TEO Lone_Wolf's page

123 posts. Alias of Lone_Wolf.


1 to 50 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Minimally, PFO needs:

1. Full Loot + Destroyed
2. Refining of Items to base materials
3. Open PVP Zones where higher tier resources can be gathered
4. Gatherers / Crafters need to have required tools
5. Greater Risk vs. Reward balancing. Right now there is no meaningful risk.

I agree with everything Bludd said except the full loot. I’m for almost full loot. I’m not sure how the threading system is going to work exactly, but I would not have a problem with a situation where, once you’re into Tier 2 gear, you can’t thread everything you’re wearing. You should need to make choice – is it more important for me to keep my fancy Tier 2 armor or my fancy Tier 2 sword and my Tier 2 implement? Or do I go out this time with a lesser fit of armor/weapon? Or, hmmm, our crafters don’t have the materials to replace my Tier 2 armor, so I’d better thread that and risk losing my Tier 2 sword because that can be replaced easier.

Bluddwolf wrote:
More advanced items require more rare resources and that requires going into more dangerous areas, which are more open to PVP than the safer areas.

This is a big missing piece of the puzzle right now, in my mind. I have an Ideascale entry for this (Node Resource Quality Commensurate with Hex Danger). Commenters on that entry have indicated they believe this will start to show itself when the population increases. I think it needs to show now, with a small population.

To me, there is no clear demarcation where “better stuff” is located currently. People go out to scout hexes and find interesting niches, and that information is held close to the vest. It should be more obvious to all and more lopsided, in my mind, as to where the best stuff is. Monster home hex? Expect better resource nodes for Dowser and/or Forester (depending on hex type). Crater hex? Expect better resource nodes for Miner. And by better I mean significantly better; like, for some stuff you can’t get it at all in other hex types. That forces gatherers to concentrate on those hexes, creates conflict, and gives a focal point for bandits as well. In EVE it’s pretty clear; you want to mine for better stuff? Well, you need to move out of the high sec systems and take more risk. Everyone knows that, it’s part of the game, and it drives meaningful conflict. You don’t want to take that risk or you aren’t in a group that will? Well, then you’re going to be limited in what you can do.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yea, Cal and Tink are right, that shows my ignorance on the term "ganking" (I am an old-school TT gamer; my very little MMO gaming experience is showing through!). I had in my mind a negative connotation to that term which was clearly not correct.

Sorry about that Decius.

And thanks Cal and Tink for setting me straight.

Gol Tink wrote:
Lone_Wolf, what would you call it when someone groups up to kill someone?

A bad day for that someone ;-)

Goblin Squad Member

I’m happy that this is getting some discussion, thanks all for participating!

DeciusBrutus wrote:

…camp the dungeon exit to gank the characters leaving it…can kill a full group of max Rep characters….

What you can't do is remain High-Rep and play in a style where you contiously kill arbitrary characters and take their stuff; you will be able to target a group and try to kill them and take their stuff.

Firstly, you are assuming all dungeon delvers are max rep characters. They of course won’t be, and I would argue in some instances they shouldn’t be. Is it OK for a Paladin to open, enter, and loot the tomb of an ancient who worshipped Iomedae? I don’t think so, a paladin defiling a tomb associated with a LG god would and should be something that is inherently heinous for that paladin. They should take a rep hit (and/or alignment hit, but since that’s not in the game lets ignore that for now). I personally see many instances (not all, but many) of dungeon delving as trespassing and/or stealing, so I think you should be flagged for it. And I like dungeon delving, I want to do it, and I’d take the hit and the risk because I think it would be that much fun. My choice.

Secondly, you are considering attacking dungeon delvers ganking. I don’t, not at all. If you find a dungeon, and you choose to go into it, you are taking a willing risk for a perceived reward. You enter at your own free will. If you choose to do that sort of thing, I have no problem with it being open season on you for a short period (e.g., while you’re carrying that loot). You can choose not to enter the dungeon and therefore not take on that PvP risk. As such, I don’t see the association with ganking at all.

Thirdly, dungeon delvers aren’t “arbitrary” characters. They chose to enter the dungeon. See secondly, above.

I don’t have the same view of dungeon delving that you do, which is fine, but I like my view better ;-)

Mosaic wrote:
I like most of your dungeon ideas, but not this one.

I understand your counter point, I had thought about that. My conclusion was, if you find some ancient tomb and dig open the entrance, anyone who walks by is going to know someone dug up the entrance; it would be almost impossible to hide it once you’re in. For that reason, I thought it would be good to have this feature.

Mosaic wrote:
If that happens, folks are going to have to post sentries outside dungeons while others go in to explore. Seems like a lot of trouble.

Yes, you’re right. But I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Initially, these proto MVP dungeons (as I’ve laid them out) would be so small it wouldn’t really matter, because they could probably be cleared by a small group in a very short time. Down the road, when dungeons get larger (hopefully), then perhaps this is more of an issue. But I think it should be troublesome for the delvers, it should take a lot of coordination and planning and resources and personnel to delve into a large dungeon, one of those being guards or watches for the delvers.

