Valtorious's page

Cool. Thanks.

Beleriand wrote:

I need to unlearn all that I have learned about MMOs.

True 'dat.

Quote:

Regarding the vague blog post concerning PvE dungeons, if they are instanced how would difficulty be determined?

For example, a group of 4 fighters levels 8,5,2,1 find and enter a dungeon. What level would the mobs be? 8? 1? 3?

We are a long, long way from being able to make dungeons, but here's the answer I think we'll start with before a process of Crowdforging:

The difficulty of the mobs in the dungeon will be independent of the makeup of the characters that enter it. And the difficulty might vary at different places in the dungeon. You might find mobs that are a cakewalk. You might find mobs that utterly crush you. You might find both of those mobs in the same dungeon.

Dungeons should be seen as substantially difficult places to venture, where the rewards are substantial, but exotic, where cooperative play with several characters with different skills is a requirement and where it is likely you can't do the whole dungeon start to finish with the same group of characters at a static level of power.

But it's still a long ways off.

Ryan, when you say that random "dungeons" will appear, do you see it as always being the classic underground dungeon or does this encompass out doors areas as well (ruins)?

And if you have answered this next one in the Blog, sorry, I have read the whole thing and can't remember seeing it....but in these dungeons, will there be traps and locks making thieves a must for all serious parties?

AND SWTOR PVP was a joke. They gave no incentives to PVP on the planets, so hardly anyone did it, so everyone just did Arena matches. Because we all know how often Darth Vader used to challenge the rebels to a great game of Huttball.

Yeah...there just gets to be a point that I just stop caring about the games I am playing because of the repetition and the fact that while they might have little differences here and there....it's the same game I just played. I hit max level...now I am just grinding gear. STO, SWTOR, WOW, AOC, RIFTS, it's all the same thing.

My biggest disappointment was SWTOR. I did play it for a while, have several toons max level. But to have the kind of team and financial backing they did and making something so unoriginal is a crime. It looked great, and although the stories are completely Rail Road and my actions made no difference, it was at least a little interesting...but that was it. When you find yourself running a new toon and doing Taris for the 10th time...it gets old.

Well, based on the fact that there's a "dying" state instead of instantly dying when dropped... Maybe people who want to allow bar brawls in their settlements will have "pay per use" clerics standing by to revive people inside the bars? Y'know, have it in the rules of the place that "you can fight, but if you fall you'll owe us X money for a revive" ;)

Personally I wouldn't want bar brawls in my own settlement; I'm just a simple merchant and don't want to get caught in the crossfire when I /sit to have a pint (eventually!).

I get that...but hey, maybe that is where a variant of the SAD mechanic could be introduced.

"Hey ugly, I'm gonna knock your head off," SAD

A: "Have at thee". Accepted
B: "Leave me alone, I just want to drink" Rejected.

If the person attacks after the challenge was rejected, hit them with a rep loss, flag him as hostile so the whole bar can stomp his face.

Plus, from a gamer's perspective, it's little things like this that could make PFO really stand out.

I was playing DC Online a while ago and I had a friend who had very little interest in joining up. Then I told him how I thought that the modes of movement were cool and it's the first MMO I could fly in.

As soon as he heard you could fly, he became interested and decided to give it a shot. He ended up liking it and playing for a while, paying for a subscription for a couple of months.

Now would bar room brawls be a major selling point for this game, no, I'm not trying to insinuate that. But if this game has solid game play and several unique features no one has ever seen in an MMO before...that's are good thing.

Cirolle wrote:

Taverns will be safe from pvp?

What kind of magic is in place here?

Nothing actually indicates that it is, but the pro's of safe taverns greatly outweigh the con's in mine and the opinions of others.

I actually think that unsafe taverns may actually make them more of a target than a place to kick back and socialize. That would be generally bad for the game.

Maybe they could leave it up to the settlement's do decide? Makes sense that in a rough chaotic town sort of like the wild west that brawls would break out. Makes sense that in a religious town with a lot of priests, paladins and pilgrims to look down on brawls.

I think it's a great idea. Not only would it be fun, but I can see it sort of turning into a mini-game and area of pride. Some adventurers can be known as sell swords, others as knight, but Steelbeard the Dwarf is known as a master pintsman and u is un-bested in fisticuffs.

I'm choking on crackers laughing at this. XD

lol

Hold on, this is Valtorious's mom. He has irritable bowel and will be back later.

Valtorious wrote:

Mrs Steelwing wrote:

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

Welcome to the forums Mrs. Steelwing. I see I won't have to guess at which person is Steel's SO ;).

I would expect most items in general to not have a permanent presence in game; when a player logs out, I'd expect the stuff he had on his person to log out with him and be safe (provided he logged out in an area safe enough, etc). So too for mounts, I don't think having them persist on logout is necessary as that would be an extra restriction placed on them separate from other items.

I hope that mounts essentially become consumables just like the other items we'll have; every so often you have to replace your armor set, and every so often you have to replace your mount. Yes, some people will whine about that, but I don't necessarily see that as indicating that mounts should be done different.

For others, though I would agree to initially having mounts pumped out of a crafting queue just like wooden planks or iron weapons, I also would not object to some crafts getting more unique nuances to them. In the case of animal husbandry, perhaps in order to get specific keywords on your mount you have to breed them into it, rather than just selecting which ones you want while crafting. Not a needed system, but just something a little more interesting.

1) I am not steelwings significant other I am a person in my own right wih my own personality and we agree where we agree and disagree where we disagree

2) Yes I am not suggesting mounts stay around when you log out. I suggested mounts should be as permanent as any other resource if they come from the same source

I'm confused, are you saying your not his out of game partner/wife/girlfriend or are you objecting to being simply thought of as Steelwing's wife instead of your own entity.

