Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awww...the old False Analogy fallacy...I see what you did there. I put forward that you have failed to prove that the properties of the former are equivalent to that of the later.
Actually I got it the first time, thanks for humoring me. I must admit I am torn between my desire to contribute as I may (even if my ideas are not used, I am happy to offer them as an option) to this project which I have hopes for...and my desire to avoid interacting with unpleasant people.
|
@KitNyx - this is a messageboard forum where the developers of the game have openly asked for input from the community. Don't let naysayers stop you putting ideas out there. Especially if they aren't the Dev's on the game.
On the same note, it's good to get constructive feedback since often ideas we put forward have issues we may never have considered. Scott does come across as abrasive at times, but generally I've found his thoughts and advice fairly solid. (Sorry if I'm talking out of turn here Scott).
Until the Devs put out more info on their product and their concepts, I reckon you're perfectly within your rights to brainsorm ideas. Maybe you'll strike a chord with them.
Cheers
PS. some constructive criticism of the anonimity issue - If you put your own tags on a player you meet, it makes coding for things like /tell and /whisper very difficult (maybe impossible- I'm not a programmer). Also, how does a player know you're talking to them if you're using some random name you came up with?
A bounty system also becomes impossible if you're using names that aren't specifically tagged to an account.
Maybe you could get similar functionality if you have names hidden until a player interracts with you, either through combat or social interraction. Combat flags the name for the duration of comabt and a little while after. Social interraction may let you only see names for people you "Friend". This might give more freedom for things like spies and turncoats to sneak around.
Or - perhaps classes that are built for espionage have a function that gives them a "false name" that shows when they are using subterfuge. The coding for this may then be linked to other players who have high insight who can tell its a false name by the colour tag. These are just brainstorms based around your original idea and what i think you were aiming for in that concept.
Cheers
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Wrath, I hope I am not coming across as objecting to constructive criticism, but this is not some peoples' style. Constructive criticism means having a debate in which issues are raised and through discussion solutions are found. Yes, I acknowledge that sometimes it means discarding an idea and finding a better one. Sometimes it even means discarding an idea outright. But, in both cases a debate/discussion/review of positives and negatives precedes that decision...in constructive criticism.
Since this forum was opened, some people has been using an appeal to their own authority (and I am not talking about employees of Goblinworks) by simply stating things are "a bad idea" and demanding through ridicule that once they have stated such, ideas should be abandoned. Not always, these people have offered many good ideas and discussions and sometimes they and I have even been on the same side of debates. However, this happens often enough that I see many people lash back at them...and has happened often enough to me that my time in these forums has greatly diminished...unfortunate as I suggested, because I am very excited about the possibilities of this game.
This said, the "forced anonymity" is a solution to a set of concerns some people presented in a much earlier discussion. Among the concerns it addressed, they wanted more realistic social interaction and an enforced naming policy. They did not want to see Drizzts, Drizzzzzts or Clouds. They also did not want people to know anything about them without social interaction first. I happen to agree on both these points. We came up with a solution that would not require constant GM babysitting. The "forced anonymity" idea would allow you a "Rolodex card" for each person and you can enter in information you find about these persons. The card could be accessed either by searching for information on the card or by clicking on the individual (or even clicking on the "Anonymous" in system info). This would allow you to store names, notes, comments, affiliations, etc...that you find out about a person...and people would be anonymous until you do so. Someone tells you their name is Drizzzt, you are free to list that, or as I would probably do, make their name "No one" or "Random Person". If they do not care enough to give themselves an original name, why should I? It is all up to each of us how we build our game.
So, you could give whatever name you wanted to others, you could tell them whatever class you want...they could store this on the Rolodex card and they could choose how much of this information appears on the (previously blank) label over your head (allowing for easier interaction and recognition once you "know" them). This also allows for more complex social interactions such as lying about your identity or developing nicknames such as "Little John"...or even socially awarded names...such as "Robin of the Hood".
The objections to this from some people ranged from difficulty in reporting people to, as you suggest, absolute identification for things such as bounties. But, in my opinion, these are not insurmountable issues, such as the fact that every entity has absolute identities at the code level, matching your Rolodex card to this would occur, no matter what name you have for an individual. So, place the "Report Individual" and "Create Bounty" options right there on their "card". They need to be in UI somewhere anyways. Solution found that addresses the mentioned concerns and allows for the positive solutions we developed for our other concerns.
