Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see this idea flying totally in the face of GW's stated goals; namely only PC's can do certain things (as expressed in the various threads on "pets"), and solo play is not what they want - PfO is a cooperative MMO.
You're right, and I was searching for the quote where Ryan said something to the effect of "If players can do it, then only players should be able to do it".
What do you mean by 'meaningfully interact?'I mean that if a Player Character can do it, then ONLY Player Characters can do it. If you want an army, you need to assemble one run by humans, not by AI. If you want to harvest something you need to assemble a crew run by humans, not an AI. If you want to haul stuff from place to place, you need a caravans run by humans, not an AI.
We're going to focus our efforts and resources on maximizing meaningful human interaction. That means there won't be a lot of time or money spent on AI driven behaviors.
I could see Undead Common Folk. They're sims, not characters. So if somewhere there's a description that says you've got undead, or genies, or mephits or whatever in your Settlement, that's harmless; they're just going about their lives adding some flavor to the world.
I'm totally okay with this kind of reasoning for why Cohorts/Hirelings won't be in-game. My point was specifically about the argument that it's unbalancing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm totally okay with this kind of reasoning for why Cohorts/Hirelings won't be in-game. My point was specifically about the argument that it's unbalancing.
I'd say look at it as being unbalancing less in the sense of "Player A is stronger than Player B" and more in the sense "We have a fairly finite power range we want a single character to fall in, and this is outside that range."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"We have a fairly finite power range we want a single character to fall in, and this is outside that range."
This is exactly the thing I'm talking about.
If I can convince 40 other players to follow me around and help me fight, then I'm going to roll over pretty much any single player. With that kind of imbalance already baked in, it's pointless to get too caught up on balancing 1v1.
Also, there will be players who use bots to make their own little armies, and they'll gladly pay Goblinworks for the privilege. I've seen it in Vanguard in a way that makes me completely despair that there will ever be any way to stop it.
Also, there will be players who use bots to make their own little armies, and they'll gladly pay Goblinworks for the privilege. I've seen it in Vanguard in a way that makes me completely despair that there will ever be any way to stop it.
Pretty hard to stop people with excess cash and free time.
Heck, if someone wanted, they could literally pay other people to play with them. Someone probably already does this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"We have a fairly finite power range we want a single character to fall in, and this is outside that range."This is exactly the thing I'm talking about.
If I can convince 40 other players to follow me around and help me fight, then I'm going to roll over pretty much any single player. With that kind of imbalance already baked in, it's pointless to get too caught up on balancing 1v1.
I was apparently unclear. You are arguing about relative power. Player A vs Player B (or B, C, D, and E). I am discussing absolute power (Player A can do X and Y by himself, but should not be able to do Z alone). Saying that you can get 30 other people is not relevant to this paradigm. GW has said they're shooting for characters with the feel of PCs in the 6-12 level range. Those set the limits for the absolute (not relative) power of a single character. Limiting the absolute power of a single character has the purpose of directing them towards forming the sort of 30 man groups you discussed to handle the challenges. Allowing a character to go above the absolute power threshold undermines this incentive.
Also, there will be players who use bots to make their own little armies, and they'll gladly pay Goblinworks for the privilege. I've seen it in Vanguard in a way that makes me completely despair that there will ever be any way to stop it.
Yes, there will be. No, it cannot be stopped. It is unfortunate, but a fact of the environment we operate in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Very old thread again, so beware.
I'll also add my familiar refrain that balance concerns shouldn't be as important as they would be in other games. Why is it "unfair" for me to have 20 skeletons, but it's not unfair for me to have 40 players who are willing to follow me around and roll all over you?
Because you could, instead, have 40 players who all have 20 skeletons apiece.
And in fact, if it's that easy, that would be the ONLY valid play style.Having perfect 1v1 balance is impossible, and not necessary, though I think every thing should have it's own role where it excels.
One play style that's so good you'd be crazy not to use, however, it where the line is drawn.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are arguing about relative power.
Yes, I was talking about balancing classes relative to each other, and why I think that's not really necessary.
Because you could, instead, have 40 players who all have 20 skeletons apiece.
Or I could have 200 players, none of whom want to play a Necromancer, because the costs of getting 20 (or 200) Skeletons isn't fun for them, and they really like the class they play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're assuming most players aren't power gamers, or that goonswarm like guilds wouldn't mandate being necromancers, simply because it's that much stronger.
