It just seems like this is the same as perma-death, without actually killing an account. If a player cannot gain back what he's lost, he may as well BE dead. What's the purpose of that? I would much rather see an actual perma-death than this back handed version. It would be more honest. And if the only part of this game is going to be supplying your guild with resources, I just don't see the draw.
I still have a problem even tying a class like Paladin (or any class/role such as ranger/druid) to being a part of a town. At what point is playing a role part of being part of a community? Why is the game design forcing commitments? Your ability to fix weapons isn't based on where you live, it's based on how well you can fix weapons. And that has to do with your access to the TOOLS of your trade, not where you set up shop. I just can't wrap my head around that, except that it seems designed to force consolidation of power into a group, similar to the BORG.
Who would pay money to end up being level locked? And of course we assume guild leaders can punt people out, so these people have a lot of power over other people paying to play a game. For some reason I don't understand that. This is what needs to be clearly stated right up front. This game is not for people who aren't mentally set to accept structured play right from the start, who aren't willing to accept that some third party player could essentially cut out their legs on a whim.
This thread needs to be stickied, as any players looking to become involved need to know what they are getting into as far as limitations go. I think it's pretty punitive to the player as an individual and also very harsh against groups who are out-numbered, and won't succeed in the long run, but go the way you want to go, it's your game. It also means that a person that wants to say, be a crafter mainly, isn't very viable at all, where as in other games it was perfectly valid.
People need to know that long term this game is designed for guilds, and players individual goals are going to end up taking a back seat to supporting the guild directly through spending time gathering resources on one half, or fighting battles on the other.
I don't think the hive mentality will work with people the way you think it will.
Of course it's not major concern right now, the game is not officially launched.
I just want the rules to be known before the game really gets rolling along. People need to know, in advance, what is and is not allowed, and what kind of punishments you could expect if you get caught doing it.
And before you say 'it's not that easy to catch someone doing it', yeah, it is. I've played a lot of MMOs in my time, and it's very easy to spot the cheaters, once you know what to look for. Beyond the clearly obvious visual cues given off by a mob of characters moving and reacting in unison like a human centipede, there are plenty of programs that can be incorporated into the client side to prevent cheating.
I just don't think anyone should be able to multi-box/play multiple characters at the same time on the same PC, using one keyboard and macros, be it using third party software or macro programmable keystrokes: one command, one key press, per character, should be the standard, particularly in a game with PVP.
In most PVP games that have come before, there are always those that will cheat, and it always seems to be groups of people that do so in large numbers (guilds), and the rules should be plain and obvious beforehand so someone doesn't later claim they didn't know like some kind of child.
What is PFOs official stance on multi-boxing/macros for single human players with multiple characters in game at the same time?
Just for clarity's sake, I feel any game that drives or allows people to do this has a serious design flaw of some kind that should be addressed. If a single player can't be successful on their own, and need to be puppeteer to a bunch of alts using a software parser to control the secondary/tertiary puppets to be able to feel successful, doesn't that mean that something should be adjusted? This isn't the time to use 'I can't find a group' as a defense either.
Beyond the whole 'one human - one character at a time' rule most MMOs have in place to prevent 'cheating'. I just want to know what we could be running into once PVP gets into full swing, are we going to be seeing macroing players running around in mini-gank squads.
That's going to be hard to do with a 2 day limit on sales....that would only be of use to people who log on every day. Casual people may as well ignore that part of the game completely and just trash everything except the coin they loot. And if the AH charges for posting, well, one more reason to avoid it.
I think qued attacks is the bane of smart gaming. If you are going to que attacks, and knowing that it is possible your target could drop before the next attack goes off but BEFORE you target another monster, then you must accept the system will adapt as designed.
I don't think any kind of target prevention should occur. Realistically you can't aim and shoot a bow or a spell before you target, even swinging a sword requires some thought; but the game makes it possible. So if some player wants to use that, they accept the risks that come with it. That's part of being responsible. If you got an itchy trigger finger, better learn how to manage it.
I do agree allowing the que is the problem. Remove the que, and the problem goes away. Or at least the problem of having qued attacks on players going off. Bad targeting issues will still happen.
I hope friendly fire is possible, because AoE in melee of your own group is just a very bad way to play. It also means that if you need to take out a target/targets and they also have your friends in there, well then, what's more important, keeping your friends alive, or keeping the battle in your favor?
That's where moral choices are made. Without negatives, you really can't have positives.
I applaud intelligent design measures and a desire to release, if not finished product, at least finished enough to run properly. You don't see that much anymore, too many companies rushing crap to market, and then it never performs, ever, to what was advertised. There are a few AAA developers out there that could learn a thing or two from that kind of attitude. Sadly it is also investors that normally drive a game launch into insanity and destroy company good will and the hope of a successful launch.
If it takes a month more, it takes a month more. If this is to succeed it needs that attention to detail and ethics to accomplish that success. Please don't let your desire to 'Play Now!' make you want a rushed job. The flip of that is that if the game is to succeed you need other people willing to play with you, and if their first experience is tainted due to a rushed release in poor state, we ALL suffer for it.
Let them take the time they need, I have had enough of bad management decisions causing good ideas to die.
You haven't been able to change armor in the middle of battle in any RPG since they started, that hot swapping is an MMO occurrence due to the total lack of certain rules being applied in favor of ease of play.
In a sandbox, there must be limits. It can be instant outside of combat, but there must definitely be a requirement to not be in combat. It's just not realistic at all to claim you can swap out plate for leather while fighting; after all, how many hands do you got?
As far as feats go, I wouldn't have a problem with it as long is it takes time, say an attack round or whatever the game simulates for that, so you forgo being able to fight while doing it, until a certain cd has passed. I suppose you could do the same with armor, but then it would have to take an attack for each piece of a set that gets changed.
I think most people would be DEAD at that point, so I think players need to learn to plan ahead and not expect the game to hold their hand on this.
