?
3 weapons each with 6 feats = 18
And then you have the refresher skills = 4
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they don't build the capability into the game then people will use their G15 or controller or Naga, and those without those devices will be unable to keep up.
It might very well be that macroing will be a bad idea. If so great. But if macroing can be made to work those who don't will be at a disadvantage.
I understand the point that many people do not like macros, but you will not be rid of them just by not providing for them.
It could be done well, and if macros turn out to be advantageous then everyone can have a level playing field.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't there a possible 22 buttons to use?
3 weapons each with 6 feats = 18
And then you have the refresher skills = 4
The six weapon feats should change automatically depending on which weapon set is equipped. For example, lets assume a Sword and Shield using cleric. So while a sword and shield set may have 1 - basic attack 2-shield bash 3-cleave 4-bull rush 5- power attack 6 - defensive attack, If you switch to a holy symbol, it should switch to 1- channel energy 2- cure light wounds 3 - sanctuary 4- cure moderate wounds 5 - bulls strength 6 - turn undead
The refresher skills then are 7 - 0 for all sets
You could just set the ~ key as your toggle weapon set button.
Very simple setup for those using a standard mouse and keyboard layout, and even easier if someone is using something like a naga or a keypad controller.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Being, I expect the plan is to make sure there really isn't a competitive advantage to using macros. I think combat will be paced so that most players won't have a problem keeping up.
I seriously doubt they'll spend the development resources to develop a system that allows you to put pauses in a macro. Vanguard & WoW don't do that, yet it's trivial for me to do it on my Nostromo. Of course, I've never really found a situation where it was advantageous to do so...
If they don't build the capability into the game then people will use their G15 or controller or Naga, and those without those devices will be unable to keep up.
It might very well be that macroing will be a bad idea. If so great. But if macroing can be made to work those who don't will be at a disadvantage.
I understand the point that many people do not like macros, but you will not be rid of them just by not providing for them.
It could be done well, and if macros turn out to be advantageous then everyone can have a level playing field.
Your right Being. It's a pretty safe bet that people will be using macros in combat. Can they make combat where macros aren't effective? I can't answer that question, but in games I've played there have been macro users. Personally I don't like macroing, or botting, but nobody asked me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't there a possible 22 buttons to use?
3 weapons each with 6 feats = 18
And then you have the refresher skills = 4
The six weapon feats should change automatically depending on which weapon set is equipped. For example, lets assume a Sword and Shield using cleric. So while a sword and shield set may have 1 - basic attack 2-shield bash 3-cleave 4-bull rush 5- power attack 6 - defensive attack, If you switch to a holy symbol, it should switch to 1- channel energy 2- cure light wounds 3 - sanctuary 4- cure moderate wounds 5 - bulls strength 6 - turn undead
The refresher skills then are 7 - 0 for all sets
You could just set the ~ key as your toggle weapon set button.
Very simple setup for those using a standard mouse and keyboard layout, and even easier if someone is using something like a naga or a keypad controller.
Yeah it's like GW2 and that's a good thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they don't build the capability into the game then people will use their G15 or controller or Naga, and those without those devices will be unable to keep up.
It might very well be that macroing will be a bad idea. If so great. But if macroing can be made to work those who don't will be at a disadvantage.
I understand the point that many people do not like macros, but you will not be rid of them just by not providing for them.
It could be done well, and if macros turn out to be advantageous then everyone can have a level playing field.
Your right Being. It's a pretty safe bet that people will be using macros in combat. Can they make combat where macros aren't effective? I can't answer that question, but in games I've played there have been macro users. Personally I don't like macroing, or botting, but nobody asked me.
Oh I'm no fan of macroing don't get me wrong. But I don't like being at a significant disadvantage either. Attempting to 'John Henry' against macro-using PvPers in AoC taught me some lessons I'll not soon forget.
Pauses are necessary if you want to time the skill's trigger. a six second stamina impulse argues that pauses will be necessary whether macroing or trying to be John Henry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being, I expect the plan is to make sure there really isn't a competitive advantage to using macros. I think combat will be paced so that most players won't have a problem keeping up.