I am married to Steelwing. We have two daughters. I care for him deeply.

However I am me and he is steelwing. We are not one person we are not one mind nor do we try...

Then maybe you should reply using your own account. lol

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

Welcome to the forums Mrs. Steelwing. I see I won't have to guess at which person is Steel's SO ;).

I would expect most items in general to not have a permanent presence in game; when a player logs out, I'd expect the stuff he had on his person to log out with him and be safe (provided he logged out in an area safe enough, etc). So too for mounts, I don't think having them persist on logout is necessary as that would be an extra restriction placed on them separate from other items.

I hope that mounts essentially become consumables just like the other items we'll have; every so often you have to replace your armor set, and every so often you have to replace your mount. Yes, some people will whine about that, but I don't necessarily see that as indicating that mounts should be done different.

For others, though I would agree to initially having mounts pumped out of a crafting queue just like wooden planks or iron weapons, I also would not object to some crafts getting more unique nuances to them. In the case of animal husbandry, perhaps in order to get specific keywords on your mount you have to breed them into it, rather than just selecting which ones you want while crafting. Not a needed system, but just something a little more interesting.

1) I am not steelwings significant other I am a person in my own right wih my own personality and we agree where we agree and disagree where we disagree

2) Yes I am not suggesting mounts stay around when you log out. I suggested mounts should be as permanent as any other resource if they come from the same source

I'm confused, are you saying your not his out of game partner/wife/girlfriend or are you objecting to being simply thought of as Steelwing's wife instead of your own entity.

We are not debating the philosophy of different warfare styles. According to an ancient wise man named Sal Bandini, you always attack an enemy where he is strongest. He never expects it and that is where all the action is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DFL0F0nKvo

Bluddwolf wrote:

Bringslite wrote:

Consequently, this makes my suggestion for a SAD "placeholder" useless. You will still lose Rep anyway, unless you can fell your opponent with one blow.

This not correct. If a SAD is rejected, the bandit has up to 5 minutes to attack without reputation loss. The only other time a SAD can result in reputation loss is if the SAD is accepted, and the bandits attack the traveler during the 20 minute "victimized" timer. In that event the bandit will lose 2x the amount of reputation.

In another thread about the "dying state", I suggested that a bandit could knock his target there, revive him and the target might be more willing to give up some loot. The reason that I suggested it was since there will be no SAD mechanic for awhile (but there might be a rep counter) a bandit could have an avenue to get lootz and not lose rep.

Rereading the blog, I see that wouldn't work.

I'm not sure the order things are going to be implemented in either and I'm not to worried about it. I would rather be a part of play testing this game and being part of making it awesome. I'm not all that concerned about how great I'm doing character wise in the early stages.

Valtorious wrote:

Personally speaking, I just question the wisdom of labeling a person with a -3,0000 rep because he has unlawfully mined a resource that isn't his a few dozen times in the same way we would label a murderer with a -3000 who has killed a couple of noobs. That's basically it...and all of my fears are predicated by not exactly knowing what and what won't constitute rep hits. I have read the blogs and have the big picture in mind...and honestly I think my bandits rep will probably be fine...but we'll see.

I don't think I've seen anything at all that suggests a player will take any reputation losses for mining a resource, even if it is in someone else's territory. Yet we're worried about someone taking rep hits for it and getting the same label as a murderer. I think this might be one of those assumptions that Ryan was cautioning us about, and the building of expectations on top of assumptions.

To my knowledge, the latest info on Rep was in the 18 December blog post. There they specified killing unflagged characters and abusive behaviour as the two ways we might lose reputation. Nothing else has been raised at this time (as always, if my facts are wrong, I welcome corrections).

.

No doubt...but what I said was towards the end of a long discussion. I said way back in these threads some where it all hinged on what and what won't constitute rep hits.

Edit: And I do think I read in one of the blogs that a way to lose rep was to break the laws of a settlement. I'm pretty sure, but not 100%

Valtorious wrote:

And what's even funnier...Valtorious is my Paladin's name which is what I originally was going to play.

Come to think of it, if you look at Xeen's posts before he joined UNC and then those after, he has been twisted into a very different character as well.

I have been corrupting MMO players into a life of piracy / banditry since 2002.

Lol. If people have a distaste for one another because of people's dispositions on the forums, it's understandable. But I just want to make sure that people aren't assuming that anyone is a jerk in real life because they am going to try and take away their imaginary gold through banditry. It would be the equivalent of associating the people who are going to take other people's settlements with sociopath/psychopaths or painting anyone who wanted to play a Paladin as a hysterical virgin.

Bringslite wrote:

@ Valtorious

Indeed. Let Bluddwolf lead you right down the "rabbit hole". Some weak unprotected characters will get killed for 75% of their unthreaded junk, and your reputation score will go nice and low.

Sweet!

... At the bottom of the rabbit hole, Valtorious is greeted by a strange man wearing a Green Hat..... "Quickly, Valtorious, save yourself.... Bluddwolf has already corrupted the soul of Milo Goodfellow. He was destined to be a Paladin, and now he is a bloodthirsty Assassin... your path is a dark one, tainted with bad reputation and nothing but chaos and evil... Flee you fool, flee!!"

And what's even funnier...Valtorious is my Paladin's name which is what I originally was going to play.

I'd love a Star Wars Galaxies "unconscious but not dead" state.

An in-between state where you can wait to be rezzed, release, or just wait until you come to.
Only, while "unconscious" you're also somewhat lootable. Perhaps looting the backpack but not body.

A little like EVE where you can destroy someone's ship but it's an extra step to pod them.
So you can mug someone and strip them of valuables, but leave them with their gear. Or finish them off and strip the body bare.