I managed not to kill off my characters like that, but then I guess a lot of the R in RPG comes from the player. And I am fine with perma death even. If you do something stupid, you should pay the price. Like not using something to find out if the hole in the wall is really a hole, and not a void that destroys anything that comes in contact with it.
Seriously, a group walking into a large cavern that happens to have treasure strewn all over the floor, and everyone makes a bee line to snap it up, without checking the roof first for the hovering dragon that knew they were coming long ago, deserves a quick death. Spot assumes a normal point of view, and up is not something normally done casually. That requires an active Search skill.
I just can't enjoy a good RPG without the ultimate risk that comes from it. That whole never die thing is a product of MMOs, not RPGs.
I assumed a canon Paladin, the kind with drawbacks for bad behavior. Letting team mates expire in favor of your own life is EVIL.
If the monster is evil, then smite will work, even with gauntlets or fists. Repeatedly. That is one of the Paladin charms.
Even if the monster is not evil, and requires the use of the unholy longsword, worst that can happen is the bestowal of a temp negative level until the Paladin drops it (or more likely, destroys it). Though admittedly, killing one creature to save another seems pretty crass to me, the monster does have a right to its life too. And you can still grapple for sub-dual without trying to kill outright.
I would never hold a Paladin responsible for picking up the only available weapon and using it if it was the only way, short of divine interference. Which, when you think about it, should have been the first thing tried, prayer to the deity for deliverance, then advancing with fists anyway, having faith that the deity would deliver them both from threat. That is a good opportunity for role playing.
Although, maybe the monster, having eaten the Paladin after a self sacrificial death, would simply find its own way out, being sated, and leave the civilian alone?
If you want to get basic though, the sword is just a tool, it's the use that determines the 'evilness' of the act. The alignment simply means it's a better weapon for someone who has a similar evil alignment who can then use it to commit more evil. Using the evil weapon to commit an act of good would be ironic, and good symmetry. Especially if the weapon ends up destroyed due to the alignment conflict with the usage, just like a Paladin ends up 'destroyed' when he commits an act of evil, until atonement, if possible (yes, some acts have no forgiveness).
The situation is obviously contrived. How did the civilian get there, and how long was he there? How did this monster end up trapped in the room in the first place if the civilian could enter, and then how did the Paladin find a way in as well? Just not a very believable situation. Seems like people always try and put a Paladin into a situation that has no resolution, forgetting that the obvious transparency of the setup renders the Paladin blameless. If there is nothing that can be done, how can you be held responsible? Doctors try to save patients all the time, but no one charges them with murder when they die after all other attempts fail. And in all likelihood, the Paladin is the next target, and if he can't save a civilian, he's dead meat anyway, so may as well go for a heroic sacrifice.
Of course, to each their own. The problems come when people attempt to make statements about the superiority of one version vs. the other, as that is just bald opinion masquerading as fact.
If someone has more fun creating a character with nothing but 18's and who can multiclass any combination, more power to them. Others enjoy the vanilla flavor, and still others like a combination of the two.
Preference is one thing, but superiority? Not at all something that can be claimed, except in reference to the basic design. One mans drink is another mans poison.
Although, what with PFO being on the design table, I think a lot of players are going to be quite shocked when they discover they can't make certain class combinations they way they used to, if Paizo stick to canon rules, which I believe they will be. In that case, everyone is going to be playing canon, if they wish to play the PFO.
That is EXACTLY how the game was initially designed back in the days of Gary Gygax, and strangely, the game was still popular. I don't know what changed, but for some reason, I don't think anyone who picks up the game now would agree to play a game like they did back when it was created, they'd probably claim it TOO HARD. Which is bunk. I think anyone can successfully run any rolled stats, they just don't want to role play out of their comfort zone.
As GM's can easily grant any stat at creation, if someone needs certain stats due to stat restrictions (which were the norm back in the day, not the exception, and it kept certain classes from becoming over populated, like the Paladin, the Ranger, etc), granting a MINIMUM score to meet a requirement for a BASIC starting class should be simplicity. The rest though should be rolled. But that is just me, I like a challenge.
Seriously, how many muscle bound brutes do you know in real life who can ALSO do complicated math and write and compose a symphony, as well as display harmony and grace in movement? I don't know that many who can, but I gather from responses that characters being created would easily fit that bill a lot of the times.
I think random die rolls push better roleplaying. It also simulates reality. Granted, adventurers should be better than normal, hence the 4d6 drop the lowest, plus I add reroll ones, so it's 2-6 for 6 - 18, which is room for a bad stat, but not so bad as to be almost unplayable. Sure, you can possibly roll 1's all the time, but I've never seen that happen even from a random number generator. It's so statistically unlikely it's close to 0.
The point buy system actually encourages min maxing, which I think is the WRONG way for the game to go.
I also think it does away with creative gaming.
So what if the wizard managed to roll stats over 10, with three 17's and all you have as a fighter is one 15 and the rest from 6 to 10. The stats play a part in the game, but they aren't the be all and end all, unless your style of role playing consists of looking up stats and rolling dice, with zero input about character action beyond 'I try to hit the orc with my sword'. You have then successfully reduced the gaming experience to that of a collection of data being number crunched. No wonder no one has fun doing that. That's accountant as player class.
Also, it doesn't take into account that at beginning levels, your risk is slight, so the need for stats is also slight. Even as you progress, the stats start to be less an issue because of augmentations and feats. You can even do away with bad stats to some extent with powerful magic, sometimes permanently.
Why exclude yourself from that game experience (which can include quests to empower the character) by instantly granting above average stats? A lot of magic items only augment if you are BELOW certain thresholds, not above, so high stats then become pointless. It's really just cutting out a LOT of the game experience. It's like playing an MMO then, no stats, just running around and hacking until your health goes down, get the heal bot to top you up, then out for more. Rinse and repeat til your eyes bleed. No wonder some players are getting to constantly rest during adventures to renew abilities, they've made it far too easy IMO.
