| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crowdforging Time...
So, in the recent blog post, it sounded to me like there will be 6 dedicated or "mandatory" weapon slots, for weapon abilities. For someone who plans to play a Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, etc, you will probably want to dedicate these slots to thinks like "Cure Light Wounds" or "Fireballz".
So, casters... how do you feel about that, and wouldn't you prefer to be able to put some more spells into these slots. 6 slots is a pretty heavy percentage for a full-caster to be forced to dedicate ALL of them to weapon, as opposed to being able to slot spells there, don't you think so?
Perhaps as a "Dedication" bonus, as a Wizard gets higher in level, he can put more and more Wizard spells in these slots, and as a Cleric gets higher in level, he'd be able to put more Cleric spells in these slots. What say you to that?
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We know that casters will get cantrip-like abilities (0-level spells that can be cast any number of times per day), which I think go into those weapon slots through the use of wands, staves, holy symbols, etc. No idea how varied or useful those will be.
I do think the Dedication bonus idea sounds cool.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I feel exactly the same way as I feel about the full-weapon classes having six dedicated 'implement' slots that I would rather were available for weapon abilities.
A dedication bonus or special item that served e.g. both as a weapon and as a holy symbol, with a total of 12 slots distributed less rigorously between 'weapon' abilities and 'implement' abilities would be very cool, but only for players who use both implement abilities and weapon abilities because tradoffs: it would be bad design for there to be an item which was a better implement than the other implements and also a better weapon than the other implements. Since the regular implements aren't weapons at all, any dual-purpose item would have to have partial utilities less than the partial utilities of their counterparts in each purpose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit I didn't get the explanation about the why spellbooks can't use weaponslots in the blog. :P That's quite a brainstorm for me. And I'm a bit turned off by the fact of mundane items causing effects that normally are reserved only for spells. It's a mix I wouldn't have wanted to see. Especially if there are exact same effect from mundane and magic with just different names.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We know that casters will get cantrip-like abilities (0-level spells that can be cast any number of times per day), which I think go into those weapon slots through the use of wands, staves, holy symbols, etc. No idea how varied or useful those will be.
I do think the Dedication bonus idea sounds cool.
That's how I imagine it too. If you want to maximize the number of spells you want to use, choose a wand which lets you cast spells from weapon slots. If you want to use a sword but still cast spells, well, it wouldn't be much fun if you weren't allowed to have any swordfighting abilities, right?
I absolutely love that spellbooks aren't tied to weapon slots since this might make multiclass mages/clerics just as easy to use as any other class. Any weapon set can be combined with spellcasting which is great.
I do think the Dedication bonus idea sounds cool.If you want to use a sword but still cast spells, well, it wouldn't be much fun if you weren't allowed to have any swordfighting abilities, right?
To be clear, I'm talking about giving people who want to be full casters the ABILITY to use these slots for spells instead of weapons abilities, not forcing everyone to do it. If you want to use these slots as weapon slots anyways, by all means.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a bit lost now with all the bits of info from different sources and times.
As i understand it, there are issues about balancing gear dependency, about balancing combat power between classes, and about flattening the power curve - in addition to making tactics meaningful, streamlining combat and avoiding 'keyboard yoga'.
Previously I thought spellbooks/holy symbols etc would replace weapons. One spell for one combat maneuver. Seemed to make sense, very clear tradeoffs for multiclassing. Gear dependency balanced if spellbooks are on par with weapons in terms of cost/effort.
Now I am under the impression that "everyone gets spells", ie expendables in addition to weapons. This starts sounding like wizards with 3 wands and 1 thin spellbook, which is ok from a pure gaming perspective but doesn't feel like Pathfinder (where the guy with 3 wands should be the rogue...).
I'd be grateful if someone can compile the various info and updates.
