So the only appeal of creating is that some other goon can come along and destroy your creation? We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.If no one can kick over your sand castle, why build it?
...to express ones creativity? In the context of PFO, I don't believe I would ever build something intentionally so some else could destroy it. That might be the inevitable consequences of building something, like the tide sweeping away a sand castle, but the reason for building something in PFO would be to, more than likely, protect other things.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Back off topic, the actual design of most fortifications is to keep the Mongorians off your "sand-castle", right? Will there be crafting skills like engineering and architecture enabling new building advancements, such as the portcullis, murder-holes, secret entrances, and the like? Seems like an easy enough system to implement if you standardize the discovery process, and those folks would certainly be able to...
I picture the master builder and blacksmith and enchanter as members of an ingame organization, with skill (and material quality) effecting building strength and fortification effectiveness.
I'm not sure if quarry worker, laborer, or even architect need to be PCs, but I love the idea of an opposing PC getting hired in the construction phase and either sabotaging the construction, locating any secret escape, or copying the master plans.
"If there are no threats to your sand castle, where is the achievement or fun in making it?"...to express ones creativity? In the context of PFO, I don't believe I would ever build something intentionally so some else could destroy it. That might be the inevitable consequences of building something, like the tide sweeping away a sand castle, but the reason for building something in PFO would be to, more than likely, protect other things.So the only appeal of creating is that some other goon can come along and destroy your creation? We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.If no one can kick over your sand castle, why build it?
Originally, I was speaking in the context of people build things in Second Life. I'm not an expert on Second Life, I played it for a month to see what the "big deal' was. In second life from what I observed, people built things to express themselves creatively or to earn in game money that could be turned into real world money or to create small role play pocket worlds where like minded people could engage in non-combat RP, some of it on the pervy side.
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I get around to building castles and it really is free form. They will be both, a creative outlet and a defensive structure. Many castles in RL where decorative. Not to mention, different groups will build according to different economic/social/defensive strategies, and will have to be creative in this process.
Even player housing and/or shops, should it use the same free form model, would see players trying to outdo each other.
I think you are both correct. All building should be a creative outlet...and yes, someone will be trying to wreck what you build. When it happens, it just means we get to be creative again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I believe you say this because this is what you have been served previously and you cannot conceive of a different dynamic.
Sure, I can.
I just don't think we're going to see it here.
I guarantee you there is a huge previously untapped audience of gamers who like homsteading, gardening, catching fireflies, etc.
Actually, I think most of the audience of gamers who prefers homesteading, gardening, and catching fireflies was captured years ago by FarmVille. I think the audience you're thinking of is different, and is not aptly described by "likes homesteading, gardening, catching fireflies,etc."
You are suggesting that because these people do not play MMOs,
Those people do play MMOs. Made by Zynga.
Even though I really do think I am right...I do know you are partially correct in that the devs in PFO will probably only make a token effort toward this "other crowd". It is a much safer bet to attract the combat crowd...
It's not just that it's safer. I think it's probably within their vision of the game. I do not believe that they expect to create a game where training a flying mount will receive as much attention as combat does. And, frankly, it would be silly if they did. Combat will be the core adversarial system of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And to further expand on the existence of the non-combatant crowd, Second Life has an active base of nearly 800,000. Combat isn't an option in that game, it's just building, role-playing, socializing, and shopping from what I noticed.
It strikes me as odd to argue that the "non-combatant crowd" will find an enjoyable long-term experience in a game that features open PvP near the top of its features list.
I know people who don't enjoy fighting in games, and they are not the sort of people who would be cool with playing a game in which there is a fair chance they could be ganked walking from one place to another.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
And to further expand on the existence of the non-combatant crowd, Second Life has an active base of nearly 800,000. Combat isn't an option in that game, it's just building, role-playing, socializing, and shopping from what I noticed.It strikes me as odd to argue that the "non-combatant crowd" will find an enjoyable long-term experience in a game that features open PvP near the top of its features list.
