Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm not sure I like the idea of mines depleting as a consequence of being mined. That requires new mines to come into existence, and old mines to replenish over time. How about a system where the total mining rate is constant, and if multiple people want to share they each must settle for less?
Adventurers shouldn't be able to mine a significant amount individually; to get significant production out of a mine we should have to build housing for the miners, pay wages, and have food and amenities supplied. Investing in the mining town might have significant effects on the mining rate, both in the number of miners willing to work there and on the production per miner. A good casino and brothel might even earn most of the wages paid to the miners right back.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I kind of like the idea of the mine depleting over time, and being replenished with a Mining skill that allows you to excavate and expose a new vein.
Personally I still vote in favor of say a druid spell of some kind that brings things towards the surface. Also I think it would be kind of cool if it were even limited based on how much the mine was drained. Say if the mine were dropped to 50% it would replenish to full, but if it went down to 25% it would only go up to 50%, drained all the way to 10%, only goes up to 20%, whatever variables seem appropriate.
Then you add an extra level of strategy in war.. do we milk our mine to the bone to get an advantage today, but a handicap tommorow, or do we drain it moderately.
___
as far as unlimited mines, the issue with that, is what reason for conflict is there at that point? In general meaningful PVP has purpose, in terms of land to build actual kingdoms the area is HUGE that won't be an issue for a while, if everyone and their neighbor has a "Just drop by and take stuff all of the time" policy for everyone, what is the point in ever having a battle? You now reduce it to ONLY being griefing because there is no legitimate motivation to fight for anything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally I still vote in favor of say a druid spell of some kind that brings things towards the surface. Also I think it would be kind of cool if it were even limited based on how much the mine was drained. Say if the mine were dropped to 50% it would replenish to full, but if it went down to 25% it would only go up to 50%, drained all the way to 10%, only goes up to 20%, whatever variables seem appropriate.
This is essentially what I started to write, but I changed it after considering the mechanics of replenishment.
In general, I prefer the idea of depletion as it's used, and replenishment over time, probably controlled by skills or spells. This models the Tragedy of the Commons well, and gives factions a reason to exert control over the resources in their territory.
Ideally, the mine (or any other resource area) would generate resources more quickly if it's nearly unspoiled on one end of the continuum, and would take immense effort to eke out the barest resources if it's mostly used up at the other end of the continuum. Skills or spells would be needed to replenish it, and again, the more the resource has been depleted, the more effort it would take to replenish it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Mines which don't run dry would still have a limit to their rate. Everything which is produced would need to be consumed in an operations sense as well as a capital sense, so a faction of a given size and crafting level would use a given amount of each metal per unit time; if they control less than that in mines, they need to make up the deficit by imports.
Put the mines geographically distant from the other resources (food, magical components, lumber) that everybody ALSO needs, and allow player politics and economics to develop. If the mine only produces three bits of adamantine in a week, it will be harder for two people to share the output. If the demand for adamantine is high enough, whoever controls (enough) mines can set the price, up to and including "Raise an army and forcibly capture it." If the mines are defended by adamantine armed and armored forces, that price could be very high indeed.
Of course, there are other ways to win: Embargo food shipments to the greedy miners, or allow them only on a adamantine on the barrel-head basis; the food monopoly can price-fix as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mines which don't run dry would still have a limit to their rate. Everything which is produced would need to be consumed in an operations sense as well as a capital sense, so a faction of a given size and crafting level would use a given amount of each metal per unit time; if they control less than that in mines, they need to make up the deficit by imports.
Put the mines geographically distant from the other resources (food, magical components, lumber) that everybody ALSO needs, and allow player politics and economics to develop. If the mine only produces three bits of adamantine in a week, it will be harder for two people to share the output. If the demand for adamantine is high enough, whoever controls (enough) mines can set the price, up to and including "Raise an army and forcibly capture it." If the mines are defended by adamantine armed and armored forces, that price could be very high indeed.