That said, i'm unlikely to play a caster as my main, so i won't have very strong opinions about caster UI.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I said in other topics I'll be reserving my class choice until much closer to release. I personally love that each class will get a strong selection of weapon abilities / cantrips and implements. I've always been a fan of players being able to customize their ability slots a bit though. As long as it's fairly balanced.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as I understand, the current plan for spellcasters would consist of:
* spellcasters being granted the same two mundane weapons as everyone else resulting in total 12 available "weapon skills" (considering weapon changes)
* spellcasters being granted the same two implements as others, which can be used for "spellcasting implements" resulting in total 12 available "spells" (considering implement changes)
* each spell implement could be used only once per combat
* there would be a "significant" global cooldowns affecting spells only, which would make it impossible (or at least not very optimal) for anyone to rely solely on spells in combat as this could result in significant downtime waiting for the global cooldown to expire
* use of spells would also be limited by the amount of remaining power, which could only be recovered in certain locations (like settlements and points of interest) or to limited extent by using consumables such as food
* no news on whether "cantrips" are still part of the design (technically there is no reason why there could not be regular spells with 0 power requirement, but they would seem likely to eat one of the 12 available spell slots each, which power and implement capacity permitting could be used for a much more powerful spell)
What I like about this system is the old school feeling and the fact that it would be very much a change compared to how spellcasting has been handled in recent MMOs (aside from DDO). I have no issues with mages and priest being encouraged to learn also mundane weapon skills and not only shoot lightning and thunder at their foes. Depending on how other aspects of character development are handled, the skills you decide to train could easily impact also your weapon skills (not meaning extremes such as turning your staff into an infinite source of fireballs, but more along the lines of e.g. hits of your weapons causing certain special effect(s) based on your character build).
I am not yet totally sold on the global spell cooldown and "only once per combat irrespective of how much power you have" spell slots. This type of design would seem to have the potential to result in very boring spellbooks / holy items containing only 1-3 bread and butter spells. So the worst case would indeed seem to be that the spellcasters would only have a couple of spells which to spam whenever the global cooldown is up (at least if maximum contribution is required).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
To be clear, I'm talking about giving people who want to be full casters the ABILITY to use these slots for spells instead of weapons abilities, not forcing everyone to do it. If you want to use these slots as weapon slots anyways, by all means.I do think the Dedication bonus idea sounds cool.If you want to use a sword but still cast spells, well, it wouldn't be much fun if you weren't allowed to have any swordfighting abilities, right?
My though was that there would exist a 'wand' that was a 'weapon', and the wand weapon abilities would be magical in nature and similar in use paradigm to other weapon abilities. Likewise, the martial maneuvers would be slotted to an implement and would be in the same realm as other implement abilities.
PnP players would have to overcome their expectation that fighters won't have limited-use abilities, just like wizards do.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
As far as I understand, the current plan for spellcasters would consist of:
* spellcasters being granted the same two mundane weapons as everyone else resulting in total 12 available "weapon skills" (considering weapon changes)
* spellcasters being granted the same two implements as others, which can be used for "spellcasting implements" resulting in total 12 available "spells" (considering implement changes)
I always assumed that spellcasters would use a 'staff' weapon, like in Dragon Age, or have a 'basic attack' which was magical in nature and similar to weapon basic attacks, like many classes in 4e.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I always assumed that spellcasters would use a 'staff' weapon, like in Dragon Age, or have a 'basic attack' which was magical in nature and similar to weapon basic attacks, like many classes in 4e.As far as I understand, the current plan for spellcasters would consist of:
* spellcasters being granted the same two mundane weapons as everyone else resulting in total 12 available "weapon skills" (considering weapon changes)
* spellcasters being granted the same two implements as others, which can be used for "spellcasting implements" resulting in total 12 available "spells" (considering implement changes)
The only difference being, cantrips will have a set amount of "ammo" that will refresh after each combat, similar to arrows for archers.