Fighters are there to protect the group from the majority of attacks, since they need no prep work beyond having a ready weapon, and with the right feats, not even that. Having no specialties beyond weapons mastery and feats that buff that, they can normally attack anything and deal damage without worrying overmuch about alignment of the enemy, weapon restrictions of their own, and whether or not their damage is reduced because of a spent spell or ability. They can easily augment with magic items such as weapon, armor, and potion.
Paladins are hybrid cleric/fighter, and really can't be compared one on one vs. a fighter. It's apples vs oranges. To say a fighter is better or worse than a paladin is opinion.
Character combinations that do away with design restrictions are not canon and so can't be considered anything but home brew, and should never be compared to standard characters since that is, again, apples to oranges.
If you made standard characters, you'd find them quite acceptable, and if you thought, hey I'd like to have that neato ability, but my alignment is not compatible, then you should deal with it. If you do away with that, you are skewing the game. A good GM that lets you do that should start tossing mobs at you that have the same powers you do, and I doubt that would be much fun, since fights would never end, or as the WoW players would say 'IT'S EPIC'. First player to roll a 1 loses.
It's not the similarities between characters that make good gaming in RPG, it's the differences. Those differences invite companions, and that is where the fun starts. Twisting the rules to create a munchkin meta game character kind of defeats the whole purpose of a fun and challenging game, because it takes the challenge out.
Hunger Games has 4 different ratings right across Canada. You can't get any more arbitrary than that.
And my point about WoW being kiddie ville stands. If this games only difference is the wrapper around the code, there is not going to be anything to make it stand out. The skills application is just mechanics. WoW with Eve style skill code would still be WoW.
I find it very hard to understand how a game that is purported to contain player on player 'simulated' violence would be concerned with something like an ESRB rating; it's hard to reconcile. Obviously you aren't fighting a non person like a mob, that's a living person on the other end of that graphical animation. Unless you are suggesting that people don't realize that? Even indirectly, that is violence towards another human. How can that be rated anything but M unless you intentionally force a disconnect mentally about what it represents? Even slasher flicks get higher ratings than T when their own depictions are tame. And a lot of movies that used to be R would now be 14A, or less. That's how much people have changed over the last 20 years.
And then that brings up the whole, why ratings and changes in depiction in the first place. Are you trying to alter peoples perceptions of violence by intentionally removing all the nasty stuff that it has, like blood, gore, and other adults subjects? Like the original Star Trek episode "A Taste of Armageddon", you continue to have violence in games at the expense of the reality, thereby reducing your own understanding of the true nature of violence, and therefore any one that used your product would suffer from the same reduction in reaction to it as well. It's no wonder there are some officious officials who claim video games lead to real violence, when the violence people is exposed to is so full of tripe.
Now, if the above paragraph is poppycock and easily dismissed, why ratings then, as they are supposed to protect people from bad things, but if there is nothing to protect them from, why have them then, if fake violence is so obviously fake as to be discounted totally. And if fake is fake universally, why should simulated reality be a problem to anyone, since that too is as fake as fake can be? Because some suit somewhere stood up and said, 'Hey, I'm wearing a suit, so I know what I'm talking about and you should take me seriously.'??
All I can see from the official stance of the industry and the ESRB is a lot of hypocrisy and a lack of stones in not challenging that hypocrisy. At least Europeans are more progressive. It's like living in a cave here in North America.
But it's your game, develop as you wish, but don't complain when you draw the exact kind of crowd your rating suggests will be the majority, and good luck competing with the 100 pound Gorilla.
All I can say after my last bit is, if I wanted to play World of Warcraft, I would be doing just that. If this game isn't different from that game except for the world it's based in and a few differences in how skills are handled, it's the same game, just a new wrapper.
Why would anyone that won't play WoW, or has out grown it, play this game? You have to be aware that a large part of your initial customer base is going to be players of the tabletop game, and if the game is so radically different that it's not clearly similar using a similar world view, you won't keep them for long, as the tabletop game will have a better draw, due largely because of it's freedom from arbitrary social standards.
Clearly, some 'children' are growing up faster than their own parents, who still require further maturation. And the industry needs to start challenging the status quo, or it will never mature past 'T'.
Most summoning spells have caveats. Only for a certain time, only for one job, etc. Even the familiar spell states that if it dies, you lose hp and experience, ie it hurts you BAD to lose it.
If the game allows summoned pets to do your fighting, then killing them should have drawbacks, like used up spell components, 30 days game time before getting a new familar, etc. Otherwise, low level players could summon up hordes totally out of balance with what their actual power level should be.
I guess hacking the heads off orcs is right out then? Or limbs?
The lengths people go to dress down something. Using swords in a fake fight is OK, but seeing the results, even when it's patently obvious they should be occurring and it's STILL obviously fake is a no-no!???
I guess then that means no Vorpal weapons, since they remove limbs and heads. What a shame. I thought this was going to be similar to playing the tabletop game with nifty magic weapons. Or is someone out there going to tell me they never game with one and don't describe the results when they roll a 20? I'd call BS on that. And is there any difference really between an imagination composed of a sword hacking off a head with all graphics done in the mind, and one that uses pictures to assist in the immersion? And is someone going to claim 13 year old boys DON'T imagine being ninjas and such and NOT doing that?
I think a lot of people are literally living in fantasy lands of their own creation. And they apparently work at the ratings board.
Please Mr. Developer, make sure I don't have to protect my stuff when I'm not actively engaging the game, it's not fair to expect me to plan long term beyond my game time, even in a perpetual environment that changes for the long term due to my actions.
Wait, is that fair? That sounds too one sided to me.
Bring it on. I can take it. What does not kill me, makes me stronger.
Gameplay and mechanics trumps bling. I don't care how shiny the bling is, if your combat sucks ass, your game sucks ass too. [AoC] It could have been so much better, but they dumbed it down. There was talk of using a mouse movement for swinging swords and such, but I guess Mount and Blade style combat is too hard. Even the mounted combat in Mount and Blade makes Two Worlds look like a joke in progress. And the archery!! No more click and hit, actual timing and aiming. FAR superior.
