BollaertN's page

@Nathan Nasif, I think you're actually mixing metaphors. There's an expression "to go off on a wild hare", which conjures images of of chasing a wild jackrabbit. Then there's an express of "getting a wild hair [up his ass]" which conjures images of leaping up into action for no apparent reason.

I am extremely doubtful that there was ever common usage referring to having a rabbit up your butt.

You assume the ass in question doesn't refer to a donkey! :-p

I also think there is a skewed view of "friendly fire" here. FF typically means you didn't intend it, but it was an accident/unavoidable. This thread makes it more like "If I am Chaotic Evil I want to reserve the right to blow up the people I am grouped with on purpose."

Which is a totally legitimate desire, but a completely different concept :-p

I think that role-playing should also come into account when considering ff. Say I wanted to be the Chaotic-Evil Wizard, without friendly fire I've got less to make me unique from the Lawful-Good Wizard. It's my allies fault if they happen to be in the range of my spell.

To each his own, but I don't consider "I kill my allies" to necessarily be a good way to Roleplay Chaotic Evil, your mileage may vary.

I think you guys may be taking Alignment too seriously, like early 80s :-p

Probitas, while you make some good points, in reality it probably needs to be an all or nothing thing to be truly effective.

If all Paladins can display, via game mechanics, that they are indeed Paladins and not lying about it, then every "Paladin" who refuses to display such information will be assumed to be lying, even if they are not.

In Eve people use the Limited API key to try and establish credentials, but since that game is SO grief-friendly it may not be a fair comparison.

@BollaertN, that's a fine excuse, but to characterize the request as "Just having your character available to be ganked while you are in bed" when we're 100+ posts in seems kind of tacky.

Fair enough! But in my defense I did not state I was characterizing the thread, just my opinion that having characters available for retaliation 24/7 didn't seem worth the resources.

I strongly support a robust game that allows plenty of useful things, including character progression, to occur either offline or in downtime.

Disagreement is not the same as outright dismissal.

@KitNyx Look under the next heading.

Quote:

creating a way to simulate a 20-level progression within our unique system

It's vague whether or not they'll actually be called character "levels", but they are clearly talking about a system that parallels it as best they can.

Heck, there's even another heading under that talking about "Reaching 20th Level"

They said they're taking a different approach to levels. You assumed. That's fine. Just keep clear in your mind the difference between making an assumption and having the facts.

These are online forums for a game that is barely in the whiteboard phase of development, still seeking investors, and still trying to figure out what it will be... If you don't want to debate speculation you may as well close the forums :-p

It may be YEARS before there are truly concrete things to discuss and debate.

Onishi makes very good points. Traditional "level" systems segregate characters so that only those who are within a few levels of each other can effectively work together as equals. Presumably PO will use a different system which will allow relatively new PCs to still be of value to groups with high level characters in it.

In Eve for example, low SP pilots can still contribute meaningfully in PVP albeit less so in PVE...

BollaertN wrote:

Now perhaps I misread the OP, and what he hopes is that a Dragon will be a "boss" type encounter with some sort of unique scripted mechanics other than traditional tank and spank... But my interjection was a Boss is a Boss and Players are going to wind up treating it as such and farming it :-p

Again the term farming is where I think you are off.

Farming reffers to the same people going after the same enemy over and over again. When the enemy appears in a completely unpredictable location, at an unpredictable time, possibly months apart, no group can "Farm" it. They can patrol their own areas, and deal with the threats that show up in them, but no-one can have the resources to continuously scout 133 sq miles 24/7 to actually cover and farm a specific boss.

Fair enough. But mobs are mobs, they will have their work cut out for them to make them "special" but I certainly hope they do!

Well, there were a lot of specific things we were asking for. Did you read the thread?

To be honest, no I did not read the entire thread, but there is no rule against replying to the OP :-p

You mentioned two specific things in the original post, which were the ability to retaliate, and the ability to do things offline.

However, they can still give you the ability to accomplish things offline /without/ being persistently "in" the world 24/7.

A lot of it though seems too early to tell. If Crafting requires the same kind of attention and interface that combat does, than offline crafting seems unlikely, etc.

And going back and skimming the thread, much of what is being requested also does not require your avatar to have a persistent presence.

I suspect it is far too early in the design process for them to decide on this. It certainly CAN be done. And has been done. Eve Online allows for friendly fire, as did good old Rallos Zek free-for-all PVP server way back in EQ1.

The question will be is whether the benefits to this type of system outweigh the hindrances?