From "I Put a Spell on YOU"
The bread and butter attacks for most arcane spellcasters will be Cantrips, which are very similar to weapon attacks for non-magical classes. They're particularly similar to attacks for bows. You'll learn these attacks as part of improving your character, you'll slot them onto arcane weapons (wands and staves), and you'll be able to use them over and over again as the situation demands it. These attacks respect the keywords on the weapon and consume charges in a way that's similar to bows using up arrows (in other words, you'll have a limited number or charges in combat, but you can refill your charge container after combat).
@Fruben
So you're saying they can use these implements to REPLACE a standard weapon, and slot spells there instead? That would work for me.
On the note of this "once per combat" thing... Does anyone else see the major glaring flaw with this system? Nvm, I'll just address the elephant in the room here myself...
Sorcerers vs. Wizards... Aren't Sorcerers supposed to have MOAR spells/day than Wizards are (this also applies to Clerics vs. Oracles)?
If all these spells are going to be "once per combat" how do they plan on differentiating Wizards and Sorcerers I'm wondering? I hope they don't come out and say they plan to merge the two.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Fruben
If all these spells are going to be "once per combat" how do they plan on differentiating Wizards and Sorcerers I'm wondering? I hope they don't come out and say they plan to merge the two.
There hasn't been a lot on Sorcerers yet, so far just the differences in Bloodline vs School and the fact that they will be getting expendables. I think the big difference will be that Sorcerer spells will take less stamina at the cost of not being able to use spellbooks, but that is just an assumption based on the very little data on them so far.
It's kind of moot at this point as we wont be seeing Sorcs for some time since EE is going to focus on the big 4, and we likely wont be seeing oracles at all since the game is going to focus on core only until long after OE.
@Fruben
If all these spells are going to be "once per combat" how do they plan on differentiating Wizards and Sorcerers I'm wondering? I hope they don't come out and say they plan to merge the two.
There hasn't been a lot on Sorcerers yet, so far just the differences in Bloodline vs School and the fact that they will be getting expendables. I think the big difference will be that Sorcerer spells will take less stamina at the cost of not being able to use spellbooks, but that is just an assumption based on the very little data on them so far.
It's kind of moot at this point as we wont be seeing Sorcs for some time since EE is going to focus on the big 4, and we likely wont be seeing oracles at all since the game is going to focus on core only until long after OE.
I have a feeling they'll be easy to implement... once you have Clerics, you have all the Oracle speells, and once you have Sorcerer, you have the same spellcasting system, so you basically just give Sorceres access to Cleric spells instead of Sorcerer/Wizard spells, make a few more minor changes, and voila, you have an Oracle.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
They way I'd handle spontaneous casters in my current understanding of the paradigm would be to give them implements that had fewer spells, but instead of each spell once, it could provide some total number of spells (of each level?).
I'd also make it harder to change the abilities slotted in the sorcerors' implement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also really don't see anyone wanting to play an oracle in PFO due to the curse. In TT, an oracle's curse is very annoying, but you can live with it by relying on party help to cover your weakness. In PFO, the curse will be ALWAYS THERE. If you pick lame, well good luck ever catching anyone who runs or decides to kite you. If you pick blind, well, you will never see anyone who isn't in melee with you. sorry. Deaf? no sounds for you. Haunted? Say goodbye to swapping weapons in combat. Breaker? Tier 1 equipment forever for you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like oracle; it's probably my favorite TT class, and I would play one in PFO even if there were significant drawbacks to it. I agree that the curse would have to be rethought, and would likely be a lot less severe than TT but give less bonuses. You neglected to mention some of the less punishing curses, such as Wasting and Tongues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely disagree with you.
Categorizing powers seemed like a way to cater to the lazy, but was not inherently bad.
Making the class abilities of all classes feel completely interchangeable made it almost irrelevant who you chose to play.
But this is not the place to get into another round of the most tired debate this side of AC or DC.