I know people who don't enjoy fighting in games, and they are not the sort of people who would be cool with playing a game in which there is a fair chance they could be ganked walking from one place to another.
People who don't enjoy games with fighting in them aren't the target audience or much of the customer base of Pathfinder. I doubt that the Pathfinder MMO will appeal to them.
People who enjoy not fighting in games with fighting in them, on the other hand, are a significant minority. Nonfighting players might be supported as craftsmen, healers, architects, farmers, and the like. I suspect that a model similar to Star Wars Galaxies will work- a character can specialize in gathering resources, creating items, and/or creating buildings. As long as the raw materials (including time) are sufficiently scarce, an economy in them will develop.
And to further expand on the existence of the non-combatant crowd, Second Life has an active base of nearly 800,000. Combat isn't an option in that game, it's just building, role-playing, socializing, and shopping from what I noticed.It strikes me as odd to argue that the "non-combatant crowd" will find an enjoyable long-term experience in a game that features open PvP near the top of its features list.
I know people who don't enjoy fighting in games, and they are not the sort of people who would be cool with playing a game in which there is a fair chance they could be ganked walking from one place to another.
People who don't enjoy games with fighting in them aren't the target audience or much of the customer base of Pathfinder. I doubt that the Pathfinder MMO will appeal to them.
People who enjoy not fighting in games with fighting in them, on the other hand, are a significant minority. Nonfighting players might be supported as craftsmen, healers, architects, farmers, and the like. I suspect that a model similar to Star Wars Galaxies will work- a character can specialize in gathering resources, creating items, and/or creating buildings. As long as the raw materials (including time) are sufficiently scarce, an economy in them will develop.
That's what Scott has been saying...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And to further expand on the existence of the non-combatant crowd, Second Life has an active base of nearly 800,000. Combat isn't an option in that game, it's just building, role-playing, socializing, and shopping from what I noticed.It strikes me as odd to argue that the "non-combatant crowd" will find an enjoyable long-term experience in a game that features open PvP near the top of its features list.
I know people who don't enjoy fighting in games, and they are not the sort of people who would be cool with playing a game in which there is a fair chance they could be ganked walking from one place to another.
People who don't enjoy games with fighting in them aren't the target audience or much of the customer base of Pathfinder. I doubt that the Pathfinder MMO will appeal to them.
People who enjoy not fighting in games with fighting in them, on the other hand, are a significant minority. Nonfighting players might be supported as craftsmen, healers, architects, farmers, and the like. I suspect that a model similar to Star Wars Galaxies will work- a character can specialize in gathering resources, creating items, and/or creating buildings. As long as the raw materials (including time) are sufficiently scarce, an economy in them will develop.
Right, and those people will, in all likelihood, still participate in parts of the game which require the use of combat skills on a regular basis. I daresay that the sort of person who fights very rarely will, himself, be very rare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think a Darwinism effect here will take place. Everyone will have at least some defensive proficiency, even if it just is "Run like Godzilla is chasing me!".
That said, a Guild could form in which the majority of the players have offensive and defensive abilities, and then the 'second generation' of Players could number a few 'pure crafters', who are given the materials, craft and refine and return the now useable resources back to the Guild.
As Scott says, this is going to be rare, and likely 'alt character' stuff, but it is possible.
***********************************************************************
The downside to have no combat prowess, especially in a game like Pathfinder Online where an 'Open PvP Sandbox' world is in play, is that the rest of the players can hold PvP over your head as an excuse to get your stuff for free, let alone the monsters and everything else the game designers decide to throw at you.
Furthermore, without some form of combat prowess going out into the Wilderness to harvest materials is dangerous at best, and downright suicidal at worst. Hope you've got some strong friends or some good running legs.
The upside is that you have spent ALL your skills on crafting. Assuming you can keep a steady supply of materials flowing to you, the 'Complete Non Combatant' PC is capable of making items of higher levels faster and with more regularity than a 'Combatant' PC of the same 'level'.
a 'CNC' PC can theoretically level every crafting skill at once. Meaning that that player can produce equipment and consumables for potentially every single PC 'build' at once.