The other thing is, perhaps not all dungeon types would have this feature. A goblin den that is used consistently by goblins, for example, may not; whereas a long sealed ancient crypt or tomb may.

Mosaic wrote:
Besides, it'd be kinda fun to delve into a dungeon, just to (surprise!) find someone else already in there.

I agree, this would definitely add another layer of intrigue for a second-in group. As I said in the OP, Thing 4 is a “nice to have” in my vision of these proto dungeons, so if it weren’t there it’s not a big deal to me. I would absolutely concede this point if it got us dungeons sooner. I’d much rather have dungeons sooner than not have them!

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
belies a lack of understanding about what Reputation is intended to do

Could be, though I don't agree.

See what this says:

Blood on the Tracks

There are several types of flags that can be placed on a player character, and these flags are often visible to all players who can see the flagged character. If the player has one of these flags, the consequences for attacking him or her are greatly reduced.

Thief: Characters gain looting rights to NPCs and other players they defeat in combat. Looting rights unlock after about 5 minutes so that anyone can loot a corpse. Looting an unlocked husk that you did not originally have looting rights to will mark you as a Thief. This flag lasts for a decent length of time after the act.

Trespasser: Entering a settlement city that has forbidden you entry (due to too low reputation or other mechanics) applies the Trespasser flag, which persists while you're in the area and briefly after leaving. This might also be applied for entering other areas where your simple entry is sufficient to allow you to be attacked and driven off.

So, delvers could be flagged as thieves or trespassers, pick your poison. Both could fit with the spirit of the idea.

But, as I said, I hadn't put a lot of thought into it. You can beat me up some more if it suits your fancy. It is a good thing to have dissenting opinions.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.


My thought is that this should also increase the potential for rep free PvP. I didn't note it above, but after seeing your comment and thinking on it, perhaps those who dungeon delve get a criminal flag of some sort (they are "stealing", after all) that makes them rep free PvP targets. Its a meaningful decision for delvers then - you want that juicy loot from that dungeon? Well, then you're going to be a PvP target. Then it gives PC bandits something to do, too :-).

How that flag would work or how long it is tagged to the delver probably needs thought, but perhaps so long as you carry any dungeon loot you're flagged. Perhaps the flag does not prevent you from entering your own settlement, but does prevent you from entering other settlements.

Needs some thought, but my hope is dungeons would add content for both PvE'ers as well as PvP'ers.

Goblin Squad Member

Thing 7: Monsters. Pick a few of the existent monsters to populate the dungeons. Skeletons and Ghouls for tombs and crypts, goblins and goblin dogs for goblin dens, etc. You could implement a few more dungeon type creatures and add these gradually (rust monsters, carrion crawlers, etc.). Obviously there is programming for how many and what types spawn in specific dungeon rooms.

Goblin Squad Member

Thing 6: Clickable features. In the dungeon, you’d need clickable features that either pull up a looting screen, spawn a monster(s), or initiate a trap.

Ignore the trap part for now, because that will require trap finding/disabling and other mechanics that aren’t in game yet. Ignore the spawning monster for now, because I don’t think such mechanics exist in game yet either (but seems like it should be relatively easy to do, as spawn mechanics certainly exist, they need to be initiated by clicking something).

So, you’re left with pulling up a looting screen, for which the mechanics already exist (looting husks). So, you need art and graphics and programming for these clickable features, but for now you could use some that already exist as part of quests and environment. You’d need to add a few quintessential dungeon features, like a chest, a sarcophagi, an urns, a statues, an altar, etc.

Goblin Squad Member

Thing 5: By having a very limited number of available dungeon room types, say 3, with a similarly limited number of hall types, say 3 (straight, 90 degree turn, and “T”), and by varying the number of each you could have a pretty significant variability in dungeons. Even assuming 3 room types and 3 hall types with each dungeon having 3 of each, you have 3*3*3=27 different room/hall configurations.

Vary the number of rooms and halls from 1 each to 3 each and now you’re up to 54 dungeon configurations with a relatively low level of effort. Add in mirror images of each room/hall type and you’re into the hundreds of configurations. Heck, even if you only started with 2 room types and 2 hall types you’re still at 12 different dungeon configurations before considering mirror images.

This of course requires art and programming for the dungeon rooms and halls, and either an automated process to generate the dungeons ad hoc or someone to put together the various dungeon configurations once the art for the rooms and halls is done.

Goblin Squad Member

Thing 3: The frequency of these dungeon nodes should be pretty low, and perhaps vary by hex type. I’m pretty sure this variability and frequency mechanic already exists.

Thing 4: A nifty “nice to have” would be somehow the Dungeon node graphic changes when a character enters it so other characters coming across the node could tell if someone has been (or is in) it already. The Dungeon node should not despawn until the dungeon has been cleared. Seems to me the mechanic for this already exists, though in a slightly different form, where husks that show on mini maps are identified as already looted or not looted. Obviously there is art and programming associated with this.