First...I know this is not "D&D" or table top. But I used to like the

@ Valtorious

Indeed. Let Bluddwolf lead you right down the "rabbit hole". Some weak unprotected characters will get killed for 75% of their unthreaded junk, and your reputation score will go nice and low.

Sweet!

To be fair Bringslite, I met Bluddwolf through Xeen. We talked on TS and we have now gamed together in some other MMOs. If I thought that Bluddwolf's plans were to do what you just said...I wouldn't be in UNC. Neither would Xeen. And I wouldn't pay into a kick starter so I could gank junk gear, lol.

I understand your concerns, but as far as our guild goes...they are unfounded. You are going to acquire power, wealth, prominence through conquest (presumably). We are going to do if through banditry, robbery, merc work, and contracts. Different play styles. Both valid.

I think the whole reason I brought this up is that awesome feeling I had that first time, in Skyrim, I was just minding my own business in Riverwood one evening and noticed all the villagers start running. Looked up and there it was....big dragon. Loved it.

Cool.

Valtorious wrote:

Being wrote:

Valtorious wrote:

Maybe the cure would be to stop thinking of reputation in a black or white context.

Not to single you out or anything, but why propose a cure? Are you certain there is an ill to be cured?

I think there is an illness. If you read the blogs and all the things written about the various flagging systems, it does say that outlaws, banditry and robbery could be a way of life for some characters. The anxiety that I sense seems to be surrounding on how we can differentiate between meaningful pvp and griefing, and who is a bandit playing within the mechanics of the game and adding depth, and how is just a scumbag just trying to tick people off. And this is an anxiety on both sides of the issue.

Speaking personally, I plan on playing a bandit, as do my friends, that has a purpose. Whether it be the acquisition of wealth through banditry of mercenary work, I don't want to be lumped in with guys who are camping npc settlements and murdering noobs for a copper piece. I think that PF0's rep systems have a chance of doing this...but the reason I threw the colored tier system into the mix is so players who are good guys can differentiate between bandits and griefers. In other words, I would like it if Being and his friends can tell the difference between who is PLAYING a bad guy and who IS a bad guy, if that makes sense.

Until we see how the reputation system works in practise I would oppose any labelling of people. Why? Fairly simple my prediction is the low rep people are going to be mainly rp'ers,vigilantes, and haulers as I have said on these boards on numerous occasions. There are contrary views to this such as Nihimon though he decided he did not wish to debate my assertion that most griefers and rpkers would be able to do so quite adequately with the feud system.

However if I turn out to be right in my prediction (which I may not be) then branding low rep people with a label at this point is a disservice. Wait and...

I agree with much of what you are saying. And you could be completely right. But I gave a more in detail post about what it would take to sink to a new tier and what it would take to get to raise it. Personally speaking, I just question the wisdom of labeling a person with a -3,0000 rep because he has unlawfully mined a resource that isn't his a few dozen times in the same way we would label a murderer with a -3000 who has killed a couple of noobs. That's basically it...and all of my fears are predicated by not exactly knowing what and what won't constitute rep hits. I have read the blogs and have the big picture in mind...and honestly I think my bandits rep will probably be fine...but we'll see.

T7V Wexel Daventry wrote:

Stephen Cheney wrote:

You will probably not be able to loot someone who is dying, if for no other reason than your body has not yet gone from character to object.

Alas, I guess that killing blow is still the win… Maybe down the road an option for the dying player to accept a stabilize from the enemy in exchange for a randomized "bag of loot"? Or maybe we just stick to the good old fashion shank him and have done!

Thanks for the clarification.

I was wondering if (without time pressures) that might be a primitive avenue for the bandit to SAD someone that is reluctant with a first request. Revive and offer then a 2nd chance to comply. :)

I don't think that is a bad idea at all.

Valtorious wrote:

Maybe the cure would be to stop thinking of reputation in a black or white context.

Not to single you out or anything, but why propose a cure? Are you certain there is an ill to be cured?

I think there is an illness. If you read the blogs and all the things written about the various flagging systems, it does say that outlaws, banditry and robbery could be a way of life for some characters. The anxiety that I sense seems to be surrounding on how we can differentiate between meaningful pvp and griefing, and who is a bandit playing within the mechanics of the game and adding depth, and how is just a scumbag just trying to tick people off. And this is an anxiety on both sides of the issue.

Speaking personally, I plan on playing a bandit, as do my friends, that has a purpose. Whether it be the acquisition of wealth through banditry of mercenary work, I don't want to be lumped in with guys who are camping npc settlements and murdering noobs for a copper piece. I think that PF0's rep systems have a chance of doing this...but the reason I threw the colored tier system into the mix is so players who are good guys can differentiate between bandits and griefers. In other words, I would like it if Being and his friends can tell the difference between who is PLAYING a bad guy and who IS a bad guy, if that makes sense.

Here is a relevant discussion. I am not sure we ever gave Ryan an answer he would find satisfactory enough to focus vital resources into it.

But many of us tried...

Thank you

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

With most of the population PvPing within the confines of feuds and wars, high reputation will be the norm. At that point the definition of "low reputation" will shift to anything less than starting reputation of +1000, so 999 will become low reputation.

Is that an official prediction? My prediction is that Reputation will remain an absolute measurement even if there are no characters with low Reputation.

Being that GW has not set absolute points dividing low - average - high, then the different points at which the terms will be used are not absolute. Everyone will have a different point at which they consider low, average and high.

If few if any characters end up with negative reputation, than starting rep -1 may become the example of "low rep".

As for an "Official" prediction, I'm not an official, so any prediction I make are that if a layperson.

You are likely more mathematically inclined than I am, so you should recognize that when the average increases the lower end of the Bell Curve also increases. In a room full of billionaires there are still some at the bottom 5%, that are comparatively poor if compared to the top 5%.

