Oberyn Corvus's page

spear and shield was so overpowered they wrote it out of history

It's almost as if introducing themselves to new potential players (and investors) is more important than preaching to their choir :-).

Yes, yes, the choir needs some preaching to continue the singing! We demand new material to debate! :D

Seems were drifting off-topic here. For whats its worth, although Im not a 'hardcore PVPer' and lean more towards team-PVE and crafting, I wouldnt want a game to 'hand-hold' me. I would strongly prefer that the wilderness be wild and dangerous. And if I step out into it unprepared, then I can expected to get killed. Sure it might put some people off, but more importantly itll keep more people involved because of the constant risks in facing the world. The only thing that I think really needs to be done (based on experiences with EVE) is clearly explaining to new players the consequences of their actions and, if there are areas of differing protection from marshals, how protected they will be by NPC guards. And no, I dont consider killing a new player griefing. Poor taste perhaps, but not griefing. On the other hand, if the killer is camping the new player area specifically to kill new players, then yes I would consider that to be griefing and it should be stopped.

Back on topic, as far as my mentioning the 'voting' mechanism I wasnt advocating that it replace the current system. I was making the point that should GW wish to poll the playerbase, it might be preferable to link the results with paying accounts to get an indication from the playerbase. Obviously this need not apply in all cases and is more a response to some of the very vocal feedback on other MMO forums from a minority of players.

Looking forward to playing with the Seventh Veil in game. I applied primarily because of the relaxed attitude Ive seen their members display and the really engaging purpose and backstory of TSV. Im hoping to see this exploratory thirst for knowledge show in game in a prominent way. Just have to wait and see now :)

Personally I think were going to be seeing lots of roleplaying characters, not just minmaxers. Then again, I can be a bit overly optimistic about such things, so Ill have to wait and see.

With regards to the crafting, I like the idea of racial variants of gear. Or even keywords that are the exclusive domain of specific race(s). Anything that adds to the breadth and depth of crafting is good IMHO. Imagine needing to learn the best way to fold metal from the dwarves and coupling it with the best way to balance the blade from the elves, etc. However, Im in full agreement that any racial recipes should not be restricted to that race, although members of the same race may get a boost in learning it (easier access, faster time, etc).

Im not sure what the latest stance on character attributes is. Last I read attributes would not affect training time and instead we would be gaining attributes from learning specific skills (e.g. training ranks in stealth would add incremental values to the characters Dex). If thats the case, then a simple solution would be to give each starting character a set amount of xp to spend at creation and access to skills that are flavorful to that race (this is independent of any similar creation xp granted for class selection). This would allow for racial diversity and flavor without being overpowered since those skills are accessible to all.

All in all though I am definitely opposed to static racial bonuses that affect gameplay and cannot be learned in game. Even if the actual gameplay effect is negligible, it still creates the perception of the character being 'sub-par'.

Im firmly in the camp of 'cash shop should provide training time and cosmetic items only'. Im particularly averse to the idea of crafting components and items being available in the cash shop.

Given that the PLEX-equivalent can turn $$ into in-game coin, anything can be bought with $$. The real difference is when can those items be acquired (waiting for a crafter to be able to make it available vs logging into the cash shop) and where you can purchase it (im assuming here that cash shop items appear in your inventory once allocated and do not require travel in-game to pick up).

To me, both of those points would appear to detract from the growth of the in-game economy. For example, instead of a CC pushing and supporting their crafters and gatherers to become proficient enough to provide them with the arms and armour they need, theyll just purchase them off the cash shop instead. As for the transportation issue, that may be a problem for scenarios such as banditry (less people traveling to and fro) and wartime (where even a low quality weapon/potion/etc delivered instantly could make a huge difference).

It has been discussed, but without any clear decision (to my knowledge) that resources could possibly be upgraded (e.g. 10 QL1 refined into 1 QL2, etc). I have no idea if this is part of the planned crafting system or not, but if it is then it needs to be taken into account with respect to offering crafting materials on the cash shop.

While I would prefer that even skins are made in-game by crafters, I concede the point that GW needs to sell some stuff through the cash shop. One idea is that the cash shop sells a single use skin for a category of item/building but also sells the plan for a crafter to incorporate that skin in his creations. The crafting recipe would be very expensive in both $$$ and in-game resources (i.e. would probably need CC or settlement support to make it viable).