I think that some effects that could be reasonably attributed to a Morale bonus (cavalier's standard providing a bonus, bardic performance, etc.) are fine. But if a Fighter can suddenly do things that are only different from a Wizard in the shallowest sense, I'm walking out.
I'd rather leave behind the $100 I threw in for this game than play that.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to chime in a little : the distinction between wizard/rogue/fighter/etc abilities is something we are being extremely careful with. Implements are designed to be role specific, by and large, (by role here I mean class) so you will not end up with fighters emulating wizard abilities.
That said - do keep in mind that there are only so many variables inside this game world. Its possible, for example, that the Heroism spell may grant a bonus on attacks and saves. There may also be a fighter ability that grants him a bonus on attacks and saves. Distinction between classes is going to be much more apparent over the classes as a whole, rather than in direct comparison of their abilities. In TT if you consider heroism vs. the bards iconic Inspire courage ability - would you say that wizards/enchanters are stepping on a bard's toes? I'd argue the answer is no - since the bard targets multiple creatures, does so in armor, and does so while simultaneously bashing things on the head (or more likely missing with all his attacks because of his crappy attack bonus, hehe).
The cavalier is another good example and as you point out he does a bit of bardic type stuff. That is the feel we are going for - fighter abilities will not conjure fire and lightning. Rogue abilities will not simulate rage. Barbarian rage powers (of which there are a number which create magical type effects in TT Pathfinder) will never be a replacement for channel energy.
Yes there will end up being some overlap across abilities of different classes because we only have X number of stats and numbers to play with. We are extremely cognizant of this, however, and are trying very hard to make sure that the iconic abilities of a class stay with that class.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh - also - in reference to the OP : a few people beat me to it further up but the 'weapon skills' for casters are their cantrips. These are a selection of 'spells' that are available to you just like weapon attacks and greatly expand what you can 'cast'. They largely cover the 'bread and butter' type spells that you will want to use all the time in order to keep them from filling up your spellbook. With only 6 (12 with 2 implements) spell slots available the last thing you want to do is fill them up with flare and rays of frost. Thats what the weapon attacks are for.
Note you will have numerous choices (as with any weapon) to what goes in the slots for each wand you own - so you are effectively choosing your low level spells there and then your higher level, infrequent stuff on your implement.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point I'd like to throw in my request for items which can slot both 'mage' attacks and 'melee' attacks, such as a staff which can be used to project rays and hit someone on the head or the Divine Warrior Sword.
From a design principle standpoint, I expect that such items would have fewer magic keywords than pure wands, and fewer weapon keywords than pure weapons, but more total keywords (or perhaps the same total number of keywords, but some, e.g. Masterwork, would apply to some spells and some attacks) such that there is the potential for a character that occupies the area between 'trivial to defeat in melee' and 'unable to project force very far'.
Oh - also - in reference to the OP : a few people beat me to it further up but the 'weapon skills' for casters are their cantrips. These are a selection of 'spells' that are available to you just like weapon attacks and greatly expand what you can 'cast'. They largely cover the 'bread and butter' type spells that you will want to use all the time in order to keep them from filling up your spellbook. With only 6 (12 with 2 implements) spell slots available the last thing you want to do is fill them up with flare and rays of frost. Thats what the weapon attacks are for.
Note you will have numerous choices (as with any weapon) to what goes in the slots for each wand you own - so you are effectively choosing your low level spells there and then your higher level, infrequent stuff on your implement.
Aren't cantrips going to be useless at higher levels? I know in the TT game dealing 1d3 damage at level 18 doesn't really make much of a difference...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Aren't cantrips going to be useless at higher levels? I know in the TT game dealing 1d3 damage at level 18 doesn't really make much of a difference...
Unlike cantrips in TT, these are being designed to be useful over your entire career. Think less cantrips from PF, and more at-wills from 4e.
I never played 4e. :( Still, I see your point, they'll scale them up, it makes sense...
