Goblin Squad Member
|
What if the NPC guards who are already there get buffs based on how many players are logged out "on guard duty"? (This is assuming that there are other things for logged-out players to be doing, like crafting, training, working a profession, etc.) For every, say, 5 logged-off players who have signed up for guard duty, the existing NPC guards get something like +20% health and +5% damage? Or, for each logged-out player, an extra NPC guard is spawned, at a power level similar to the player? Either way, the dev team doesn't have to write an AI script for the players, and there will be a significant difference between a town with no players on guard duty (a half-dozen NPCs of middling strength) and a town with 20 players logged out on guard duty (2 dozen guards, noticeably more powerful and better equipped, but still just NPC guards).
This is a very creative idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In that case, the A.I controled PC Guards are just as "mindless" as the A.I. controled NPC Guards. In fact they are probably a good bit more so, since it's easier to program an A.I. to function effectively if you've reduced the number of variables (i.e. skills, abilities, equipment) it has to account for when determining how to react.
Right I am not talking about the raw power level, or skill of the AI, both of those are controllable and tweakable for either one. What I am specifically focusing on is the fact that when the player and NPC guards are online then you have the full defensive resources of both, when the player is the NPC, only 1 is defending the city at a time.
the difference in power between 100 players + 100 NPCs vs 0 players + 100 NPCs is drastically larger then the power difference of
100 players vs 100 NPCs.The difference is in the PC = NPC method, your non-player guard force scales down, based on how many players are actually online, which lessens the difference in your defense between 4am when most of your guild is asleep, vs 7PM when most of your guild is awake.
The point of this is to lower the odds of an endless ping pong match between say a guild of Australians next door to a guild of Americans. If the NPCs are strong enough to hold back an army durring your sleeping time, than no army is going to even pose anything resembling a threat when you are awake, and actually have your players on to defend.
Now yes this will be lessened by the players themselves intentionally recruiting cross timezone etc... But it is a potential advantage to a system like players as guards.
Ok, got it now....but that doesn't actualy neccessitate A.I. controled PC Guards does it? Couldn't you achieve the same effect by having the number of NPC Guards "on duty" at the time increase/decrease in inverse proportion to the number of defending Players present (assuming you have some way for the system to differentiate between a Player that is "defending" as opposed to one who is "attacking")?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do like the idea of having players switch to an AI script when they log out, the problem is making that script versatile enough to deal with all possible player gearsets/skillsets/inventories. But that's already been discussed.
What if, when players log out in town, they can work as guard duty, but not directly. What if the NPC guards who are already there get buffs based on how many players are logged out "on guard duty"? (This is assuming that there are other things for logged-out players to be doing, like crafting, training, working a profession, etc.) For every, say, 5 logged-off players who have signed up for guard duty, the existing NPC guards get something like +20% health and +5% damage? Or, for each logged-out player, an extra NPC guard is spawned, at a power level similar to the player? Either way, the dev team doesn't have to write an AI script for the players, and there will be a significant difference between a town with no players on guard duty (a half-dozen NPCs of middling strength) and a town with 20 players logged out on guard duty (2 dozen guards, noticeably more powerful and better equipped, but still just NPC guards).
Yes that could work and it would avoid many of the complications involved in having the A.I. try to control PC's.
It also wouldn't be quite as prone to "gaming" the system as the PC option... i.e. the opposition couldn't make 500 naked Level 1 Alts with lousy stats and put them on "guard duty" in the target city in order to reduce the number of NPC guards on defense to 0.
|
What if the NPC guards who are already there get buffs based on how many players are logged out "on guard duty"? (This is assuming that there are other things for logged-out players to be doing, like crafting, training, working a profession, etc.) For every, say, 5 logged-off players who have signed up for guard duty, the existing NPC guards get something like +20% health and +5% damage? Or, for each logged-out player, an extra NPC guard is spawned, at a power level similar to the player? Either way, the dev team doesn't have to write an AI script for the players, and there will be a significant difference between a town with no players on guard duty (a half-dozen NPCs of middling strength) and a town with 20 players logged out on guard duty (2 dozen guards, noticeably more powerful and better equipped, but still just NPC guards).
This is a nice idea for towns but what about a spot in the wilds my guild is trying turn into a new town or mine?