The more i read the comments raised, the more I feel that the problem lies in the 'anti-griefing' stance more than anything else. All the points are revolving around trying to stop 'griefers' from gaming the system. However, 'griefers' will ALWAYS find a way to game the system with differing levels of success. Id say the real response to it is get some buddies to track him down or throw a bounty/death curse on him. Problem solved.

I had some thoughts to share, then realised that they got hopelessly tangled when factoring in all the flags and possibilities. Going to have to think about it some more before sharing.

The problem with a one-shot kill is that since you have no chance to defend yourself, it stops being fun. And if its easy to set up that one shot kill then it runs the risk of becoming the 'uber build' that everyone has to slot or defend against. I note that Bluddwolf was talking about a 'very rare' occurrence but I dont know how to gauge how rare is very rare.

I dont mind the idea of high damage crits as long as it has the following:
- It is a reflection of player skill and not just stats
- There is a tradeoff to having that high damage spike (e.g. high damage low armor rogues)

Of course, this is all subject to seeing how it plays out in game.

If bandits continue to be unreasonable (excessive SAD or just keep killing caravans), then the merchants/transporters/harvesters will just invest in more guards and cover the extra costs by selling at a higher price. Its all economics :D

To those who have expressed the opinion that they are 'disadvantaged' or 'screwed' by not having DT, could you please elaborate a bit? How exactly is this going to affect your playing time?

All DT does is save you 15 dollars a month. Its a purely financial matter. It doesnt give you an in-game benefit that cannot be achieved by spending that additional subscription. And because its purely financial, its related to the investment point I raised above, namely that early investors often get a better package than late-comers. Its all about risk vs reward. The earlier investors are assuming a greater risk, therefore if it works out they get a greater reward. Those of us that come in later are now investing into something less risky, therefore less reward for us. Thats how financing works.

It doesnt make business sense to offer DT to everyone. A niche game like this is going to be making its money from the subscriptions and, if EVE is anything to go by, the multiple subscriptions per player. Thats how they can keep the whole thing running with a smaller playerbase. DT could screw their earnings which means that they might run into trouble maintaining the game which could lead to the whole thing shutting down. Bit of a 'sky is falling' statement, but it could lead to that. Why? Because offering DT to everyone means that theyve effectively cut their earnings from subscriptions in half. Everyone and their uncle is going to be using DTs left, right and centre. It just makes better financial sense.

I would like to remind everyone again that you can pay for your subscription with in-game money. Therefore, even if you have a financial consideration, you can address it by your in-game actions. Hell, settlements could run lotterys for these things to help their players. Thats a perk that very few games offer.

Of course, this doesnt preclude the option of another wave of KS-like backing so we may still get an option. I just dont see how we can claim that this scenario is 'unfair', 'discriminating' or 'disadvantageous'

My argument for the financial factor is that I wish to be able to do the same. Even if I have to pay a few dollars more for the ability to have Destiny Twins on my account, I would like to have the ability to have the same experince as the kickstarters. I don't think a one-time cost for none-kickstarters should be seen as a kick in the teeth for those who kickstarted the game, just because I wish to have a nifty feature in this game.

If it were my decision, purely from a business perspective, I wouldnt offer the DT benefits for purchase for at least a year after OE, if ever. Why? Because those are investor benefits. Many people decided to put money into this game before they even knew if it was going to be successful or not, at least a year and a half before they would see the fruits of that investment, all on the basis of those perks. These people are in effect GW's investors. You dont alienate your investors by offering 'investor only perks' to the general public. If anything, we should be thanking those DT holders because its their money that is making this a reality. Why theirs and not ours? Because if they hadnt pledged in the KS, GW wouldnt have a business case to continue. Doesnt matter if we wanted to invest later, the opportunity would be gone. I think theyve earned their perks. Let them keep them. Id be happy to be able to get a DT later (it is a very nice perk after all), but I would fully accept not being allowed to get it. Such is life. And ultimately, I can play and enjoy my game just fine either way.

/end soapbox

I like it! Makes the world much more vibrant and rich. Not to mention deadly.

We're not targeting casual players. That's for games that expect to have millions of players. We're targeting a small number of hard core players who are obsessed with the game.

That statement is full of win and just made my day. Heres to all the hardcore and obsessed PF players and devs! :D

Now, we can simply ignore that, which would be foolish, or deal with the reality. Now the question becomes can we devise a system that provides for the rare few who are good at RPing evil characters and are a benefit to the community, while at the same time addressing reality?

