Search Posts
As someone who loved piloting and equipping my starfighter in SWG, I miss the game terribly. Nothing out right now duplicates it, and I think the EMUs are far off from implementing JTL. It is easy to roast SOE over the CU and later NGE. To extent they should be- the implementation and communication was terrible with those changes. However, SOE was the patsy. LucasArts was the real problem. They had unrealistic expectations for subscription numbers, and rather than build on what they had, LucasArts burned the house down. But even after the disaster that the NGE was, there were still some fantastic things that were put in the game. The Battle of Hoth Heroic is still my favorite raid-style content in any MMO- tough, requires exceptional teamwork, substantial. Plus you either got to pilot a snowspeeder or AT-ST. When LucasArts forced the shutdown due to the release of SWTOR, the devs had implemented atmospheric flight, so pilots could finally drop down from orbit and provide air support for their ground allies. If LucasArts hadn't been so focused on unrealistic numbers, and SOE had a better dev team in place- what a game it could have been with the later content.
Hard to tell with our limited means of measuring active players, but I think your close to the mark, if a bit on the lower side. But the reality is there isn't much of a game yet. I've enjoyed myself so far, but as training things becomes increasingly infrequent, achievements need 1000s instead of 100s, the settlement game is not fully functional and meaningful PVP is rare- I can see how many just won't bother with it.
I don't have any problem with open, free PVP within a dungeon- simply two competing groups trying to get resources. No different than fighting over T2 escalations currently. However, if the dungeons are instanced (as in you find the entry in the gameworld and then enter with a loadscreen- same with leaving), I think you are asking for trouble with people loading in and being killed before they have a chance to do anything, perhaps even being killed before they are actually loaded in on their client. So you'd either need some type of spawncamping protection, similar to the shrinecamping debate going on over at GW, or maybe provide multiple exits from the dungeon or random exit points. If the dungeon isn't instanced, and you can see anyone loitering at the entry as you get close to the exit on the minimap, then I think that concern is eliminated.
The GW forums are very lackluster at the moment. For a gaming forum, I find PMs, Search and a Dev Tracker to be invaluable. The layout over there is not particularly intuitive (I've yet to really figure out where people post over there- it certainly isn't in the more specialized fora that are immediately visible). This forum isn't perfect, but it works better for me.
You could head North to Ozem's Vigil or Forgeholm if LG Cleric/Fighter settlements interest you. Both the Free Highlanders area and High Road Covenant would be more than happy to help you find your footing in game.
It seems like this game was advertised to have open world PvP as a core feature, so I feel that #2 is somewhat more justified than #1. Yes and no. If you followed the Kickstarter, Blogs, and Forums, yes you should be well aware of what you are getting into. However, we have picked up a number of people who are Pathfinder players/fans who have jumped into the game because it is Pathfinder and don't have that foreknowledge. While I'd never jump into a game without looking at all the info out there, others don't, and the game itself doesn't make any of the "open-world PVP sandbox" gameplay clear at all.
I think this thread perfectly illustrates a number of PVP-related issues: 1) Some people will never, ever like PVP, and will react quite negatively if forced to PVP. 2) Some PVPers do not understand that mentality, and react negatively to it, further reinforcing negative stereotypes of PVPers. 3) People hate losing stuff, and generally react poorly to it. #3 is tricky. GW has set up the current system to make PVP rewarding- the winner has the possibility of walking away with some nice loot. However, many times, that loot really means little to the victor, but means much more to the loser, and he basically loses everything. You then add onto that the item decay from dying, so the loser is doubly penalized. People who PVP often may not care about that, but those who don't PVP often will, and they probably aren't good enough at PVP to avoid dying often. At one point in SWG space PVP, dying meant significant decay to your ship equipment. Once people found out that the gun or engine they spent a year building would be destroyed in 2-3 nights of heavy dogfighting, they stopped PVPing. Not switch out to cheap, lower performance parts- stopped PVPing altogether. Once PVP decay was eliminated, PVP picked up again. My fear is the current system will ultimately push the bulk of the population into heavily defended settlements with a few excursions every day or so for bulk resources. Those looking for PVP will have a difficult time finding it. I'd prefer a system that doesn't heavily penalize you for losing in PVP and as a result doesn't push people away from PVP. I'm all for rewarding PVP, but a zero-sum game between victor and loser is a tough sell.