Goblin Squad Member

Thing 1: Dungeons spawn in hexes just like resource nodes. Seems to me this mechanic already exists. Just need to create a Dungeon “node”. I would suggest maybe 3 different cool graphics as dungeon entrances as a start. Obviously, there is art and programming associated with this.

Thing 2: When a character clicks on the Dungeon node they spawn inside the dungeon. Seems to me the de-spawning and spawning mechanic already exists (as death). This may need tweaking to work correctly. Certainly would require some sort of capability to spawn “inside” of a structure (dungeon), but should be do-able. Obviously there is programming associated with this. Of all my suggestions here, this one seems to me like the one that would take the most effort since there does not seem to be a mechanic in game now that works this way.

Goblin Squad Member

So, here are my ideas for a minimum viable product for Dungeons in PFO. My thought here is to get something in game sooner rather than later to add flavor, even if it may change later or be replaced with something better.

I understand that these may be seen as theme-parky, which PFO is not intended to be, but in my opinion Dungeons are an essential and classic part of the Pathfinder RPG (and related TT games) that need to be in PFO.

A caveat - I am not a computer programmer by any stretch, and frankly don’t know what this would really take to do, but from my laymen outlook it seems to me that very basic dungeons shouldn’t take a huge effort if GW focus’ on mechanics that already exist in the game. Maybe more work than adding better grass, but not a huge effort ;-)

And there is an Ideascale entry for Dungeons, feel free to go there and up or down vote that or add your comments.

Breaking this up into multiple posts for ease of digestion.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Certain monsters should have horde nodes in their hexes. The longer the escalation goes on, the larger the hordes. For example, bandits should have hideouts with stashes of loot they guard, etc. These nodes should be accessed like other nodes.

The monster AI should include spawning more reinforcements in order to protect these hordes if they are attacked or accessed. It should be a constant battle to get to the horde, access it, loot it (should take time, like for husks), and defend against reinforcements.

It should not be a situation where a group of PCs can just kill all the guard and loot away freely. The monsters collected this stuff, they want it, and they should constantly be trying to defend it.

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry, I have lots of questions :-)

1. Random encounters are such a pivotal component of the Pathfinder tabletop RPG, are they planned for PFO? As an example, random monster encounters within a hex that are not necessarily related to the escalation or “typical” mobs for that hex, but add some more variety and danger to exploration.

2. And how about day vs. night impact to the types of mobs that spawn and/or the difficulty of mobs that spawn in a hex? Perhaps during the day you’re more likely to see wolves and bandits (or less dangerous mobs) but at night maybe more skeletons and ghouls in that hex (or more dangerous mobs than spawn during the day)?

3. How about any epic monsters, like dragons? These would obviously be huge challenges and are so quintessential they would require a lot of development, but are they something even in the long term plans?

4. Dungeons – can we get an idea when we may start seeing explore-able dungeons?

5. Any plans on adding Orcs as mobs?

6. Can you give us an idea of what mobs are in the queue to be introduced next?

7. Is there any discussion about altering the loot tables to be more commensurate with the mob role? For example, if I kill a Goblin Shaman or Ogre Shaman or Black Snake Mage, I should expect to get more spells and/or spell-related stuff than if I kill a Wolf. I'm not sure if that is the case right now.

Goblin Squad Member

Lone Wolf had just sat on the soft bed at the Inn and pulled off his boots; weathered and muddied from weeks of scouting the wilderness for resources, aiding those in need, and clearing beasts and monsters from travel routes. While the bustling of the settlement made him uncomfortable, the good hot meal at the tavern was welcomed, and he had been looking forward to resting his bones in a dry bed for the first time in weeks. His companion, the large black wolf named Tacitus, lay on the floor by the fireplace in the modest room, his large paws sprawled out over the roughhewn wooden floorboards.

Lone Wolf fiddled with the small parchment message the tavernkeep had handed him just before he retired to his room. The dark green sealing wax and the familiar seal it bore gave it away immediately; a message from Theodum of the Emerald Lodge. Lone Wolf pealed the parchment at the seal and opened the message. In the fluent, graceful penmanship that is typical of Theodum, he read:

“Friend, though it’s been merely a fortnight since you last paid visit to us, we request your support in an expedition to the West of Emerald Lodge to put down a Bonedancer uprising near Deadman’s Glen. Your scouting abilities and longbow would be most welcome. By the time this message reaches you, the legions of Emerald Lodge will already be marching to that place. – T of E.L.”

He folded the parchment, stood with a mild sigh, and stuffed it in his belt pouch hanging from the mantel.

“Ready Tacitus?” The wolf lifted his large head and perked up his ears. “Let’s go!”

The Wolf jumped at the sound of it. Lone Wolf paid his coppers to the tavern keep and headed out of town towards the west, the large black wolf close by his side. As the sun set over the mountains of Brighthaven, a smile came to his face; for once again he was out into the wilds, back where he truly belonged.

Goblin Squad Member

I wasn't singling out any group or group(s). I wasn't trying to vilify anyone. I was intending to provide some suggestions on how to avoid being a victim of banditry, specifically. I could have worded it better.