Of course, there are other ways to win: Embargo food shipments to the greedy miners, or allow them only on a adamantine on the barrel-head basis; the food monopoly can price-fix as well.
Biggest counters to that. I do agree they need to be spread out, and while every player controllable territory should have "Something" to offer, there should be no territory that can be entirely self sufficent, that I agree with you on. Also no type of weapon or mine should be indestructible, or unbeatable without it, an army of 500 in even the crappyest starter gear that the NPCs sell, should be able to take out 100 people with the best gear in the game assuming they are coordinated half decently (even if the largest guild has the advantage, if they tick off 5 medium guilds, they can be in trouble), and while the mines should indeed be spread out, there should be many sources spread out very distantly from each-other. In other words, no 1 guild should have total control of the adamantine supply, There should be several mines very far away, and while it may be costly to import it from those places, you should have the option to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... an army of 500 in even the crappyest starter gear that the NPCs sell, should be able to take out 100 people with the best gear in the game assuming they are coordinated half decently...
I'm not sure I agree with those numbers. 500 unskilled peasants holding pitchforks against 100 elite warriors in full armor? I agree that's probably a foregone conclusion, but I'm not sure it's the same conclusion you came to.
500 vs 20? I'm on board with you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... an army of 500 in even the crappyest starter gear that the NPCs sell, should be able to take out 100 people with the best gear in the game assuming they are coordinated half decently...I'm not sure I agree with those numbers. 500 unskilled peasants holding pitchforks against 100 elite warriors in full armor? I agree that's probably a foregone conclusion, but I'm not sure it's the same conclusion you came to.
500 vs 20? I'm on board with you.
We are talking 500 warriors in the equivelent of level 6-10 armor, AKA +3 bonuses at best, and we aren't talking about unskilled peasants either, cutting off your adamantine supply does not stop you archetype progression. So group X cuts off the adamantine supply, you still have leather, iron, mithral etc... in your hands. Even if it is the absolute best and somehow appropriate for every class, it still shouldn't be enough of a difference to beat being even in everything else with 5:1 ratio difference. This isn't +5 full plate vs peasent outfits and improvised weapons, this is +3 adamantine vs skilled warriors in normal iron masterwork fullplate, and weapons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PvP should be handled with factions.
When join a faction you open your self up to attack from all factions hostile to your faction
There should be factions created in the game, and there should be player created factions.
Player created factions can flag enemies, and they can also align them selves with the game's factions to inherit their friend/foe flags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are talking 500 warriors in the equivelent of level 6-10 armor, AKA +3 bonuses at best, and we aren't talking about unskilled peasants either, cutting off your adamantine supply does not stop you archetype progression. So group X cuts off the adamantine supply, you still have leather, iron, mithral etc... in your hands. Even if it is the absolute best and somehow appropriate for every class, it still shouldn't be enough of a difference to beat being even in everything else with 5:1 ratio difference. This isn't +5 full plate vs peasent outfits and improvised weapons, this is +3 adamantine vs skilled warriors in normal iron masterwork fullplate, and weapons.... an army of 500 in even the crappyest starter gear that the NPCs sell, should be able to take out 100 people with the best gear in the game assuming they are coordinated half decently...I'm not sure I agree with those numbers. 500 unskilled peasants holding pitchforks against 100 elite warriors in full armor? I agree that's probably a foregone conclusion, but I'm not sure it's the same conclusion you came to.
500 vs 20? I'm on board with you.
It doesn't compute.
How an army of 500 in even the crappyest starter gear that the NPCs sell, is the equivalent of 500 warriors in the equivalent of level 6-10 armor, AKA +3 bonuses at best,?What is your idea of NPC supplied starting gear? Starting characters?
Your numbers seem way out of it. If we start at that level there is very little space for growth.
Same thing for player product items.
The NPC produce +3 gears ....
don't seem productive for a player compatible with a player driven economy. Most fo the production would eb done by NPC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Diego, I don't have a link, but there's a post from either Ryan Dancey or Vic Wertz talking about how the entire 1-20 level range in PFO will be roughly equivalent to the 6-10 level range in PathFinder RPG.