I seriously doubt they'll spend the development resources to develop a system that allows you to put pauses in a macro. Vanguard & WoW don't do that, yet it's trivial for me to do it on my Nostromo. Of course, I've never really found a situation where it was advantageous to do so...
I hope so Nihimon, but I see a problem where those who can afford the best gaming computers and the higher speed tiers from cable and fiber optic providers could have an advantage if macros are used. (Note, full disclosure regarding this issue, I personally have a high a end Alienware gaming rig and a very fast FiOS connection via Verizon, and *I* do not want this to put others at a disadvantage when PvPing with/against me. If I am forced to macro in order to compete with those who have similar setups, those who do not are getting the short end of the stick.) I can accept micro-transactions can benefit those with disposable incomes, since they are small, but someone with less money doesn't have access to top end gaming rigs, the equipment Being noted and higher than basic tiers with high-speed internet access. I trust GW will keep these factors in mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being & Nihimon,
That's kinda one of the things I dislike about the current design....that macro's may be neccesary or make sense. I'd prefer a less predictable system where you don't really know whether it's a good idea to follow up one move with another until you see the results of the first move.
...Yet you have multiple slots for various tactical choices you could select from, and each of those could be designed to handle a particular situation OR have standalone skills to select if the 'normal' case you built your combo for is not suitable.
Look: anyone can come up with specialized use-cases where your optimal rotation is not ideal. That is a given: macros are not flexible enough.
That doesn't mean that in most situations you would be using anything but your normally optimal rotation. So why not build in the macroing feature so everyone can use it easily if they prefer?
Are you really going to sit there and tell me you wouldn't macro your best rotation that is optimal for 90% of your melee encounters?
I would however also want any live input to interrupt the current macro so I could resume full control if the situation turned out to be not what I expected.
I'm saying there SHOULD BE NO rotation that is optimal for 90 percent of melee encounters....or even 25 percent. I'm saying that melee SHOULD BE alot more dynamic and alot less predictable about what you need to do beyond the next move.
I'm also saying that people shouldn't feel like they really NEED to macro because they can't reasonably keep pace with the commands they need to enter through the interface.
Look, I have no ethical objections to someone that wants to macro. I could even reccomend some 3rd party solutions for you that handle keystrokes and mouse clicks if there isn't anything native built into PFO.
What I'm saying is that I'll be severely disappointed if the combat system is something that you feel you generaly need to macro...and is so static/predictable that you feel macroing makes much sense to do.
To me that makes for a really, really boring, unentertaining experience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand your position. And thanks I have all the macroable devices I could possibly need (barring an explosive beer that spews all over them). Plus even an old codger like me can cobble scripts together well enough so long as I use a little caution with the keyboard.
So you are good on your position,k?
My point is that if it turns out that macros are effectively advantageous it would be better for the devs to build such a system in so they are available to everyone if needed, instead of leaving all the old timers who love D&D but unlike me really do not understand the difference between a two button mouse and a nostromo at the mercy of those who will enjoy beating the bejeezus out of them from here til next Tuesday.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point is that if it turns out that macros are effectively advantageous it would be better for the devs to build such a system in so they are available to everyone if needed...
I totally agree with this principle. I even requested something along these lines a while back. Feature Request : Better Key-Mapping with Chords.
I think it's very important that players be able to play effectively without having to do lots of research offline, or install 3rd party software, or learn how to program.
I doubt it will be an issue in PFO, but if it is, I am 100% with you that the devs ought to make the solution available to all the players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand your position. And thanks I have all the macroable devices I could possibly need (barring an explosive beer that spews all over them). Plus even an old codger like me can cobble scripts together well enough so long as I use a little caution with the keyboard.
So you are good on your position,k?
My point is that if it turns out that macros are effectively advantageous it would be better for the devs to build such a system in so they are available to everyone if needed, instead of leaving all the old timers who love D&D but unlike me really do not understand the difference between a two button mouse and a nostromo at the mercy of those who will enjoy beating the bejeezus out of them from here til next Tuesday.