"Those naysayers" and we who were discussing this idea have already been through this and the conclusion was simply that we were to accept it as a "bad idea" because it was stated to be...when we addressed the concerns mentioned (or of course, it was simply stated that our proposal would not work...no reason given).
To those of us who liked this idea, it seemed to be a good...easy way...to make this game different at the social level. To us, the game seemed more ideal than what currently exists, for the reasons mentioned. For starters, it required much more realistic social interactions. It seems however, that any idea which differs from the "norm" of MMOs is "bad" and anyone who makes suggestions for any mechanics that would make anything other than a WoW in Golarion with Pathfinder type art is ridiculed for suggesting the "bad ideas". I suppose it was our mistake for thinking Goblinworks was making a new MMO.
To me, it still seems like a good idea, no matter how many "naysayers" say it is bad idea...or how much money Goblinworks is not going to sent people for doing nothing.
I will acknowledge however, that others priorities may be different and they may care more about some other aspect of gaming than the MM part requiring social interaction. I realize this system might be a hassle to those individuals, but that is why we listed the idea here in the MMO wishlist thread...because for us, it is on our wishlist. The people who may object are welcome to follow our suggestion with a desire for a very traditional (or normal...or "good"...however it should be described) social interaction system. I would happily debate the logic of my/our request in a different thread...attacking me/us here, in a wishlist thread, without logic...is...well, without logic.
EDIT: Concerning communication, /tell X Y command would also send message Y to person X as listed in your Rolodex.
|
|
So, in regards to the bounties, they are posted by players or guilds (players place bounties on folks and then pay when they are collected). If you post the bounty, you are going to use your name for that character, how will others know who that is?
The tell and whisper commands you suggest work I guess, since you are sending commands from your end to a person you've tagged. However, I believe that will increase traffic demand on a server dramatically and will make it difficult should you send a command to a character that you happened to have named the same as someone else. I like your idea in theory, and it increases immersion I would guess, but I believe coding restrictions would be the big issue. Still, it's here and the devs may well look at it and say wow.
I guess the bounty option could be solved with a flag system. You can flag players by right clicking or some such mechanic, then create a bounty from a drop down menu assuming a set of conditions have been met. When someone picks up a bounty, they get the characters tag details and when close enough, a red dot appears on the map or some such mechanic depending on how they implement bounties. Again, I'm no programmer so how easy this is to implement is well and truly beyond my knowledge to address.
Cheers
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good points...it would not necessarily increase server traffic because your Rolodex would be stored client side and be linked to server side keys unique to each player. In traditional MMOs, this key is the players name. In this system, it would be some random key that links to your Rolodex. So, you may know 5 people who call themselves John. Just in real life, you decide to call them John W(arrior), John M(age), John R(ogue), John X (someone you do not know well), and John G (some guy who ganked you once). These are all names you chose for them based upon them telling you their name was John. If I want to place a bounty on John G, I do so, and the server links my Rolodex to the server side key for that individual.
The same process would work for any other interaction and because your Rolodex is linked to their unique identifier server side, any traditional MMO interaction is possible...just as if you "knew their name".
I think the biggest source of objections is from people who think it will be a hassle, and I agree, if it does not appeal to you, then it probably will be annoying. Of course, this might be solved by allowing an option to "auto-tell" and "auto-fill". This would allow those who have "auto-tell" selected to automatically give those have "auto-fill" selected, their personal information. This could occur when you have an interaction, or even when you are simply in the same area. This solution however might cause stress on the server.
EDIT: This system would also allow me to flag players...John G may have made up with society, but I could still flag him as "red" so he will appear so to me.
EDIT2: But, this is also only a wish, not a demand. I understand that even if we fleshed it out and solved all objections, it might not fit into the devs "big picture", or even just into the code they have available. And...just because we solve all objections, it does not magically become a "good idea" either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'm not very experienced with MMOs, but there's one thing I'd really like: Polearms. I love polearms. I want to be able to watch a barbarian get beaten off by three horsechopper-swinging goblins. Please find some way to include polearms! :D
Oh, and I'd like to second the request for certain templates. The lich template, for instance. Difficult to acquire, and I can't see myself going for it, but I think it should be an option. Just as it is in normal Pathfinder! :D
Enjoy your Horsefinder Online. I promise you'll find horses in it.
And with every move Paizo makes, we get a little closer to the Ponyfinder RPG... <3
Okay, here's a third wish. I'm just posting these while I read back on the thread, so I'm sorry if it seems like borderline spam--though the silver lining is that Favorites will be less ambiguous.Again, I issue the disclaimer that I know next to nothing about MMOs. With that disclaimer up, how about we don't have PMs? Instead, palyers would message each other with spells like Animal Messenger, and through post services and the like.