************************************************************************
The concept of a 'lone wolf' CNC-PC is shaky, but once the game starts getting up and running and Guilds start producing their own strongholds, the possibility of a 'Crafting Only' PC starts to become quite real.
While it might fly straight into the face of a global economy, having an 'in house' crafter who can make everything the Guild needs without having to deal with 'Crafters Guilds' using Price Fixing to control the market or other players grabbing all items of a certain 'type' off the Auction Houses so that their own goods are the only ones for sale, and at a premium too, can be good incentives to create the CNC-PC.
Personally .... it doesn't do much for me. I'm too fond of the viscerally pleasing bone-crunching violence of Melee Combat to ever create such a character, but I am also quite intrigued by the chance to be both a front-line combatant and having a crafting profession (or three) that can actually support me outside of combat and give my character some depth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Getting back to the topic of Mounts (we drifted a fair bit), what should be our basic level mounts, exotic land mounts, flying mounts and then perhaps the 'final' mount level?
Basic I see Riding Dogs and Ponies (small-sized characters like Gnomes, Halflings and possibly Dwarves?) and Horses and maybe camels, although that would be a stretch in the current map-setting (medium-sized characters like Humans, Dwarves, Elves). Simple, commonly available, easy to stable, doesn't require much up-keep from the player in or out of the field of battle.
Exotic Land Mounts could be non-standard mounts drawn from the Druid companion list, within reason. Obviously a Giant Snake isn't going to be anyone's mount, but a Boar or a Tiger could be useful, and a Bear would be an absolute juggernaut mount for the right character.
Flying mounts .... I put it down to Hippogriffs and maybe flying carpets and brooms, although the later two aren't mounts per say, and Hippogriffs should be the result of a long and demanding quest to go out, find a Hippogriff nest, either steal an egg without harming the others or capture a foal-Hippogriff and bring it back to the specialized trainer/breeder, wether PC or NPC.
Final Mount .... I have no idea. We're talking obsessive-compulsive levels here. Wyverns, Gryphons, Pegasi, but not Dragons.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Getting back to the topic of Mounts (we drifted a fair bit), what should be our basic level mounts, exotic land mounts, flying mounts and then perhaps the 'final' mount level?
Basic I see Riding Dogs and Ponies (small-sized characters like Gnomes, Halflings and possibly Dwarves?) and Horses and maybe camels, although that would be a stretch in the current map-setting (medium-sized characters like Humans, Dwarves, Elves). Simple, commonly available, easy to stable, doesn't require much up-keep from the player in or out of the field of battle.
Exotic Land Mounts could be non-standard mounts drawn from the Druid companion list, within reason. Obviously a Giant Snake isn't going to be anyone's mount, but a Boar or a Tiger could be useful, and a Bear would be an absolute juggernaut mount for the right character.
Flying mounts .... I put it down to Hippogriffs and maybe flying carpets and brooms, although the later two aren't mounts per say, and Hippogriffs should be the result of a long and demanding quest to go out, find a Hippogriff nest, either steal an egg without harming the others or capture a foal-Hippogriff and bring it back to the specialized trainer/breeder, wether PC or NPC.
Final Mount .... I have no idea. We're talking obsessive-compulsive levels here. Wyverns, Gryphons, Pegasi, but not Dragons.
Interesting idea. Tier 1: Mounts that just move faster; Tier 2: Mounts that can themselves fight; Tier 3: Mounts that can fly; Top: mounts that are individually powerful. I agree that anyone who wants to ride a dragon needs to be able to convince the dragon that it wants to be ridden. That's not a diplomacy check, that's a "Do you have the right artifact that also guarantees the eternal enmity of all dragons?" check. One of those being recovered should kick off a worldwide war, anyway.
I do think that a giant snake at least as acceptable a mount as a shark or tiger. It would be very hard to train and ride, just like any other mount of that general power level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mounts definitely shouldn't just be a different graphic models that increases your run speed by 110% or whatever.