I based my description of how banditry would be executed entirely on my experiences in EVE, projected that to what I expect in PFO, and based my recommendations on what I think were ways to counter that based upon the game as it is now.

The last paragraph is the crux of what I intended to bring across.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Haikido Mara wrote:
I am waiting to hear about 4 person group that tackled the 7 person not so new MMO players and won.

Haikido, you won't hear that. Why? Because the PvP'ers that so often claim they want a greater PvP challenge really don't want that. They weigh risk vs. reward in their engagements. They look for low risk and high reward. Anything south of that and they probably won't engage.

They will stealth up near you, see how many of you there are, see what type of armor you're wearing, see what type of weapons and attacks you're using (if they can), and try to figure out what type of loot you may be carrying. Then, they will make a determination of whether they can take you with relatively low risk. If the answer is yes, they'll target you and attack you all at once. Before you know it, you'll have 20% of your hit points, be slowed or stunned with gobs of stacks, and then you'll be dead and you'll respawn at a shrine. You may not even know who or how many hit you.

They don't want a fair fight. A fair fight is high risk, and unless the reward is astronomical they won't engage in that type of fight. Don't blame them for this, its the nature of the beast. Banditry, which is all the PvP'ers really have right now, is all about the risk vs. reward assessment.

And don't get me wrong, I am not faulting those that choose that play style. Its not something I personally would want to do, or even really "get", but its a necessary part of the game.

You need to think of PFO as the wild west, the frontier, its never safe. Always be prepared. Max zoom out your minimap. Scan your minimap constantly. Always stealth when you are standing still. Stealth when you are moving from node to node if they're close to each other. If you see a player you don't immediately recognize, turn and run. Always be in voice coms with your guild. If you're attacked, ask for help. Don't over-encumber yourself. If you need to pass through a chokepoint, expect to get ambushed, stealth through it. Don't use the roads, travel overland. Work in pairs or groups. Have a scout run ahead of you. In short, ALWAYS expect to be ambushed.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I debated whether I should post this or not, but I’m posting it because I think it’s worth putting out there. It sort of echoes some of what is being said by many here here.

Warning: Beware of Wall of Text.

Cronge wrote:
I'm done too... not my game either. I guess I am just a Tabletop kind of guy.
Bluddwolf wrote:
…there is another game about to enter into alpha and it will suck the PvP oriented companies out of this game.

PFO right now is a square peg no matter who looks at it; TT RPGers or MMO PvPers. These are two totally different market segments with players that have totally different goals and objectives.

I am in the TT RPG group. I’ve been playing TT RPG games for almost 40 years. I had specific expectations of what PFO would be when I first heard about it, and I suspect other TT RPGers had/have similar expectations. And I think those of us who are specifically drawn to the Pathfinder RPG have a more entrenched vision of what an on-line version should be.

I would guess the PvPers who come from games like EVE have a similarly embedded, and intense, expectation of what an MMO should be.

When I first heard of PFO, leading up to the first Kickstarter, it was clear some of my impressions of what it would be were false. I saw a lot of references to EVE. I had never played an MMO before, had never heard of EVE. But, I wanted to know a little more about what PFO might be, so I bought an account for EVE and played for about 6 months. I did this specifically to learn what PFO may be like, since it was clear it would not be what I had originally envisioned. I personally didn’t like EVE. However, I also wasn’t in with a group, so I know I missed out on some aspects of it. But, I learned enough to have a better understanding about what PFO may be, and from what GW had said how it would differ (for the better, in my opinion) from a game like EVE ,so I stayed interested. I can tell you if I hadn’t done that I may be very disheartened about PFO right now like others that have posted to this thread. But, I see it for what it is, I am in PFO with a great group of folks, and I think the game has a lot of potential, so I’ll be sticking with it.

In any case this game is supposed to be something different, and being a part of making it what it will be is interesting to me. Building something form nothing (whether it be an elf haven in the wilderness or a bandit stronghold or a fortress city-state or whatever) also sounds like fun to me.

I think it’s good to have these debates, I think for the most part we all want the game to succeed and want it to get better and better to support our own play styles. I do think the TT RPGers need to come to terms with the fact that PFO won’t be what they expected, and I think the EVE-ish PvPers need to come the terms with the fact that PFO won’t be what they expected, either. I would encourage any TT RPGers who are interested in PFO and who have no MMO experience to go try a fully developed MMO so you can get a better idea of where the PvPers are coming from and where this game may be going (maybe that’s EVE, maybe others have better suggestions). I would also encourage some of those EVE-ish PvPers to perhaps find a good group of folks to go play a couple of sessions of TT Pathfinder (thought that is a more difficult endeavor), because if you do you just might get a better understanding of where those TT RPG folks are coming from.

Either way, the square peg that is PFO needs to draw players from two completely different markets, with different ideals and goals, and I think it’s going to be challenging. Some folks from both camps just aren’t going to like it, so they will leave. Of course my hope is that, in the long run, more stay with it and/or are drawn to it to make it successful.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
And the negative feedback loop that ties random player killing to gimping character development is at least as key

Absolutely. I think when those mechanics are working as intended, and when the feud and war mechanics are in game, its going to help a lot. I think the rudder is a little small for the size of the ship right now, if you get my meaning.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know what to say about all this back and forth.