I know it can lead to a lot of issues when mobs overspawn, but once in SWG, there was a bug that prevented Kessel and Deep Space from resetting properly, leading to hundreds of enemy ship spawns coexisting. For a casual pilot, it was a nightmare and deathtrap. For a diehard pilot, it was exhilarating.
From the THE DECLINE OF MMOS ~ BY RICHARD BARTLE (MAY 2013) thread... For what's worth, I don't care about fancy graphics- I turn them down whether or not I need to. I'd much rather have a fun game than a pretty one with boring gameplay. That is why I have no problem firing up the old SSI Goldbox games or Baldur's Gate games to play- they are far more fun to play than most modern RPGs even if the graphics are archaic.
Being a dinosaur isn't all that bad, especially if you're a T-Rex. If Twitter and Facebook disappeared tomorrow, I'd neither know nor care...
I'd be happy to spend more time interacting with the community on reddit, tbh. The exposure would be great. Incubating here on the paizo.com forums has been wonderful but we need to start to push out beyond the group of people who are already deeply vested in Pathfinder and talk to MMO enthusiasts in general. I agree, exposure is great but reddit probably isn't where you want to get it, at least at this point. When EE is in full swing, and OE is on the horizon, I could see reddit being more useful (in a very fringe-type of way). Additionally, I would be hesitant to further fracture up the discussions at this stage- it would seem to counter-productive to both the devs and us to have multiple discussion areas to keep tabs on.
Could you speak more toward your vision of how things should be? You aren't suggesting all characters should always be completely equal are you? If that were the case we wouldn't... Ideally, I'd have it take 2.5 years to max out a narrowly defined role- ie. a sword and shield fighter, or healing-focused cleric. In that narrow focus, the 2.5 year player is no worse mechanically than a 5 year vet. Clearly the vet has 2.5 more years worth of practical experience in the game, and has had the ability to have a wider focus of skills and abilities to draw from, but in terms of the core role, they are mechanically equal. Player X has had 2.5 years in game. He has narrowly focused on becoming a greatsword wielding, heavy armor wearing fighter. Mechanically, he is no worse in that narrow role than any cap player. However, he has zero gathering/crafting skills. No range attacks, and has little skill in any weapon but a greatsword. No stealth, and his perception is low. Player Y has played for 5 years. He is also a greatsword wielding, heavy armor wearing fighter. Unlike Player X, he has been able to train in some ranged attacks with a crossbow. He can switch to sword and shield if needed. He has trained in stealth and perception. He has advanced social and knowledge skills that make him useful to his settlement in ways beyond combat. Factoring out player experience, if the two met in combat, it would be a fairly even fight from a depth perspective (they both are capped at their role). The vet would have an advantage from the breadth of his training. Additionally should the two team up, Player X can still contribute in his role at the highest level, even if he lacks the versatility of Player Y.
While that isn't my playstyle, for a significant chunk of MMO players, it is. You can't ignore the fact that there will be min/max players, and their $ is just as good as yours. People, in any significant quantity, burning out before reaching "cap" and moving on is a big problem. The way this game is set up, we want people in here for the long haul. A sandbox game needs a stable base of players, not the churn of a themepark. Taking ~5 years to reach a max build may be fine for some players, it really will be a turnoff for PVPers and min/max'ers. GW is going to need as many subs as possible- this game is going to be a hard sell to the average MMO player, and to the average TT player- and should err on the side of reaching a max role too early rather than too late. Andius has some valid concerns, and what I have witnessed in other games mirrors his concerns. 2- 1/2 years seemed about right for a max role, ~5 seems excessive.
