Goblinworks Blog: Are You Experienced?

It is only Chaotic Evil characters that are limited - they only have ability to join CE, NE and CN settlements. Of those a CN settlement is probably the best settlement choice for CE as a CN settlement will form alliances with CG and TN settlements.

Chaotic Neutral characters have access to CN, TN, NE and LE. There is already a top 5 TN group with settlement intention (7th veil) and likely to be quite a few LE ones as well. A TN settlement can align with any settlement except the "corners".

Chaotic Good characters have access to CG, NG, CN . There is already a top 5 NG group with settlement intention (Keepers of the Circle). Any NG settlement is likely to have alliances with CG and LG settlements.

@ Neadenil Edam

I guess my follow up question is what classes have alignment restrictions, and what are they? And which have no alignment restiction?

Clerics - one step from your deity.

I think that is the lot

EDIT:
Barbarians - any non lawful
as pointed out by Imbicatus

Greedalox wrote:

@ Neadenil Edam

I guess my follow up question is what classes have alignment restrictions, and what are they? And which have no alignment restiction?

Clerics - one step from your deity.

Paladins - Lawful Good
Monks - Any Lawful
Barbarians - any Chaotic
Druid - any neutral
Wizard - effects spell choice
Sorcerers - effects spell choice
Rangers - effects favored enemy
Fighter - any
Rogue - any
Bard - any

I think that is the lot

Actually, Barbarians are only restricted to non-lawful. They don't have to be chaotic.

Different classes have different penalties if you leave the required alignment. Barbarians lose the ability to rage if the become lawful but keep everything else. Monks can't advance if they are non lawful but can use all already learned abilities without penalty. Paladins who are not lawful good lose all class abilities. Druids who are on a corner alignment can't cast any spells or use wild shape and their animal companion leaves.

@Ryan and GW team.

Nice ideas and some answers to a few questions.

Though I have a few issues with this blog.

Come back to the druids. Yes the ones that by tradition don't live in settlements, and mostly live and work in the wilderness.

How is GW going to overcome the training places for druids for druid specific abilities, starting with the first level abilities, such as Animal Companion with Wild Empathy. These 2 abilities are very much based in the wilderness, and training would take place in the wilderness under normal circumstances.

Many of the abilities of druids are wilderness based, not settlement based unlike many other 'classes'. Seeing that druids would not have settlements or kingdoms, how would they get training places for advantage abilities, feats, and skills, if settlements are required for having training places?

@ Neadenil Edam

Thank you sir.

So really as CN, the only things off the plate for me are Pally and Monk. After that its just flavor and consequence.

It was a bit confusing at first though. Dealing with 2 different alignment filters. Afterall Banditry is considered Chaotic and that most fits under rogue. So while you might have to get training from a Chaotic settlement, there is no actual alignment requirement. Although Im speaking in absolutes, when it could be that rogue schools are split between alignments.

@ Neadenil Edam

Thank you sir.

So really as CN, the only things off the plate for me are Pally and Monk. After that its just flavor and consequence.

It was a bit confusing at first though. Dealing with 2 different alignment filters. Afterall Banditry is considered Chaotic and that most fits under rogue. So while you might have to get training from a Chaotic settlement, there is no actual alignment requirement. Although Im speaking in absolutes, when it could be that rogue schools are split between alignments.

Pretty sure from what Ryan Dancey has been saying rogue skills will be mainly limited to Chaotic settlements even though its not a class restriction.

However as a CN you could still join something like a TN settlement and pay to train with a CG/CN/CE settlement for your rogue skills.

Yes it just seems that a huge swath of evil characters are just not going to have access to the training needed to keep them competitive against good characters.

Evil characters should not expect to be training paladin skills. Good characters should not expect to train as clerics of Asmodeus. Lawful settlements don't offer a barbarian mosh pit, and chaotic settlements don't offer a monk cloister. What is so worrisome about that?

I'm not sure I like the forced diversification. If I want to play a fighter, let me play a fighter.

Fighters do not get just feats, they also get some skill points. I guess if someone is used to playing 1st or 2nd Ed. AD&D they might expect to play a fighter who knows nothing but weapons and armour, but that hasn't been the case for at least 13 years now. Climb and Swim are likely to train the Strength you need to finish later Fighter training, and some professions like miner and lumberjack are Wisdom-based in the tabletop game, but with fractional gains, skills could be tied to a couple different stats and you might get some Strength from them too.

No, I still don't like it. If I want a Barbarian with high perception (wis), I am forced to skill in other wisdom based skills I don't want. Love the Coomners thing, the XP deal sounds cool. but I do not like at all the tabula rasa ability scores and using the ability scores as pre req's for a skill.

I really do not like needing an entire tree of skills just to get one skill based on that ability.

You seem to have it backwards. You train Perception and get Wisdom, high wisdom does not give you a Perception bonus. If high Wisdom is needed for the upper echelons of Perception, the lower echelons of Perception would be what gets you there, maybe supplemented with another Wisdom skill like Survival.