Personally I'm not a big PvP'er. But PvP is a key aspect of this game - always has been advertised as such and always will be.

If someone pokes me in the eye, I'm going to poke them back. If I can't poke them back, or if I don't want to poke them back, I'll get my friends to do it.

If the Blue Meanies are out there, either don't go there, get some friends to go with you to go out there so you can defend yourself, or hire some PvP-minded players to be your protection . That's the way the game is supposed to work. That will not only help get the economy going, but it will give the PvP'ers what they want (and what the game needs) on all sides.

My 2 cents.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
I had said in my initial post on the subject, it would be nice if settlements could choose.
KotC - Erian El'ranelen wrote:
I come at it from an economic perspective

I think that Settlements should not only be able to choose, they should have to choose, and there should be a cost (in coin, or whatever) that is incurred for more guards/higher levels of protection. You want a settlement that is tight as a drum and as safe as possible? You need to pay for more Thornguards (or patrol with players). You want to (or need to) save some coin? reduce the number of Thornguards (and accept the consequences).

The dynamic that would be created for the Settlement to be able to maintain its preferred level of safety would be fascinating. There would be inherent settlement benefits and detriments to decisions related to level of security. And this would not preclude additional player patrolling.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FMS Quietus wrote:
What is the value of having a smallhold at the settlement? I'm really not seeing it.

If your reputation is too low to actually enter the Settlement, or you have a flag that will cause the Thornguard to attack you, it might good to have a Smallholding in the Settlement hex's outer ring that you can access without agro-ing the TG. Assuming that's where they go, which I think it is.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My DT is a Wizard, hoping for Sorcerer when that comes available. Much of the TT aspects are more suited to PVE, but here are a few of the things that I think are key to make them more interesting and viable in PFO (and I think some of these are there, but maybe need work):

Battlefield Control: Grease, Web, Obscuring Mist, Fog Cloud, Wall of Force, Prismatic Wall, Wall of Iron, Black Tentacles, Transmute (rock to mud, etc.), Acid Fog, etc.

Interrupt Enemies: Charm, Hold, etc.

Defense: Mage Armor, Mirror Image, etc.

Damage: Magic Weapon, all the classic ranged attacks (Magic Missile, fireball, flaming sphere, lightning, acid arrow, etc.).

Other: Summon Monster

One of the key aspects of wizards et. al. in the TT game is the relative power they have at higher levels. I think some of this flavor should be in PFO; people are willing to subsist for awhile at a lower power level if they know there is something worth it later on down the road.

Goblin Squad Member

True there is no real safehouse in PFO right now aside from the option of logging out. Logging out works for now, but I don't think will work forever. Later down the road when your toon stays in the world for X minutes after you log out (like EVE), logging out won’t be a completely viable option. (I can’t recall where I read that PFO would have this feature, whether it was in the blogs or in a devs post or somewhere, but I’m sure I read it - and it makes sense to have, for the same reasons it is needed in EVE).

I am confident that, once Settlement mechanics are more solid, once laws can be enacted and enforced in Settlements, once rep limits are put on entering certain Settlements, once city walls can be built, once Thornguards have better AI, and once there are many many more players around to actually enforce laws and respond to disturbances effectively, it will be very difficult to engage in this type of activity in most Settlements without it being a suicide mission. That alone will keep the frequency relatively low.

However, in the long run it also cannot be impossible. Assassins have to be able to ply their trade, too.

Goblin Squad Member

Great stuff! Thank you!

(I really like that nerdy orc!)

Goblin Squad Member

My proposition:

Every Friday GW announces: "The Towers in hexes x1,y1; x2,y2; and x3,y3 will drop a Tier 3 recipe to the companies that hold them at the end of the PvP window at xx:xx GMT on Saturday dd/mm."

Hmmmmm....then those towers would have meaning, the "winners" would have a challenge, and the bandits have something to try to loot.

But the Tower capture mechanics need to be fixed first.

Goblin Squad Member

Thod wrote:
..maple turned to oak.

Sounds like some spooky transmutation alchemy going on over at Emerald Lodge!

Goblin Squad Member

Something that would help = Feud.

Companies trying to capture a tower MUST Feud the current holding company or they can't gain tower points.

Feuding companies members would be Red towards each other, so tab-targetable.

Too bad Feud isn't in yet. Something needs to be done.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thod, you're creating content. My opinion, I think it was diplomatic genius on your part, by the way.

Fun for all!

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of this has been said already but here goes:

The state of the game.

The Pathfinder audience market sector is being marginalized. The divergence from the core aspects of the Pathfinder tabletop game is disappointing. I get it, the TT game is not something that can be directly converted to an MMO, and there are issues because of the OGL. And I get that there is a huge population of MMO players out there who are being marketed to who have no idea how the TT game works (and don’t care), or even that it exists. But I think the fact that the Pathfinder name is being used clearly indicates there is a strong market of TT gamers that are also a marketing target. Its also clear that PFO won’t be anything like the RPG, and that GW has no plans to “tweak” PFO in a way that would give it more of the “feel” of the RPG. So, I think that the TT market has been marginalized, and especially in the early going of the game I think this is going to hurt it.