Emphasis mine.

I think that the point of debate here is the 'reality' of griefers. When I first started following the discussion, I was all for measures to restrict griefers. The more I follow the discussion though, the less convinced I am that about the the severity of the issue. Are there going to be griefers? Yes. But those griefers are going to find a way to game the system no matter what you do.

Consider the following (based on info to date):

1) A griefer is usually considered CE
2) You gain E by killing
3) You gain C by breaking the law
4) You can increase your negative rep by trading rep

So basically, you have a griefer who is going to happily carry on doing what he wanted to do anyway and avoid a huge rep loss by getting his rep off another character. Doesnt sound like it solves the problem.

In WoW, on PvP servers, the biggest annoyance for me was corpse camping when youre trying to finish something (quest, gathering, exploration, whatever) and a high level character kills you in two hits and then just sits there waiting to do it again. This is the scenario of 'griefing' that comes to mind when I hear that term.

But this WoW scenario is NOT the standard case for PFO for the following reasons:

1) The power curve is shallower, so we shouldnt be seeing 2-hit kills or the impossible to hit characters.
2) You dont 'corpse run' in PFO. You could, if you wanted to pick up your gear, but you given the 'item turnover' mentality and threading mechanic you can write it off just as easily. Which means you dont need to return to where the griefer is. Go somewhere else.
3) There are no level-restricted zones in PFO (to my knowledge). Which means that instead of having only a couple of level appropriate options to go to, you can pretty much go anywhere you want.

If all else fails, make a batcall and get your buddies to pound him into the dust. This game is supposed to put an emphasis on community and teamwork after all.

Im in general agreement with Bluddwolf. Im fine with an alignment system and I understand that actions have their consequences. Im not comfortable with actions being pigeonholed into certain alignments, especially in a role-playing game (rather than an action/grindfest).

I have two characters to talk about, and one question I ask my students when I want to get them thinking.

The Incredible Hulk = alignment would be Chaotic Good

Bugs Bunny = Alignment ?

Here is the question:

Who would win in a fight, every time, between The Hulk and Bugs Bunny? Explain your answer...

Bugs Bunny or neither.

For the following reasons:

1) Bugs Bunny has the law of Acme on his side. In other words, he can survive anything. The Hulk can punch or stomp Bugs all day long and Bugs will just look like a pancake till he can find a tyre pump. This assumes that particularly gruesome or creative methods of murder (quartering for example) get stopped by the amazing elasticity of Bugs' body.

2) Staying power (related to the previous point). Bugs can outlast the Hulk. In most versions of the Hulk, he tires out after a certain point and turns back into Bruce Banner. So all Bugs' has to do is wait.

3) Wisecracking. The Hulk is, in most versions, much more primal. Even child-like. He also usually just wants to be left alone and generally avoids hurting innocents directly (collateral damage aside). Bugs' tends to avoid hunting and/or being directly aggressive. Hes usually a deadpan snarker who frustrates his opponents by just avoiding them and turning everything they do into a joke. However, he can and does play pranks on people. So this can play out in one of two ways:

3a) Bugs Bunny is harmlessly funny and friendly. This could calm the Hulk down (more 'child-like' state of mind could be amused) and revert him to Banner. Therefore Bugs Bunny wins.

3b) Bugs Bunny is a prankster which annoys the Hulk and tries to squash Bugs. Bugs is amused by this, keeps taunting the Hulk which makes him angrier and thus continues his 'Hulk-state' for more smashing. In the meantime Bugs continually avoids and/or absorbs the punishment. This continues indefinitely. Therefore neither wins and they're stuck in a loop. (this assumes that with infinitely generated rage, the Hulk would never tire and continue his Hulk-state indefinitely. If this is not the case (Im hazy on this one, lore-wise), then point 3b is invalid and would revert to a case of Bugs winning by endurance)

My vote goes for including racial diversity, encumbrance rules and tactical terrain. I believe that the objective is to create a sandbox that is true to the spirit and feel of PnP PF. Racial differences, AoO, encumbrance etc are all a pretty big part of that. Take away the racial penalties and suddenly you cant add the racial characteristics without giving them an undue advantage.

Im excited by the thought of an MMO that requires tactics, planning and playing to strengths instead of just comparing gear stats and declaring a winner.