Maybe with the RPers and the TTers, yeah, but once the hardcore MMO players arrive they'd start stomping rather quickly if something's that much stronger without a very significant drawback.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're assuming most players aren't power gamers, or that goonswarm like guilds wouldn't mandate being necromancers, simply because it's that much stronger.
Maybe with the RPers and the TTers, yeah, but once the hardcore MMO players arrive they'd start stomping rather quickly if something's that much stronger without a very significant drawback.
Indeed, the fact is within the bounds of open PVP, there will almost certainly be goonswarm like groups, which can be expected to make up roughly 20% of the world and if there is a viable "superpower" class/skill combination that can run down everything and everyone... well you can pretty much expect them to do it.
Of which the first consiquence, is going to be those who like both RP, and winning on occasion, lets say these guys make up 60% of the world, these guys will inevitably be forced to adapt to not face continually getting their face rubbed in the dirt by group 1.
Finally is group C. The guys who will play what they want to play with no consideration of power. Group 1 will steamroll these guys (admitted, they most likely would regardless, group 1 will inevitably be optimized to the maximum potential, but the bigger thing is, group 2 also is steamrolling them. As a result, part of group 3 will adapt and take the OP route, a good portion will quit, and a tiny portion will remain true to themselves. Most likely as hunting targets for group 1, as they form their puny little resistance.
Now all that being said, this isn't the nail in the coffin for creating powerful necromancers with undead swarms. The solution is rather simple.... The upkeep to fuel one man's undead swarm, must be drastically more than 1 man can rationally obtain by himself. If it takes 20 people to obtain, secure and manage the supply chain to keep 1 swarm going, then 1 in 20 will be able to go necromancer, as everyone going necromancer would result in characters being non-functional 95% of the time. In addition of course the time to build up a swarm could be notable, and when a side kills them off, they could take just as long to replace as they did to create. The old expression the bigger they are the harder they fall, is a fully viable balancing condition, unless you actually make it so powerful that they won't realistically ever lose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, there will be players who use bots to make their own little armies, and they'll gladly pay Goblinworks for the privilege. I've seen it in Vanguard in a way that makes me completely despair that there will ever be any way to stop it.Pretty hard to stop people with excess cash and free time.
Heck, if someone wanted, they could literally pay other people to play with them. Someone probably already does this.
I seem to recall Ryan or one of the Devs posting that they want the game interface, designed using Unity, to block the commands bots usually use, but I can't recall where or when it was posted. Ryan appears to share the view that bots are bad, and GW can take steps to minimize them if not outright block their use. If GW can do this, I will be very happy. Nihimon, do you have that post or blog bookmarked?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I seem to recall Ryan or one of the Devs posting that they want the game interface, designed using Unity, to block the commands bots usually use, but I can't recall where or when it was posted. Ryan appears to share the view that bots are bad, and GW can take steps to minimize them if not outright block their use. If GW can do this, I will be very happy. Nihimon, do you have that post or blog bookmarked?Also, there will be players who use bots to make their own little armies, and they'll gladly pay Goblinworks for the privilege. I've seen it in Vanguard in a way that makes me completely despair that there will ever be any way to stop it.Pretty hard to stop people with excess cash and free time.
Heck, if someone wanted, they could literally pay other people to play with them. Someone probably already does this.
You can't block bots without blocking players. Best case scenario, you could set up the system to flag bot-like behavior and send a GM to adjudicate it as a real person. Bot input can come in a manner that the system cannot distinguish from a person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... because it's that much stronger.
My whole point is that it might be stronger 1v1 while being actually weaker against different groups. That's why I keep talking about it not being necessary to balance 1v1. Just because it's stronger in 1v1 doesn't mean it's going to be stronger in 5v5 or 20v50 (on either side).
I seem to recall Ryan or one of the Devs posting that they want the game interface, designed using Unity, to block the commands bots usually use, but I can't recall where or when it was posted. Ryan appears to share the view that bots are bad, and GW can take steps to minimize them if not outright block their use. If GW can do this, I will be very happy. Nihimon, do you have that post or blog bookmarked?
I don't actually recall such a post. Rather, I recall Ryan acknowledging that it's virtually impossible to distinguish a bot from a player, and that if it comes to an arms race, the botters usually win.