Maybe the cure would be to stop thinking of reputation in a black or white context. If you begin to think of rep as honor...maybe everyone would be happier. If rep is represented by a number, and there is either low rep or high rep, we sort of run the risk of lumping all nefarious activity together.

We will probably be able to get a much better handle on things once PFO decides what exact behavior warrants reputation loss and if there is a point where certain behaviors max out. By that I mean...if rep is a scale from 1-10 (I know it's not, but I am using simple #s) would a person who starts at 10 and consistently picks people pockets or mine resources on another's property sink only to a 5 and stop? Because if it doesn't, people will be known as griefers and murderers for simple thievery. The game will quickly become either a maxed rep score, or a minimum rep score field of characters and the game's diversity would dwindle. Also, in a number system, since I am assuming there are ways to rehab your rep, we will see people manipulating the system by murdering someone...then atoning for a few days then murdering someone again.

I would to prefer to think of it in colors...yellow being the people on top who play good and honor contracts; Orange are people who do commit nefarious and unlawful acts, but within the confines of meaningful PVP or at least offering a SAD. And then the red dudes. These guys can be the wanton murderers and griefers. We could cement those reps by making movement between the color zones a monumental task. Maybe quests, ratting, and a predetermined time of not breaking the rules of the zone above you in order to atone.

That way bandits, thieves, and outlaws will be known, known to be playing within the confines of the sandboxes rule set....and then the idiot psycho killers will be known as well.

Sorry so long.

Sometimes with all the focus of these debates about PVP, Reputation, settlements, and what mechanics will be implemented in this sandbox...we forget about the theme park part of it...and the adventuring. I remember hearing about how goblin camps can spring up and such, but I was thinking of how cool it would be that during one of these settlement on settlement wars, the guild leaders had to call a ceasefire because a random red dragon is attacking villagers and needed to be put down.

Fallen Earth has mounted combat, but only ranged weapons. I'm wondering if Lee Hammock could explain what the issues of melee weapons and mounted combat were?

Yup...just made my cav horse a couple of nights ago. Haven't played much, but I can fire both my pistols and my rifle from horseback.

This is the issue that originally brought me to the forums. Other than mounts for travelling....is it possible for the first time in any MMO I have ever played I can actually lance someone!

My go to character whether TT or MMO has always been the LG type warrior. I played a knight in high school with Xeen named Garret back during 2nd edition D&D. And man, was my wife annoyed when she found out that my first son, Garret was named after my D@D character. I later played TT Palladium when I was late teens and although I had my tried and true good guy warrior, I rolled up an aberrant (LE) mage and I really liked him.

As far as MMOs go, when I did play D&D Online after I of course played my standard LG warrior and a LE mage, I made a cleric and found out that I am was really good at healing. I used to get this xp bonus after every mission for not ever swinging my mace. I just healed. I wasn't a warrior cleric...I was straight wisdom and the minute I saw people going down...I began tossing out those heals. Actually, the whole reason I began playing a healer was because I was annoyed at the clerics I adventured with who thought they were fighters. To each their own, but my warrior would be getting trounced and I was lucky to get a heal.

But as to this game, as soon as I heard about it from Xeen, I began talking to him about starting a Paladin's settlement. I even thought of maybe not having a settlement and just be a wondering dude righting wrongs and slaying bad guys, sort of like the guy from Kungfu. But then Xeen met Bluddwolf, I agreed to talk with him on TS...and now it looks like it's the bandits life for me.

So...what am I going to play? I have a lot of old RP stuff in the house to read while I poop, and the other day I was reading a copy of The Rifter and in it they had a race called the High Orc. They were these highly aggressive and honorable warriors who fought for the elves during some ancient war. They had no concept of good and evil, but more of a might makes right mentality.

So I was thinking of making a LN fighter. I know that half-orcs might not be available out of the gate, but if it becomes an option, I will change him later. I see him as being the guy who proves that "there is no honor among thieves" to be a fallacy. Although I plan to play him not as conquest hungry, but more of a warrior who lives for worthy combat. Whether that be acting as a mercenary, an outlaw, or a conqueror...he doesn't care. What he does care about is keeping his word. He'll respect strength above all else. How this will play out as a bandit, I'm not sure.

Valtorious wrote:

I don't want a game where bandits need good guy alts to be effective and where good guys need bad guy alts to do their dirty work.

I completely 100% agree, there shouldn't be a "need" for those. However, I think we need to accept that the system can't address the "use" of alts. It's probably in our own best interests to treat each alt as if it were an entirely separate player, even if we have suspicions that it isn't.

The reason I'm not really too worried about alts is that they'll still be bound by the same rules as the mains, so if they're "psycho alts", which I assume is shorthand for Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation, then they're going to suck just as much as their mains would.

Yeah, I agree. My personal preference (not judging others) is to have separate characters with separate motivations because I am the type of person who like a little diversity in game play In essence, I can get bored easily. I'm not against having two of my characters in the same guild or anything, but I want them to be 2 complete entities, not just a main and a throw away I use support my main.

The same speed as the human in the fullplate...not fast enough. lol

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Proxima Sin wrote:

Smaller or bigger motions, the amount of oomph on impact, changing levels and stances with different attacks, that is all encapsulated in "eye candy" correct?

Yes that's exactly right. The stuff people often think is meaningful is really just visual effects and has no relationship to the underlying combat mechanic or the heartbeat. It's an illusion.

There are some retired military and years-of-martial-arts people in the forum that watch the video whose inner voices are screaming, "You're so off balance! No don't swing that mace yet you're going to die!"