Click and hit is for kiddies. If they design PFO for kiddies, then it's no different than WoW, so why bother? Because it's a sandbox? Big deal. If it's too easy to play, it's going to get boring FAST, and will end up with stupid long fights just for the sake of stupid long fights. YAWN...
Or you could just base value on how much you have saved in the bank? <gasp> I know, shocking, basing something on that actual thing being in existence instead of some ethereal based non object.
The problem with allowing someone to build a banking structure similar to what we have now is that we'd end up with the same problems. A gold coin would no longer be worth a gold coin, but whatever a series of odd math calculations determined it to be, and the people who are in charge of those calculations would be the only people with power. They could collapse the economy at whim simply to destroy rivals. There are just too many real world parallels against this to want it to happen.
And, most of the insurance companies are in the business of NOT paying money out. It's easy to give money to them, but get it back, even for legitimate claims, is an arm twisting exercise that usually requires lawyers, and in the end, you end up worse off for fighting, even if you are in the right. Only people who end up winning are those same lawyers. And the insurance companies who avoid litigation because it's so expensive.
Seriously, we have laws and they still can't stop wholesale corruption in the banking industry. What kind of 'laws' would the game have to prevent banking corruption? I say avoid the whole thing entirely, and save your sanity.
Declaration of war is a civilized thing, and even then, you never got told "Hey, we're going to arrive in a week at your southern most fortress and siege it" AoC does this, and it's lame as everything, as well as the small number of 'siegers'.
I have a real problem with forcing people to adhere to schedules for pvp. It removes any real planning and makes it a simple quest or raid clone, that end up being reduced to a simple timing plan once you run it once.
You can't have a surprise attack if the system makes you schedule it. In effect, it creates a system that benefits those who hardly game at all, and do not wish to really risk it. If you know when the attack is coming, it's unlikely you'll fail to win the fight unless you can't get people to show up, and that's not likely going to happen when you get to pick the time.
If PFO is going to be a true sandbox, it cannot allow scheduling of player lead assaults on other player owned assets. That's the juvenile approach to PvP. Allow people to do them at will. Then while a group is assaulting an enemy fort, that enemy is in turn assaulting their fort. I would much rather see that play out, than a simple checklist of timing issues and an email to guildies about when the next big assault is going to occur.
This would also allow a PUG assault. Something AoC won't allow, for reasons I can't begin to figure out. People should be allowed to assault simply to destroy and not to take over. Denial of resources without capture is an effective policy of attrition. Not everyone who would try to deny something to a group intend to hold onto it. The simple act of destruction may be all they wish to partake of.
Vanguard had a process where a group of players could tap a single resource, be it plant, animal, or mineral, and garner a larger amount of that resource than could a single player operating solo, with increased chances for unique items coming along. This did not require the other players to have more than a tool used for the skill and no skill was required, they were simply providing labor and not expertise.
As far as a group of players working together, I could see that when looking at things like houses or ships being built, even a quilt, but most items in MMOs are small in size and can't really be shared for crafting: too many smiths spoil a sword and all that. In the case of large orders of small items, that I can see, as it would save time at the least. 20 swords in the time it takes to make one would be a huge advantage if you could have 20 smiths making them.
Auction houses invariably fall victim to the profiteers. They buy stuff cheap and resell it for large markups, and can end up driving players out because they can't afford those prices. If you had to go out and grind to buy something, but the profiteer only had to flip the product with no time invested in creation and little cost in the long run, the profiteer is a pirate. An economic privateer with no regard to the rest of the population.
Player owned and run stores do away with that for the most part. Privateers are likely too lazy to hit up every single player shop to corner the market. It's easy to do that when you have a one stop public shop that every area connects to.
I much preferred SWG's approach. Maybe some crafters charged a lot for something, but you knew THEY had made it, THEY had put in the effort to earn that skill and the effort to grab the things to build it. Not at all like what happens in games like LOTRO where the market can be stunted by people who just try to inflate things in value for no other purpose than profiteering. And not just that, but you could always GO there and request something that you see being resold on the public AH by some privateer, and totally avoid that crap. That is a true free market, and the players dictated how it evolved. An auction house is far to easy to control for a smaller group of players.
And privately run shops also allow for more RP and the creation of repeat business. People go back when they know they get good treatment, but I find using an AH can leave a bad taste in your mouth, that has nothing to do at all with the original creator of the product, which isn't very fair to them. They are being abused almost as much as the guy who ultimately pays 5 times what something is actually worth according to game time and gathering costs. It's just not a free market when you are actually a hostage and have no alternatives.
Not much point in having a moat around a castle then if all it does is slow them down. That's one of the things people will say looks cool to have, but if it has no game effect, there is no point in bothering to put effort into coding it in. The more realism you remove from any game, the less point certain facets of the game have. No sinking plate wearers in water means no moats around castles for defense, because that was part of the reason for them; preventing heavily armored people from having easy access, and for stopping an easy siege attack using ladders or smaller siege machines like covered rams. You didn't care so much about the leather wearers, you could kill them easily with bows. Normally this is why the plate wearer was riding a warhorse using a lance. He was a turtle on the ground. And EASILY overwhelmed.
And with the River Kingdoms, most castles probably have them, but the MMO may as well do away with them if water has little to no effect on you if you want to strap on 50+ lbs of armor and go swimming with no real drawbacks. After all, whats the point then of wearing LIGHT armor? You can actually swim pretty easily in leather since it's boiled and won't absorb much water when wet, which is part of the point of it. If heavy armor has no real drawbacks, who would bother to wear light armor then unless the arbitrary rules of a game forced them to?
This is one of those situations where the drive to make a game fun removes a lot of the reasons behind other game aspects.