You can't block bots without blocking players.
And if the player is sitting at their computer (reading a book, or watching a movie) and is able to respond when challenged by a GM, then there's nothing that can be done.
I've been thinking about this problem a lot lately, because of my exposure to bots in Vanguard. And I despair that there will never be a good solution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I seem to recall Ryan or one of the Devs posting that they want the game interface, designed using Unity, to block the commands bots usually use, but I can't recall where or when it was posted. Ryan appears to share the view that bots are bad, and GW can take steps to minimize them if not outright block their use. If GW can do this, I will be very happy. Nihimon, do you have that post or blog bookmarked?Also, there will be players who use bots to make their own little armies, and they'll gladly pay Goblinworks for the privilege. I've seen it in Vanguard in a way that makes me completely despair that there will ever be any way to stop it.Pretty hard to stop people with excess cash and free time.
Heck, if someone wanted, they could literally pay other people to play with them. Someone probably already does this.
Emphasis on "usually use". It's an arms race, always has been always will be. Just like windows updates and new versions fix the vulnerabilities that a virus will usually use. The system avoids compromise for a brief period of time, someone figures out the new weakness, the exploiters adapt and a new "usually use" forms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I despair that there will never be a good solution.
The fight against bots is probably layered:
1) GW knows you can't defeat them entirely, but GW has to be *seen* fighting in order to keep at least some portion of their population from leaving
2) GW shuts off the reasons that some folks bot, like goldfarming
3) GW uses the GM-resources they've already told us will exist to immediately respond to reports of griefing to also immediately query potential botters
4) GW makes the game too difficult, too interesting...or both...to bot "easily" (they'll never stop the dedicated)
5) GW asks the community for help with these, and other, points, both in crowdforging and after
One last benefit: in a "smaller" game like PFO, it's much easier to swing a highly targeted banstick
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would add that I believe there is a way to significantly reduce the use of bots, and that's to make it possible to accomplish reasonable things while offline. PFO is already taking a major step in this direction by grant XP while offline. The next major step is to allow tedious activities like restocking a storehouse to be done offline.
There will still be players who want to run their own group through a dungeon, and will happily bot 5 other characters to back them up. I've seen it first-hand. Being in a group with a bot tank is one of the most ridiculous experiences I've ever had, but it was also eye-opening to see how effective they can be, even while they were ridiculously ineffective at other times.
The only way I see that ever being addressed is to create built-in support for basic botting of characters and sanction it. The players who really want to do it are going to do it anyway. If the built-in support is "good enough", the black market won't be as lucrative and may even dry up completely. I seriously doubt this will happen, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only way I see that ever being addressed is to create built-in support for basic botting of characters and sanction it.
This was how the best MUD I used to play, Legends of Future Past, worked. It was all through Telnet clients anyway, so botting was a matter of how well one spoke "macro". I was an itinerant healer, so I prided myself on having macros that would take me from anywhere to anywhere else as quickly as possible, to respond to cries for help.
It's never made much sense to me to operate a character completely as a bot, but I usually shrug my shoulders and say "whatever". In this game, we'll need to be concerned about bots being involved in exploiting high-quality resources, because in a player-run economy, confidence that that economy is "some sort of fair" will be a central and essential element.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In this game, we'll need to be concerned about bots being involved in exploiting high-quality resources...
I actually think it's not important whether or not it's bots that are exploiting those resources. In fact, I think the Gathering system basically uses Common Folk (Sims) as bots. Rather, the important factor will be which organization can dominate the area effectively enough to secure those resources.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I seem to recall Ryan or one of the Devs posting that they want the game interface, designed using Unity, to block the commands bots usually use, but I can't recall where or when it was posted. Ryan appears to share the view that bots are bad, and GW can take steps to minimize them if not outright block their use. If GW can do this, I will be very happy. Nihimon, do you have that post or blog bookmarked?I don't actually recall such a post. Rather, I recall Ryan acknowledging that it's virtually impossible to distinguish a bot from a player, and that if it comes to an arms race, the botters usually win.
