Search Posts
Winning to me means holding a settlement spot my character is sponsored by. Losing would mean losing that settlement. But as in sports, I'll play as many games as I can until I grow old and can't play no more or don't enjoy playing anymore. Simple. Win some, lose some. :) Though I might change my mind on the definition of winning and losing in PFO as time passes, who knows... or give up on those concepts all together, who knows... :)
The point of having fog is to -hide- the graphical artifacts caused by occlusion, by making everything fade in from white. Maybe it's the same thing, but I would use the fog for making graphical artifacts appear from it instead of thin(invisible) air, which doesn't exist as a graphical artifact(to my knowledge). To me this would enhance the actual feeling of an existing virtual world beyond the limit of the character vision. When things pop out of nowhere, not so much...
So, does anyone know is it hard to build a fogwall that gradually fades the 3d objects out of view? Does such an effect have to be coded separately to interact with every other graphical effect that is in use? I wonder why it's not used more often by mmo developers. At least in a way that, if it could be programmed to start from some distance from the camera and in places where there's actual fog nearer.
Mostly the popping out happens in games where there is no overall view distance setting, but one for objects only. In such games you see the bleak landscape all the way into the horizon. For example a barren hill where there are no trees, but when you get there it's a forest. Games that have overall view distance setting that fades everything gradually into a gray fog, even the landscape, don't have this problem.
The things that most bother me are objects just popping up out of nowhere when you get close enough to them and stuff that looks different when you look far compared to when you are closer to them and maybe a horizon that looks like it's pulled out of someones... I'm just a hobbyist dabbling with graphic settings. I'm hoping GW hasn't build any major heavy one-click shader package, but giving the user some more freedom with setting the graphics...
The reason I am advocating this is that many new mmos look like graphic glitches when graphic settings a set to minimum. It is clear that those settings only exist to make the game run on minimum specs and no thought/effort has been made to try to make the game look decent with minimum settings. Studios use heavy shaders and renderers that are in-build in game-engines and you can either have that stuff on or off and the difference is huge. Using view distance, textures, tri-amount, lights, shadows, clutter amount, anti-aliazing, full screen effects, and simple small shaders is what I am advocating to make the game look good. Using these to build a game that climbs from the root to the treetop is probably much more time/money consuming than using engine pre-build stuff. I keeping my thumbs up to see if PFO delivers in this aspect.
Still not working for me. I created a GW account with a different email than my Paizo account. Tried to link the two. First time nothing happened. Second time was successful on the Paizo side, but on GW account my email was automatically changed to match the Paizo one(I had to verify it again), but the enrollment level did not change(and still hasn't). edit. I participated in the second KS on the adventurer level.
Similar worries. I created a GW account, linked my paizo account to it through the Kickstarter pledge drive tool(which says: "You have made all necessary selections.") but can't see no sign of enrollment on my account on the GW site(which says: "You have not yet enrolled as a Goblin Squad member."). Maybe I misspelled by username... oops...
Nice :)
It might spread a rumor that you can lose your skills if you don't play well enough even though you have payed for them... or something similar. And that is mostly true and it doesn't sound good... Though that is the spirit of PFO, but I wouldn't throw individual character skills into that lot... not at least in such a manner described in Stephen's post. It feels very definitive.
True true, but I'm doing some soul-searching with the help of a spirit guide... It might be a feature that will put off some people, because even if the game becomes more important than real life, real life obligations cannot be left undone or unattended. This is why I am asking this question. It's easy to see this feature as an implementation of a real life simulator, but does it achieve it's desired function, which might be getting new people interested and excited about Pathfinder Online.
Only one thing that bothers me in this system: If paying a monthly subscription to PFO practically means that one character gains xp, then in the case of an accident(settlement destroyed etc), we might not be able to use the skills we have payed for. Is this intended as part of the spirit of the game?