This is just another case of PFO inverting the causality of the tabletop game.
In PFRPG, you choose a class and that determines what you can train.
In PFO, you choose what to train and that determines what class(s) you can be.
In PFRPG, you choose an alignment, and that tells you how to act.
In PFO, you choose how to act and that determines what alignment you are.
In PFRPG, you choose your stats and that determines what skills you're best at.
In PFO, you choose your skills and that determines what stats you have.

Seems like a pattern for a meme in the style of the old 'Soviet Russia' ones: "In Pathfinder Online, adventure seeks YOU!"

That does make me wonder what they'll tie crafting/harvesting skills to, if anything.
In PnP, all crafting skills are Int based and all profession skills are Wis based. Wonder if they'll differentiate them in game in that regard.

I would wager my first months skymetal that the craft skills will be broken into seperat stats. Blacksmithing str. alchemy int. cooking wis. ETC. although good guess is all knowlage skills are inteligence based. I would put a hunch they will try to even out the skills into equal amounts. 100 int skill 100 con skils you get the idea.

as for commoner expert and aristocrate. I love that idea. owever I hope that feats like craft reliquary or magic arms and armore remain magic user only feats. no one should make wands who cannot cast the spell to make it. or brew potions that a big one. I was hopeing to open my own little potion/used magic items shop in my church.. please do not take my dream from me GW.

My wife says screw the basic clases she is going all aristocrate so she can be a countess and live in the city all the time. I told her she will always be my little princess. happy valentines you guys.

I hope there is fishing.(should be dex, unless its a mermaid, then its cha)

Nihimon wrote:

Now, you'll just wait until you have enough XP accumulated, then you'll go buy the Skill.

Yep, which combined with the fact that character creation is merely a matter of picking the superficial appearance of your toon, means the best way to play if your not a crafter or just like fighting for the sake of it is probably log in, create your character and disappear again for a month.

Except that the money and/or social ties you need to get access to the training will take some time to establish. If you're not contributing to a settlement, you're likely to be considered a guest, and charged more for training if it's available. If you are known to some members of a settlement enough to be considered a friend, and you spend time crafting stuff they want to buy, or clearing out river trolls to keep the escalation cycle in check, then they'll want to keep you around and offer cheaper training as a resident. Either way would make you money and lower training prices, spending time to reduce the money cost on both sides. If you have little time to play because you're working overtime on Earth, trade some dollars for skymetal and trade the skymetal for coin, again turning time into coin (but probably less fun, unless you really love your job).

I don't really like the "Everyone starts out with the same ability scores" and "ability scores have no direct effect on game-play" either...but I understand perfectly well WHY they went that route.

Alot of people don't really know what they want to do on Day 1....and alot of people don't really want to end up permanently living with the consequences of the choices they made in initial character creation.

I'm more of a "you live with your choices good or bad" kinda guy...but that's a bit of a foriegn concept for many MMO players....so alot of people would absolutely hate being stuck with that kind of thing.

Ultimately the choice they made is probably a very practical one....even if it does take away some of the flavor/gameplay from character creation.

Compare it to stat generation in the tabletop game. Rolling randomly is a system where you might get 'lucky' or 'unlucky' and you have little control over which (assume fair dice and that the DM is watching and holding you to your first try). Point-buy lets you choose what fits for what you want to do.

Making power a result of stats means that those who guessed what they would need are 'lucky' and those who didn't guess are 'unlucky'. Making stats a result of what you've been training means you get what fits for what you're doing.

I hope there is fishing.(should be dex, unless its a mermaid, then its cha)

Since skills earn stats, rather than stats adding to skill bonuses, it's possible to attach more than one stat to a skill.

I think there will be enough settlements that no one settlement is going to monopolize anything.

There could be a problem if ALL the trainers are not in the game at the same time. If we launch early enrollment and we only get Fighter, Cleric, Wizard trainers then its likely that there will be many, many more of these trainers available. Then 6 months later, Monk Dojo becomes available. Training Monk skills is going to cost WAY more than other classes because there will be much fewer places to do it.

Then we end up with certain classes being much more expensive to play.

My question now is: how will this affect the skymetal store method of payment? Say I have a first character and its destiny twin getting XP at a constant rate, and three months later I decide to make a third character. Would I then be able to buy skymetal and use that to get enough XP to catch up to the other two (to the limit of my account creation date)?

Maybe it would be simpler to have the account earn a set amount of XP per subscription (doubled for destiny twin accounts) which the player can spend on their characters, split as they see fit. Of course, DT accounts could spend no more than half of their monthly XP allotment on any single character, but you could divide it among 3 or more if you wanted. Those in MTX mode could 'turn on' their account's XP gain for a time with a quantity of skymetal, at a slightly more expensive rate than if they had purchased a subscription month, but possibly purchasable in shorter blocks, like one or two weeks at a time.

As for commoner expert and aristocrat. I love that idea.

I like the idea, but I think they could use some renaming. 'Commoner' tends to imply 'poor' while 'aristocrat' more directly means 'rich'. As NPC classes, no player cares how cool they (don't) sound, but I think starting as a 'commoner' by default will matter to those who want to have a backstory where they weren't born to a poor commoner family.

I'm not sure what to replace 'commoner' with that will say what they do but not imply a low social status, though. 'Expert' would be better as 'Artisan' for crafters, and 'Aristocrat' should be replaced by something that directly refers to leadership, if that's what they do.