And FYI, NO ONE swims in full plate, they dog paddle, and that they do poorly. The game rules are a bit pants in that regard, it turns effort into something that is reduced to a straight die roll, which is making a mockery out of an act that should be practically impossible even in calm water. The weight carrying rules ignore the fact that a human is standing on solid ground. Try carrying max weight in water, and watch yourself sink like a rock. It's simple physics; we need the ground to push against to carry anything. Water cannot provide that, no matter how fast you flail your arms against it.
That video is nice to watch, but people are ignoring the fact that he's got a breather on the whole time and is replacing oxygen. He claims that someone who could hold their breath could do it, but without truly testing that claim, he's full of it. Carrying that weight in water, fighting water resistance and drag, and dealing with mounting oxygen loss and accompanying acidosis? Please, get real. You are a dead man if you try this. Plus, that armor he's wearing is modern age steel, not feudal era steel. It's too thin and light, and is not properly surrounding him in total. I've SEEN feudal full plate armor; it's like wearing a tin can. There is metal all around, held on by straps. If his test does anything at all, it shows the lengths that some people will go to to prove their point, regardless of facts. He's ignoring some pretty glaring ones. Without that tank of air and people around to save his dumb ass, he's a corpse, but he wouldn't admit that, just claims 'you need more muscles'. Lame. And he already states it's a half suit. What self respecting warrior is going to bother with a half suit? The thread itself was started with FULL PLATE ARMOR as the basis of the claim, and he can't even do it in HALF PLATE with space age material and modern day magic (tank of air).
Humans are only slightly less dense than water, barely buoyant, and adding even 25 lbs of weight on the body from clothing and associated extra encumbrance from water absorption, and you are working your ass off to keep your head above water just treading in it. Do it in full plate, and that for maybe a couple minutes max, while your armor slowly fills with water and the under padding soaks it up like a sponge (that's right, no one wears plate on bare skin), adding more weight and making it that much harder and eventually impossible. It's high fantasy to expect anyone to be able to swim while bearing heavy armor, weapons, and whatever else they have, without the aid of a bunch of magic (or tank of air) that includes water breathing or some form of access to air. In fact without the fantasy aspect, none of the typical heroic behavior of characters would be possible.
So in the real world, non magical full plate armor and no magic assistance, and you go swimming for any distance longer than 10-20 feet and over your head height, you should start to drown. I'll grant that 10-20 feet distance on the bottom is doable, but only out of desperation to live if you fall in. And I hope it's easy to climb out the other side, and the bottom isn't too muddy, or too deep down, otherwise . . . but for the game, it's probably going to continue to be a joke, with or without magic.
I think it would be nice to see a game require siege weapons to actually make dents in large scale structures. I never did like watching a siege in AoC allow swords and piddling spells to blow holes in 3 foot thick (or more, even simulated) stone. Totally unrealistic. Even those mammoths should have been unable to damage them; their heads would cave in first. Trees are one thing, and wooden forts are easily toppled, but a stone fortress, buttressed? Never in a million years by a large pack of pachyderms. The amount of time it would take to do that, compared to the amount of time it would to kill those hairy elephants, makes that idea a non starter. Funcom also did not allow defenders to defend properly with boiling oil, a moat, or any of the other rather ingenious defenses that feudal warcraft came up with.
Now an earth elemental, that I'd buy, at least in the game setting. Maybe Giants past the Hill Size variety. And of course a dragon can ignore battlements in favor of simply spewing flame inside the walls. But a more mundane approach should require the correct use of mundane equipment. Catapults, mangonels, and trebuchet should be the order of the day, with archers to keep the defenders from doing much but ducking.
But I don't think a proper siege can be realized in any MMO, the reality of them is a very long and drawn out process than can take months or more, particularly if the defenders have ready access to the basic necessities. I doubt any guild has the fortitude to actually deal with that. Now a standard siege for starvation, more in line with modern day blockades, is easily done. No attack necessary. Just keep enough people logged and surrounding. But an invasion? I can't see it, unless they make a joke of it like AoC did.
Perhaps they ought to look at L2, they have sieges there with large numbers per side, and they manage to pull them off, though those are still timed assaults.
The problem with every MMO is a huge disconnect from the reality of any time based restraints beyond simplistic cooldowns that take minutes and no more than an hour tops. It would certainly make winning that kind of fight something to brag on about if a siege actually took real time days, as it is then different from running the standard raid setup, which is how most sieges are run in MMOs. The fort is the boss, the conflicts leading up to it are the mini bosses. Time is normally only an hour or so. Something to do certainly, but not very satisfying. To me anyway.
And if gamers found that boring, well, do you think those grunts sweating it out surrounding the castle felt any different on day 15 of their siege? They probably were begging for a sally, just for something to do.
Running it like this would also allow other players to attack to relieve the siege, something I've never seen happen in any game yet. Sure, they let you set up the assault, one side vs the other, but no one is allowed to come to your defense, the fight has to be kept even, because we know all sieges were done by opposing forces of equal size in history, right? <snicker> I poke a bit of fun, but it's to point out that running a siege in all games I've seen yet is a farce. Trying to keep sides even is a huge hand holding exercise. People may whine about zerging, but that's only because death is also a farce in MMOs. If death meant you were actually OUT of that siege, then zerging is a non issue. Make the siege like a single death unreal tourney battle. You die once, you are out of it, subject to raise dead or whatever. This forces tactics, which I've never yet seen played out properly, regardless of how much people scream into mics in the Ettens.
Sneaking enemies inside the defenses prior to an attack is a time honored tradition, going back at least as far as the Trojan Horse, probably farther. If a game system prevents it, it's limiting player behavior in favor of hand holding.
What you could ask the developers to consider is a system that prohibits unaligned players from logging out while in the city, directing them to head outside first. It accomplishes the same thing, but it's not as heavy handed and makes sense. Cities normally do not allow people with no business to remain in town at night (which is what logging simulates), that's why they close the gates.
In fact, logging out inside a city could actually be one of the benefits of city dwellers that pay taxes; why should you allow squatters in the first place? Other than starting areas and open wilderness, logging out in a player city should be seen as a privilege, not a right.