The following is a non-joke serious thing. Avatar: The Last Airbender may be "only" a cartoon from Nickelodeon (NOT the movie) but it is better artform and storytelling than 85% of any tv or movies ever made. A good chunk of the reason is they matched up extant martial styles to the 5 or 6 different ethoses of combat found in the story (air is circular and evasive ba gua, earth is grounded and direct hung gar, etc). Even though it definitely isn't a series about hi-ya chop chop, during the parts of the story where confrontation and combat WERE the current meaningful events they were authentic to the whole characters overall and visceral which gave a lot of power to the investment the audience feels in those characters.

I hope that when the eye candy is put in, the same level of attention to the natural rhythm of motion matching the weapons and magic casting is cared for. So the game doesn't get reviewed like The Secret World - "The actual combat sucks but I can get past that because the other parts of the game are really neat" (which is 100% true).

Hey, I'm a vet and I can tell you from experience that the US ARMY does not teach proper mace swinging techniques. It must be the martial artists doing the critiques.

I made the case a while ago that if we're going to have mechanics to deter the most egregious types of undesired behavior, might as well make the mechanics literally prevent those actions from happening.

That doesn't interfere with the freedom of a sandbox game because it only stops kids from playing with sand outside of the box. I still support the principle if GW heads that way.

I agree for the most part. We just need to agree where the box ends and I am sure everyone will get there. One of my previously listed fears is a game with bad restrictions for some/all play styles would cause a huge influx of psycho alts. I'm not a big fan of Meta-gaming. And I mean that from all angles. I don't want a game where bandits need good guy alts to be effective and where good guys need bad guy alts to do their dirty work. Maybe that is just wishful thinking, it's not as if my toons on other games haven't trade gear and such before, so of course there will be some of meta-gaming.

Valtorious wrote:

Being wrote:

Poems with structure tend to be better poems. Music with tempo and harmony tends to be better music.

Games without rules tend to not be games at all.

Very insightful. Now go find me a post where I said I want no rules.

I don't contend you want no rules. It appears to me you only want rules convenient to your desires.

Some rules will likely not be convenient to your desires just the same as some will not be convenient to mine.

The difference may be that I appreciate the product of haiku, and sonnets, and music, and well designed games even if it forbids my moving the rook like a bishop.

Of course that is what you meant. That is why you singled me out and then sang your little song. And in doing so...what?

And your argument I fear is purposely vague. It appears I have rules in which are only convenient to my desires. If you mean that I only want rules that will make the game good since that is my desire....what is the point of posting that non-sense at all? We are all here hoping the game is good.

However...if you meant I am proposing ideas that are only beneficial to my proposed style of play....I would take the fairness and balance of my ideas against the NBSI crowd any day of the week.

Valtorious wrote:

Ryan...not to be argumentative now (since everyone is starting to play nice), but you said the definition is wrong...and then sort of repeated the definition.

I'm pushing back against two things.

Valtorious wrote:

In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.

That's an Open World, not a Sandbox.

Valtorious wrote:

Also, here is A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer

The degree to which restrictions are placed on the gamer doesn't reflect the Sandbox nature of the game. Those restrictions are the "box" in which the sand is kept. The degree to which the gamer is restricted from taking actions reflects the rules of the game world, not the agency of the player.

This is what I call "everything not forbidden is permitted" thinking and it's one of the reasons that Sandbox MMOs become toxic. The idea that there are "no rules" leads the 5% of the population who are the seeds of toxicity to behave in ways detrimental to the good order of the game and to the benefit of the community.

We're pushing back on those assumptions and telling people not only will there be rules but that "everything that is not forbidden is permitted' thinking is wrong in the context of our game.

Ok, that made more sense to me.

Poems with structure tend to be better poems. Music with tempo and harmony tends to be better music.

Games without rules tend to not be games at all.

Very insightful. Now go find me a post where I said I want no rules.

Valtorious wrote:

Also, here is A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.

^That is the standard and with out a doubt most widely accepted definition of what a sandbox game is. So if one were to read these forums and have this knowledge, you can come to only a few conclusions.

AH! One of the biggest pet peeves I have with the definitions of these terms. I'm not saying you are wrong when you say this is a widely accepted definition, but I'm telling you the definition is wrong and we should push back against it.

What you are describing is an "Open World" game, not a "Sandbox". "Open World" is not the opposite of Theme Park, it is the opposite of a Railroad. Railroad games remove the option from the player to move within the game world in meaningfully unrestricted ways. Last of Us is a Railroad, for example. So are most single-player FPS campaigns.

"Sandbox" and "Open World" are not synonyms. Skyrim is an Open World game but it is not primarily a Sandbox. Ditto for the Grand Theft Auto franchise.

Sandboxes are games where the player has agency. They are games where the player can make meaningful persistent changes to the game environment and in the case of a multiplayer game, where those changes are visible to the other players.

Minecraft is a Sandbox, for example.

Pathfinder Online will be a Sandbox because the players will make meaningful persistent changes in the form of (most) all the gear in the game being crafted by the players, by the player's ability to build persistent structures (and destroy those structures), and by interacting with the escalation...

z

Ryan...not to be argumentative now (since everyone is starting to play nice), but you said the definition is wrong...and then sort of repeated the definition. However, everything you said about what the game is going to be....I'm all for it. I understand that the game will be player ran as far as most content goes as opposed to an open world that you just wander around in. That is what attracted me to much of this but that is also the crux of most debates on the forums.

Rules, mechanics, regulations....what ever we want to call them, as I have stated previously, if they lead to a better game for everyone, how could I be against it. But almost all of my debates have come from myself saying that all rules should be applied evenly. That is why I thought that the Reputation system and SADS were so interesting. That is pretty much the whole debate.