Ive got mixed feelings about the changes to skill training in the latest blog.

1. Trainers
I like the idea of seeking out trainers. Adds to the flavor and roleplaying in developing a character. I also like the idea of settlements becoming renowned academies and having 'exchange students'. I do have a slight concern about the various monopoly situations mentioned in the thread as well as making solo/small-group players almost unviable (as opposed to unviable only at large-scale things such as running settlements and holding territory).

2. Passive XP gain
Ive got extremely mixed feelings about the passive xp gain. Im a new player to EVE and it took me a while to figure out where i wanted to go in my training and even longer till I did my first skill remap. It was confusing at first (and still catches me by surprise on occasion), but I was invested in the training. As skills opened up and got completed I felt that my character was growing even if I didnt change a single piece of equipment or change a single tactic. This was because I was paying attention to my skill training and the associated queue. Removing that and saying 'Log off for a while at 1st level, now come back and spend all your points. BAM! Youre a 3/4/5 level fighter' is counter to the feeling of organic growth and development that forms a huge part of roleplaying (IMHO). I understand that there will be some in-game requirements as well as the xp, but unless those requirements take significant time it amounts to the same thing. I would prefer that there be some planning ahead of time rather than just sitting back and spending a huge bunch of points. I feel that the reason it works is because no skill is useless and every skill is eventually trainable. So while you may have lost a little time, its not something that significantly hinders your character or progression.
Suggestion Assuming that the EVE style is not desired (which could mesh well with the trainer IMO), then perhaps a pool cap on the passive xp? If you dont spend it, you dont get any more till you do. That way characters are forced to level up organically rather than just jumping several levels. Perhaps something along the lines of one months worth of training (=7200xp under the current xp gain) For really high level skills that require massive amounts of xp, that might require multiple trips to a trainer to spend what youve gained so far.

3)NPC classes
I love the idea of the NPC classes being archetypes. I would like to see them be viable options on their own without requiring any of the 11 traditional classes, if the player chooses. Further, I think it would be very nice to have the skills associated with these archetypes be selectable without having a negative impact on the progression of the 11 core classes (Im thinking in terms of the capstone ability mentioned previously which requires dedication to a class).

TLDR: Trainer idea is very interesting; Passive XP gain is concerning, should encourage organic growth rather than massive skill jumps; NPC classes are awesome, would be nice to have them synergise with the 11 rather than compete with them

EDIT: Just to clarify, Im keeping an open mind about everything and will wait to see how it all comes together before claiming that the sky is falling :P

I think the blog confirmed several things which had been stated or inferred earlier.

Most of it sounds great, especially settlements specialising and competing with their training facilities as well as using them as tools to be used against others or to aid in forming alliances. All very conducive to interaction between players and nations.

For those worried about settlements cornering a training market just ask yourself what you would do if there was no such facility at all. The answer is the same in both circumstances, make one. Someone else is not being nasty because they have something you want and they're not giving it to you. It's theirs, they built it they can do what they like with it. If you want one build your own.

On the other hand... not so excited about the whole 'all attributes start at 10' thing or the 'attributes have no impact on the USE of skills'. If this is the case then I strongly advocate having some good character customisation options as some sort of alternative. People like to be special, they don't like being like everyone else.

I don't like the concept of 'if you want to be strong specialise in fighter thing.' Eventually the ancient players will be able to do anything, whip out the armour, put the fighter skills on your action bar, BOOM King Richard Lion Heart. Get out the pointy hat, put the wizard skills on the action bar, BOOM Merlin.... etc ...

If I am wizard, second to none, the idea that anybody else's toon can also be just as good even though they were a fighter second to none 10 seconds ago, is very unattractive.

Specialisation and interdependence are what make people special and prompts interaction.

Some people are strong, some people are smart, some people are quick, its just the way it is. I think people want to be different at the start and I want to be a bit different after 5 years.

If you want a wizard, start a toon with high intelligence, if you sacrifice intelligence for strength in order to be a good fighter then that toon may be just too plain stupid to ever cast wizard spells.

If you want a character who can end up doing both then you have some meaningful choices and there will may be short term detriments for long term gains.

People can just start another toon if they think they would rather play a wizard as opposed to the fighter they just started with. It's not that big a deal with the quick increase in power followed out by the flattening of the power curve.

No doubt GW has considered this option already but I will put down my preferred option:

1)Attributes bought on some sort of points basis on toon creation.
2)Bonuses for attributes effecting skill usage
3)training in various facilities allows increases in attributes over time (as they are linked to XP as described in the blog)

This option effectively mirrors 3.5 and I consider it to be a superior model.

GW if you must stick with their stated intention that attributes should all start at 10 with the exception of racial bonuses then:
1) I see a danger that all fighters will be dwarves, all wizards will be elves and all rouges halflings.
2) Please, please allow at least a tiny bit of customisation even if it is only 2-4 of points of adding and subtracting from the cookie cutter flat 10 on all attributes.

Alternatively some sort of mid point may be a cap on total attribute levels, and a toon would reach a point where increasing one skill would reduce others. In this scenario attributes would more appropriately have an effect on skill use rather than skill training as one could just increase the skills desired to train a particular skill set then move on the next attribute/skill set combo as the old attribute would no longer be needed.