Most mounts should have trouble traversing some kinds of terrains, giving players the option of both traveling by foot and with a mount.
They should also be costly, require feeding like suggested every now and then and be a hinder in combat unless you've trained to benefit from mounted combat.
IMHO, there shouldn't be any other mounts than just equine ones, and if there are - there should be very little linear progression to be had - different kinds of mounts would come with different restrictions in addition to benefits. Otherwise, sooner or later everyone will be riding on a griphon/bear/other top-level mount - which will ruin part of the feel of the world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is a very valid point, Squiddybiscuit. The point I am focusing on is that they have stated that 'maximizing' a skill should take 2.5 years (whether they mean 2 years 5 months or literally 2 and a half years ilunno) is that the Riding Skill, and I am assuming that it is a skill much like the actual combat/crafting Skills, will take a while to level up.
For example, every man and his dog can ride a horse or a pony. No real difficulties there. But focusing on the skill is a Skill not useable in combat unless you are a Ranger or Druid and your Horse is your Combat Pet, and as such it's not going to be a big draw-card for most folks.
That said, people will level the skill up, slowly. At certain 'levels' players might decide to invest a Merit Badge in being able to ride more exotic beasts, but is a player really willing to lock in three or four merit badges, which are assumed to be so hard to come by, just so they can have a Heavy Horse mount, a Dire Tiger mount, a Hippogriff Mount and a Wyvern Mount? They can only use one at a time, those mounts are expensive to feed and maintain and might even require specific shelters to maintain them when not out in the field with you.
Ideally I see people focusing upon a specific type of mount for the regions they most likely inhabit. People playing/'living' primarily on a plains region are likely going to focus on Horses, while people playing/'living' in a forest region are going to want Wolves, Riding Cats or some other form of agile, stealthy mount where going from A to B in a straight line in the fastest time possible is not only nigh-on impossible but more than likely suicidal. Players playing/'living' in a mountainous region might prefer a mount that can fly for short periods of time, while players near waterways and swamps will want mounts that don't slow down or freak out when swimming.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is a very valid point, Squiddybiscuit. The point I am focusing on is that they have stated that 'maximizing' a skill should take 2.5 years (whether they mean 2 years 5 months or literally 2 and a half years ilunno) is that the Riding Skill, and I am assuming that it is a skill much like the actual combat/crafting Skills, will take a while to level up.
Incorrect to a degree. maximizing a archetype which is made up of many skills will take 2.5 years. IE as a rogue, maximising sneak will not take 2.5 years, maximizing sneak, sneak attack, evasion etc... combined will take 2.5 years. At least that was the gist of how it sounded to me.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
My concept was "It will take 30 months to do everything that a rogue archetype can gain abilities from doing."
As to the stable: You keep a wyvern in an aerie, in the cliffside, a hippogriff in the same tower a griffin needs, and a pegasus in a pasture.
Of course you need to feed it, but that is as simple (and as complicated) as having the appropriate food delivered and paying the wages of the staff maintaining your holdings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My concept was "It will take 30 months to do everything that a rogue archetype can gain abilities from doing."
As to the stable: You keep a wyvern in an aerie, in the cliffside, a hippogriff in the same tower a griffin needs, and a pegasus in a pasture.
Of course you need to feed it, but that is as simple (and as complicated) as having the appropriate food delivered and paying the wages of the staff maintaining your holdings.
Has anyone discussed the concepts of how one "carries" a mount? I mean in most games your mount/ship/ect. just teleports to you or pops out of thin air and is stored in your inventory. This system has some benefits and some downsides. Personally I'd like a more realistic system but it is not a necessity. Perhaps if the game supports more of slow-travel system, one would arrive at said village on their mount and go to the town's stables. They then would have to pay some type of fee to "store" their mount at the stables. For Network issues the mount would just disappear (somewhat like a bank)and when the player is ready to leave said-town, you pay your mount's accumulative fee for staying however long at the stables and your mount pops up right next to you and off you go to the next town. Perhaps an expanded version of this system would allow players to keep their mounts on their player-owned property providing they have the right property to do so or even make profit in this business provided you have the right class/property. Otherwise your mount would follow you around and risk being killed/stolen (this seems extreme/ lost/hurt/ect and not allowed within buildings (in which case if you entered a building it would teleport [or travel] back to your hometown's/home's stable).