Edit @ Andy: I thought this was a kind of gap bridging game for table toppers. They can't very well remove those features. If they are in, they will be central to the game. That IS the game, but I don't see how catering to table top players for the nuances is wrong. Why wouldn't we just go play another game then? When you've lost the table top influence, what does PFO have? No offense to GW, but as much as they are marketing to open world people, the game is open world... Pathfinder Online. If it becomes any more namesake only, they are going to alienate both camps. I think you may be falling into the mindset that plagues other MMOs- that PVE and PVP are mutually exclusive. That if anything is done to cater to PVE players, it takes away from PVP. It is not a zero-sum game. Flavoring, core classes, interesting things to do when not PVPing all ultimately help the game as a whole, including PVP. I want to PVP. I want settlement wars. I want to build and fire siege engines until the walls of my enemy's possessions are rubble. But I want to do those things as a paladin-not as a fighter, not as a cleric. They are not the same thing as a paladin, in PVE or PVP. Preferably, I will be PVPing from the back of warhorse riding down evildoers with my lance leveled. But there is no paladin class in the game yet, so my PVP time will be less as a result. I'm sure there are other players who want to play rangers, monks, druids, etc... that would love to PVP- once those classes are available. Pushing to get core classes and races into the game faster would probably help increase PVP numbers faster than some of the peripheral PVP-related systems (a nuanced PVP bandit/merchant mechanic means nothing to me if I can't participate with the class I want to play, but I'll fight in a bare-bones PVP system if I can do it with the class I want).
Ryan should love this. Studying market data is a hobby of his.I wonder what the market data of the $60.00 monocle turned out to be. From what I could gather, only 52 were sold and it essentially turned the MTX market in EvE into the butt of many jokes. At one point, LotRO was going to put a child's wooden horse "mount" into their store for a whopping $50. They quietly dropped the idea after the Bullroarer crowd spilled the beans to forums and the threadnaught that ensued universally despised the idea.
While I understand PFO wants to be its own thing, I think it might be useful to see how another successful MMO handles this problem. I will use LotRO as the example since I'm most familiar with it: 1) Any class that can use a range attack takes a hefty miss chance penalty while moving and shooting. I believe it is a 60% miss chance, although it feels much higher in game. You also must be facing the target. Guardians and Champions also have a special range attack, Let Fly which gives bonus damage and has increased range. You must be stationary to use it. 2) The Hunter class uses bows or crossbows as its primary weapon. As a general rule they have two types of range attacks, some are stationary, some allow for movement. The stationary attacks as a rule do significantly more damage or have very useful crowd control ability. The better the skill, the longer you must stay still, and there is the possibility that you could be forced to take longer to fire the skill if you are damaged or have it interrupted outright. They also have a longer range. The mobile attacks as a rule do less damage, or require "Focus" which is gained slowly during combat and faster by using stationary attacks. They also hamper your movement to a slow walk rather than letting you run and their range is shorter than the stationary attacks. 3) Hunters have three specialization lines. One enhances your stationary attacks, allowing you to do more damage to enemies before they get to you. One allows you to perform mobile attacks better and build focus quicker. The third focuses on traps and CC, to keep the enemy from closing on you quickly. 4) Caster classes also have a similar setup to Hunters- a mix of skills in which some can be cast on the run, others require you to be stationary. Again, if its powerful, you're going to have to stand still to cast it. 5) Almost all classes have anti-kiting abilities, whether stuns, dazes, movement debuffs. Some of you will probably think all of that stinks and is unfair to range/caster classes. The thing is, in PVP, those classes are still the best choice. But the thing those restrictions do is give melee types a chance at competing. Most melee types can live with that. IMO, PFO currently doesn't do that.
As I have said in other, similar, threads- I would much rather have an immersive game with great gameplay than flashy graphics. My sense is that most people are here for the gameplay potential, not pretty graphics. If the gameplay is good, I can make do with VGA graphics circa 1990.
...And now, to give you a little insight what it's like to be inside a writer's brain, I will be obsessed for a few weeks, or months, with needing to write a zombie short story called "Necromancing the Stone."Once you finish it, for the love of God, just stop and walk away. Don't go back to that well; there's almost certainly only enough material for one decent production... I think the world absolutely needs a "Jewel of the Defile(r)"...