Please let me be a little bit of an individual.

My question now is: how will this affect the skymetal store method of payment? Say I have a first character and its destiny twin getting XP at a constant rate, and three months later I decide to make a third character. Would I then be able to buy skymetal and use that to get enough XP to catch up to the other two (to the limit of my account creation date)?

Maybe it would be simpler to have the account earn a set amount of XP per subscription (doubled for destiny twin accounts) which the player can spend on their characters, split as they see fit. Of course, DT accounts could spend no more than half of their monthly XP allotment on any single character, but you could divide it among 3 or more if you wanted. Those in MTX mode could 'turn on' their account's XP gain for a time with a quantity of skymetal, at a slightly more expensive rate than if they had purchased a subscription month, but possibly purchasable in shorter blocks, like one or two weeks at a time.

Arlock Blackwind wrote:

As for commoner expert and aristocrat. I love that idea.

I like the idea, but I think they could use some renaming. 'Commoner' tends to imply 'poor' while 'aristocrat' more directly means 'rich'. As NPC classes, no player cares how cool they (don't) sound, but I think starting as a 'commoner' by default will matter to those who want to have a backstory where they weren't born to a poor commoner family.

I'm not sure what to replace 'commoner' with that will say what they do but not imply a low social status, though. 'Expert' would be better as 'Artisan' for crafters, and 'Aristocrat' should be replaced by something that directly refers to leadership, if that's what they do.

Interesting nuance on that: cash or coin -> skymetal -> xp/real-time -> skill-training aspect. I think it's intentionally a series ie you need a character to allocate xp to to start earn in real-time. No character = no real-time per character? Perhaps that way the value of the a/c goes into each character and the game more? Obviously once you create characters, it's parallel xp-earning if they have been bought skymetal? That's at least how I am seeing it.

Those names seem to be "producers, "manufacturers" and "services?". I guess commoners/new players can help settlements by being harvesters and obviously leaders being nearer the top of the social pyramid being lower proportion per settlement is how it will work. I dunno, commoners could be some equivalent to blue-collar. Perhaps each skill will be more specific in that category eg farmer, woodsman, miner etc?

I think aside from truly Alignment/Class-specific things (LG:Pally,C:Barb,E:Necro), the main point of Chaotic detriments re: training structures was that they have a higher maintenance cost like all settlement maintenance does for Chaotic settlements (due to poorer oversight or governance, i.e. Chaoticness). Whether they do so at a higher cost in their own settlement, or pay others at a higher cost to use their training structures really results in the same thing: higher costs, albeit one is going to another group (maybe their ally) and one is just going back to the server. The whole point of Chaotic alignment is that you did some things that Lawful types would not have done... presumably at least some of things resulted in $$$ that the Lawful type would not have gained, so at least potentially it all equals out. (EDIT: I believe the Chaotic-only Bandit PVP flag lets you loot more stuff than normal, and that still applies in 'Wars' as well as with the 'Stand and Deliver' mechanic)

@Tigari: The game seems structured around training to advance 'class abilities', not just new things you can magically do after killing so many monsters/people. If you or your group don't own your own training centers, then yes, you will have to arrange with the people who do run training centers on how to use them. Perhaps paying them (they do have a cost to maintain, so this is reasonable), perhaps arranging other deals.
From the blog, it seems certain that GW is forseeing settlements to 'sell' their training capabilities, and in fact forsees settlements to enter alliances with each other, to be able to take care of training resources that they do not all have themselves (which makes sense, instead of all replicated the same skill training, several small settlements can specialize and access the entire pool of training resources between all their allies).

Sigh Necromancers are not evil.

I must be wrong then. Necromancy trainers next door to Paladin trainers, coming up next in PFO! get your Holy Heinous Goodness right here!
(as I've posted before, in the tabletop game only Create Undead has an Evil tag, Control Undead does not, and obviously there is tons of Necromancy school spells that don't have Evil tags or anything to do with Undead... people have used Necromancy as shorthand for Undead Creation, and I thought that was a pretty convenient usage.)

@Ryan and GW team.

Nice ideas and some answers to a few questions.

Though I have a few issues with this blog.

Come back to the druids. Yes the ones that by tradition don't live in settlements, and mostly live and work in the wilderness.

How is GW going to overcome the training places for druids for druid specific abilities, starting with the first level abilities, such as Animal Companion with Wild Empathy. These 2 abilities are very much based in the wilderness, and training would take place in the wilderness under normal circumstances.

Many of the abilities of druids are wilderness based, not settlement based unlike many other 'classes'. Seeing that druids would not have settlements or kingdoms, how would they get training places for advantage abilities, feats, and skills, if settlements are required for having training places?

Wild guess (heh): Druids use TN Groves/Standing Stones. Not settlements, per se, yet still Neutral communities that have analog structures/progressions.

If GW hasn't got a plan for TN 'settlements' this approach could accomodate all the mechanics I can think of (albeit there is very little info to model functional parallels).