Still, I standby my idea to allow dedicated classes to slot more of their regular spells into the weapon/cantrip spell slots as they get higher in level in said dedicated role.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I never played 4e. :( Still, I see your point, they'll scale them up, it makes sense...
Still, I standby my idea to allow dedicated classes to slot more of their regular spells into the weapon/cantrip spell slots as they get higher in level in said dedicated role.
I'm hoping that for the most part, each cantrip/attack is relatively balanced against each other one, meaning that they are situationally better and situationally worse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a little bummer. So wands are gonna be like ranged weapons? I'm really not feeling this direction of development. Giving fighters magical type of effects that are really not magical just so that they can use their dedication bonus. Having a wand with six offensive cantrips... How could those be any different from a ranged weapon attacks. I'm not seeing this... I think this is exactly what games do wrong... Characters are not unique if you just change the name of the effect and give it another animation or a tool that enables it or expand it's effect radius by 1 meter. That really doesn't make players feel their characters are unique.
I think there are unlimited amount of different kinds of variables you could come up with, so I disagree with you Tork. If you browse through recent mmos, I'm always amazed by the ingenuity of the developers to combine some animation and game effect in the game world. I think it's really the effect that matters in the first place, at least for me.
I know you guys are pros at GW, but I like to brainstorm a little so I've put some examples here:
1. instant cast; casting time(rooted/not rooted); channeled(rooted/not rooted)
2. range
3. targets(self; other; effect origin)
4. effect area(size; shape;)
5. effect duration(instant; over time; 1s, 2s, 3s etc;)
6. effect variables(1 creature, 2 creatures, 3 creatures etc...; nearest; only hostiles; only non-hostiles; all creatures; 2 effects, 3 effects etc)
7. effects (any coded variable; depending how complicated the npcs are is the defining factor here; to have some depth in the game even goblins should have TT character attributes, but I guess you're not going that way..., but the flat-footed and opportunity stuff is good)
Yea, at first I was pretty excited to see that casters were probably not just going to be "archers who can't stealth" from a game mechanics perspective, but it looks like that won't be the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to chime in a little : the distinction between wizard/rogue/fighter/etc abilities is something we are being extremely careful with. (....)
Very reassuring.
The reminder/re-clarification on cantrips was also appreciated. You've persuaded me fighter won't feel like re-skinned wizard and that fighter/wizard will feel different from both of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yea, at first I was pretty excited to see that casters were probably not just going to be "archers who can't stealth" from a game mechanics perspective, but it looks like that won't be the case.
Strangely, my reaction was the exact opposite. I was worried everyone would be "re-skinned casters", but it looks like that won't be the case.
(so it's not strange we disagree in other threads when we perceive the same info so differently. Anyway looking forward to see you in-game - if I ever get my perception up high enough).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there are unlimited amount of different kinds of variables you could come up with...
I believe their ability to imagine variables isn't the constraint, it's the database-size required to track all of them, and thus the read/write speed to access the information in a live-fire environment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there are unlimited amount of different kinds of variables you could come up with...I believe their ability to imagine variables isn't the constraint, it's the database-size required to track all of them, and thus the read/write speed to access the information in a live-fire environment.
Of course, that should be the defining factor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another defining factor should be a certain threshold of separating character interaction variables, otherwise actions will feel artificial no matter what kind of animation you create for them.
What if you want to play a paladin with a trophy charm or a warbanner, but the effects of your spells and the trophy charm are so overlapping that from a gameplay perspective it would be really idiotic. In other words that choice would nerf your character.
edit. adjusted some wording
Yea, at first I was pretty excited to see that casters were probably not just going to be "archers who can't stealth" from a game mechanics perspective, but it looks like that won't be the case.Strangely, my reaction was the exact opposite. I was worried everyone would be "re-skinned casters", but it looks like that won't be the case.
(so it's not strange we disagree in other threads when we perceive the same info so differently. Anyway looking forward to see you in-game - if I ever get my perception up high enough).