Got ya. Honestly, if combat ends up being like that....I really won't care much what they do....because I'll be off playing a turn-based wargame or a FPS shooter or a PnP Campaign...all of which would offer a qualitatevly better experience in thier own venues...at least for me. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I won't be trashing my collection any time soon, but I really strongly want this one to be done right and am invested in doing my best to help how I can. I have been waiting for RP DONE RIGHT in MMO space since...arguably 1987? That was when I started trying to bootstrap my own, but I didn't have internet in Western Carolina. Play by mail does reduce the utility of macros.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like most of I read in the blog, but I also share some of the GrumpyMel concerns.
1 - I like a certain level of random effects in combat. I would like to see fumble as possible as critical. If not dropping weapon or stuff like that it should give you a debuff or something simmilar. Bad or good luck should play at least a minor role in combat, as it does in PnP game and in real life.
2 - Tiers sounds to me like a menace to the "flat power curve" Devs want to implement. I don't dislike the idea, but it will need some work to balance it and avoid a jump in power, when a char achieve the ability to change tier in a weapon or armor (especially weapons).
3 - The "always hit" idea is odd and disturbing to me. We should have at least a minimal chane of totally missing a hit. missing an arrow hit or a weapon blow should be as frequent as hiting a critical, or almost that.
4 - As a suggestion: maybe defensive moves, such as tumbling, dodge, parrying, grapping etc should "trade" the hp loss for a stamina loss. Dodgeing an attack or even activelly using a shield to prevent an attack should save you from being hurt but would cost you stamina.
5- I'm worried about the game playability. A player will need to know the rules for dozens of, flags, alignment and reputation affecting actions, SAD rules, a lot of keyword effects etc. Maybe a strong tutorial in the beggining of the game could help to solve it, but sounds like complexity in increasing a lot (and certainly will increase more) and can interfere in the fun, imersion and playability. Please keep it in mind and try to make the game playing as easy as possible.
6- I really hope it will not be necessary to use almost all my keyboard to play. A reason I don't like to play console videogames is exactly because the joystics are filled with lots of buttons, and we need to memorize hundreds of combinations to play several games. Wii, for example, is a lot more fun to me, as the controls are much more simple (Yes, I miss atari A LOT with the single button joystick). So please, let we use just the f1 to f10 and arrows (to move) or make the game very mouse playing friendly.
7- the way it is now (I'm sure it will be worked) combat in PFO sounds lot more predictable than I would enjoy. I hope it do not become mechanical and boring, I'm confident it won't though. The way it is, almost certainly, people will be making a lot of metagaming combat predictions based on statistics, and certainly make it available in the internet. And, consequently, favouring "combat buildings" to play a major role in the game. I would like to not see such sort of things in PFO, if possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I won't be trashing my collection any time soon, but I really strongly want this one to be done right and am invested in doing my best to help how I can. I have been waiting for RP DONE RIGHT in MMO space since...arguably 1987? That was when I started trying to bootstrap my own, but I didn't have internet in Western Carolina. Play by mail does reduce the utility of macros.
Heh, Play by mail. I played a game called "Into Infinity" for years, cost me $35 per turn once I build up 6 full fleets. Had close to two full galaxies explored. finally had to give it up....couldn't afford to keep pumping out $35 everty two weeks or so.
Great fun tho, and no macros. It was all manual, mapping, cataloging spacial anomolies, estimating my fleets' battle strength....where to send my scouts. Great fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
HP loss doesn't always mean blood loss. It can indicate the buildup of lactic acid in the muscles that (eventually) causes them to cramp when they are told to dodge.
Indeed, but lactic acid building in muscles sounds more like a stamina issue than a hp issue to me, as it would impair movement and weight carrying capacity.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
HP loss doesn't always mean blood loss. It can indicate the buildup of lactic acid in the muscles that (eventually) causes them to cramp when they are told to dodge.Indeed, but lactic acid building in muscles sounds more like a stamina issue than a hp issue to me, as it would impair movement and weight carrying capacity.
And blood loss wouldn't?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And blood loss wouldn't?HP loss doesn't always mean blood loss. It can indicate the buildup of lactic acid in the muscles that (eventually) causes them to cramp when they are told to dodge.Indeed, but lactic acid building in muscles sounds more like a stamina issue than a hp issue to me, as it would impair movement and weight carrying capacity.