I could see Ranger training offered alongside Druid training in 'natural' locales.
These could have some sort of 'building' installed there, but wouldn't otherwise be a Settlement (Town).
Perhaps the Hex would need to be cleared of other activity to ensure the Hex is 'true wilderness'? Or is that too restrictive?
True Neutral did seem to be the odd muffin left out in other areas, excepting the Neutral Traveller Flag which wasn't really TN or even Druid-type Neutral.

Every hour your character is able to advance (via being subscribed or otherwise buying advancement time), you gain Experience Points (XP) whether or not you're logged into the game. These accumulate at a fixed rate throughout your career (currently at a rate of 100 XP per hour, but that may change as we get deeper into pricing). After 24 hours in the game, you'll have earned 2,400 XP; after 10 days you'll have 24,000; and so on.

This is subject to change AND isn't the same as xp in the PnP game. PFO will charge you xp to train skills, so there won't be any fast leveling. All that xp isn't going toward determining your "level" it is the currency for buying training at a trainer. Since everyone gets the same xp regardless of amount of time they spend in game, no one gets an advantage for being able to play more hours/week than anyone else, and conversely no one is penalized for not being able to game more than a few hours a week. That to me is very fair.

So if it takes 72,000 xp for gaining enough training to be the equivalent of a "level 1" whatever, it will take a month (30 days) to train all those skills plus some time meeting other goals. You could meet those goals during the month, or wait to have all the xp - that is up to the player. Again, totally fair. Will people even care if they are an hour "behind" the first person to level? I sure hope not. Everyone "levels" and trains at pretty much the same rate, and with the minor power curve, no one is way out ahead or way too far behind. Meaningful interaction is then accomplished between player A who started in EE, and player B who joined a year into the open enrollment. I think that is great for building a lasting community.

Come back to the druids. Yes the ones that by tradition don't live in settlements, and mostly live and work in the wilderness.

How is GW going to overcome the training places for druids for druid specific abilities, starting with the first level abilities, such as Animal Companion with Wild Empathy. These 2 abilities are very much based in the wilderness, and training would take place in the wilderness under normal circumstances.

Many of the abilities of druids are wilderness based, not settlement based unlike many other 'classes'. Seeing that druids would not have settlements or kingdoms, how would they get training places for advantage abilities, feats, and skills, if settlements are required for having training places?

Sounds like druids need to ban together and make a wilderness settlement.

Really excited with the direction GW is going with PFO. I was hesitant on the time-based advancement, but now I understand and look forward to it. Can't wait for the next blog.

TLDR: Trainer idea is very interesting; Passive XP gain is concerning, should encourage organic growth rather than massive skill jumps; NPC classes are awesome, would be nice to have them synergise with the 11 rather than compete with them

If a monoply does show up, those not wqnting to deal with the monopoly can band together and either work with another settlement in order to create the training facilities they want, or create their own settlement and work up to it. Or the threat of war, etc. I see this more as the basis for meaningful polititcs, and all of the cool possibilities that could come from it.

Xp gain, I would venture to say that the majority of players will be using their xp on a more regular basis. The other % are probably those that haven't had the chance to play regularly.

Assuming that the 'all stats start at 10 and increase as related skills are trained' concept was primarily driven by a desire to prevent characters from being 'locked in' to a path from day one here are some alternate ideas which would allow for more variation between characters at the start, but still prevent that early variation from becoming a straight-jacket;

1: Split the difference. Give starting characters a low 'point buy' system for setting stats. Maybe something like they could get one stat up to 16 if they spent everything there or all stats at 11 if they diversified. Then have the same fractional stat increases with skills, just using slightly smaller fractions.

2: Allow stat adjustments. Give players something like a medium 'point buy' system for starting stats, but then reduce stat bonuses to much lower frequency... possibly just on certain level increases as per Pathfinder PnP. Then change the 'fractional increase with skills' system to a 'reallocation with skills' system. Find you are playing more and more spellcastery? Ok, as you level up your spell skills you have the option to raise spell stats, but you have to drop some other stat at the same time.

It should be possible to balance these (or other options) such that the stats for a character that has mastered everything would be the same... it would just change the degree of variation in starting stats. Of course, if it takes ~2 years to master one path and there are ten or more paths... mastering everything would take decades and thus is safely in the realm of 'problems which there will be plenty of time to solve if we ever come to them'.

Edit: Alternate idea - scrap the whole 'skill points lead to stat points' structure and have stat points purchased by training with XP just like skill points. Then set max limits for each stat based on level in 'class', specific merit badges, and/or other factors. Characters can start out with a diverse range of stats, but can only progress to the higher tiers by completing certain goals. Could also allow players to start in different 'classes' rather than all being 'commoners' to allow greater initial diversification... but again no change in long term results.

I've slept on it and now I hate the ability scores even more.

1. In the old system it was always assumed that a character could increase ability scores over time, so mistakes could be erased eventually.

2. The new system UTTERLY & COMPLETELY terminates any incentive whatsoever for an alt. In the old system you would at least roll one "destiny's twin" alt who had the ability scores the main was lacking in. Under this system the only reason to start an alt is alignment issues and last I checked that's exactly what we don't want, people using alts to fudge the alignment system.

This system gives us vanilla clones at 1st level and raging/arcane archer/ time stop superhero clones at high level. This blog was supposed to be about tweaking the rules from EVE to something more fantasy, but this clearly goes very far away from everything Pathfinder/D&D and is much more suited to sci-fi where everyone actually is a clone (Fallen Earth).