It is a good idea for established NPC town but doesn't help non_NPC areas unless you have some way of explaining a bunch of town gaurds protecting some camp in the middle of the woods. They could be hirelings but then that puts a strain the resources of the guild trying to hold the area. Which also leads to the question of what guards get the bonus from you playing guard?
Which further asks when would the PCs gaurds take action? This could be solved with an ROE selection when you logout or modify in preferences but definatly requires thinking. This could also be the base of how different areas get different laws. The NPCs reflect the laws enforced by the local PCs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do like the idea of having players switch to an AI script when they log out, the problem is making that script versatile enough to deal with all possible player gearsets/skillsets/inventories. But that's already been discussed.
What if, when players log out in town, they can work as guard duty, but not directly. What if the NPC guards who are already there get buffs based on how many players are logged out "on guard duty"? (This is assuming that there are other things for logged-out players to be doing, like crafting, training, working a profession, etc.) For every, say, 5 logged-off players who have signed up for guard duty, the existing NPC guards get something like +20% health and +5% damage? Or, for each logged-out player, an extra NPC guard is spawned, at a power level similar to the player? Either way, the dev team doesn't have to write an AI script for the players, and there will be a significant difference between a town with no players on guard duty (a half-dozen NPCs of middling strength) and a town with 20 players logged out on guard duty (2 dozen guards, noticeably more powerful and better equipped, but still just NPC guards).
Yes that could work and it would avoid many of the complications involved in having the A.I. try to control PC's.
It also wouldn't be quite as prone to "gaming" the system as the PC option... i.e. the opposition couldn't make 500 naked Level 1 Alts with lousy stats and put them on "guard duty" in the target city in order to reduce the number of NPC guards on defense to 0.
I do like Arbalester's idea, it does work well for the situation. I don't think the make 500 naked alts would be a threat in either circumstance, as the PC/NPC method dosn't have a capped amount of defense other then the population of the players in guard duty, it dosn't go down because the game cuts down on it, it cuts down because the NPC is now a player etc... if the city has 500 loyal players, and the opposition throws 400 naked level 1 alts, there are still 500 loyal players which are either online or NPCs, just some extra worthless chaff thrown in with them. Personally either way I think for a city, citizenship should be dictated by the people running the city and guard roles should be limited to actual citizens.
|
|
It also wouldn't be quite as prone to "gaming" the system as the PC option... i.e. the opposition couldn't make 500 naked Level 1 Alts with lousy stats and put them on "guard duty" in the target city in order to reduce the number of NPC guards on defense to 0.
This situation could be avoided by having the length of time a PC stays on gaurd reflects how long that PC had been active just prior to logout and the level. A level 1 played for 5 minutes would not last long but a level 5 played for 2 hrs would last much longer. And use the PCs themselves as guards only outside of NPC areas. More so, you have to determine what guards get the bonus which would require being part of the guild that hired them or having a significant reputation in the town of question. Also if using straight NPC gaurds, if I set up a kingdom in the woods how would I set the laws?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a nice idea for towns but what about a spot in the wilds my guild is trying turn into a new town or mine?
This brings up one of the reasons I really like the Offline PC idea. It's a simple model, that's actually quite close to the reality we're trying to model.
If you want your PC to guard an area while you're offline, you park him in an area and toggle on your Guard ability. Having looked at all the different pets in all the different MMOs I've played over the years, I don't think "Guard" is all that AI-intensive. If you combine the other idea I've had about a Challenge skill, that lets you warn another player to leave the area or be attacked, it would be fairly easy to make your Guard automatically Challenge any PCs that entered the area that weren't on a whitelist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a nice idea for towns but what about a spot in the wilds my guild is trying turn into a new town or mine?This brings up one of the reasons I really like the Offline PC idea. It's a simple model, that's actually quite close to the reality we're trying to model.
If you want your PC to guard an area while you're offline, you park him in an area and toggle on your Guard ability. Having looked at all the different pets in all the different MMOs I've played over the years, I don't think "Guard" is all that AI-intensive. If you combine the other idea I've had about a Challenge skill, that lets you warn another player to leave the area or be attacked, it would be fairly easy to make your Guard automatically Challenge any PCs that entered the area that weren't on a whitelist.