Perhaps I was confused and this was the post I was mis-remembering. However, I still have a vague recollection about him saying something about the client that might cut down on bots, just can't for the life of me find it or recall the exact nature of the post. Thanks anyway. Maybe I dreamed it, LOL, hoping he'd find a way to defeat bots!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe players can tag/flag bots and if enough players do so, with reputation, said bot is majorly debuffed or otherwise? Goes without saying, reputation takes a hit if too many tags/flags without said avatar being a bot? Equally users using bots damage reputation of the people they're in a settlement with? That is a particularly worthy method of allowing players to kick an offending player/be rightfully irked?
@Gloreindl - In general Ryan's mentioned about the more stuff on the client the more it can be hacked. That's the general rule to prevent egregious hacks. Also things like no auto-attack iirc? I think ideally the diversity of decision-making players require might help as would open-world pvp. Also preventing stuff that can easily/predictably/dependably be farmed such a stationary, solitary mobs which drop guaranteed loot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe players can tag/flag bots and if enough players do so, with reputation, said bot is majorly debuffed or otherwise?And if it's not a bot? It's just an anti-social player? Or maybe it's just someone that a large guild of assassins doesn't like?
Could always open the "what's one and one" (are you human?) dialogue box?! ;)
Ok, there's no sure way of course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe players can tag/flag bots and if enough players do so, with reputation, said bot is majorly debuffed or otherwise?And if it's not a bot? It's just an anti-social player? Or maybe it's just someone that a large guild of assassins doesn't like?
Could always open the "what's one and one" (are you human?) dialogue box?! ;)
Ok, there's no sure way of course.
The best you can do is flag it and let the GM's review it. Better to let a few bots slip through than unduly penalize actual players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could always open the "what's one and one" (are you human?) dialogue box?! ;)
That's my whole point.
A significant number of players are sitting at their keyboards reading a book or watching a movie while the bot runs. They will be able to respond to those "are you a human" queries in the affirmative.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure why, if the activity is something so menial or otherwise boring as to encourage botting, that botting should be automatically banned. I admit to being over-sensitive to boredom, but my first question becomes "why is a boring activity in-game at all?"
If the activity itself is boring, but it's being done in an area that requires player-attention, it feels as if "have at it" is an appropriate response. The boring activity needs doing, for whatever reason, but the player remains at his keyboard to return to "real play" when needed...or to answer "are you human?" questions; please help me see the problem?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Possibly the main form of "harvesting" attracts more mobs the bigger the task force/operation in progress, so the 2 are combined: Visceral combat + "Put your back into it chores". That and reducing gold farming incentives.
Agree repetitive activity -> automate it seems a natural conclusion.
I guess it comes down to bots being a "cheat" to resource collection is what it comes down to in terms of being an anathema. Everyone should have a tireless gollum, undead work force as time = money.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everyone should have a tireless gollum, undead work force as time = money.
Ryan's told us that resource collection will be done by sims, while our job is to defend the extraction outpost. That may be sufficient to deter this aspect of botting, and one hopes GW is thinking similarly about others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... it seems gm-reporting of that is the only solution. :)
And it's a very limited solution that ties up a lot of human resources without making a real difference.
Like any black market, the best answer is to subvert it by allowing the players to do what they want without having to resort to a black market, or to remove the obstacles in the game that can be overcome by bots.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... it seems gm-reporting of that is the only solution. :)And it's a very limited solution that ties up a lot of human resources without making a real difference.
Like any black market, the best answer is to subvert it by allowing the players to do what they want without having to resort to a black market, or to remove the obstacles in the game that can be overcome by bots.
I'm going to strongly disagree with ya here Nihmon, I've seen basic botting be made into a game feature. See ether saga, it's a free MMO, and it's play for free is overpriced. Making botting available immidiately makes it commonplace, as a result, the quests, the market etc... also have to adapt to compensate for this, and thus virtually everything in the game assumes that after a certain level expect you to follow the tedious actions for 6+ hours at a time.
IMO instance botting is the exception, and the solution to it benefits the game anyway. Make the game more complex, don't allow any character to be able to get by repeating the same order of skills ad-infinium, bots are very good for repetative predictable tasks. If the enemies actually are unpredictable, and an array of tactics is necessary to beat them, botting itself becomes a huge challenge.