It's not just a flavor issue, it's a $$$$ issue for the game (got your attention now huh?). I ADORE having an alt or two and was willing to pay for it. Under this system I have nor reason to and would not. Having a reason to play more than one char is the primary #1 way to maximize profits from the hardcore players. You are going to cost yourself a lot of money with this GW.

avari3, between the 'everyone a clone at the start' and 'everyone a clone at the end' states you describe there IS that ~20 to 30 YEAR interval which you are overlooking. Plenty of room for a 'destiny twin' to develop completely different skills/classes. Indeed, between the two characters you might be able to master everything in a MERE decade... which is far longer than I've played any other MMO.

That said, I agree there should be more initial diversification. I'm ok with the 'all clones in the end' state given that it is so far in the future that there is plenty of time to fix the problem if it starts to look like the game will remain popular for more than two decades.

I've slept on it and now I hate the ability scores even more.

1. In the old system it was always assumed that a character could increase ability scores over time, so mistakes could be erased eventually.

2. The new system UTTERLY & COMPLETELY terminates any incentive whatsoever for an alt. In the old system you would at least roll one "destiny's twin" alt who had the ability scores the main was lacking in. Under this system the only reason to start an alt is alignment issues and last I checked that's exactly what we don't want, people using alts to fudge the alignment system.

This system gives us vanilla clones at 1st level and raging/arcane archer/ time stop superhero clones at high level. This blog was supposed to be about tweaking the rules from EVE to something more fantasy, but this clearly goes very far away from everything Pathfinder/D&D and is much more suited to sci-fi where everyone actually is a clone (Fallen Earth).

1. They still do. As you increase skills relating to a stat it slowly increases.

2. This point baffles me. Progression along a full class path takes two and a half years (approximately). If my main is a Neutral Evil Rogue Aristocrat, my alt can be.. well literally anything else. If you're taking the long term view that they all get all the skills eventually, you are talking a DECADE of real time. During that time your two characters can and probably will be ridiculously varied, and with the sheer number of options in terms of class, alignment, and training options, even after a decade they could well be radically different.

avari3, between the 'everyone a clone at the start' and 'everyone a clone at the end' states you describe there IS that ~20 to 30 YEAR interval which you are overlooking. Plenty of room for a 'destiny twin' to develop completely different skills/classes. Indeed, between the two characters you might be able to master everything in a MERE decade... which is far longer than I've played any other MMO.

That said, I agree there should be more initial diversification. I'm ok with the 'all clones in the end' state given that it is so far in the future that there is plenty of time to fix the problem if it starts to look like the game will remain popular for more than two decades.

Why would you play an alt? Your main gains the skills at the same rate and probably has already gained a few points in the ability score. There is no incentive to play an alt except alignment/reputation. Bad, Bad, bad trend to promote.

2. This point baffles me. Progression along a full class path takes two and a half years (approximately). If my main is a Neutral Evil Rogue Aristocrat, my alt can be.. well literally anything else. If you're taking the long term view that they all get all the skills eventually, you are talking a DECADE of real time. During that time your two characters can and probably will be ridiculously varied, and with the sheer number of options in terms of class, alignment, and training options, even after a decade they could well be radically different.

There is zero reason to put the barb rage skills on an alt instead of the NE rogue. In the old system you did it because the alt has higher strength and trained it faster.

CBDunkerson wrote:

avari3, between the 'everyone a clone at the start' and 'everyone a clone at the end' states you describe there IS that ~20 to 30 YEAR interval which you are overlooking. Plenty of room for a 'destiny twin' to develop completely different skills/classes. Indeed, between the two characters you might be able to master everything in a MERE decade... which is far longer than I've played any other MMO.

That said, I agree there should be more initial diversification. I'm ok with the 'all clones in the end' state given that it is so far in the future that there is plenty of time to fix the problem if it starts to look like the game will remain popular for more than two decades.

Why would you play an alt? Your main gains the skills at the same rate and probably has already gained a few points in the ability score. There is no incentive to play an alt except alignment/reputation. Bad, Bad, bad trend to promote.

No your main gains XP at the same rate. That is not the same thing as gaining skills. XP is spent, at the players discretion on skills. Alt A does not, and probably never will, spend those points on the same skills.

Why would you play an alt? Your main gains the skills at the same rate and probably has already gained a few points in the ability score. There is no incentive to play an alt except alignment/reputation. Bad, Bad, bad trend to promote.

There is clearly some kind of disconnect here.

The reasons to play an alt seem fairly obvious... you can have a fighter alt and a wizard alt. Or a gatherer alt and a crafter alt. Or whatever other variations. Given that there are going to be multiple 'classes' and it will take ~2.5 years to 'master' each class it seems obvious that people will play alts to have access to more classes. Just like any other game.

Southraven wrote:

2. This point baffles me. Progression along a full class path takes two and a half years (approximately). If my main is a Neutral Evil Rogue Aristocrat, my alt can be.. well literally anything else. If you're taking the long term view that they all get all the skills eventually, you are talking a DECADE of real time. During that time your two characters can and probably will be ridiculously varied, and with the sheer number of options in terms of class, alignment, and training options, even after a decade they could well be radically different.