DIRE BATS NEEDED
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In Mount and Blade, a party that's entirely mounted travels faster. If they've got an extensive inventory, that slows them down. If they've got additional horses to carry goods, that speeds them up again, until they have enough horses that looking after them becomes a chore and you're slowed again. The algorithm used takes in all sorts of factors, but the one thing I guarantee is that you're never going to catch a small band of Khergit raiders.
I do hope they take encumbrance into consideration...even with mounts. This would make some mounts better than others. There could be slow strong ones and faster ones that are lighter and more nimble but cannot carry the same weight. These differences could even be different types/breeds/lineages of horses...(if more fantasy mounts are not implemented).
As for the carrying your mount question...my opinion is not popular, but I think that, except when stabled, all mounts should stay spawned and when not mounted, behave like an NPC animal/beast (albeit trained). Want to switch places and let your mount be on top...well that is between you and your mount.
I do hope they take encumbrance into consideration...even with mounts. This would make some mounts better than others. There could be slow strong ones and faster ones that are lighter and more nimble but cannot carry the same weight. These differences could even be different types/breeds/lineages of horses...(if more fantasy mounts are not implemented).
As for the carrying your mount question...my opinion is not popular, but I think that, except when stabled, all mounts should stay spawned and when not mounted, behave like an NPC animal/beast (albeit trained). Want to switch places and let your mount be on top...well that is between you and your mount.
Although I would like to see encumbrance taken into consideration, I believe this might be a more complicated system to implement then what it's actually worth to the general population. But there could be sooo much potential if a system of encumbrance was created, it would allow caravans to transport larger amounts of goods (this is assuming there is no fast-travel) and these caravans would have to hire guards to protect them. This would present interesting opportunities for guilds and merchants alike. It would be very cool to have a "guard" guild that could simply be contracted out to protect a caravan if a merchant could not supply the resources to protect himself.
Kit, as for your opinion on the "carrying your mount question..." I am in complete agreement with you on that. The ability to carry 5 mounts in a character's pocket is just ridiculous, silly, and potentially very impractical for the "mount-making-business". Perhaps a compromise of a dulled down version of either yours or my system would be acceptable though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would be interesting if Mounts could be permanently killed, traded between players, or bred back at the relevant 'Farm'.
Not only does this create a constant, albeit slow, need for more Mounts, and it could be interesting for networks of Players to get together and start producing specific 'Bloodlines' within their respective stables.
Also assuming you are a higher level player and are leaving your trusty (and battered) Warhorse behind for your damn-near unstoppable Dire Something Mount, trading it back to a Breeder to either pass on some of it's speccs to the next generation, to the Knackery to be reduced to resources (and I feel bad just thinking about that), to another player either as a way to make a quick buck or to help out a struggling newbie or even just giving it to the Town as an 'Emergency Mount' for the Marshals mentioned in the new Blog from Goblinworks, as a way for that first band of Marshals to get to the Player Killer and drive them away sooner rather than later.
I am greatly interested, and hopefully Goblinworks will include this, in the breeding of animals in a fantasy setting. Setting other players out on a quest to go harvest some Celestial Plant or a Young Dragon, to take the resulting resources to an Alchemist of some kind, reduce the resources into a single-use item and imbue it into the gestating foal bred between your two best Horses? A few days later, boom, out comes your Half-Celestial Warhorse or Half-Dragon Warhorse, something uniquely powerful not only by dint of it's rare template but also the natural Abilities you have bred into your stock through careful manipulation.