I like this. It makes it so that new players are reasonable effective, which means they can immediately take part in the game, even alongside veteran players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Diego, I don't have a link, but there's a post from either Ryan Dancey or Vic Wertz talking about how the entire 1-20 level range in PFO will be roughly equivalent to the 6-10 level range in PathFinder RPG.This is incorrect.
Interesting, the actual quote was the power level of the archtype skills is roughly on par with the 6th-10th. It was vic who said this though.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz508z&page=5?Goblinworks-Blog-Your-Pathfinde r-Online#215
Was it mis-spoken or mis-interpreted?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Diego, I don't have a link, but there's a post from either Ryan Dancey or Vic Wertz talking about how the entire 1-20 level range in PFO will be roughly equivalent to the 6-10 level range in PathFinder RPG.This is incorrect.
Keeping in mind that this is a combination of an echo chamber, epileptic trees, public relations, and market research:
What do you want the power curve to be, and in what kind of units? I think the ideal one would be a logarithmic increase in multiplicative power over time; The baseline character at one week would have a power of 1; at two weeks would have a power of 2; at one month a power of 3, and so on. A character at a given power level above 1 is roughly equivalent to a constant number of characters of one level lower.
That puts the upper limit in the stars, but keeps the middle ground fighting; in the time it takes a powerful juggernaut to double his power, any number of new players can reach the level he already has, and collectively surpass him.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting, the actual quote was the power level of the archtype skills is roughly on par with the 6th-10th. It was vic who said this though.Was it mis-spoken or mis-interpreted?
Mis-spoken.
The target experience for the game is that players typically see when they're playing 6-10th level PCs. They're expected to be able to handle themselves against a wide range of opponents but are still "adventuring" as opposed to building empires or saving the world (things that happen from 11-15th level and 16-20th level respectively).
In terms of power level there won't be a good map between PCs in the tabletop game and PCs in the online game. In the tabletop game PCs get more powerful on a roughly linear progression. In the online game they'll get more powerful in a series of inverse curves (the more you train a skill, the less benefit you'll get from the abilities you unlock with each training increment).
Of course new characters will begin life with few skills or abilities and will have to gain training time and accomplish deeds to earn more. So the newbie character won't be anywhere as close to as powerful as a 6th level Pathfinder tabletop PC. On the other hand a very old Pathfinder Online character will likely be able to do many things that no 20th level adventurer on the tabletop could do - simply because the online game will have many different kinds of progression and development options that the tabletop game, due to its focus on adventuring characters, doesn't.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Diego, I don't have a link, but there's a post from either Ryan Dancey or Vic Wertz talking about how the entire 1-20 level range in PFO will be roughly equivalent to the 6-10 level range in PathFinder RPG.This is incorrect.Interesting, the actual quote was the power level of the archtype skills is roughly on par with the 6th-10th. It was vic who said this though.
The link Nihimon didn't want to search for.
Was it mis-spoken or mis-interpreted?
Thank you so much, Onishi. I really didn't want to go searching for that link :)
Although, I totally get what Dancey is saying, in that the 6-10 experience is the experience PFO will be aiming for.
Man, those blogs can't come fast enough. I'm dying to know more specifics :)
(Edited to correct my typo in Onishi's name.)
Just coming back to PF after a prolonged hiatus, and I have to say this is the first I am hearing about PF online, and am very excited by the prospect.
I just wanted to add I do not like non-consensual PvP. I played a lot of WoW back in the day, and tried a PvP server only once. I recall getting to certain point (lev.12?), and couldn't go any further because I had entered a full-time PvP area and couldn't get any quests done, because there was a lev.60 Orc hiding under the water in a lake, shooting everyone at long range walking around the town. After that frustrating experience, I never tried (involuntary) PvP again.
I do not begrudge anyone who enjoys it - both my sons do, immensely - but its not for everyone, and I hope they accommodate those of us who don't.