That will be answered by how they design the systems, particularly combat and spells. If a game is very heavily vested in AOE effects, it may prove onerous. If AOE effects are a sideline and not extremely common it can easily work.

But in all honesty, without understanding how the game will actually play/function, it is kind of premature to gauge whether this will be a "make or break" issue. And to DeathMetal4tw in particular, PO is YEARS away, so I wouldn't sweat it at this point.

To me this idea seems worth the trouble only if there are specific benefits attached. Just having your character available to be ganked while you are in bed doesn't seem particularly useful...

My point still stands though... "special" and "kill for loot" are almost antithetical terms in these kinds of games, if you'll pardon my pessimism :-p

When AD&D put out Deities and Demigods with stats, what happened? D&D groups started killing gods :-p

Now perhaps I misread the OP, and what he hopes is that a Dragon will be a "boss" type encounter with some sort of unique scripted mechanics other than traditional tank and spank... But my interjection was a Boss is a Boss and Players are going to wind up treating it as such and farming it :-p

I am having a failure of imagination on how you can make a dragon a kill-able monster and simultaneously give it a mystique a cut above traditional kill-able monsters in an MMO.

@Onishi so no HP progression? BaB progression? Feats? Bonus Feats? Spell progression? Skill progression? Ability score bonuses?

Are they stating the differences as you understand them, or are you reading between the lines? Perhaps it would be better to avoid assumptions?

As far as I have seen, nothing concrete has been spelled out. However, it does seem clear that the very classic "level up" system you see in the tabletop game as well as themepark games like WOW will not be directly replicated.

It sounds like they are shooting again for something that maintains the flavor of that system while being closer to the kind of Skill Tree / Generalized progression system you find in more classical examples of sandbox games like Eve, SWG, etc.

If we are speculating, I'd guess something more like an Eve/SWG system with some kind of "level" overlay that is connected to accumulated points of some sort.

But NOT a flat "You get XP for killing things and Y XP translates to Level Z"

Progression will presumably come from all sorts of things. A manufacturer type character will "level up" via making stuff, etc.

Others do not get to decide what roleplay is and is not. It is possible to roleplay a character inherently antagonistic to other player characters. Whether that is permissible depends on where you are; it seems so far that is will be specifically permitted in PFO.

Yes, but the game developers do get to define what does and does not constitute "griefing" and create penalties for it. It appears from what the designers have written so far, "griefing" will be a lot more lenient than what you find in games like WoW, but not nearly so tolerated as what you see in Eve.

We can banter back and forth about what people mean by "roleplay" but I would suggest you are being intentionally nitpicky if you would not concede that the original poster's intent is for some sort of social engineering derived non-consensual PVP.

Depending on how "griefing" is ultimately defined by the developers, what is described here may or may not qualify.

I personally have no problems with non-consensual PVP. I don't have a direct objection to social engineering, as long as it is actually based on roleplaying. But if I as an OOC player am lying to you to exploit you, that sort of behavior gets very close to ethical lines :-p

In other words, if your assassin tricks my paladin, all's well. If Tim is lying or conning Bob in an interpersonal arena as players, less so.

BollaertN wrote:

HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:

To prevent TL:DR, I guess what I am asking for is to avoid the Warcraft Model where a Dragon is just another mob to be tanked, ganked and spanked. A Hex known to contain a Dragon should at once be a dangerous zone, and yet attractive to ambitious and/or powerful Heroes/Villains eager to conquer the beast and claim the hoard ..... or just conquer the beast and use it to wreak havoc on their enemies!

So it should be scary and special, definitely not to be simply tanked, ganked and spanked... until aforementioned powerful heroes show up to conquer it? Presumably by tanking, ganking, and spanking it?

You will need to be more specific on how you wish to differentiate a Dragon from any other PVE Raid Boss.

Well, since there won't be "Raid Bosses" of the type found in WoW, simply because there won't be Raids of the type found in WoW, because it will be a sandbox rather than a theme park.

That means that dragons can be made to be VERY hard to kill. Any group big enough to threaten one is also going to have to be able to outrun it or track it to its other lairs, or somehow force it to engage. (I'm discussing the Great Wyrm dragons; younger dragons might be easier to corner or provoke into fighting to the death, while the oldest dragons would not allow themselves to be attacked by mortals. No, you cannot tank Tiamat.)

Actually, they have said Sandbox with Themepark Elements, which leaves open that they might have PVE Raiding.

To prevent TL:DR, I guess what I am asking for is to avoid the Warcraft Model where a Dragon is just another mob to be tanked, ganked and spanked. A Hex known to contain a Dragon should at once be a dangerous zone, and yet attractive to ambitious and/or powerful Heroes/Villains eager to conquer the beast and claim the hoard ..... or just conquer the beast and use it to wreak havoc on their enemies!