The MMO audience market has been marginalized. The PvP folks used to EVE or other games where PvP is a key factor aren’t seeing how their play style can be realized to its full extent. What they are seeing are lots of roadblocks to their play style. Additionally, these folks are looking at other game options out there and seeing more potential; maybe it’s better graphics, maybe it’s better systems, whatever, but it seems to be happening. There are lots of reasons, and honestly I believe in the long run these things will get hashed out and this audience will be able to have a fulfilling experience, but early on I think this is a problem for getting this market audience engaged.

The direction of the game.

I think the direction is positive. Progress is being made. Bugs are getting fixed. There is a still a long way to go, but the direction is a positive one.

What you feel are positives and negatives of the game.

Negative - For the PvE crowd, dumb mobs that stand around in groups all over the place waiting to be attacked is silly. There needs to be more to it than running from group of monsters to group of monsters. Gi ve me something with some meat on it. “Hey, there is an ogre escalation in Hex A. if you go there, you’re going to be hunted down by groups of ogres roving the hex. If you defeat a small scout group, a larger more powerful group is going to come after you. If you find the boss, all the troops he can contact in a reasonable area are going to converge on you.” Something.

Positive – The engagement of the GW team with the community is very positive.

Suggestions for the game.

1. For PFO, tab targeting is lame. Really lame. In EVE, it makes sense. You have systems and technology to “lock” onto targets in a technology-based game. In my opinion, PFO should be manual targeting. You actually have to aim your arrow. You actually have to aim your Greatsword blow. You get bonuses as you progress in weapon proficiency, or through magical effects, which could be realized by an increase in the forgiveness of locating your attack. At lower proficiencies, you have a targeting “crosshair” that is small; and/or your opponents “hit” target is small. If you have higher proficiencies, your targeting crosshair is large and/or your opponent’s crosshair is large. Better proficiency, larger crosshair, easier to hit. Higher armor class, smaller target crosshair, harder to hit. But if not that, something other than tab targeting.

2. The minimap that shows all the enemies, resource nodes, and other features within a huge radius of the character is lame. It’s like your character has RADAR. NOTHING should show up on that minimap unless you can detect it through your perception skills or magic. So, if your perception is lousy you can see and hear and sense things and creatures close to you. If your perception is much better you can see and hear and sense things and creatures farther away from you. No spooky detection at a distance, please. You actually have to hunt stuff to be able to find it, not just run around with your scanners showing you everything within 1,000 yards of you, even if it’s on the other side of that mountain where you’d have no chance of knowing it was there.

3. Player-created content (e.g., dungeons). I honestly think having players able to build content would be fantastic. There is an Ideascale entry for this. I understand the concerns about creating content for your buddies, exploiting looting of player created content, etc. but I think there are ways to control that. Player created content could be randomly spawned like any other content. Content designers could be recognized for excellence by the community and/or GW (e.g., designer x’s dungeons z got xx votes as excellent, etc.). I think it could add a lot for folks who would like to be more creative and have an impact on the game.

4. Terraforming. We need to be able to do stuff to and modify our environment. Dig trenches, cut down trees, level the ground, build embankments, dig tunnels, etc., etc. Static landscape is boring. Some of these effects should be reversible over time, for instance, if you clear cut a forest it should grow back in a certain amount of time if it is not actively pruned down (ah, and related to the better, more meaningful PvE content above, the dryads and druids may come knocking in that clear cut hex, spawning their own escalations); tunnels should collapse if they are not maintained; etc.

Time lines for what you feel should be added.

1. Better in-game guides needs to happen sooner. For example, a skills training “roadmap.” EVE has this with its “certificates”. In PFO, you should be able to pick a role level or feature you want to achieve and a list of skills you need to train to reach that goal is laid out for you.

2. Better, more engaging PvE content should be in sooner rather than later.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
See my post in the Alpha forums about running a traceroute.

Can't get into those either! I'm in SE PA, GW and Alpha have both been down for me since Sunday. I was on just fine much of the day Sunday, since then nada.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While the Emerald Lodge is very close to The Emerald Spire, as Bluddwolf says they won't necessarily control the gate to it. So, Switzerland or not, I wouldn't count on the Emerald Lodge being able to protect that influence over to The Emerald Spire itself (maybe they can, but I am not counting on it).

And as much as I would like to see The Emerald Spire itself a "free zone" where all can enter and explore without "trouble", it's far too juicy a target for bandits and the likes for me to have any hope that that will be the case in the long run. I envision lots of opportunists in and around The Emerald Spire jumping explorers while in the dungeon or after leaving the dungeon with their spoils.

You want to explore The Emerald Spire and have any hope of getting away from it with all its treasures? You better have plenty of armed guards to protect you on your way home (which is good for the guard economy!).


Goblin Squad Member

Drake Brimstone wrote:
3. If built in an Unclaimed Hex and later a Settlement claims the hex, what happens?