I'm playing a caster, not a stealther... and you don't need a high Perception to see stealthers from a mile away (essentially there aren't any real "stealthers" in PFO, unless Invisibility is implemented I guess). But yea, maybe you're right, and if I see you in-game I'll try to kill you. If you win, I'd like to start PvP'ing with you, if not, better luck next time.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Yea, at first I was pretty excited to see that casters were probably not just going to be "archers who can't stealth" from a game mechanics perspective, but it looks like that won't be the case.
Really? The only characteristic that archers and mages have in common is the (presumed!) ability to attack a target at range.
I suspect that if there's a ranged archery attack that slows or roots, it's single-target, weapon, with a high power cost to use and a very short duration. The wizard abilities (grease, web, slow, create pit) that slow or root will probably be expendable, hit many targets or an area, and have a power cost lower than most expendable abilies.
They're not really expendable anymore... they're going with the mana system afterall. But, like DAoC, they're calling it "Powah"
Edit: Which was part of the reason I made that comment.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
They're not really expendable anymore... they're going with the mana system afterall. But, like DAoC, they're calling it "Powah"
Edit: Which was part of the reason I made that comment.
I was referring to the abilities slotted in implements; the term of art that described them is "expendables". Expendable abilities are usable a small number of times per combat, and consume a resource (power) that sounds like it will not run out in a typical engagement, but will not be rapidly recoverable in the field. No specific statements regarding stamina usage of expendables was mentioned, and I could see it anywhere from no stamina usage to moderate.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
This is a little bummer. So wands are gonna be like ranged weapons? I'm really not feeling this direction of development. Giving fighters magical type of effects that are really not magical just so that they can use their dedication bonus. Having a wand with six offensive cantrips... How could those be any different from a ranged weapon attacks. I'm not seeing this... I think this is exactly what games do wrong... Characters are not unique if you just change the name of the effect and give it another animation or a tool that enables it or expand it's effect radius by 1 meter. That really doesn't make players feel their characters are unique.
I think there are unlimited amount of different kinds of variables you could come up with, so I disagree with you Tork. If you browse through recent mmos, I'm always amazed by the ingenuity of the developers to combine some animation and game effect in the game world. I think it's really the effect that matters in the first place, at least for me.
I know you guys are pros at GW, but I like to brainstorm a little so I've put some examples here:
1. instant cast; casting time(rooted/not rooted); channeled(rooted/not rooted)
2. range
3. targets(self; other; effect origin)
4. effect area(size; shape;)
5. effect duration(instant; over time; 1s, 2s, 3s etc;)
6. effect variables(1 creature, 2 creatures, 3 creatures etc...; nearest; only hostiles; only non-hostiles; all creatures; 2 effects, 3 effects etc)
7. effects (any coded variable; depending how complicated the npcs are is the defining factor here; to have some depth in the game even goblins should have TT character attributes, but I guess you're not going that way..., but the flat-footed and opportunity stuff is good)
FYI - all of these are on our 'limited number of variables' :)
I also agree that the effects/animations are important and can be included as an extra variable to spice things up but only to a limited extent. If the mechanical effects are too similar the cosmetic differences quickly wear thin and the 'feeling' of uniqueness to character and class is lost overall.Also, as Jazzlvrazz (great name) mentioned there are tech limitations. Some of those are alleviated over (extended, post alpha/beta) development time, but our core systems have to feel as close to right as we can out the gate - so we are trying to be as ingenious as we can within our 'puter limits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also agree that the effects/animations are important and can be included as an extra variable to spice things up but only to a limited extent. If the mechanical effects are too similar the cosmetic differences quickly wear thin and the 'feeling' of uniqueness to character and class is lost overall.