So it should be scary and special, definitely not to be simply tanked, ganked and spanked... until aforementioned powerful heroes show up to conquer it? Presumably by tanking, ganking, and spanking it?

You will need to be more specific on how you wish to differentiate a Dragon from any other PVE Raid Boss.

BollaertN wrote:

... grief or PVP play is the primary rationale for secrecy.

Nonsense. I guarantee you the "primary rationale" for those arguing for it so far on these forums is RP.

I would agree Nihimon, except if you re-read the Original Poster he specifically talks about fooling people as to his class and then murdering and robbing them :-p

While I am sure that is roleplay in his view, to others it would be decidedly less so :-p

I'm perfectly ok with "class" not being shown, and/or having the ability to hide as much as you want. But at the same time I believe I read that PO is intended to have a "grief" threshhold much less than that of say Eve Online, and grief or PVP play is the primary rationale for secrecy.

While an amusing concept, I really hope PFO does not introduce binding at all. Binding only makes sense in a continuous linear progression of weapons, personally I would far prefer a system of equipment wearing out with use as the way to remove items from the world, rather than continuous jump from one weapon to the next, leading to a never ending increase in power.

Binding / Soulbound Items are really a Themepark conceit and not found in the Sandbox. But since PO is apparently wanting to also have some Themepart elements I would not be surprised to see it used sparingly.

I would also like to point out that, if Ambar of Kotu is coming around to my shop, and buying Widgets in bulk from me at a price that allows him to resell them to Probitas for 5 gold each, it's really not in my best interest to turn around and sell a Widget directly to Probitas for less than 5 gold. I might make a marginally better profit on that single Widget, but I'm also likely to lose the sustained business I've been doing with Probitas.

If it is reasonable and worthwhile for you to sell your goods directly to market, then of course it is in your interest to do so. Middlemen will exist where it is cumbersome for you to do so.

If it is difficult or costly for you to move your widgets to market, then dealing with the people that have established caravan routes would make a lot of sense. Usually market opportunities are based around the value of money vs time investment and risk.

Paralleling 2 classes would eventually get you to 20/20, but character that does one class then another would be 20/20 with both capstones. Both take about the same time to finish, but the paralleler will be at a disadvantage. You have to choose, do you want more power early on, or as a reward at the end of the class line?

Multi-classing will probably be good for non-combat or low combat characters. You'll be able to pull any crafting/gathering perks out of other classes early and have no interest in capstone abilities.

I think you may be reading more into the system than has been designed... Where have they said it is even possible to be 20/20?

Save or Die effects won't work in an MMO, so I doubt you have much to fear.

In a Sandbox model you will find an AH, but not the part that magically teleports the goods from the seller to the buyer.

To use WoW as an example, imagine if the AH in each city were not connected. So the Market in Stormwind were different from the Market in Ironforge. Now imagine there is a separate AH in every town in between.

Something like that is more like the Eve Model applied to WoW.

Assuming that is what they are going for... If Blue Spices sell for 10 gold in Stormwind, and 20 gold in Ironforge, there is profit to be made buying them in Stormwind and transporting them to Ironforge to re-sell.

That sort of activity is classic Sandbox. The buying and selling of goods is done in a more "realistic" manner than a game like WoW, where the AH is able to magically move goods all over the world at no cost and no effort expended by PCs.

The kind of loot drop you describe is more of a Themepark model. In a Sandbox model, almost everything you would want to use will be created by players through some kind of tradeskill system. Since PO is trying to be some kind of hybrid, leaning towards Sandbox, it is tough to say...

But I would expect to see less of that sort of thing.

To be fair while the proposed death penalty may seem harsh, remember that you never lose any equipped gear, which is mostly what people worry about. What you will potentially lose is the loot in your bags... ie any vendor trash you have accumulated, consumables, tradeskill node resources you have harvested etc.

In other words, a setback, but not an end of the world one.

My apologies if this has been the subject of an earlier thread. Whilst I am not necessarily taking a position for or again real time skill progression (a.k.a. I haven't yet made up my mind...), I do wonder whether the EVE 'oldtimer' effect will kick in here - namely, the fact that later arrivals will, in the nature of things, never catch up with older players in terms of skills.

Just like in Eve, there are limits. 50 million SP in Battleship and Capital class stuff won't make a difference in a Frigate duel.

The problem with "catch up" games is that everyone races through the content to max level and you may as well just start people there then.