The reason tank bots can exist, is in most MMO's a single taunt skill, or the same combination of attacks works 99.999% of the time. But what if that wasn't the case, what if
10% of enemy combinations require one type of enemy to be picked off either immidiately after the start, or even before the fight begins (requiring a stealthy character or a good wizard to start the fight)
20% of encounters need the tank to rush in and engage immidiately, as otherwise they will begin buffing eachother, making the encounter drastically harder.
20% need to be lead off with AoEs of some sort, before the tank gets in.
10% have some massive defence piercing debuff requiring a different type of tank compared to what is effective against the other 90%.
etc...
The gist of my opinion is, things are botted because they are boring and repetative. Think of it like the real world, there's quite a few jobs that involve just entering data from one program to the next, and quite a few of them, are being made obsolete via scripts, There's other jobs that require things that actually challenge the human brain, of which computers will not be adaptive enough to handle for decades. I want to play a game that requires me to actually think and plan, not mind-numbing repetition. Take out the tedium, and you simultaneously make writing bots harder, and lower the desire to use them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ideally defeat the logic of bots? The "common people" are the function of bots for resources and combat if complex and highly variable from moment to refreshing moment and group based... those should be conducive?
Interesting discussion. I think I'll be improving my coding and scripting skills between now and then - just in case! ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anything you can expect players to be able to do, like determining that a particular mob needs to be picked off right away, is something you can expect to be botted. Literally, anything. All of the examples you gave will have to convey to the player what needs to be done. Once that information is conveyed, bots can react to it.
Perhaps it's possible to randomize encounters in a way that players have to discover what needs to be done in real time, and then adapt to that. But I don't really see how.
I've been thinking about it a lot lately because I see bots being used so much in Vanguard, and because I don't like them.
The point I keep coming back to is to remove "the grind" as a game mechanic. Limit progress by real time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anything you can expect players to be able to do, like determining that a particular mob needs to be picked off right away, is something you can expect to be botted. Literally, anything. All of the examples you gave will have to convey to the player what needs to be done. Once that information is conveyed, bots can react to it.
Perhaps it's possible to randomize encounters in a way that players have to discover what needs to be done in real time, and then adapt to that. But I don't really see how.
I've been thinking about it a lot lately because I see bots being used so much in Vanguard, and because I don't like them.
The point I keep coming back to is to remove "the grind" as a game mechanic. Limit progress by real time.
Computers of course can do anything a human can with enough time, and in theory they can pick up any que that a human can, but theory is far from reality. Just like in theory computers can read capchas, and to some extent they can sort of, but even the best capcha crackers can't do it constantly. The key thing is, most MMO's, 1 tactic works, 99.9% of cases, and regular mobs never change up, bosses rarely change it up.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
...
The point I keep coming back to is to remove "the grind" as a game mechanic. Limit progress by real time.
Yes, removing the need to carry out repetative actions to advance, on every character, should go a long way to removing the drive to bot. This is one of the key advantages of time-based advancement
(Aside: another benefit is that it removes the need for players to craft vast amounts of low-level items as they power level their crafting alts. A behavior that deeply distorts the market as the items are dumped at any price.)
The remaining driver for botting then becomes as a force multiplier for solo players, likely most useful in PVE contexts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Goonswarm-like? The Goons (who are a large guild of Something Awfullers. The group originated there.) will be here. TEST Kingdom Please Ignore (the Reddit equivalent) will be here. The other cross-MMO groups will probably be here, too. Heck, the Chinese gold farmers will be here, unless GW and the game's economy make it unprofitable. ("Virtual Shanghai offers discount training to our gold-buying customers.") Come to think of it, a town built by gold farmers would be an attractive war target...
Any system that can be leveraged for power, will be. Assembling a strong group of people into a settlement will be important. Territory you can't defend will be taken away.
I expect the virtual River Kingdoms will live up to their tabletop description
In the anarchic hills and valleys of the River Kingdoms, all you own is what you can hold by force. Dozens of nations flourish in this land of outlaws and scoundrels, from high-walled city-states to tiny tribal enclaves, and any hero with strength and vision can claim a throne at the point of a sword.
Substitute "group of heroes" for "hero" in the last line, and it sounds about right to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The remaining driver for botting then becomes as a force multiplier for solo players, likely most useful in PVE contexts.
Indeed. It makes me wonder how much time Ryan has spent contemplating this issue since he ended up with a game that is largely focused on time-based advancement, with significant PvP :)