I think it would make sense that a suitably skilled and organized group of bandits should be able to gain control of the caravan animals and wagons/carts (undamaged), and lead them back with them.
In the heat of battle, the animals may bolt, so it would likely require some suitable "Handle Animal" skill or similar to prevent that and may require one or more of the bandits to focus on calming the team animals rather than fighting.
Also, the bandits should need some sort of teamster skills to be able to effectively lead the animals once controlled.
And lastly, the bandits of course would then find themselves in the position of operating the caravan, and be vulnerable to attack by other bandits as well :)
In a rare twist, I can shoot a bow better IRL than in a game with 'real' physics. :p
One of the other things to consider is flight time. In RL, depending upon range, it is possible to launch an arrow at a high angle of departure, and release another arrow at a lower angle of departure at a slightly later time such that both arrows arrive at the target at the same time. One arrow striking from the high angle of departure (a longer flight time) and one arrow striking from the lower angle or departure (a shorter flight time).
The result in game mechanics would be similar to executing a ranged attack in round 1 that does not inflict damage until round 2, and also executing a ranged attack in round 2 that inflicts damage in round 2. If you follow me. Basically inflicting double the amount of damage (if successful) in round 2, and no damage in round 1.
There are some situations where this would be beneficial.
Hmmm, I may be changing my thoughts on the spotter thing. An experienced longbowman, for example, would certainly be able to drop an arrow in a box say 150 meters from his/her position, whether that spot is visible or not. A unit should be able to do the same, with the appropriately skilled unit leader.
I'm not sure how that would be accomplished in-game, though.
It could be that a formation leader could provide a /assist function for an area target that everybody fires on? Even better a visible ring to fire through that must be positioned by a spotter. To be clear I am thinking about a formation inside the walls that doesn't have line of site on the attackers.
Pax Bringslite wrote:
Maybe an AOE/indirect mode for missiles of some type?
These are the types of things I was thinking about. Indirect fire onto a spot on the map (as an AOE, perhaps)? Absolutely yes.
I also think archers should be able to place indirect fire on a spot on the map they cannot see (like over the castle walls example). To do this, I also think there would need to be some sort of limitation; a spotter who can see the area is necessary, I think. In addition, having a unit leader who has certain skills trained that help him/her organize the archers to do such things, and then skills each of the archers need to train in order to be able to do it effectively.
It could potentially create archer variants in game that players would have to choose to focus their skill sets on to be really good at it. Do you want to be more skilled in more traditional one-on-one type engagements or do you want to be more geared towards organized battle units?
I think it would really make large battles very interesting and allow archer units to use more "traditional" medieval battle tactics.
DAoC used a model that allowed for increased range based on your elevation relative to your target. You would commonly see archers on the battlements or positioned up on a hillside raining arrows down onto the field of battle. Would be great to see that here too.
Agreed! I imagine the phsyics could end up being some pretty heavy computing requirements, depending upon how it was done. But even something "relatively" simple like you indicate here would be very cool, indeed.
Yea, I saw that too Being, and was wondering if it was some sort of actual physics algorithm or just a visual effect to make it "look" real.
If there is an actual physics engine working behind the scene it would be interesting to know what it is or how accurate it is. It could have impact on the battle tactics of projectile-based units in the game.
Will the ballistics of projectiles/ammunition in PFO be the same as real-world ballistics?
I really don’t know how the physics work in these games, and I plan to be play an archer-type character, so I’m asking this question. And if we don’t know how the physics in PFO will play out yet (I don’t recall anything in the blogs on this), perhaps there are analogies or insights from other similar games?
Harad Navar wrote:
Maybe this is better applied when the GW website threads become live.
I think this will be best done once we have forum where our posts have a permanent edit option.
You're probably both right. I may jumped the shark; I was trying to find an old thread (without luck) and thought this may be a good idea. Perhaps it would be best to wait for the GW forums to open up.
Because there are so many threads in the PFO forum now, and because they are essentially uncategorized, I thought it would be a good idea if there were some sort of consolidated list of threads that could be useful for some newer folks.
I would ask that, if you remember a PFO thread with particularly useful information that you post a link here, with a very short description (best if it can be kept to just a couple of words) of the content.
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Well, my experience is very different than yours, then.
Or, perhaps you intended to say that that is how YOU respond to those who have reached out to you when you have PvP'd them? If so, I would say that perhaps you try a different approach in PFO and help those "noobs" out. It'll make the game a better experience for everyone (you included, if you appreciate a challenging opponent).