I think it might introduce an interesting aspect. But it's also a little bizarre, and might well make games a nightmare. Even I can see problems with it. Still, thought I'd post it here. :)
I'm sure there will be polearms. :)
I could see templates being incorporated later in the game as a kind of hero class or prestige class type thing.
The PM thing I can't agree with. Reducing/restricting people's ability to communicate would be crippling. If it's an immersion thing, just think of it as everyone gets the message cantrip.
In fact, a lot of immersion problems in general I'm seeing in this thread and forum would be solved by people just thinking of an MMO as a high fantasy/high magic campaign where everyone gets a lot of perks as standard fare: things like message, pocket horses and bags of holding.
I wish that if/when I play this, it feels like I'm playing Pathfinder, not *enter MMO name here*.This will depend entirely upon what your standard of "playing Pathfinder" is.
*Sigh*
And I keep this up. I'm probably driving a lot of people crazy. I think I'll contain the rest of my comments in this one post.Anyways, I see Pathfinder as a human-centric game. It's ironic, since I love monstrous races. And dwarves. And gnomes. But I think that finding some way to encourage humans would be a good place to start with making this a 'Pathfinder' game. I've seen a lot of games where humans end up the minority, because elves, or drow, or whatever are 'cooler'. I don't feel that that would be a very Pathfinder-esque game at all.
I really like the idea for accidentally creating cursed items. :D
Idea: How about a lot of unique names for magic weapons? Not just names for weapons with special powers, but lots of the ordinary +1 swords?
Say Goblinworks comes up with about five hundred names, from the Halberd of Bloody Liberty to the Eucalyptus Staff. Besides these named weapons are plenty of unnamed ones. Now, getting a named weapon is a fair accomplishment, and a named weapon is a trophy. But there wouldn't be huge obsessions over each one. Wouldn't that be viable?
Brilliant Idea: So that people can feel unique, ascribe a number to each monster and item. Meet Firesnout the One Hundred and Eleventh, the mighty red dragon. He drops Enchanted Dragonscale Knife the One Hundred and Eleventh, and contains in his hoard the trapped soul of Sir Tralmit the One Hundred and Eleventh, who ushers the PC on their quest to save the kingdom of Waria the One Hundred and Eleventh.
Have fun.
;)
Which is true, but doesn't actually solve anything. Even if you think you're arguing with an idiot, stooping to mockery and sarcasm never helps the debate, and just makes you sound smug. If you feel that civility won't persuade the fellow you argue with, don't bother arguing.
Hope this doesn't start anything big. I just wish we could be a bit more respectful and constructive--Goblinworks folk will be reading this, and I'd hate for them to spend most of their time on 'bickering nonsense'.
I'm sure there will be polearms. :)
I could see templates being incorporated later in the game as a kind of hero class or prestige class type thing.
The PM thing I can't agree with. Reducing/restricting people's ability to communicate would be crippling. If it's an immersion thing, just think of it as everyone gets the message cantrip.
In fact, a lot of immersion problems in general I'm seeing in this thread and forum would be solved by people just thinking of an MMO as a high fantasy/high magic campaign where everyone gets a lot of perks as standard fare: things like message, pocket horses and bags of holding.
You may have a point. Though it's sending, not message--the latter is for whispered conversations. I've been using it a lot lately. Sending is a second-level spell, I think. Maybe third.
I generally consider PMs to be 'non-canon' when roleplaying. I now get that losing them would probably be crippling (I realized after posting that a removal would make it impossible for friends to chat while going through different tasks).Still, animal messenger is such an under-utilized spell. Maybe it could be used by an NPC at one point. Yes, that is my most important wish.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The lack of any communication but local means has been mentioned by we "advocates for realism". As you said, it would make possible the use of spells to send messages (maybe even a role for "telegraph wizards"). We who were discussing the idea were torn apart with varying degrees of logic. Admittedly, it would make traditional MMO communication more difficult. Having a system like this would keep people who play together...together. It would make people find homes and stick around their homes versus ranging the world, because that is where their friends are. This...in my opinion is a good thing, because it forces people to act responsibly. This anonymity online which empowers people to behave in manners most of us seem to frown upon, would be to a small extent removed.