Problem with that is, there is such a thing as a sleeper. Someone builds up a long term persona, then at the right time, attacks. There is no way to prevent that. They log in, drop your affiliation, immediately join the other, and go to it. I see no way to get around that devious plan unless the developers do as you suggest and auto-port them outside the city walls, which is punishing smart players while protecting the not so smart ones. In PvP, intelligence should be rewarded, not punished. If it makes the game harder, good. You are supposed to be fighting other players, not having the system treat them like NPC mobs.
Insta killing enemies that were inside the walls prior to the war being called is not any different that being insta killed by a player ability or spell, and if the one is not allowed, neither should this be. What could be worse than dying to a random number, than to be insta killed simply because you were trying to play smart?
I guess I just have a preference to pre WoTC DnD, back when Gygax was kingmaker. :) No one seems to have any respect for the man anymore.
The game was better back then. More difficult to learn perhaps, but far more entertaining than the munchkin versions it's been evolving into. I just don't find it fun to play games I can't lose. It's a false reward system, and my ego simply isn't that fragile that I need that protection. But I guess they have to do what they think will draw the most players in, and I can agree that I'm likely in a minority.
Actually, even a level 20 PnP character is easily and swiftly killed by a group of about 20 orcs using bows surrounding him. After the adjustments for flanking and no shield and rear attacks are taken into account, said player is a pincushion and likely dead in round two, particularly if they used poison, even if he can somehow reach half of them, which is unlikely. For a bunch of newbs to attempt to melee a max level player, IMO they deserve to be mowed down. Range is the great equalizer. It does the same damage regardless of level.
I checked the core book again. Sadly you are correct, thieves can be lawful. <sigh> I'd forgotten how silly the alignment rules became in 3ed thanks to WoTC. A rogue that picks pockets and steals is not lawful. In no way, shape or form. Robin Hood might have been doing some Good, but Lawful? Hardly. I think it would be good for Paizo to revisit some of the silliness that WoTC introduced into the game, because they only changed the rules just to sell another iteration of a functioning game system. And allowing a thief to be lawful good is one of them. If I ever play this game and run into a LG paladin/rogue, I'm going to KOS them, because there is no way that should happen. Just because they changed the rules doesn't make them good changes. Even letting them learn magic spell casting is ridiculous IMO, even if it is limited. That's what wizards are for. I think it's enough they can learn to trick magic items into thinking they can use them, but letting them cast spells? OP. way WAY OP. Munchkin all the way. Why is it munchkin? Because it's letting a single class character take on some of the characteristics of another class without actually multi-classing. So a 2/1 Rogue/Fighter is actually a 2/1/1 Rogue/Fighter/Wizard, if they took the correct feat. They are just short the 1 HD.
I keep forgetting that I played the game back during the Time of Gygax, when the rules made sense for the most part. Most of the new blood for DnD has been playing the WoTC crap, so I should really cut them some slack for not knowing what the game was meant to be like.
I did, and that's exactly what it says. They'll have merits for 20 levels, but they will be the equivalent of lvl 10 PnP characters. Not for me, thanks. That's what DDO did, and is one reason why I never stuck with it. I doubt they'll ever have an actual level 20 PnP equivalent character in DDO, which is why I stuck to the PnP game where that is possible. It just takes a GM who knows the rules and isn't afraid to tough love his players.
That is why when players reached those levels, they tended to roll new ones and start over, trying something else. It would have been nice to have that happen in PFO, reach max, get a new slot and make something new, going to the old one when new challenges appeared and to maintain holdings.
So what if they can do things a level 20 PnP character can't do, for certain they won't be doing things that a level 20 PnP character SHOULD be able to do. Talk about cutting yourself off at the knees. I would love to hear the reasoning behind that approach. (I think I may already have one: PvP...making it possible for new characters to fight established characters, since the actual level difference will be small, it's all augmentations that never advance the core health or power...)
Let me get this straight. Max level 10, and that's it? Two and a half years to reach that? No one having access to any spell list past level five? If that's true, why bother, the PnP game is more fun. I wouldn't give up PnP time to play a game that stops progression half way up the curve. I WANT to get into those heights. That's the whole point of the game, isn't it, to see what you can do at those lofty heights? To have the GM toss some fastballs your way, instead of constantly lobbing them underhand at you?
WoW, I hope I'm reading that wrong.
paladin/rogue, are you freaking kidding me?
I am certain that with player perks that are granted as a wizard levels, AoE will be one of the things that can be added to spells not normally AoE. Like an AoE mount spell. Or an AoE true strike. Or course, the problem with AoE spells like that is that they are fairly indiscriminate, affecting all in range equally, friend or enemy alike. So when a cleric channels positive energy to heal allies in a group instead of using a directed spell specifically stating allies only, all creatures within the radius get hit with that energy, not just allies. Damage spells aren't the only thing that should be carefully managed.
The challenge level of the game would increase in a good way if people had to think before they cast spells that simply target an area. Grease for instance hits everyone, so does web. Even the write up of those spells state that. No bonus to evade for friendlies just because they are friendlies. Let's try to move away from simplistic combat, and advance the mind.
If they remove alignment, they have to power down the classes like Paladin and Druid, and any other alignment restricted classes, as those classes have those alignment restrictions in exchange for the benefits of that class.
I think if the alignment system is going to be removed in favor of ease of play, yet factions are going to be used, you may as well label every one evil, because apparently what you do has little meaning unless it's either for or against your faction (or yourself), and that means any act is alright if it's for your side, and not good if against. That's not sane behavior, because it means everyone is actually role playing a psychopath.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. It is defined in different ways, but can involve a lack of empathy or remorse, false emotions, selfishness, grandiosity or deceptiveness; it can also involve impulsiveness, irritability, aggression, or inability to perceive danger and protect one's self.