Valtorious wrote:

Lifedragn wrote:

We are just approaching from the different ideas of how effective player enforcement will be. I would rather approach with the idea that player enforcement may be weaker than anticipated and start with higher mechanical enforcement that can be adjusted down if I am incorrect. You seem to believe that player enforcement may be stronger than anticipated and would rather see mechanical enforcement be lower and adjusted up as needed.

...it might be easier to implement rules as EE and PFO goes along than to peel them away.

It might be easier to launch with fewer mechanical rulesets - I think you're right about that.

It might not be as well received, if new mechanical rulesets have to be added later - players can get irritated when the rules change. There may also be a significant risk of introducing a problem if the mechanics of a ruleset have to be added quickly, later, because mechanical enforcement is urgently needed.

Yeah, I have no idea which would be the better way to go. Either way could be frustrating to players, but I am hoping that much of it will be flushed out during EE. We all have to expect going into this that things might change many times. It could be something as trivial as if nerfing the mages ability to run while spell casting or something much bigger.

@ Valtorious

Your ideas are not bad at all. One of the main contentions here is the debate over more mechanics or less. Almost all of the proposals have been modifications of proposed mechanics (as yours was). That I think is the basis of crowdforging (not that I am saying new ideas are not also).

A big point has been that people are trying to add new things, while in fact most have actually been ideas to tweak what is already proposed to prevent some of the "get around" ideas that have sprung from them. Trying to find fixes for these is not a bad thing.

Now having said all of that, I did come across in a poor way and apologize if I offended you. I am just as frustrated that much of this has degenerated into useless back-and-forth as anyone here.

It's cool, I don't get offended easily and I wasn't here. It's not as if I am not guilty of coming off harshly sometimes.

Valtorious wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to first define exactly what a griefer will be in this game and what exactly will give a person lower rep? Personally, if we had in implement mechanics...I think we can all agree that the first people we need to worry about being griefed is the noob. I don't want to make this game easy or anything, but I want the game to succeed.

I think that the core of the question comes down to people who want to just play a meaningless character that just roves in unaffiliated groups ganking people.

I would rather see a system that balances all play styles, from conquerors, bandits and monks to merchants. I know there is some debate about the SAD mechanic, but tweaked correctly, I think it could make the game fair.

We can't lump in people who want to play and outlaw or bandit into the category of "jerk" anymore than we could call settlement conquerors jerks for taking other peoples land. So, speaking for myself, I don't think a bad idea would be for SADS to only work for people who are affiliated with each other. If a group of outlaws belonging to the same guild waylay a merchant and SAD him, ok. Maybe a mechanic we could use for the sad is based on percentages. A bandit can SAD a person for a certain percentage of their gear/gold and gets no rep hit. Taking more than this lowers rep. The higher the percentage you take, the higher the rep hit. If you strip them naked....biggest rep hit.

Also, and I am just throwing this out there...what if third unaffiliated parties that interfere on behalf of the bandit get massive rep zingers and a very long criminal timer that flags them for combat from anyone else. Maybe it would cut down on the unaffiliated bandits, forcing them to guild up, and then giving the settlements/guilds the ability to declare a meaningful war on them.

Are you suggesting more mechanics after all of that? Are you suggesting tweaks to the proposed (barely detailed) mechanics like almost all of the other suggestions...

You know...I tried to think long and hard about the ideas I come up with....and you guys just keep coming back wanting to argue...not about the ideas, but in a game of he said/ she said. If you guys want to engage in a debate forum....I have a few I could link to you. If you just want to argue...get married. I never once said I am against all mechanics. I just think we should start with approaches that make sense and are equal to all. The SAD sounds reasonable to me since all would be able to use it. I am an outlaw....I SAD you to rob you. You are a Baron and want me off your land...SAD me. It seems pretty equal.

Valtorious wrote:

But what we can't have is a game that has the devs enforce property rights for the player.

I think we may agree here more than not. I think the big area of disagreement is what constitutes a light touch. And honestly, I think the mechanics are going to see a LOT of adjustment over the first couple of years as they try to hone in on the right amount of touching. We need to keep in mind that all we are talking about is 'early implementations' because regardless of what we come up with, it will be a very rare occurrence that any of it survives contact with the real world.

Additionally, it has been pretty clear from the beginning that not all play-styles are meant to be equal. Frankly, they cannot be if you wish to have a game that appeals to many play-styles. The reason is that some play-styles impede other play-styles. Let us take the bandit as an example...

For a healthy game conflict, a small number of bandits is positive addition. It adds an element of risk for merchants and travelers. A lot of bandits is a game killer, though. It will drive away your casual audience, which is often the largest potential revenue source. In order to get the right balance of bandit population in your game you need two measures... the effectiveness of player enforcement and the effectiveness of mechanical enforcement. I do not think we disagree on this aspect either. We are just approaching from the different ideas of how effective player enforcement will be. I would rather approach with the idea that player enforcement may be weaker than anticipated and start with higher mechanical enforcement that can be adjusted down if I am incorrect. You seem to believe that player enforcement may be stronger than anticipated and would rather see mechanical enforcement be lower and adjusted up as needed. Please correct me if I am wrong on this reading.

We have a lot of time...and I see a lot of these ideas, mine as everyone else's as contingency ideas. When EE guys begin, I would like to see as a result of these debates/ideas certain things tried, and if they fail or could be better, we would have back up ideas already in place.

I had some ideas about SADS and bandits in another post, and I really don't want to go over it here again...but I think that if a reputation system is thoroughly thought out and implemented, it will limit griefing and eliminate many of these arguments. That, to me would be a light touch. And although I understand what you are saying....it might be easier to implement rules as EE and PFO goes along than to peel them away.

Wouldn't it make more sense to first define exactly what a griefer will be in this game and what exactly will give a person lower rep? Personally, if we had in implement mechanics...I think we can all agree that the first people we need to worry about being griefed is the noob. I don't want to make this game easy or anything, but I want the game to succeed.