Besides, most of us use voice chat with our friends anyways (especially if the game builds a voice chat in to compensate for the lack of anything but local chats in-game). This would be a +1 from me, but I think we would be out voted...if the devs even cared amount majority opinions.
Not all of us have voice chat, actually. In fact, I think voice chatters are in the minority. I don't even have a microphone, myself. :P
You raise some decent points as well. I'm kind of stumped on what side to take. I expect the devs do care about majority opinions--this is Paizo, after all--but I agree that this is most likely not one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not all of us have voice chat, actually. In fact, I think voice chatters are in the minority. I don't even have a microphone, myself. :P
You raise some decent points as well. I'm kind of stumped on what side to take. I expect the devs do care about majority opinions--this is Paizo, after all--but I agree that this is most likely not one.
I wouldn't go as far as to say voice chatters are in a minority. In almost every MMO I have played, the majority of players are in guilds with a ventrilo server, of which I'd say about 60% are talkers, 30% are listeners and 10% don't use it. As well the fact of listeners if you don't have a mic, you just won't be expected to take a leadership role in anything fast paced (IE leader of a raid, or a battle etc...). Since generally the leader role involves giving orders to multiple people at the same time, while also taking actions on his/her own character, which is something that flat out isn't possible without a mic. Now in small scale activities, IE people pugging in normal theme park MMO's, it generally doesn't matter as few challenges are actually worth coordinating. I still have to give huge props to DDO though, even without having a mic, the in-game voice chat was one of the best features. Permitting you to join a group of players you have never met, and have a spoken voice giving instructions (as at least 1 person in the team likely has a mic minimum, and 100% of the team is able to hear it).
Yeah, it was handy. I remember always claiming I couldn't load the voice chat, though--I could never understand a word people said, with my poor speakers, and I hated asking them to repeat something. XD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since this forum was opened, some people has been using an appeal to their own authority (and I am not talking about employees of Goblinworks) by simply stating things are "a bad idea" and demanding through ridicule that once they have stated such, ideas should be abandoned.
You can keep saying this, but that doesn't make it true. Every time you've come up with a less-than-feasible idea, multiple people (myself included) have given you reason after reason for why it's simply not a good idea. No one has said "I'm an authority on this, and it's a bad idea." We've said "This is a bad idea, and here's why."
I get that you don't like having your ideas discarded. I get that they mean a lot to you. But there are a lot of things that just will not happen, even given what little we know about the game. Or, to be more precise, they are things that should not happen, because they will significantly increase the chances of the game failing.
I'd much rather see you focusing on ideas that have some merit. Particularly ideas that build on successful ideas from other games, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel by making it square.
If you're really keen on messing around with names, then you are free to figure out a way to do it. But there are "landmines" that you need to avoid completely. For instance, no matter what you want to do with names, you should not prevent characters' actual names from being displayed by default. Also, you should not enforce "proper" naming, beyond the exclusion of certain words chosen in a non-arbitrary fashion for their near-universally offensive nature (swear words, racist terms, sexual references, etc.) and perhaps names excluded for the sake of avoiding confusion with names and terms that already exist in the game.
How about something like Display Names? A second feature. Your username remains the same, and can probably be found easily (perhaps over multiple characters), but your Display Name is what shows up above the character. A Display Name would be optional, but might help a bit with all that immersion stuff. Not with those determined to be named Squall, though. ;D
Thing is, beyond all else that's been said, banning unfavorable names just isn't feasible. You can block numbers, and you can block the names of all video game characters.
Oh, look, someone named themselves Zoosmell Pooplord. Block names containing 'smell' or 'poop' or the like? They're now named PFsux. Block derogatory names, because we are now seeing this as a matter of honor? Now they're called PF n/good.
Namers gonna name. ;D
And looks like nobody's arguing for name censorship anymore, only a randomized naming system. Still, might as well keep this here in case I'm wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about something like Display Names? A second feature. Your username remains the same, and can probably be found easily (perhaps over multiple characters), but your Display Name is what shows up above the character. A Display Name would be optional, but might help a bit with all that immersion stuff.
How about you do it exactly like all the other MMOs are already doing, and allow the individual to turn off hovering names and chat channels in the UI and communications options?
I don't see how your "Display Name" option is any different from your character name in any MMO, except that presumably you can change your Display Name at-will, which if true makes this a really bad idea.
Hm. That's not quite what I meant. I guess it's not all that practical, though.
Have I mentioned I don't play many MMOs?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hm. That's not quite what I meant. I guess it's not all that practical, though.