Taylor Hainlen wrote:
And yes, that is a funny thing - it keeps folks on their toes ;)
Excellent advice Valkenr!
And I have said this before on other posts, but I will repeat it here: If you are adverse to PvP but are attacked and killed by someone in PFO (and this is likely if you're going to venture out of the protected areas), remember that that is part of the game, don't get overly upset about it, and by all means reach out to the player who killed you and ask the why's and wherefors. You will likely find that those PvPers are more than willing to provide you advice on how to better protect yourself in the future.
And that will make the game more fun for everyone!
Ryan Dancey wrote:
This is excellent news! Thank you GW for being so responsive to this community!
Pax Areks wrote:
My 2 cents, Destiny's Twins should not be able to vote again. Multiple accounts should, as long as you did not already use the votes on both accounts in the original Land Rush poll (e.g., if one of your accounts did not cast a vote last round, you could cast one with that account. If both accounts cast votes, c'est la vie.)
EDIT: Fixed that, thanks Ryan!
I think in most cases, contrary to Ryan's believe, solo explorers or even harvesters will be fairly safe from professional banditry.
I do agree with this. I still do think there will be groups out there that will gank folks, though. And I think, unfortunately (and likely in other games), people can't necessarily tell the difference between being taken by professionals vs. being ganked, which is something we as a community (all of us, "good", "evil", "lawful", "chaotic") need to be diligent at policing our own ranks in order to make PFO the different MMO experience that the devs (and me, as well as I am sure a lot of us) want it to be.
I appreciate that offer, Bluddwolf. In my opinion, that is exactly the type of thing we need to be doing collectively as a community in order to make PFO different. I want you and your like minded mates out there doing what you do. It makes the game challenging, it makes it fun. It makes me better at what I do, it makes me think, I like that. It is invigorating for the game. I don't want griefers out there. If folks like you help take these folks in an train them how to be "good" bad guys (hopefully you know what I mean), PFO will be successful at its goal.
Here's an interesting thought - It seems to me there are examples (at least I think there are) where good aligned settlements may need to hire evil-aligned characters to help them out from time to time (assassinations, raiding enemy caravans, etc.). Sort of a Stockburn and his Deputies (from the movie High Plains Drifter) type crew may be needed by that good aligned group to do some enforcement, lets say.
Are there situations where evil aligned settlements would need to hire good aligned characters? One that I thought of when I read the above regarding monster escalation cycles where Lee states "Lee: One of the ones I've always wanted to try and do was have one where the escalation cycle is plague victims or refugees, where you can't beat them - if you beat them into submission, that's really evil, but you can feed them into submission, and you beat the escalation cycle by giving them food."
This brought an interesting idea to my mind. Is the feeding of these plague victims an inherently "good" act? Or, what if it wasn't "feed them into submission", but "heal them into submission"? Wouldn't it be incredibly interesting if an evil aligned group (who would have healers of course, but perhaps feeding or healing these plague victims would increase their "goodness" which perhaps they would not want to do), had to go out and hire a band of good aligned healers to deal with this escalation?
I just found that a fascinating potential aspect; good may sometimes need to hire evil, and evil may sometimes need to hire good.
I think that would be a very interesting dynamic!
If you are not built around PVP, why would expect not to die if you go wandering in the wilds?
Why would I expect to be killed if I am carrying nothing of value and I am just “wandering” around to see the sites? Maybe I want to see what that mountain range looks like. Maybe I’m scouting for dragons to fight.
If I’m poking around in some area that you don’t want me in, hail me and tell me to leave or else. Why just sneak up on me a smoke me?
I know one reason may be that you think perhaps I'm spying. I think hailing me and telling me to leave helps address that, somewhat.
I often try to contact the character that just killed me and ask them, what could I have done differently. You might be surprised at how helpful they will generally be.
In my limited experience in EVE, I did this exact thing and I will say that every time I did (which may have only be ~ 6 times total) the perpetrator was always willing to give me pointers. They’d say things like “don’t do x next time” or “try this next time”. It was very helpful for me in those cases and made me “better” at what I was doing. In most cases, the perpetrator was surprised I was not all P-O-ed at them and they’d say so, I guess when most folks get killed they lash out, if they reach out at all.