That seems to me to be exactly the way some people wish to run their characters. No alignment means exactly that, no morals at all. And no morals means you do what you want when you want to do it, just like the Chaotic Evil alignment. If the PFO MMO won't police player behavior beyond factions, then any Paladins in the game WILL be a joke. A pretty bad one. Even the most vile person has some redeeming qualities, they may love their wife, or their children, but psychopaths have no redeeming qualities. I also figure that if the game won't strip players of class ability for behavior clearly out of bounds of their alignment inside certain classes, you may as well get rid of those classes entirely.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of people clearly don't understand what role playing means. It's not about jerking the puppet strings into behavior YOU want. It's about following the rules of that puppet. I think a lot of players of DnD lately are meta-gaming their own characters.
I always rather liked the explanation given back in the days of BASIC DnD. You don't really have that much health, you have no more hit points than the rest of the non-adventuring humans. Rarely more than a single digit collection.
The reason you gain a larger pool is to simulate your ability to fight better, turn death blows into flesh wounds, and otherwise escape from traumatic injury, similar to saving throws reducing or outright evading other means of affecting a character. The problem is that a lot of games have those pools approaching 4 digit results. I don't find that EPIC, I find it makes fights stupid long.
The other problem inherent in that is that because those pools are so big, spells and other attacks end up using large damage amounts just to create dents in it. Sure, people like to see large numbers on the screen when they crit, but I find it's getting stale and predictable.
I'd rather they stick to the standard hp pool of the pnp game, and keep the damage results manageable as well. There is no need to have stupid large damage results. The simple fact is that at the beginning of an adventuring career, falling more than 6 feet can kill you. As it should short of some ability or other. No one should be able to take a beating at that level. It makes no sense. But to help keep things in perspective, use the armor worn as a damage reduction mode. So those cloth wearing spell tossers are messed up in melee combat, but total gods at range, also as it should be.
As long as not eating it doesn't punish you.
I found dread to be a simplistic way to increase the challenge level of an encounter without actually having developers put much thought into it. A cheap fix really. The easiest way for any developer to increase challenge is by adjusting mob morale up and player morale down. The problem in LOTRO with dread was that the counters had rather large timers on them. And if you popped one and subsequently died, there was no way to remove it at all for at least 40 minutes or more, making raids very slow and prone to complete breakup and disbanding in the event of catastrophic failure, and then you may end up losing your raid timer for the week too. Although they certainly have items in the store for instant removal and buffing of hope now, to my total and unending disgust. And since they're going to be removing Destiny Points as well at some point in the future to avoid having a game mechanic compete with their store, players won't have many options to remove large dread except by buying it.
Please don't trumpet the legendary system in LOTRO. It's crap. Nothing more than a way for Turbine to make money now. You the same Arbalister from that forum too?
The only thing I want P/GW to take from Turbine is a lesson in how not to treat your loyal customers.
If the system popped a warning up prior to engagement on the first attempt to attack (which happens in EvE), warning about the bounty possibility, that should be sufficient. Also, I think that if you saved your chat log and contacted a GM about the situation, you can make a claim that you were performing a service as requested, and the person who tried to add that bounty will be censured, as they are trying to set up a griefing situation.
Also botting for mat collection will ultimately fail, as you try to gather resources but do not adequately code for random attacks based on the level of the area you are in and the size of the resource you are gathering. Random attacks tend to deter bots, and if you add PvP to the situation, you can effectively send most bots into a loop; even doing something as simple as sending a trade request can freeze up a bot and allow an NPC to kill it while engaged.
Possibly add two flags to NPCs and players, call one Purity, and the other one Order. Allow the values to fluctuate through positive and negative ranges. The more positive Purity, the more 'good' you are. The more negative Purity, the more 'evil' you are. The higher your Order score, the more lawful and 'in control' you are; the more negative it is, the more 'out of control' you are.
Those would roughly correspond to the range of alignments, with perhaps a small section above and below zero allowing for neutral simulation. Adding or decreasing them would be handled directly when you kill a mob, for instance. Higher Purity mobs are not inherently dangerous, and do not warrant killing, so when you do, you take a hit to your own Purity. Basically compare player vs NPC scores, and if the two are on the same side, you are basically behaving in a manner that is contrary to your professed belief system. It can be taken to mean that as your Purity and Order scores decrease, it becomes easier for you to commit some fairly nasty deeds. So for a few short examples:
Lawful Good Paladin kills a werewolf. Because the werewolf is chaotic evil, he gets boosts to his own Purity and Order scores. If he killed a child that was Neutral Evil, he'd take a hit to his Order score for killing a child, but a boost to Purity because the child is evil. (simplistic I know) Also he'd take further negatives to his Purity because killing that child probably was not the only option.
A city with an alignment of Lawful Neutral is the latest home away from home. A Neutral Good thief decides to break into and rob a home while the owners are away at a banquet. Because the city determines the overall focus at that point breaking the Law would place a negative to his Order score however his Neutrality means his adjustment is not as severe as it could be, but because stealing in and of itself is not inherently good or evil, no change to the purity score. Indirectly the system manages that by applying the changes each time the thief picks a pocket, picks a lock, or sells stolen property at any time later, which is easily flagged by the system AS stolen when he takes possession of it. This means that even if he travels to the neighboring city where the alignment is Neutral, fencing stolen goods still hits his Order score. Now if he donates some of his ill gotten gold to an orphanage a la Robin Hood, his Order score will not change, but his Purity score will rise.
These are very basic examples, but do show how it can be coded into the system with a minimum of fuss. It would require some finessing, but I think the starting point is certainly present.
It's only a personal attack if you take it that way. And I stand by it. Children get the kid approach because they are still maturing and don't need to be hit with the full reality of adult life all at once. Once they get past that though, the gloves really should come off. PvP is supposed to be the adult form of gaming, but a lot of games simply take a childish approach to PvP, either because their target demo ARE children or because they don't think they can succeed any other way, with winning being rewarded, and losing being rewarded with no loss. It's a totally positive equation that is ultimately unrewarding for people who want more out of an experience. It's cute when little league teams all get medals for playing, win or lose, but how much respect would we have for the players if they did the same thing for the NHL or NFL? I sure wouldn't have much.