Allowing a character's name - even their displayed name - to be changed is not something that ought to be done lightly. It opens up all kinds of potential for abuse. Also, you'll run into problems if you don't enforce uniqueness of displayed names - which is to say, it would be a huge pain in the butt if two different people could go by the name "Bob".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Allowing a character's name - even their displayed name - to be changed is not something that ought to be done lightly. It opens up all kinds of potential for abuse. Also, you'll run into problems if you don't enforce uniqueness of displayed names - which is to say, it would be a huge pain in the butt if two different people could go by the name "Bob".
So this comes back down to convenience?
And, by appeal to authority I mean you state something as fact without support, when it is obviously an opinion. By doing this you are trying to place yourself in a position where your opinion should be treated as fact...an authority. No, you have never explicitly claimed to be an authority, and I have never said you did. It does not mean your fallacies are not such.
For instance:
If you're really keen on messing around with names, then you are free to figure out a way to do it. But there are "landmines" that you need to avoid completely. For instance, no matter what you want to do with names, you should not prevent characters' actual names from being displayed by default. Also, you should not enforce "proper" naming, beyond the exclusion of certain words chosen in a non-arbitrary fashion for their near-universally offensive nature (swear words, racist terms, sexual references, etc.) and perhaps names excluded for the sake of avoiding confusion with names and terms that already exist in the game.
You say these opinions as facts. As parameters we should not even discuss crossing. I can simply say I disagree and I have countered your claims since my opinion is equal to yours...but, as you have illustrated in previous discussions, you will counter that claim with one of your own that your opinions are intrinsically superior to my own. Assuming this is true, I must also assume the nature of this superiority is some unspecified authority that you feel you have a claim to.
Back to the point at hand...I disagree with your opinions list above. If you would like to, I welcome an expanded version of your opinions with support so that I can better understand where you are coming from.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So this comes back down to convenience?Hm. That's not quite what I meant. I guess it's not all that practical, though.Allowing a character's name - even their displayed name - to be changed is not something that ought to be done lightly. It opens up all kinds of potential for abuse. Also, you'll run into problems if you don't enforce uniqueness of displayed names - which is to say, it would be a huge pain in the butt if two different people could go by the name "Bob".
In this case, convenience is only part of it. There are logistical hurdles (I might argue that they're logistical walls, actually) to allowing someone to freely change their displayed name. It would require a workaround in the report system (making reporting and the handling of reports harder to do), it would make staying in contact with individuals more difficult (if someone changes their name, they have to make sure everyone they want to be able to contact them knows that they changed their name, and what the new name is), etc. Allowing multiple characters to share a name is equally troublesome, for the same reasons and more (how does the game figure out who you're trying to contact, what happens if two people create nearly indistinguishable characters with the same name, what if someone mistakenly reports the wrong person for a violation, etc.).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And, by appeal to authority I mean you state something as fact without support, when it is obviously an opinion.
That's not what an appeal to authority is. An appeal to authority is, by way of example, if I said "This is a bad idea, and you should trust me because I'm a doctor." I would be trying to use my status as a doctor (disclaimer: I'm not a doctor) to lend my argument more weight than it might otherwise have. In this case, it would be a fallacy - the fact that I'm a doctor doesn't necessarily mean that I know anything about MMORPG design.
Mind you, you can appeal to authority in a legitimate fashion - if I were actually a successful MMORPG designer, it would lend weight to my argument (though it wouldn't make my argument automatically valid or true).
You say these opinions as facts.
No, I'm simply revisiting arguments I have previously made. When I first made the argument that enforcing name "quality" was a bad idea, I backed it up with a number of cogent points of support. I don't feel I should have to reiterate them again; you can go back and read them. In brief, however, it's because enforcing name quality is utterly arbitrary, and stands a very good chance of preventing someone from selecting their name of choice (even if they just made that name up on the spot and were not familiar with it from whatever reference source you were objecting to).
I can simply say I disagree and I have countered your claims since my opinion is equal to yours...
Except that you would not have, because I've previously supported those very statements with argumentation that you have left unchallenged.
but, as you have illustrated in previous discussions, you will counter that claim with one of your own that your opinions are intrinsically superior to my own.
Again, my argument is not that my opinions are intrinsically superior to your own. My argument has always been that the idea in question would be harmful to the game if implemented, for the reasons I have given.
Assuming this is true, I must also assume the nature of this superiority is some unspecified authority that you feel you have a claim to.