Anyway, for those folks who want to engage in this type of thing in PFO I would say be open to providing that feedback to your victims, and for those who are victims, I would encourage you to reach out to the character that killed you and ask why and what you can do better next time (as Bluddwolf indicates).
I think many of the bandit types (the “respectable” ones anyway; so to speak!) want their victims to be more challenging, and at least form my very limited experience in EVE they are willing to provide the feedback to help you get better and not be the victim next time.
So I checked in HeroLab to see what it lists for Tsuto to see if I could help you out. Here is what I found:
So, I think you are calculating it correctly. I'm not sure where that +2 "untyped" bonus comes from; seems to me like thats the way the HeroLab programmers "forced" Tsuto to end up at the published CMD.
But I don't know for sure. Sorry I couldn't be more help.
You are correct, the Drow are a good example, truly a society based upon fear (some may argue they are closer to NE than CE, but I agree they can be CE). However, they have limitations because of it; and they kill each other. I'm just guessing, but if a group of players forma CE settlement together in PFO, they won't be killing each other.
I don't know anything about the others you reference.
I go back and forth on this issue. There need to be "bad guys" in the game; without them it's no fun. We should all want that.
I think what most people don't like is the poor newbie sap learning the ropes that gets smoked by someone just because he's in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or someone who goes around harassing people because its only a game and it doesn't really matter. (Well I'll speak for myself on those, at least).
But from a RPG standpoint (and I've been playing RPGs for a very long time), a Chaotic Evil character should be almost impossible to play "correctly". CE is (and has always been in RPGs) an insane, unreliable, untrustworthy, lawless, resentful of ANY authority, inconsistent individual. CE characters cannot get along, cooperate, or in any way work together, its just not possible if you role play them "correctly". As such they should have MAJOR limitations in game.
A Lawful Evil character, however, is very playable from an RPG perspective. These guys are ruthless, but they can operate in an organized fashion that actually make them very dangerous indeed.
For CE, I of course understand that their are real people on the other end of these characters who are not CE, so they are not really CE. But to me that's not playing the characters as they should be played in an RPG. The players behind the characters should be "in character" and try to play them as they are meant to be played (historically in RPGs is what I mean by "meant").
Anyway, from an RPG perspective its my opinion that anyone trying to play a CE character really should have significant limitations, but they should not if they play a LE character.
All, I am flattered by all the attention!
Yes, I am the underscored Lone_Wolf, TEO's very own Solitarius Lupus. The other Lone Wolves got there first, so I had to go with the underscore.
And yes I am mostly a lurker on these forums but with the land rush map recently released, I could not resist ;-)
I like the idea of this.
How do you see it being abused?
One potential for abuse (mostly applies if the SYG is centered on the person who initiates the SYG, which seems to make sense): A group of players (how many is not important, a few or a lot), all surround you, target you, and press SYG at the same time. You have 30 seconds to leave the area. Maybe you are fast enough, but maybe you are not fast enough to get out of ALL of the SYG areas in that 30 seconds (obviously would depend on lots of factors here). If you’re not fast enough, or you’re in some physically restricted area that prevents you from getting out, they can attack you w/o rep loss.
Perhaps if you’re able to click an acknowledgement that you will comply (e.g., “Yep, I recognize that you have SYG’d me and I’m leaving now”) or that you won’t comply (e.g., your SYG button, as you indicated). If you acknowledge that you’ll leave, but you don’t leave, or if you don’t acknowledge either way, perhaps you suffer some rep loss that continues to accumulate as long as you’re in the area.
Another potential for abuse: A group of folks basically run you out of an area by chasing you down and SYG’ing you when they get close enough. I could envision a situation where 3 or 4 folks chase someone across the map into an ambush or just to annoy them. I’m not sure why someone would do this or find it fun, but I think it’s possible.
A thought: If you SYG an area, as indicated in above posts, if someone comes within 50 meters perhaps they get a little pop-up that shows them that the area has been SYG’d (kind of akin to a virtual “no trespassing” sign posted around the area). I’m not sure this is a good idea, though, because it may indicate you’re near something good, so as a harvester I’m not inclined to do this if I want to try to keep a low profile. In either case, I would NOT want to see any indication of WHO is doing the SYG’ing or HOW many active SYGs there are for an area (from multiple people, for instance). That provides too much information for potential intruders. In addition, these SYG areas would have to expire once the player who created them leaves the area (probably that 50 meter area) to keep folks from SYG’ing huge tracts of land.