Why do people want to game on laptops? A desktop always gives better performance for a given dollar value, with much better upgradability for the future. The ability to not be tied to one spot. I game on a laptop so when my wife decides to watch a "Real Housewives" show, I can go play in a different room and not be forced to smash the TV to make the idiocy stop. It is true desktops are more cost effective and easier to upgrade, but laptops have come a long way and the gap is closer than you'd expect.
That's the rub... ownership is king. All of your advanced training is tied to your settlement and how well-developed it is. Every character, alignment aside, it incredibly dependent on their settlement and as a result has every incentive to protect it at all costs. Resources matter to our settlements and to our characters and freely letting other harvest on your lands is just a bad idea based on how the game's mechanics are at this point. Hopefully, settlements will create alliances to expand our communities, but I have zero desire to put the needs of any settlement above the needs of my settlement. That doesn't mean I won't help other lawful, good and/or possibly neutral settlements I have no alliance with if the opportunity arises, and I'm not looking to attack everyone with a trespasser or criminal flag on sight, but my community comes first and if you are bulk harvesting the stone we need to upgrade our settlement, you will be held to account. Nothing in any of that is contradictory to Lawful Good.
I know in game there aren't huge needs like food to survive, but if you think of an example like say 'Robin Hood' where someone's an outlaw because they've been taxed too heavily and it's illegal to poach a deer to feed their starving family how would you define the behavior of the Sheriff and King John? Certainly not Lawful Good. The answer is: you can't. There are a million different nuances to how to deal with a given situation based on alignment. There simply isn't a way to program the game to account for that in one situation, let alone hundreds of possible situations. And to answer your question: if you are about to be overrun by an evil settlement, I would suggest asking the LG settlement for help. Not only would you not be violating their laws and making yourself a criminal, but they probably would help you out with already-crafted weapons and send a group of soldiers/adventurers to actually help you fight the evil settlement.
If we are talking about a TT game, I agree. There are many options for dealing with illegal harvesting that allow for differences in good and evil settlement. However, the way this game is set up, an illegal harvester is flagged as a criminal. The only punishment for being flagged a criminal is PVP without repercussions (perhaps limited to "enforcers" of a settlement). Mechanically, you either take out the criminal, or you get corruption. If you make taking out the criminal an evil act, then a Lawful Good settlement can't enforce its own laws without either becoming evil or becomes chaotic because it doesn't enforce its laws. The only other option would be to let anyone harvest within their lands, which would be a detriment to your settlement because settlements are significantly dependent on those resources to grow. You would basically strangling your own settlement as well as potentially giving your rivals and enemies free reign over your resources. That isn't interesting gameplay, it isn't forcing meaningful interaction, its just bad gameplay design. Under the current intended design, give a harvester fair warning he's breaking the local laws and let him decide if he wants to risk a criminal flag. Otherwise, the devs need to code a more refined punishment system for criminals that would include ways to levy fines and time-outs for jail, so death by PVP isn't the only available option to a settlement looking to enforce their own laws. But I somehow think that the playerbase as a whole would never agree to the later.
I disagree with that. A Lawful Good settlement enacts laws for the betterment of everyone in the settlement. Enacting laws to protect resources for its citizens and the benefit of the settlement is not evil. They are under no obligation to make life easier for nodejackers coming from outside settlements (and possibly chaotic/evil ones, at that). Friendlies from other settlements could be given harvesting rights through some mechanism, and neutral parties should be able to purchase temporary rights if the settlement wishes to sell them. I doubt there will be punishments outside of the criminal flag, so it would be up to parties involved to agree to a punishment without PVP. I, for instance, may ask that they hand over anything they harvested and escort them out of our territory. Others may opt to just kill the criminal. Neither of those options should be rewarded or punished in regards to alignment. Basically, if you want to nodejack in someone else's territory, you a) need to work something out in advance (diplomacy, money, trade goods, whatever) b) bring a bunch of friends to protect you when you get flagged as a criminal and PVPers come after you or c) move and harvest quickly, hoping you can avoid PVP. All of those are meaningful choices if you decide to harvest in someone else's backyard.