I think that the core of the question comes down to people who want to just play a meaningless character that just roves in unaffiliated groups ganking people.

I would rather see a system that balances all play styles, from conquerors, bandits and monks to merchants. I know there is some debate about the SAD mechanic, but tweaked correctly, I think it could make the game fair.

We can't lump in people who want to play and outlaw or bandit into the category of "jerk" anymore than we could call settlement conquerors jerks for taking other peoples land. So, speaking for myself, I don't think a bad idea would be for SADS to only work for people who are affiliated with each other. If a group of outlaws belonging to the same guild waylay a merchant and SAD him, ok. Maybe a mechanic we could use for the sad is based on percentages. A bandit can SAD a person for a certain percentage of their gear/gold and gets no rep hit. Taking more than this lowers rep. The higher the percentage you take, the higher the rep hit. If you strip them naked....biggest rep hit.

Also, and I am just throwing this out there...what if third unaffiliated parties that interfere on behalf of the bandit get massive rep zingers and a very long criminal timer that flags them for combat from anyone else. Maybe it would cut down on the unaffiliated bandits, forcing them to guild up, and then giving the settlements/guilds the ability to declare a meaningful war on them.

Lifedragn wrote:

I think this is accurate and quite spot on. However, I believe the guilty parties are the ones arguing for 'Relying mostly on player enforcement' are the ones misunderstanding the concept of a sandbox and the design intentions for the game.

I think you misunderstand that side of the argument lifedragn. It is certainly a view I argue and I will continue to do so for one very simple reason. Mechanics do not in any way impede the people you are trying to stop. This is why the toxic area in Eve is high sec.

Player enforcement does a lot more to control these players which is why null sec empires are some of the safest areas in game to pursue your ratting or mining (short of there being a war on naturally).

Griefers and RPK'ers will abound in this game and they will not be low rep. They have plenty of mechanics they will be able to use to pursue their fun. The only people who will be limited are those trying to curtail their behavior. Griefers and rpk'ers are used to working around the rules of games. The good guys (as you think of them) usually have the response of "oh the mechanics need to be tougher".

Thanks Steelwing.

And let's be honest about EVE....has Eve ever stated in any forum, advertisement or post that High Sec means you are 100% safe from player on player violence? Nope. High Sec just promised a very quick response time to the offenders. If you attack someone near a gate or station...they batteries open up and fire on you. Concord shows up in a matter of seconds and will annihilate anything you might have. So how does the griefing happen? Because naïve or lazy industrial players took their security for granted and decided that 5 cargo expanders, no shields, no weapons, and no warp core stabs were necessary.

I had my industrial ship blown up once by guys who did it to me. They bought T1 destroyers, outfitted it with cheap gear, and blew me up. Concord came in, killed them, and they had another one of their guys scoop my loot. And it was my fault. Totally. The next time the same group tried it, I had multiple shield buffs, shield extenders, nano's for a quicker turn rate and more. I also used a frigate to make me an instant warp spot 150 away from the station.

So when they attacked me.... guess what....that first deadly barrage of t1 crap ammo from their t1 crap artillery...didn't do crap. Instead I got to sit their and watch as 8-10 destroyers were torn apart by NPC battleships. I had my revenge. I also made a lot of money back when I scooped their gear because one of the guys got cocky and had some named items on his destroyer.

That is a fond memory for me from Eve. As was the first time me and Xeen's new fairly new characters got revenge by killing a pirate in a battleship who had ganked me before.

Valtorious wrote:

C: People have come here not caring or understanding the fundamentals of a sandbox and are trying to change this game into something it didn't say it would be to suit their own particular play style.

I think this is accurate and quite spot on. However, I believe the guilty parties are the ones arguing for 'Relying mostly on player enforcement' are the ones misunderstanding the concept of a sandbox and the design intentions for the game.

Nowhere is anyone advocating for limitations on your actions. The sandbox core principle of being able to act is set in place. Adding mechanical consequences to certain actions does not impede that sandbox principle. You are still free to act, but you must accept the consequences. This is no different from saying that as a player, you are more than free to jump into a lake of lava if you happen to find one in the world. But you need to accept that you are going to be taking large amounts of fire damage and will die very quickly as a result. I do not see anyone advocating that we should not see a falling damage mechanic and that other players should hit anyone who falls off a cliff to enforce taking falling damage.

The game will allow you to take these actions you desire. But it is allowed to give you reasons to think about why that may be a bad idea. It does not violate the sandbox ideology, but rather embraces it more fully than many of you wish to admit.

So sandbox to you is the freedom to walk of the path into a lava hazard? I jest. But in all seriousness, what consequences are we talking about? I have put forth plenty of ideas, all of which took restrictions and consequences other people wanted to see and attempted to balance them. I put forth an idea to protect noobs at lower levels from ganking with level dependent rep hits. I put forth ideas about alignments and what options and restrictions those could have. In almost all of my ideas...I balanced it to where it would make sense no one could say that I was just trying to make it easy for me and my guys.

On the other hand...we have another group who wants none of the restrictions that would hinder their play style, but would shackle everyone else who didn't want to play the way they do by adding mechanics where they aren't needed.

Listen, I understand the concerns, but as I have stated before, I think there is a way in which the devs can use a light mechanic touch to ensure that all play styles are relevant and balanced, whether it be a monk, cleric, paladin, outlaw or burglar. But what we can't have is a game that has the devs enforce property rights for the player.

D: people sharing opinions and crowdforging. :)

B and C are a challenge for any game in early development, I certainly agree with that.