The largest whine I hear from the so called elite pvp players who complain about no one to game with is that if you lose, you lose nothing, so there is no risk, so come play and don't worry about it. My take on that is that if I can't really lose, why bother, it won't be fun, because winning is meaningless, there is no reason to try because I have nothing to protect. It also tends to reduce any large scale combat to nothing more than zerging, running back from rez locations endlessly. Yawn. You would do well to just fight mobs then, it has the same equation. They don't lose anything either really. And in some PvP games, players are reduced to nothing but slightly more intelligent mobs thanks to PvP levels (AoC comes to mind).
Making players farmable would be alright if the players could retaliate and remove the farmer, but games never do that, they remain lopsided in their mechanics. Which is why those games never do well long term. Smart people know better than to allow themselves to be abused in such a fashion due to skewed game mechanics that were never balanced for a proper win/loss situation. The best way for players to police themselves is to have the mechanics in place to do that. And the only way to really balance that is to allow for meaningful loss. Griefing would grind, if not to a halt, at least to a trickle, when that occurs. And if players state they will avoid PvP if they lose their precious swords and such, then they are cowards. And cowards have no place on battlefields. I think it's ridiculous for someone to have to defend themselves from player attack and not be able to be punitive to the person who decided to start something. Maybe if you had something to lose you might not be so brazen. And I know that in a sandbox, the last thing people want to deal with is constantly being attacked every 20 feet, and meaningful loss would curtail that.
I'm sorry if you feel this is targeted at you personally, but I don't make people wear shoes they don't choose for themselves. That's why I keep bringing WoW up. It has PvP with no loss and silly combat rules with mixed melee, and if that's your thing, go play that. P/GW is trying to do something different, so I would hope they do not simply clone WoW and wrap it with their own skin. Because the sad truth is that no company is ever going to drag people from that game, they are there until the game no longer does it for them, and then they try looking for other places to fill the need in them for substantive gaming. Because while they may have started out as teens playing that game, they don't remain teens forever, regardless of how much they might wish it were true in Blizzards front office.
This is why most adults don't play tag or hide and seek anymore, because those games don't fulfill them as adults, they need games to be a little more substantial. For instance, if all classes are given a possible I win button (I won't address calling something that doesn't always work an I win button), that's fair too isn't it? It should be, but I know some people are going to whine about it, because they have to find any reason to remove the chance that they can lose on anything other than their own terms. Now if the mods think my posts need to be modded, let them, but I don't think I've said anything that is false.
I would love it if a game came along that allowed you to intelligently attack. If you have the sense to attack from high ground at range, and anyone coming close has to deal with your withering rate of fire and may not get to you, that should be fine. Sadly most developers listen to crybabies who complain that it's unfair, and they also do the same thing for NPC's, calling it an exploit when you maneuver yourself onto terrain using their own rules and attempt to fight mobs that may have difficulty reaching you. I really don't like it when that happens, it's essentially forcing you to game with half your brain being used. That's fine with games like WoW, when your target audience is under the age of 18. I think the rest of us can handle proper combat tactics. In fact, that would actually give gamers a level of RP they may not be used to, actually training how to fight properly as opposed to stupid button mashing never miss combat that doesn't even use LOS correctly. The thing I love about Skyrim is that the mobs don't run up to you and attack, they pepper you with arrows for as long as you are dumb enough to stand there and take them. I try to sneak around quite a bit now, so I don't get pinned to the ground. It makes the lead up to combat take a long time in planning, but once it starts, it's very fast. That is how it should be in an MMO too. Planning, then execution.
This is why NPC guards will get nerfed due to whining that they affect PvP negatively. Some people just don't seem to get it through their heads that most towns have guards that are supposed to keep the peace, and that means stepping in and stopping a fight, even if that means killing everyone involved. Having guards not do that removes a lot of realism in any game, but most particularly in a sandbox game.
One thing though I want to request does not get allowed. Firing bows on the run particularly crossbows which require you to stand still to reset, casting on the run except with magic items, and any sort of combat beyond melee under water or out of water. And make mobs capable of following you anywhere. Casting a spell though should be determined by it's components, so if you have to use body movements, doing it on the run is right out, though verbal or plain item components might be acceptable, depending on how they get used, though I'm sure they'll dumb that down in favor of click casting.
I am a bit tired of watching mobs lose interest in some jerk who runs into the water just to train the AI onto someone minding their own business, then run in and start taking advantage of that in a PvP contest. It's cheap bottom basement gamer behavior. If you grab the attention, it should not leave, unless someone damages the mob more than you do.
Losers do not deserve to win anything. No one should get credit for showing up and doing nothing more than losing. That is why the guys who win the Superbowl get rings, that is why the guys that play NHL win a Stanley Cup, while losers play golf. The whole 'no loser' policy is fine for children; adults should be capable of dealing with loss in a game. After all, you can dust off and start over, you haven't really lost anything of substance, not even your life. But you will learn something when you do lose, and maybe the next time you won't make the same mistakes.
And while it's nice to claim disconnects cause loss, how many players out there intentionally pull their ethernet cables when they know the game has disconnect protection. People do that in online poker for crying out loud. These are not the acts of mature people, they are the acts of children, and essentially are gaming the system. Cheating is another good word for that. If you have to cheat to avoid loss, you have no place in any contest, as you are incapable of processing the experience properly. And if people who fight PvP notice certain players always losing connection in losing fights, I think those people should be reported and prevented from further gaming just like they do in online poker, as they ruin the experience for everyone they come into contact with. I have no sympathy for them at all. And if that means they get a ban on the account due to their rampant cheating, so much the better.
The other side of that issue is that everyone that plays online games knows the risks of connection problems, and accepts them as a matter of course. It's totally fair because we all have to deal with it. If you have to blame that for your loss all the time, I think the problem is more personal than a faceless machine trashing your IP connection.
No loss PvP is for kids, period.