I hope that Engineering will eventually encompass the construction of siege weapons, siege equipment, fortifications and possibly civilian architecture. Interestingly, classical engineers were expected to be architects, public works engineers, and siege engineers. Vitruvius' treatise on architecture was 10 books in length, the tenth of which is devoted to the design and construction of siege weapons/engines. In the early Renaissance, Alberti's work on architecture began with how to properly design and construct fortifications for a city. I would be very disappointed if engineers in PFO did not have those things under their purview.
I certainly agree with this. There is nothing worse than to see a game you love slowly devolve into a blatant cash grab. New, heavily hyped features arrive, and you find out the only way to make real use of them is through the cash shop or a grind is made so onerous that your only option to to pay to reduce it. My gut says GW will find the right balance with the cash shop, but it is a very slippery slope on which to balance.
Really? I'm only familiar with that trick from EVE Online. It happens in most of them. On my LOTRO server, I lost count of the number of Legolas variants somewhere in the 150 range... At least with that one, I understood that hoards of preteens and teens wanted the name due to the books and movies, but I've run into at least 10 variations of IKillYou which is just an awful, uncreative name. Back on topic, I don't mind a company being able to change its name, but its naming history should easily be available- you should be able to escape your companies misdeeds by simply changing your name.
I think that is reasonable, although I do think some form of warning regarding harvesting rights would also be reasonable so those that do not intend to illegally harvest can bypass those nodes.
In a back corner, a paladin of Iomedae sits looking a bit weary and worse for wear. He silently listens to the cheerful bar maid recount the day's menu. "That truly sounds delightful. However, all I require is a glass of sour wine mixed with water and a touch of honey, some bread and a small slice of mutton." Slightly disappointed, the young girl asks "Will you be at least staying to see Gwalchmai? He is really quite something." "No, the night is young, and I have work to do."
I would agree that any role that is mechanically excluded from reaching a specific attribute number (thereby hitting a "closed gate") would be at a disadvantage for a specific function. Still that would be a choice made by the player as they choose a career path and role. But, we do need to know what is required in stats, attributes and skill/role choices so we don't begin training up a dead-end career path. Experience is too expensive to gain to waste thousands of XPs on a non-functional skill tree selection.I think what he was getting at is that Evil Settlements can't produce Lawful Good Paladins, so it's not a choice for their members' career paths. I don't see that as a problem- it is a meaningful choice. You choose to make your settlement evil for whatever reasons you think it benefits you. This sounds like a repercussion of that choice. LG settlements shouldn't have assassins and removes options for member's career paths as well, which is a repercussion of that choice. IMO, working as intended. That said, adding in Blackguards or anti-paladins at some point makes sense, due to their long history in TT. But I hope the devs avoid a tit-for-tat mentality between Law/Good and Chaos/Evil. Things can be balanced overall without being equal in everything.
This reminds me a bit of the /escapepod command in SWG space combat. PVP pilots would use it when their ship was severely damaged but not destroyed. When the pilot podded, his foe was denied getting any GCW points (needed to maintain PVP rank) and a notch in their kill count (bragging rights). Needless to say, this was a very divisive tactic in the PVP pilot community. I plan to make attacking me as unprofitable as possible, but I'd prefer to do it by not carrying anything that can't be threaded or carrying as little of real value as possible rather than furiously deleting items in combat or investing in a scorched earth skill.
I'm open to this as long as:
That is why the Stand and Deliver mechanic exists. Utilizing that will prevent any rep loss unless you're a psychopath and kill a harvester that has handed over their resources anyway.
It inherently already has the highest risk associated with it- you are carrying the most valuable resource in the game. That makes you a bigger target. You don't need to add any other incentive to try to kill the character. Just because the resource is valuable, and you want it doesn't mean the normal rules should be jettisoned.