How toxic this all gets on the forums imo depends on the community and how open GW is. I think GW are being very transparent about what they are doing, what they want and where they currently are. That will cause some unhappy folks here and there but hopefully will prevent any huge landslides in opinion about PFO later on.

Sure, sharing opinions. That is what crowd forging is. But imagine a game developer began a kick starter for a theme park game with a few sand box elements....and then me and Bluddwolf show up with our ideas. Would the theme park community be happy with a constant barrage of sandbox ideas?

In the end, I agree, this is getting toxic. But I'm afraid to take another hiatus from the forums and let the people who came expecting a sandbox came be drown out by the constant bickering about new mechanics/restrictions some people want to place.

And the fact that the people who are claiming my guild leader is dishonest or untruthful and trying to prove that point by purposely taking part of a sentence out of an entire series of discussions is hypocritical to say the least.

But hey, I am fighting with people who are obviously better members of the community than I am. Just ask them. I mean, dude, they took an online psychology test and passed with flying colors!

Ryan Dancey wrote:

@Andius - the discussion was about Settlemtents not Companies. There's no territorial component to Company existence or creation.

I thought I understood it this way as well. Even if a company owns a poi or a settlement, the loss of the holding does not end the conflict (feud or war). It also does not disband the companies if their settlement is lost.

Also, it would be pretty hard to conquer territory as a new company if in order to be a company you need to own a territory.

Since I know nothing about programming coding, or any of the other things you dag nabbit kids are goin on about these days...those graphics looked pretty good, far better than I was expecting at this point. So great job. Are graphics usually pretty defined at this point of development or are we going to see even further improvements by launch? Regardless, I like what I saw.

Furthermore, this is the 5h blog entry for pathfinder online.
I know it is long, but I think since all of these little discussions on the forums continue, this needs to be addressed. The game is advertised as a sandbox theme park hybrid and explained in detail that it will be mostly sandbox with SOME theme park elements.

sanddbox vs. Theme Park

Focusing on the sandbox doesn't just save time and money, though—we think it's an ideal way to explore the Pathfinder world. In a sense, Paizo's own Pathfinder lines actually combine sandbox elements (by way of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting line) with theme park elements (via the Pathfinder Adventure Path and Pathfinder Module lines). Though the sandbox will be our initial focus, the Pathfinder brand is known for great stories and adventures, and over time, we'll add lots of opportunities for theme-park style adventure into the fabric of the world to give depth and richness to the Pathfinder Online experience.

Also, here is A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.

^That is the standard and with out a doubt most widely accepted definition of what a sandbox game is. So if one were to read these forums and have this knowledge, you can come to only a few conclusions.

That
A: Paizo and PFO have misrepresented the product they are selling (not likely)

B: People have heard about a cool D&D game and bought into it not ever reading the blog of it's content and mechanics.

C: People have come here not caring or understanding the fundamentals of a sandbox and are trying to change this game into something it didn't say it would be to suit their own particular play style.

In essence, these last few days of me posting again has made me realize why I stopped in the first place and why most people who lurk on the forums never post. People here at every turn trying to set forth game mechanics to restrict other players. I have had enough of it and there are times I actually think people are a step away from asking for a "save" game button.

Valtorious wrote:

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

As Xeen had recommend to me, it is useless to try to explain these things to you guys. I'll take his advise, and leave you all in the dark. You seem happy to be oblivious to the realities of open world PvP MMOs.

It's as if we don't just take the things you say blindly as gospel. I wonder why.

Why?

Because he has a strong pattern of misrepresenting the way things work.

For example:

Bluddwolf (A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable) wrote:

... SADs at 100% to guarantee their rejection, giving you a free kill...

He consistently pretends that SADs are primarily in the game to give him a way to kill anyone he wants without consequence.

I don't remember Bluddwolf ever saying that there wouldn't be any consequences to a SAD. Consequences would be angering people, people fighting back, feuds, wars. You two just seem to have a disagreement on what mechanical consequences the game should place on SADS.

Saying someone has a "Strong pattern of misrepresenting the way things work" is the equivalent of calling some one a liar...foolish since no one knows exactly how things work since the game hasn't been finished yet.

Bluddwolf and I would like to see a light touch as far as the developers inhibiting different play styles. You and your guys seem intent on putting restrictions on, well, just about everyone who doesn't agree with you.

More than once has I been presented a generic town in my local RPGs. The buildings are nameless, there are no defining features, and the NPCs are all generic Bills and Bobs.

My question is, how do you guys make your towns memorable? What are some of your most memorable towns that you've ever created and why? What is advise that you would give someone who was interested in making their town one to remember?

Tips and Tricks for Making Memorable Towns

Personally, I feel like there is a flaw with fantasy games like Pathfinder and how they handle gold. I suppose it's subject to the world in which you're playing but gold as a resource is very valuable and frankly, heavy in large quantities(I would imagine).

With that in mind, I feel like a character carry more than 1000gp in his backpack should reconsider. Not only is he carrying a small life savings worth of gold around, but that 20lbs worth of gold would/should take up more space than you would think. That's like me stuffing my savings account into my wallet and then going about my business. While we're fortunate enough to have banks in our lifetime, fantasy characters aren't always given that opportunity.

I didn't really consider any of this until I received 500 fantasy coins from a Kickstarter I backed (Fantasy Coins LLC) and the amount of space/weight these coins had was very surprising.

My question is, is there a better way to handle fantasy currency or are we doomed to have wagons full of gold because we're all adventurers?

The Peculiarities of Fantasy Currency

My podcast does a weekly character build over some of our favorite superheroes and villains and a few weeks back we did Harley Quinn. I haven't posted on the Paizo forums before, but since we create our character strictly through Pathfinder material I figured why not!? :)

Let us know what you think, what you would change and who you would like to hear us talk about next!

Harley Quinn Character build