Again, that's not the case. I don't feel that my arguments should be given any weight beyond the actual strength of the argument.
Back to the point at hand...I disagree with your opinions list above. If you would like to, I welcome an expanded version of your opinions with support so that I can better understand where you are coming from.
I've provided it, when those ideas were first proposed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Cool, thanks.
It would require a workaround in the report system (making reporting and the handling of reports harder to do)
This is moot since we have no idea how their reporting system will work and begs the question since you assume the conclusion in your argument.
it would make staying in contact with individuals more difficult
This is not true. See below for why:
the "forced anonymity" is a solution to a set of concerns some people presented in a much earlier discussion. Among the concerns it addressed, they wanted more realistic social interaction and an enforced naming policy. They did not want to see Drizzts, Drizzzzzts or Clouds. They also did not want people to know anything about them without social interaction first. I happen to agree on both these points. We came up with a solution that would not require constant GM babysitting. The "forced anonymity" idea would allow you a "Rolodex card" for each person and you can enter in information you find about these persons. The card could be accessed either by searching for information on the card or by clicking on the individual (or even clicking on the "Anonymous" in system info). This would allow you to store names, notes, comments, affiliations, etc...that you find out about a person...and people would be anonymous until you do so. Someone tells you their name is Drizzzt, you are free to list that, or as I would probably do, make their name "No one" or "Random Person". If they do not care enough to give themselves an original name, why should I? It is all up to each of us how we build our game.
So, you could give whatever name you wanted to others, you could tell them whatever class you want...they could store this on the Rolodex card and they could choose how much of this information appears on the (previously blank) label over your head (allowing for easier interaction and recognition once you "know" them). This also allows for more complex social interactions such as lying about your identity or developing nicknames such as "Little John"...or even socially awarded names...such as "Robin of the Hood".
The objections to this from some people ranged from difficulty in reporting people to, as you suggest, absolute identification for things such as bounties. But, in my opinion, these are not insurmountable issues, such as the fact that every entity has absolute identities at the code level, matching your Rolodex card to this would occur, no matter what name you have for an individual. So, place the "Report Individual" and "Create Bounty" options right there on their "card". They need to be in UI somewhere anyways.
So, as explained above, you can enter a chat with anyone who you have a Rolodex Card for. So staying in contact with someone is not an issue, initial contact might require some discussion.
(if someone changes their name, they have to make sure everyone they want to be able to contact them knows that they changed their name, and what the new name is)
As explained above, all information on other players, including names is stored your client-side. This information is linked to unique keys for each player that are not accessible. So it does not matter what you have a contacts name listed as, as contacting person x in your Rolodex will contact whomever that person is no matter what you have their name listed as.
Allowing multiple characters to share a name is equally troublesome
No one is "allowing" anything...techically, since each character is really just a unique key in a database, there is no reason to even ask for a name during character creation. Since names are stored on your client and linked to that unique key, you are free to make unique names for each person you meet if that is what you wish.
for the same reasons and more (how does the game figure out who you're trying to contact, what happens if two people create nearly indistinguishable characters with the same name, what if someone mistakenly reports the wrong person for a violation, etc.).
As previously mentioned, each Rolodex card is linked to a unique character. Selecting "Report Violation" on a card will report the character linked to that card. Rolodex cards can be accessed by clicking on the character, chat, or even system info (because, as you suggested, you may not have a "name" for them).
But, I am much more comfortable admitting the idea would not fit this game when you list your concerns like this. Thank you. In return I will concede this debate to you and admit a more traditional system in probably called for in this game.
Hm. That's not quite what I meant. I guess it's not all that practical, though.Allowing a character's name - even their displayed name - to be changed is not something that ought to be done lightly. It opens up all kinds of potential for abuse. Also, you'll run into problems if you don't enforce uniqueness of displayed names - which is to say, it would be a huge pain in the butt if two different people could go by the name "Bob".
You seem to be contesting points I didn't make. I acknowledged it wasn't actually a good idea, but I didn't support either of those concepts. I'm not that MMO-naive. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You seem to be contesting points I didn't make. I acknowledged it wasn't actually a good idea, but I didn't support either of those concepts. I'm not that MMO-naive. :PHm. That's not quite what I meant. I guess it's not all that practical, though.Allowing a character's name - even their displayed name - to be changed is not something that ought to be done lightly. It opens up all kinds of potential for abuse. Also, you'll run into problems if you don't enforce uniqueness of displayed names - which is to say, it would be a huge pain in the butt if two different people could go by the name "Bob".