Really much would like to see a full view/draw distance graphic slider or more than 2 or 3 picks for the view distance. Also cool would be a option to control the depth of the fogwall for different tastes. I was just looking at the huge draw distance of the blog videos and thinking about my poor computer :)
Speaking of meaningful, the tab-targeting also has to be meaningful for it to work intelligently and fluidly. All these new targeting system we've seen in GW2, Neverwinter, ESO(which I haven't played) and Wildstar demand a more modern fluid targeting system for PFO. Some of the questions that come into mind are: Smart targeting: Having the option to choose whether skills automatically target and proc a nearest valid target even if no target is selected. Some of the not so well coded smart targeting systems I have seen unfortunately consider a dead mob valid in a sense that if you have a dead mob selected and a another mob is hacking you in the head with an ax just pressing a skill button isn't enough to change the target from the dead guy to the one with the ax. Can a character even have a dead mob as a tab-target? Line of sight: Does tab-targeting include those mobs that are in the target box but not in line of sight or if you see them and want to target them anyway do you have to use the mouse? Target-box: This is really important. How big is it? The length of the characters farthest reaching skill? How wide? a certain shaped cone or similar? It would be cool to see an image where the target box is displayed in relation to the character to have some kind of understanding of it. Maybe in a tutorial of sorts.
These are pretty good succestion. I think there should be a lot of laws for settelement to choose from according to it's alignment, but not as much that it nullifies war as a resource drain and a prime pvp mechanic. Obviously people feel Andius' opinions are meaningful, it has been shown here time and time again.
PvE which is a credible threat to the player-run settlements. Get players away from thinking of PvE content as a slightly more interesting form of loot acquisition, and instead thinking of it as a danger to their people which needs to be destroyed. Escalation fighters should feel like they're stopping a dangerous incursion, not grinding out materials for their settlement. Seconded.
On topic. Ryan probably had fever when he wrote that. The comment that he gave to the quote is more like a thought flow. It is true that he has said many times he doesn't want to make a tackling simulator, but that's exactly what he is making in my opinion and I hope he makes a tackling simulator with very sophisticated rules. But it's true football just isn't about tackling. :)
I think it's more dangerous to let reds roam our lands than be called fools. The way the game is set imo, is that reds are hostiles intended to be shot insight. I hope GW develops the game more into the direction of NRDS to be competitive with NBSI. The game has reds, yellows and greens and making yellows stand out in some scenarios is something, I think we desperately here at Brighthaven need to achieve the atmosphere intended.
I think this something that can't be helped. It's just the way it is. If the same people want to run two or more kingdoms that have a metagame alliance to dominate the map, I think it's something that happens even without any game mechanics. There can't exist a game mechanics to prevent the same guy playing multiple characters the way he wants to.
So let's brainstorm a little. A character, who dedicates himself to manage a settlement must visit that settlements town hall. He chooses an aspect to manage to fit his training. If he is dedicated to manage some aspect of the town hall, can he still manage a blacksmith or some aspect of a blacksmith building in the settlement? He could still manage an aspect of a PoI or an outpost as a member of a company. If he wants to manage another settlement he would have to visit that settlements town hall. But a person can only be a member of one settlement. I think it makes sense. Why would he manage some other settlement he is not a member. If he is member of a kingdom, where does he go to manage that kingdom. The kingdoms capital towns town hall perchance? How many settlements can belong to a kingdom?
They form a nation as several of those groups of settlements working together. Each settlement groups run their settlements as they wish, but the nation has leadership to settle anything outside of the settlement matters. Dictate wars, peace treaties, ect... Kinda like the States and the United States (at least how it was done in the past) Again, if you intend to get most out your companies, settlements and kingdoms they can't just be out-of-game entities. You have have dedicated character and lots of dedicated characters to fill all those slots to run those entities in-game businesses at max. The social group settlement is the group of companies that form it. The territory settlement is the land they control. Yes they are the same thing until the same people decide to control two pieces of territory with the same members. Then they become two territory settlements with one social group settlement. So why limit one social group Settlement to one territory settlement? You explained this better than anyone. $$$$It's to make money$$$$. No, I think it's to have more fun. :) So, that no one player becomes too dominating.