Not necessarily, depends on where you are hit and how severe is your wound.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Macros: as long as each ability requires a keystroke I have no problem with macros. I never saw the difference in pushing 1,2,3,4 vs. pushing 1 four times. I could take it or leave though. I do like being to add text to my abilities though. Especially since there are attacks that combo together. I Slash and /party " %t has a bleed". So group mates can now use attacks that work on Bleeding targets.
One thing I really don't like is circle strafing. I hope there is no advantage to using this tactic. The occasional "jump behind to backstab" is fine but the constant running in circles...bleh.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Enpeze: Maybe GW can elaborate on this some more? It might help people understand that they are not intentionally obfuscating the combat mechanics or the other response: 'They are marketing "Big Numbers" because that's what computer-video gamers enjoy seeing their hero pop on screen.' I think some mathematical background on the relationship of numbers might go down well sorta eg Logarithms Primer!? ^_^
I dont mind seeing lower numbers in combat calculations, but you can hardly compare combat in a single player game and a mmorpg. In a mmorpg players will go to lengths to figure out the best possible way to build your character to be better than other players, while in single player games you only have yourself vs Environment to worry about. I think this might be why so much mathematics have been put into combat calculations.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't get more than 20 different outcomes with a d20. A +1 on a d20 shifts it by 5% of the maximum. If you want something less than a 5% change, you need more granularity.
Also, it should be mostly if not entirely transparent to the player; you should only see 'Hit for N points of damage'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dont see you as a jerk because you are ABSOLUTELY right in your view about granular numbers. They are not needed in a good game.
Eg. Baldurs Gate is a perfect example how a combat system can be done with small numbers. It proofs also that D&D with its d20. limited but clever actions and small numbers is perfect for computer games too.
This blathering about excessive unneeded granularity and "we do because we CAN..." so what? Just a cheap excuse, a sneaky persuasion attempt to get the fans on their side.
And to the people at Goblin Works I have an advice: Play Baldurs Gate and you will see that its not necessary at all to have 400 Hitpoints on 1st level and a full load of overcomplex mathematic formulas to let the player experience engaging combats.
And we would end up like DDO where everyone has 35 AC and + 17 to hit. Small whole numers is a huge limiter when trying to make a complex game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This blathering about excessive unneeded granularity and "we do because we CAN..." so what? Just a cheap excuse, a sneaky persuasion attempt to get the fans on their side.
*scratches head* I'm not really sure were this sort of attack is coming from.
And to the people at Goblin Works I have an advice: Play Baldurs Gate and you will see that its not necessary at all to have 400 Hitpoints on 1st level and a full load of overcomplex mathematic formulas to let the player experience engaging combats.
To do the sort of things they want to do in combat they believe this is one such way to get there. Moreover, for a computer "excessive" and "over-complex" aren't applicable. There are a ton of different examples for engaging combat, though some of them are more applicable than others. For example, we probably want to pick some that include balancing PvE and PvP elements for thousands of players.
Additionally I don't get the angst about numbers, whether it is 4, 400 or 4,000 I'm not sure where it really matters if the system is built for a particular range of number.
I don't know, maybe I am just a not enough of a number-cruncher to get it. *shrugs*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And to the people at Goblin Works I have an advice: Play Baldurs Gate and you will see that its not necessary at all to have 400 Hitpoints on 1st level and a full load of overcomplex mathematic formulas to let the player experience engaging combats.
something tells me the folks at GW have played Baldur's Gate.....like 15 years ago.....just like me. It was fun. This is not Baldur's Gate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[Q
(...) I don't get the angst about numbers, whether it is 4, 400 or 4,000 I'm not sure where it really matters if the system is built for a particular range of number.
I don't know, maybe I am just a not enough of a number-cruncher to get it. *shrugs*
I totally agree, make it two of us...
And we would end up like DDO where everyone has 35 AC and + 17 to hit. Small whole numers is a huge limiter when trying to make a complex game.
I made it to seventh level over there and I never stopped spamming magic missile. Only spell I ever used. And it actually worked out pretty well for me.
Until somebody cast shield. :/