Also, for the record I have no problem with it being turned all the way up in areas that are supposed to be completely safe, IE starter towns.Ah, so things you want to do may have a high penalty in places you don't care to go, as long as they have the minimum possible penalty where all the good stuff is? I wouldn't paint Aet Areks with that brush at this point, but I have known many PVPers in a lot of different games and that was a very common attitude among them. As I see it, we don't need to change the PVP model for these hexes. If the resource is valuable enough, you have these choices:
Since the best gear requires that resource, there will be plenty of people doing all three of the above. All three options work within the PVP system as it is currently envisioned. You have the choice in how you gain the resource, and all three have costs (guards and time for harvesters, influence for SADs, and rep for murder and pillage.) Therefore, I'm not convinced anything needs to be done to those hexes to "encourage" PVP. The value of the resource is the only encouragement required.
Don't like the idea of it at all. All you'll create is a griefer lure that happens to be on top of the most valuable resources in the game. If you want to randomly slaughter whoever you come across, I will support your right to do so in this game, but I will never agree to drop the repercussions of doing so. You want the carnage, you'll have to pay the price.
By and large, I like that it will reflect the Pathfinder aesthetic. However, I wish Pathfinder didn't indulge the boobplate trope as much as it does, particularly when a fantasy show with as much T&A as Game of Thrones manages to give Brienne of Tarth a real, functional suit of armor.Well, that's really more of a Brienne-thing than a GoT-thing Not having read the books, I can only go by the show, and from my perspective, every girl/woman in the show who is a warrior of some type wears realistic, functional armor- Brienne, Ygritte, Yara and you could throw in Ayra and Meera as well. That isn't to say they don't take every opportunity to show off Daenerys and Melisandre, but they aren't frontline melee fighters either...
If you'd like an idea of what armor will look like in Pathfinder Online, look at what armor looks like in any other Pathfinder product. PFO art direction will take its cues from what has come before.It baffles me how people still make threads about the art style they want to see for characters and gear. It's going to look like Pathfinder, duh. By and large, I like that it will reflect the Pathfinder aesthetic. However, I wish Pathfinder didn't indulge the boobplate trope as much as it does, particularly when a fantasy show with as much T&A as Game of Thrones manages to give Brienne of Tarth a real, functional suit of armor.
I know you don't want a back-and-forth about this, but a quick note about the armor shots- chain mail is absolutely terrible at resisting arrows. You would be far better off wearing a lino-thorax (linen armor utilized by the Ancient Greeks and other Mediterranean cultures). The guy in the video is amazingly talented with a bow, but trick archery is not anything like combat archery (as noted, different bow requirements, and likely, very different arrows.) It is also interesting to note that the two greatest triumphs of the English longbow were aided by the fact that the French had to attack uphill (Poitiers) or through mud (Agincourt). In both cases, the hampered movement allowed the archers to predominately kill the French horses, while the arrows had little affect on the French knights themselves.
While I would love a Ravenloft MMO, that really doesn't fit within Golarion, particularly up in the River Kingdoms. When you throw in the Pathfinder aversion to player lycanthropes and undead, I think this idea (mo matter how cool and well-thought) needs to be staked with a silvered stake. But getting beyond setting issues, I see this turning into the SWG Jedi all over again. Everyone in SWG tried to unlock Jedi because it was clearly an alpha class, and the few hinderances they had did nothing to prevent them spreading like a virus in a setting that should have had no more than 2 Jedi and 2 Sith. Once they made it a starting class, the game lost any real semblance to GCW-era Star Wars with Jedi on every street corner. If you make something with this level of popularity, and make it powerful, most gamers are going to go for it. To me, that would be terrible for the setting and the game. The only way I could even remotely get behind it is if they were limited to there only being 6 player vampires and werewolves at any time, and they had every restriction and vulnerability as NPC ones do. You could keep the ability as long as you had a large min# of kills per day (no hiding in safe zones to keep the powers) and never died. The first time you die, its gone permanently and cannot be regained by that character.
|