This is an issue with these types of things, especially for the Smallhold that can only be destroyed by siege engines. An enemy settlement could build (a bunch) of these things in unclaimed hexes adjacent to their enemy settlement's claimed hexes and all of a sudden have a bunch of "airbases" to endlessly drop troops into.

TEO Cheatle had some suggestions (above) on how to limit this, but it is something that I think needs attention from GW. Another thought (in addition to Cheatle's) may include a settlement needing to expend DI to establish and maintain these things.

Goblin Squad Member

I think these things are necessities in order to keep the Pathfinder feel, frankly.

After 40 years of development, the tabletop game has some pretty good balancing factors that work for the tabletop game; how those can be translated into PFO to work essentially the same, I don't know but I'm sure GW has thought of that.

In any case, the races can't be, and should not be, 100% balanced in every circumstance. That is really the point of having racial diversity anyway, you pick a race to gain some benefits in certain areas but sacrifice in other areas.

I hope PFO will have those types of balancing decisions built into the racial aspects of characters.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet, I think you're going to find that many (perhaps most) people who will post to this thread don't really understand what a democracy is, or how a democracy works.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks for the response, Ryan!

I just don't want to see ranged attacks gimped for being more effective in a (designed) terrain that is almost perfectly suited for ranged attacks. I also, however, wouldn't want to see all ranged characters running around because other play styles can't compete.

My ambush comment was actually related to melee characters being better able to ambush ranged attackers in more dense forests (or being able to engage he ranged character sooner since sight distances would be closer), not so much sniping as ranged attacker.

I know you guys are balancing all kinds of things, including the rendering issue and taking into consideration some points raised on these boards, so I'll leave that to you and trust you'll do what you think is best for the game.


Goblin Squad Member

I hate to necro a thread but this seemed to be the most appropriate place for this note.

Last night watching "Adventure Time with Bonnie" it was clear that tree density is still very low, everywhere. I bring this up related to the recent (and not so recent) discussions on the effectiveness (or over effectiveness) of ranged attacks. Folks have argued to scale down ranged attacks to give the melee characters a better chance. I don't favor this.

The reason: the current tree densities are so low that they create a terrain that is almost perfectly suited for ranged attacks. Long sight lines, few obstacles, no underbrush. Ranged attacks should be much more effective in this type of terrain than melee.

If tree densities were increased in some areas (and they should be), reducing the line of sight distances and adding underbrush (could be a concealment bonus to targets), ranged attacks would become less effective. There would be more opportunity for ambush. Melee characters would have a better chance to get at the ranged attacker before getting smoked. In short, the more densely forested areas would tip the scale to the melee character. This is as it should be.

By having variable tree densities and underbrush, it would add more flavor to the game. Caravan routes, travel routes, etc. would all have to be carefully selected, taking into consideration the potential threats based upon the tree density. It would give scouts and rangers more opportunity to find the best routes. And if tree densities changed over time in a given area, that would be even better (today, this is a low density tree area; next week, no one has been exploiting the lumber resources so now its dense forest).

More fun for my ranger! :) But also, I think, it provides a better mix of terrains that favor certain play styles and character builds.

Hardin Steele wrote:

After viewing several alpha streams, most of the woodland hex areas seem sparsely populated with trees.

This would make PvP in the super dense forests really tough, parties could stumble into monster camps with little warning, and parties might even get lost if the minimap is not showing them where they are correctly (from a spell, disorientation, poison, or any other reason).

Stephen Cheney wrote:

We recently got an increase in tree densities that may not be apparent on screenshots. They're not tremendously dense, but forests do feel like forests. We're trying to balance the right feel with not overloading your graphics processor drawing too many objects (plus potential pathing and encounter placement issues), so the tree density may still change over time as we figure out how that works best on the widest variety of machines.

Goblin Squad Member

Yea, no EE component to the tech demo backers (I was a TD backer at that level as well). Link to the kickstarter page is below, if you don't have that:

Tech Demo Kickstarter

Goblin Squad Member

Some discussion I found on this issue in the blogs:

Screaming for Vengeance touches on this somewhat:

“…the settlement might establish laws to make murder (and several other actions) illegal. Thus, players might be nearly as safe in certain player-controlled hexes as they are in NPC territory…”

So, form this clearly a settlement can establish specific laws that apply to their own territory. However, it may be that these law only apply to the one hex that contains the settlement. It’s not clear whether these laws would apply to hexes outside/adjacent to the settlement hex as well.

I Shot a Man in Reno Just to Watch him Die has a little more on this:

“Behavior we don’t want…Players willfully committing crimes or evil acts under the shield of reputation or alignment penalties so onerous no one would try and stop them.”

So, it seems from this statement that GW wants to keep people from committing “crimes” under “protection” of the reputation system. I didn’t see any further detail on how this would be accomplished or whether this meant game-defined crimes, NPC settlement-defined crimes, or PC settlement crimes.