Imagine players being able to make a profit doing more than just Cleaving Goblins in twain? Caravans need draft animals to pull their wagons, mounts for the Guards, spare animals in case of emergency. Farming Sheep, Goats, Pigs and Cows to produce meat, leather, wool and milk. Breeding Dogs as mounts for the Small Races and (relatively) weak combat-companions for everyone. I would love to do this in game, because I doubt many players would have the patience to sit down and do this, and being able to turn around a few months and say "Nearly every damn hero in this time rides one of my horses." would fill me with pride.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they actually make travel meaningful (no common teleportation, or other fast-travel options), then it becomes much more intuitive for mounts and ships, etc. to stay in-game where they last were. If you ride your horse to a seaport, and then take a ship somewhere, you'll either have to stable the horse at the port while you're gone, or sell it and maybe buy a new horse at your destination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fast-Travel should hopefully be restricted to the roads, and be less 'click a, watch loading screen, arrive at a' and more like a highly interactive version of World of Warcraft's Flight-Paths?
I can see 'Fast Travel' being mechanically faster than Normal Travel, but being limited purely to areas with roads, and only along those roads, and only to places you have already visited, although it should also be possible to 'follow' another Player who has already visited an area or town to ensure a Party or Convoy can actually move at a decent rate without some people shooting off ahead and the others stumbling along in their wake.
At any point, you should be able to leave Fast Travel and, if part of a Convoy, select the 'Rejoin' function to temporarily speed up and rejoin your Convoy. Also, if you need to get to a region or area where there is a quest or a resource, and the road does not reach, the possibility of stopping at the nearest point in the road to that spot should also be possible.
Players crafting roads, however, makes things a little bit ... difficult, I guess.
************************************************************************
Player A, without a Mount, decides he wants to get a major town to a village to pick up some cheap iron instead of paying for it from the safety of the Major Town. Player A has been to the mining village before, so he can fast-travel there.
Player A heads to the road, finds the nearest road-sign or other interactive toggle and selects 'fast travel' and 'mining village'. His character starts out at a trot towards the Mining Village along the road without his need to press the controls.
Player A is still vulnerable to wandering monsters, although at a lower % due to being on the road, and other players looking to kill him to loot his Husk.
A short while later, Player A has reached the Mining Village, and can now (hopefully) buy his cheaper iron. However the forced march has left Player A tired, and he's probably better off hitting the tavern to either rest or get himself a tankard and a meal to recover from that fatigue.
************************************************************************
Player B, who has an average Horse mount,and can us the same interactive thingy that Player A did. Being mounted, Player B arrives at the Mining Village much faster and is not tired, and can thus probably head back to the Major Town sooner, assuming his mount has the stamina for the trip back immediately.
A further advantage is that while Player A and Player B probably have similar carrying capacity, Player B has the benefit of the Mount's greater strength score, allowing Player B to carry more Trade-Goods, plus Player B himself. The Downside is that Player B is also paying for the food, water and stabling of the Mount, which can cut into his profits severely if not managed carefully.
************************************************************************
A Guild decides it's time for them to jump in on the Ore Gravy Train and pitches in to buy a Wagon. Slower than a Mount, the Wagon is expensive but has no capacity/weight limit. The Player in charge of Driving the Wagon waits until the other players have all selected the 'Follow' function on his Vehicle, then selects the 'Fast Travel : Group' ability from the Interactive toggle, and the Guild is off.
Just like Players A and B, the Guild is just as vulnerable to Bandits (PC and NPC alike) and wandering monsters, but travelling in a group offers stability and protection at the cost of smaller personal wealth, and together the Guild is able to buy, and carry, a lot more of the Ore than either Player A or Player B. Furthermore, with access to the Wagon, the other Players have no need to risk slowing themselves down with a Heavy Load, and can thus move freely and at full speed in case of an ambush.
The downsides to the Wagon is that it requires two mounts, doubling the costs of feeding, watering and stabling, and that it is markedly slower than a normal mount, although still somewhat faster than walking, but only just. Further the Wagon in itself is expensive, and its large side and cumbersome maneuvering means the Wagon is a hindrance off the road without open space and is likely to be reduced to a crawl over rocky or otherwise difficult terrain.