There is zero reason to put the barb rage skills on an alt instead of the NE rogue. In the old system you did it because the alt has higher strength and trained it faster.

The old system is exactly the system EVE Online uses, and it relegates stats to a planning tool and nothing more. I personally like this new system, it means decisions can be made far more dynamically and gives me a lot more freedom to adjust my characters on the fly as the game evolves.

...Why would you play an alt?...

Not sure what you mean. The incentive to play an alt is that this alt will be levelling tradeskills while you main will level skills that make him hurt monsters and/or people.

True, in 5 years both will probably close to one another in feats and skills but until then there is every incentive to playn an alt that an themepark MMO offers and then some.

No your main gains XP at the same rate. That is not the same thing as gaining skills. XP is spent, at the players discretion on skills. Alt A does not, and probably never will, spend those points on the same skills.

Yes but why bother with an alt? Your main (a fighter type) already has int 11 because you put in some lore skills. Why start an alt wizard at Int 10? Put it on your fighter!

Yes but why bother with an alt? Your main (a fighter type) already has int 11 because you put in some lore skills. Why start an alt wizard at Int 10? Put it on your fighter!

Ummm... ok, let's try this again.

Let's say you want to have the abilities of a '20th level Commoner' (gather resources) AND a '20th level Expert' (make things). You can either;

A: Level up one character to '20th level' in both of these classes over the course of about 5 years.

OR

B: Level up two characters to '20th level', each in one of these classes, over the course of about 2.5 years.

Can you now understand why some people might go with option B?

Southraven wrote:

No your main gains XP at the same rate. That is not the same thing as gaining skills. XP is spent, at the players discretion on skills. Alt A does not, and probably never will, spend those points on the same skills.

Yes but why bother with an alt? Your main (a fighter type) already has int 11 because you put in some lore skills. Why start an alt wizard at Int 10? Put it on your fighter!

Because each character's pools are unique. We're not talking a shared resource here.

Alt A gains 5000xp and so does Alt B.

If I spend all my Alt A points on a build of fighter, why on earth would I not look to do something completely different on Alt B?

You seem to be labouring under the misconception that certain skills are 'Must Have' for every character, but I see nothing in the game design that suggests that is the case. In point of fact, a fighter who uses lore skills in game is directly sacrificing his potential, as equipping a lore skill, and moving out of fighter based skills, reduces his fighting effectiveness. The mage alt has no such penalty, as the lore skils fall within his domain.

avari3 wrote:

Why would you play an alt? Your main gains the skills at the same rate and probably has already gained a few points in the ability score. There is no incentive to play an alt except alignment/reputation. Bad, Bad, bad trend to promote.

There is clearly some kind of disconnect here.

The reasons to play an alt seem fairly obvious... you can have a fighter alt and a wizard alt. Or a gatherer alt and a crafter alt. Or whatever other variations. Given that there are going to be multiple 'classes' and it will take ~2.5 years to 'master' each class it seems obvious that people will play alts to have access to more classes. Just like any other game.

Yeah, if you pay $45/month to train 3 at a time. Alt's are now purely the domain of players who are spending $30+ every month to have two training simultaneously all the time.

Sorry, but that's too much for a video game. Give me a reason to level an alt an occasionally level them simultaneously and I will do it. I get bored playing the same character every day for a year.

Ugh.

CBDunkerson wrote:

avari3 wrote:

Why would you play an alt? Your main gains the skills at the same rate and probably has already gained a few points in the ability score. There is no incentive to play an alt except alignment/reputation. Bad, Bad, bad trend to promote.

There is clearly some kind of disconnect here.

The reasons to play an alt seem fairly obvious... you can have a fighter alt and a wizard alt. Or a gatherer alt and a crafter alt. Or whatever other variations. Given that there are going to be multiple 'classes' and it will take ~2.5 years to 'master' each class it seems obvious that people will play alts to have access to more classes. Just like any other game.

Yeah, if you pay $45/month to train 3 at a time. Alt's are now purely the domain of players who are spending $30+ every month to have two training simultaneously all the time.

Sorry, but that's too much for a video game. Give me a reason to level an alt an occasionally level them simultaneously and I will do it. I get bored playing the same character every day for a year.

Wait 3 alts? What? There are hundreds of reasons to level an alt in this game. I really just do not understand what your issue here is. You seem to be just flat out ignoring the reasons, or completely misunderstanding how the system works.

You get set amount of XP time per sub. If you have 3 characters, that time is split 3 ways, unless you pay for 3 subs.
If I understand things correctly.

Yeah, if you pay $45/month to train 3 at a time. Alt's are now purely the domain of players who are spending $30+ every month to have two training simultaneously all the time.

Sorry, but that's too much for a video game. Give me a reason to level an alt an occasionally level them simultaneously and I will do it. I get bored playing the same character every day for a year.

You had earlier referenced destiny's twin, which was a kickstarter benefit which allowed you to level two characters simultaneously with no additional cost.

If we are talking about alts without that benefit then yes, in order to have two characters gaining XP at the same time you would effectively need two 'accounts'. If you split your time between multiple characters on one account (not sure that will even be possible) then you'd be splitting up your XP between them and you might as well just have one character.