Having limited slots on running a settlement/company/kingdom does not change anything. There can still be limited slots for each settlement territory. The person in charge of that will have a trained alt for each slot he is assigned to. The guys that run the settlements, the big ones, will have a dozen characters trained. I think this is working as intended. A player can play as many characters he can afford to. "Why would you be at war in game but at peace out of game?" If your referring to something I said, Im not sure what it was. But if your asking how that can be meta gamed... I can answer. It was to point the fact that people are free to socialize outside the game how they want, but that there should be clear game mechanics to control ingame social groups and states between those groups. I think that's what we are paying for. My guess would be, and we dont know the rules yet, that there will be an increase DI cost for each group declaring war on one entity. So what you do is have your meta gamed ally... who cannot be your ally in game because they are opposed alignments... declare war on you to increase everyones costs, and set your view to each other as blue. This might a metagaming problem, I'm sure devs can work around it. Simple solution might be: Wage war on any social entity you want, pay DI according to the size of the opponent, defending oneself shouldn't cost anything. Of course all work-arounds can't be avoided but I think balance is the key.
I think these are absolute necessities for PFO. I'm sure GW will implement mechanics, some of that we have allready seen, that don't encourage metagaming. An example: Only one character can manage a one aspect of a settlement, same can be done for kingdoms. So companies, settlements and kingdoms all have aspects or slots and only one character fits into any one slot at any one time. If you want the most out of that slot, that character must be trained. So metagaming works in making alliances(, which is not really metagaming because the game only supports three social entities: companies, settelements and kingdoms,) but not in managing a company, settlement or kingdom. Simple. And why would anyone be at war with someone and outside of the game at peace? Doesn't make sense.
I think in EE, because the settlement warfare is only to be implemented at the end of it if I remember correctly, a NRDS policy is something that guilds, that are within a certain alignment range from each other(to qualify for a nation), should definitively work hard to establish. :)
The way I see a dwarf only settlement working would be a separate game mechanic to turn a settlement into one. A one race only settlement would have to have it's own mechanics different from a normal settlement to maintain balance. Of course you could turn one back to normal settlement when conquered etc. Not a bad idea imo, but not probably worth the devs time.
I'm sure GW will balance the reputation system to perform how they want it to perform and it'll likely resemble very closely to what you have described if necessary, but there is no need to have an area of reputation no one will play in. The challenge I'm thinking is how to meaningfully inform new players about the pros and cons of reputation and it's twists.
Thanks Mbando. My motherboard is Acer Aspire M5910 (CPU 1). So it might be worth while at some point to buy 2G more memory so that I can keep playing 64-bit games. Thanks for the info.
Funny game mechanic creates a lot of toxicity among players. What a drag!
Here's my rig. It's a few years old. I bought it as a package. I was wondering if it would be worth to buy more RAM or if I would have to buy a new rig completely to have more significant improvement. I do have friends that could build a rig for me though. I'd appreciate any tips.
All bugs and exploits will end up on a priority list. And those near the bottom almost never get fixed. They do not become "working as expected". They stay bugs. But they may not provide enough Return on Investment to spend developer resources on them when compared against other bugs and new features on the backlog. A prime example of this imo is SWTOR. All those small glitches that never get hammered down. They don't make playing unbearable, but just a little less more unattractive. I think it's just a great shame and gives the industry in general just a bit of a bad taste on the side.
I think that there are aspects of PFO that makes it differ from other similar titles. The fact that players can, will and want to build buildings on predetermined spots and choose what buildings they want to build and the fact that someone can come and kick that building down or even a whole settlement that players have built is kind of exciting. And if all these things can be done in fairly multigraded multifaceted ways, then it'll definitely set PFO a part from other titles.
|