Heh, I know. I wasn't actually going after you, just elaborating on the point for the benefit of anyone else following the discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is moot since we have no idea how their reporting system will work and begs the question since you assume the conclusion in your argument.
I'm assuming a report system much like that in most current MMORPGs - you open a ticket with some kind of support staff system with a brief description of the event, and then a real human being contacts you in-game (or perhaps with certain details via email) to resolve the issue. If you cannot reliably and easily identify someone (and your system would make it identifying someone unreliable and difficult), you increase the potential for abuse.
The objections to this from some people ranged from difficulty in reporting people to, as you suggest, absolute identification for things such as bounties. But, in my opinion, these are not insurmountable issues, such as the fact that every entity has absolute identities at the code level, matching your Rolodex card to this would occur, no matter what name you have for an individual. So, place the "Report Individual" and "Create Bounty" options right there on their "card". They need to be in UI somewhere anyways.
This allows you to create the ticket, assuming you actually have an entry for the individual. But if you don't have an entry for them, you're out of luck. And you may need to identify more players than just one primary offender. If you don't have an entry for any one of them, it's now much harder for the support staff to resolve the ticket.
So, as explained above, you can enter a chat with anyone who you have a Rolodex Card for. So staying in contact with someone is not an issue, initial contact might require some discussion.
That sounds like it would work.
As explained above, all information on other players, including names is stored your client-side. This information is linked to unique keys for each player that are not accessible. So it does not matter what you have a contacts name listed as, as contacting person x in your Rolodex will contact whomever that person is no matter what you have their name listed as.
I don't know that you actually mean "client-side" here. "Client-side" versus "server-side" refers to whether a given piece of a data or a calculation is held or takes place on the end user's local computer, or on a server. In this case, I'm pretty sure you don't want it stored client-side. You want it stored server-side, because if it's stored client-side you would lose access to your contact information if you log into the game from a different computer. I think what you mean is that you want the "Rolodex" to be personal information that is linked to your account, so that it isn't shared with any other character in the game.
This idea strikes me as being very similar (perhaps even functionally identical) to how phone contacts are stored. The "key" you propose is the same as a phone number - a unique, unchanging identifier - and the contact details themselves are filled out by the individual.
That said, people don't even like having to deal with that in their phones. Systems are now in place that allow you to import contacts wholesale, so that you don't need to manually identify people. What you're proposing introduces a number of extra steps on both ends of the communication equation (receiving contact info from someone and using that contact info later). I really don't think you're going to be able to sell this idea. Lubricating socialization is such a huge priority in MMO design. I don't think that making people feel more isolated from each other is the way things are headed.
But, I am much more comfortable admitting the idea would not fit this game when you list your concerns like this. Thank you. In return I will concede this debate to you and admit a more traditional system in probably called for in this game.
I think that there are probably more elegant solutions than this. Communication in MMOs has come pretty far, and frankly I don't see a lot of room for improvement.
But I'm glad to see that you're open to reasonable discourse. That probably means that you're more than capable of coming up with some solid ideas for this game. I really strongly suggest not trying to reinvent the wheel, though. There is so much room for cool design and nifty features that don't come with tremendous drawbacks. That's the sort of stuff we as a community need to focus on, because it's the stuff where we stand the greatest chance of having a positive impact on the end result.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Cool, thanks.
This is moot since we have no idea how their reporting system will work and begs the question since you assume the conclusion in your argument.
Basically yes it would be kind of cool, but there are an extreme amount of complications. You are right we don't know how the reporting system works, many games cannot afford to put in a full fledged system and go by screenshots. Others have systems where you can right click on someones name and report them in chat, the flaw of that one is not everyone who is violating systems is talking. You might be able to right click on them and report, also a variable and sometimes the good old fashioned screenshot is still the most reliable.
The idea isn't necessarily bad, it is just very difficult to implement and may or may not be practical from a development standpoint. I'd say it is at the point of, the developers are interested, and if they can come up with a way to work around the issues, they will, if not they will scrap the idea. No point wasting our time arguing. We've covered the reasons it could be cool, and the reasons it could be horrible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I realize with many subscribers (like hundreds of thousands) this isn't feasible anymore, but I remember the days of Verant EQ1, where if you had an issue with someone you sent a GM a tell directly in-game, or could do a "/who all guide" and get a real time response. You knew the names of the guides on your server, and they worked with the players to ensure their fun, someitmes even stopping by to BS with you. This happened alot with people doing standard non-pvp griefing, like trains (in the days before lockable encounters, when you could aggro a group of KOS mobs, and drag them to a group in an area you want to farm, and then feign death, clearing their aggro table but putting the people you just trained them to in aggro range)and such.