However, that is not new. Goblinworks has been saying for a long time that your account would 'level up' only ONE character. This goes hand in hand with the fact that you level up even when offline. If you could do that for every alt then people would make one alt for each class and only spend the in game play time needed to get 'merit badges' for each of them.

I've slept on it and now I hate the ability scores even more.

1. In the old system it was always assumed that a character could increase ability scores over time, so mistakes could be erased eventually.

First of all, in PnP you only get five ability score increases over the life of your character, and that is IF you reach level 20. In 25 years of gaming from the red box basic set to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, 4th to pathfinder I have never has a campaign last long enough to bring a character from 1st level to 20th. Unless you really know the pathfinder rules in and out, those five points aren't going to be enough to fix mistakes made at character gen if you think the idea of a multi-classed dwarven bard/wizard sounds great. However, in this system, if you spend months making a dwarven bard and you decided you don't like what you did and want to make a fighter, all you have lost is time and you can choose to switch to fighter and not be stuck being sub-optimal in that role because you made a mistake at character generation.

2. The new system UTTERLY & COMPLETELY terminates any incentive whatsoever for an alt. In the old system you would at least roll one "destiny's twin" alt who had the ability scores the main was lacking in. Under this system the only reason to start an alt is alignment issues and last I checked that's exactly what we don't want, people using alts to fudge the alignment system.

Completely disagree here. If you want to play a crafter and a fighter, or a Monk and a Druid or any other combination of characters you can do that with the current system on the same character eventually. But it will take TIME. Time is a real resource and by having alts/destiny's twin you are saving months time by training both characters at once. If you want one character to be level 12 as both a Fighter and a Mage, it may take you two years of real time in game to earn that. Or you can have an alt, spend one year, and have two characters at Level 12, one as a fighter and one as a Mage.

This system gives us vanilla clones at 1st level and raging/arcane archer/ time stop superhero clones at high level. This blog was supposed to be about tweaking the rules from EVE to something more fantasy, but this clearly goes very far away from everything Pathfinder/D&D and is much more suited to sci-fi where everyone actually is a clone (Fallen Earth).

We basically start at 0 level, not first. When you leave chargen you are a commoner. You will need to run from rampaging hosecats. The entire first month of gameplay is still the character generator, building you up to be an adventurer or more experienced npc class. As you train your skills it will raise your stats and you will be gain stats based on how you choose. It will take 5-10 years before your stats are so elevated that you are at superhero level from training. If you spend that long in game, you should be at a superhero level.

It's not just a flavor issue, it's a $$$$ issue for the game (got your attention now huh?). I ADORE having an alt or two and was willing to pay for it. Under this system I have nor reason to and would not. Having a reason to play more than one char is the primary #1 way to maximize profits from the hardcore players. You are going to cost yourself a lot of money with this GW.

Again, alts save you time. Time is a resource that many people will pay for, even if you don't. It also give you reason to roleplay someone else, or just have some time to enjoy the game while taking some time out from guild duties while playing.

Wait 3 alts? What? There are hundreds of reasons to level an alt in this game. I really just do not understand what your issue here is. You seem to be just flat out ignoring the reasons, or completely misunderstanding how the system works.

I understand it just fine. Alt's are not for the $15-25/month player. Period. The old system had a reason to have one, this one does not.

I say no to a "XP pool cap", that is a major improvement over the EvE's skill queue progression system.

As for planning, GW should include a mapping system much like EvE's certificate system.

I think what Avari3 is saying is that if you have a single account / no "destiny's twin" then you might theoretically set up two characters and split the 'skill training time' / 'XP earning time' equally between them. When stats impacted the amount of time needed to train a skill you could thus have two characters with different stats/specialties each advancing half as fast as a single character with the same stats/specialty would. However, with the system as now described you could also just split your XP between the two different specialties on one character to have that single character advance at half speed in each.

Technically, you could still have the two alts each advancing at half speed... the complaint is apparently that they have now added the ability to do the same thing on a single character. Of course this makes the loud complaints about money gouging completely false... but it is the only interpretation of what he has been saying which I can make any kind of sense of.

Destiny's Twin is training two characters at the same time. There is no post by a Sev that I have seen that talks about splitting or sharing time with Destiny's Twin.

It is without Destiny's Twin that you may have to split or share your training time.

Maybe it would be simpler to have the account earn a set amount of XP per subscription (doubled for destiny twin accounts) which the player can spend on their characters, split as they see fit.

There needs to be a real limit on the amount of XP that can be spent on a single character in a given time frame.

Adam has a single character, and earns 2,400 XP per day on his account.

Bob has Destiny's Twin, so he earns 4,800 XP per day on his account.

Suddenly, Bob can "level" his main twice as fast as Adam can. That's a very bad situation.

...I get bored playing the same character every day for a year.

Your boredom is your responsibility.

The reason to play an alt is because you want to play an alt. If you don't want to play an alt don't.

Simple enough?

Didn't read all the responses here. But, I have to say this blog was an incredible read.

Gain XP even if you're not logged in? Train in crafting skills?

Love it. And looking forward to even more info from GW.