“Each time a character commits a crime, they … get the Criminal flag; this can be anything from assaulting someone in a settlement to being a member of an outlawed faction or race in the wrong place. What gives you the Criminal flag will vary from settlement to settlement based on the rules set in that settlement, so it's a good idea to learn the local laws, invest in Knowledge (Geography), etc., before visiting a new settlement.”

So, from this I take it that criminal flags may be automatically applied if a law is broken in settlement hexes (at least); it’s not clear how this mechanic will work (e.g., how are settlement laws defined and how are the areas which they apply to defined, or is it just the hex containing the settlement?).

Enforcer (Lawful) - Enforcer is for characters who want to enforce the laws of their own settlements or others.”

I’m not clear if this Flag is still going to exist, and from the description it seems as if these Enforcers would only be able to attack those with a “Criminal” flag to avoid Reputation loss.

So, I guess from all this, how settlement laws are established, how flags are applied, and how those laws are/can be enforced is still about as clear as mud. I think we’ll need to wait and see.

Goblin Squad Member

Only a couple of days left in the Land Rush! Join us in Brighthaven and help us be the first to reach 200 members!

Goblin Squad Member

"I'm in range, 200 coming up. Just hold them off for a few more seconds....almost there....Let her loose, they're right behind me!....almost there..."

Goblin Squad Member

I like this idea...

Urman wrote:
Maybe with Aristos with advanced settlement management skills you get more details.

Goblin Squad Member

What I like most about this thread it has really started the cogs working in my brain on this issue (I can tell, because I smell smoke!).

Anyway, a lot of good points have been made. I think what this fundamentally comes down to is what mechanics exist that allow a settlement to enforce their laws. It seems to me a settlement needs to be able to designate an individual or company as criminal for breaking its laws. I'd be somewhat concerned about abuse of this, but I don't have a good foundation from other games to gauge it against. I don't recall any details on how settlements can enforce laws from the blogs, if there are some perhaps someone will post a link.

As far as resources within a settlements area of control and notification of node poaching, I don't like the "fuzzy action at a distance" notification thing. If a settlement can't patrol its territory to identify and stop node poaching, well, too bad. "You have what you hold." I think @Guurzak's point about NPCs being existent in the settlement is a good one in support of this notification, even if delayed somewhat as some have suggested or perhaps not incredibly specific (e.g., "there is node poaching in hex xx,yy"; type of node, exact location, and extent of poaching is non descript). This gives the settlement an option to address it but also gives the poachers some leeway.

Lastly, regarding settlements issuing or selling mining/gathering rights for resources of they choose, absolutely a must have I think. And if a settlement issues few of these, and can patrol and enforce them effectively, they have more value than at another settlement that perhaps sells gobs of them and/or can't patrol their territory effectively to enforce them. I think it this a very good thing to add to the economy for settlement and incentivizes better control over their territory (although maybe that benefits lawful settlements more than chaotic ones, have to think more on that).

Goblin Squad Member

Perish the thought heavens no! As a half-elf Ranger I wouldn't have it!

The person below me played 1e Gamma World when it was a new thing!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius the Afflicted wrote:

You do this by:

1. Giving them the ability to criminalize resource extraction by people under a certain diplomatic status in their territory.

2. Allowing them to sell or give away items that grant temporary harvesting rights within their territory.

I suppose I had assumed this would be part of the game; a settlement could sell Harvesting Rights for resources within the territory that they controlled. These would be by contract, and would specify the resource, area, and time period as well as the specific company/individuals.

If it is not already intended to be in the game, it absolutely should be.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:


Create and Protect an area of land (either mechanically a settlement, PoI, or tower at this junction) which is kept in as heavy-nature state as possible. This area, dubbed a "Nature Sanctuary" will be TVC's homeland and primary concern, however we serve as the wall between it and the outside world, not as overseers of the lands.

Discover and Thwart any potential threat to nature anywhere in the world as we deem it, in whatever manner we deem.

Aid the efforts of any group that we deem is protecting nature.

Good stuff Brother! I hope there are ways in which nature-friends from other settlements or companies can support this noble effort (in particular ranger-types like me!)

I wish you great success!

Goblin Squad Member

This is Uncle Sam, with music, and the truth until dawn.

John has a long mustache. John has a long mustache. The chair is against the wall.

Goblin Squad Member

@Thod, you know, in order to make that work, you need to seal it in an envelope with sealing wax now and not open it until after next weeks draft.

Otherwise, how can we be assured its legit? ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

There needs to be clarification on diminishing return of controlling more than 10 towers. From my two listenings of the video cast, it sounded like Tork said the highest level if training from WoT is 10. Also, each tower grants one level of training.

Did any of you by chance get the same impression?

I did not get that impression, Bludd. I did get the indication that at some point, the impact of increasing your PvP window is going to limit how many towers a settlement may want to hold, since the PvP window time scales significantly with more towers (maybe it was 10?)

But I'll listen again and see if I get a different impression second time through.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BrotherZael wrote:
you named your companion tacitus xD genius

Shhh! (don't tell anyone)

Goblin Squad Member

This is an excellent opportunity for independent companies to participate in the WotT and gain valuable training!

Join us in Brighthaven!

1 to 50 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>