This is reassuring, thanks. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Aren't cantrips going to be useless at higher levels? I know in the TT game dealing 1d3 damage at level 18 doesn't really make much of a difference...Oh - also - in reference to the OP : a few people beat me to it further up but the 'weapon skills' for casters are their cantrips. These are a selection of 'spells' that are available to you just like weapon attacks and greatly expand what you can 'cast'. They largely cover the 'bread and butter' type spells that you will want to use all the time in order to keep them from filling up your spellbook. With only 6 (12 with 2 implements) spell slots available the last thing you want to do is fill them up with flare and rays of frost. Thats what the weapon attacks are for.
Note you will have numerous choices (as with any weapon) to what goes in the slots for each wand you own - so you are effectively choosing your low level spells there and then your higher level, infrequent stuff on your implement.
Light, Prestidigitation, Detect Poison, etc. are all cantrips. There are plenty of cantrips that remain useful in PF.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Seems overly complicated to me.
And how is "once per combat" going to work when you're storming a settlement and you're in combat for 20 minutes?
My best guess is that part of the assault is cycling people back out to the camp for recuperative breaks to restore expendables and power.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems overly complicated to me.
And how is "once per combat" going to work when you're storming a settlement and you're in combat for 20 minutes?
It's been years since I played DAoC, but for dragon fights (PvE) and keep assault/defense (PvP), there were so many characters involved that individual groups were able to periodically back out of the fray to rest, heal, and eat before charging back in. I expect settlement warfare in PfO will involve at least as many people, so the same staggered rest periods should be doable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for the information, Tork. It is much appreciated.
Having said that, character development is one of the areas where I am most concerned as to whether you guys have found the right formula for success. This is partly due to lack of information and partly having seen most developers eventually abandon their original plans in favor of predetermined classes and predetermined roles/builds within those classes leaving very little actual choice (that would make some sense) for the players.
I hope you guys are able deliver something different. Something where I could decide what kind of character I want to create and how to play it. One example of how such freedom could be achieved while staying true to the design principles disclosed so far:
* separate general skills and class skills
* general skills could include for example
- weapons skills like one-handed weapons, two-handed weapons, shields etc.; specializations such as swords, knives, axes, hammers etc.
- armor skills for light, medium and heavy armor
- physical training and prowess like "hit points"/health and stamina
- utility skills like perception
* class skills including various “roles” or “callings” for each class (e.g. for fighter separate skill trees for single target damage abilities, damage absorption/avoidance, mobility etc.)
- including all kinds of skills/talents that passively improve your general/class skills, can be used to actively replace e.g. one of your weapon skills, unlock access to certain (tiers) of implements etc.
If I want to be the greatest crafter and abandon all survival skills I should be able to do so. If I want to be a two-handed axe wielding wizard I should be able to do so. If I want to play a fighter specialized solely in bows I should be able to do so. Give me real, significant choices, but with the possibility to remedy my mistakes with (paid training) time healing all wounds (and gaps in character build).
Might be exactly what you are currently up to. Might not even be in the same ballpark.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I want to be the greatest crafter and abandon all survival skills I should be able to do so. If I want to be a two-handed axe wielding wizard I should be able to do so. If I want to play a fighter specialized solely in bows I should be able to do so.
Essentially this is what we'll likely get,
...with a few caveats:
-the crafter might have to train a few non-crafting skills in order to raise his stats high enough to become the 'greatest ever'.
-the fighter without melee weapon skills may see his 'fighter level progression' stop, which might limit access to weapon specialization at higher levels.
-the wizard shouldn't have any problems conceptually, except he may need to train some supporting strength skills to qualify for higher levels of greataxe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to chime in a little : the distinction between wizard/rogue/fighter/etc abilities is something we are being extremely careful with. Implements are designed to be role specific, by and large, (by role here I mean class) so you will not end up with fighters emulating wizard abilities.
I would hope not to see a pure fighter emulating all the wizard abilities but as this is a game that it supposed to allow some mixing and matching of the different role's abilities at the expense of dedication, I would hope you could still create a fairly viable fighter/wizard.