If PFO had that kind of attention from it's Guides/GMs, that would make things easier...
Again dunno how cost prohibitive such an idea is, but then you wouldn't need to flag or report a bunch of folks, GMs in play would catch it too, whether it be names or ass-hatery.
If we're done discussing naming options, I wonder if we could discuss my dubious genius?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The combat must be more involved, like in a true fighting game. Nothing ruins the thrill of the fight like the feeling you get from just clicking on an opponent til it dies. And the monks MUST look like they are actually using crazy martial arts moves and not just throwing punches like in the elder scrolls.Or they could leave the East Asian monks out of the Medieval Europe based high fantasy game. Yeah probably not going to happen, but it's a pet peeve of mine.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that the Pathfinder Campaign Setting is a medieval Europe-based high fantasy game. It seems to me that it's just a high fantasy setting, period.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure where you got the impression that the Pathfinder Campaign Setting is a medieval Europe-based high fantasy game. It seems to me that it's just a high fantasy setting, period.The combat must be more involved, like in a true fighting game. Nothing ruins the thrill of the fight like the feeling you get from just clicking on an opponent til it dies. And the monks MUST look like they are actually using crazy martial arts moves and not just throwing punches like in the elder scrolls.Or they could leave the East Asian monks out of the Medieval Europe based high fantasy game. Yeah probably not going to happen, but it's a pet peeve of mine.The part where the other classes are named and based on traditional European archetypes. Monsters and races from European legends and mythology. Christo-judaic Angels, Demons and Devils. "Celtic" Druids and fae. The dragon as a winged fire-breathing monster. Honestly even the idea of "spells" as presented is inherently tied to western alchemy and hermeticism. I guess that would be where I get the impression that it is distincly tied to Medieval Europe. Even if it pulls in elements from the Renaissance or Victorian England or anything else, it is still on the whole European. And having a dash of Victorian in my Dark Ages is far more palatable to me then the Shao-lin in my Nordic Saga.
So that's my wish: No Monks
I think you're probably looking at this whole thing a little narrowly. You want this to be a medieval Europe-style game, so you're seeing just those parts, rather than seeing the entirety of the campaign setting for what it is. Pathfinder has entire adventure paths dedicated to non-Europe-centric locales.
Every culture has its own history of martial arts.
Monks don't have to be asian.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not at all familiar with the setting, but all I've seen mentioned in the fluff so far is Crusaders, Demon-knights and Bandits. In the end the rules color the setting, much though you may hate to admit it. The fact that they can be gorilla fit onto other settings doesn't change that.
I guess adding twi'lek and klingon as playable races would be ok too, because they could exist in the same universe as Golarion right? I mean IP issues aside. It's not that it isn't possible it's just at the back of my head there is a little voice singing that "one of these things is not like the others" song from Sesame Street.
When monks use ki and have abilities/powers that are directly drawn from wuxia, those monks are asian.
Asian-themed content is in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. Lots of it. Also, Arabian-themed content. And African-themed content. And lots of others.
You don't get to decide what is and isn't Pathfinder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes that would be what you would get if you only read the first phrase of the first line of the first paragraph of the post.
Your post basically said: I don't like X (which is already included in the setting). Why should we have X and not Y or Z (ridiculous things from other franchises outside the setting).
I'm not really sure how anyone is supposed to take that seriously. Pathfinder has monks. They have a long tradition in D&D (going back to AD&D) and have been in the Pathfinder setting since the beginning. I'm sorry that you don't like monks. My suggestion is, don't play one in Pathfinder Online.
Oh, I forgot to mention two things that I really want as far as combat goes.
First, I want to be able to block people's path if they are an enemy. I want shieldwalls to work; I don't what players to run through each other like intangible phantoms, as someone above has said. I understand how this could be hell. Things get crowded in town, and a griefer could stand in a doorway and keep people bottled in, but what if you can move freely through allies and you present an obstacle to enemies?
Secondly, I've seen a lot of games where pvp involves constant bunny-hopping. This is goofy as hell and should not be a viable strategy. Maybe jumping lowers your AC by miles, or it slows you upon landing, or drains stamina, or whatever, but fighting like Tigger shouldn't be beneficial.