It's not "Guard" that is intensive....it's understanding all the characters different abilities and equipment and how to utilize those in an automated fashion for any combination of abilities/equipment an individual character might have.
"Pets" are basicaly just mobs which are linked to the player. It's no different scripting the A.I. for a "Giant Eagle" pet as it is for scripting the A.I. for a Giant Eagle monster.
Even with something like LOTRO's soldiers in thier Skirmish system you'll note that there are a limited number of options for choosing the different soldier types and customizing them......and LOTRO is a pretty simplistic combat system.
The challenge for the A.I. is "Ok I've got Joe here who is a 7 ranger/7 monk/7 wizard he's equiped with a longbow, longsword & shield and is wearing leather armor..and he's just been attacked. Do I shoot with the Longbow or put it away and cast fireball, or charge forward so he can use the monk grapple attack. The attacker is closing distance...do I move back so that I can continue to attack with bow or spells or do I melee. Do I try to heal when Joe's hitpoints drop below 50%. Do I use the strength/health potions he has in his belt pouch?"
That may be doable if you KNOW you are dealing with just those variables...but the SAME A.I. that deals with that has to deal with the 15/4 Paladin/Druid, etc.
In PFO you are dealing with at least 121 different possible class combinations...and that's not even considering the level of those classes....and gods knows how much variation within each of those classes (i.e. attributes, abilities, feats, spells) .....and then any possible combination of equipment in the game the character could be equiped with. All handled by the same A.I.
It may be something that it's POSSIBLE to create an A.I. to do....but it sure isn't a simple/easy/non-intensive Development task. Have you ever tried to actualy code any sort of adaptable A.I. yourself?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the biggest rationale in doing this is the introduction of a new type of resource, labor. This has never been an issue in any MMO/game I have ever played because players cannot be expected to sit and do repetative rote tasks manually for the time necessary to require this sort of thing. However...I am thinking that building a castle should not just require x mats (and it magically grows out of the ground as past MMOs have done), but also require y time of labor. This requires that players actually get "realistic" support for construction tasks. Single players who can buy the mats cannot just throw up a castle (I built my guilds castle up to tier 2 solo in AoC).
I go into more depth on my rationale in this thread.
As to the AI, as an AI researcher in RL I agree with GrumpyMel...but I also think the AI can be greatly simplified by having the players choose what should occur in a given situation. What I envision is a tactics sytem such as Dragon Age 1 or 2. You choose the default action given a certain situation, an example/explanation for those who have not played it can be found here.
So, when you log out you would choose your tactics (the situations would be chosen from a standard list) and the responses are both standard, in the case of "run away", and custom based upon your skill levels, such as "level 7 cleave" or "fireball". Then the AI only needs to recognize the situation and act as you the player has dictated...which is a much easier solution.
This said I do agree with many of the objections to this system and in response would modify my proposal to include a 12-48 hr time limit to NPC-dom. So, players would need to log in and reset this or be automatically "despawned".
This said I do agree with many of the objections to this system and in response would modify my proposal to include a 12-48 hr time limit to NPC-dom. So, players would need to log in and reset this or be automatically "despawned".
Liking the whole idea of this, which is why I snipped quote for brevity, but I did want to posit that perhaps there should be different time thresholds for different NPC functions; guard duty with a 12-48 hour window, for example, but blacksmithing as much as 72, or merchant-work (trading one's supplies as an actual sales NPC with price inflation/discounting based on one's skill in relation to existing market forces, etc) being nigh-indefinite..with the stipulation that if you run out of supplies, then you despawn, unless you're part ofa consortium and you're helping sell other peoples' stuff too.
Is that too ambitious?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I fear then the miners/guards would complain and say their job is just as valid as the shopkeeper...so why should the the times limits be different? While I don't disagree with you, I think flat times is "fairer". But, maybe it makes sense to base it off a character attribute or even as a reward for positive reputation.
On the subject of necessary server resources, I am not saying player NPCs should work along side NPC...I am suggesting they replace what would normally be done by NPC in MMOs. Players are the PCs while logged in and are the NPCs when logged out. NPCs are themepark content, and in a sandbox they should be minimized...and having PCs become a form of NPC is creating player driven content (available even when the PCs are offline).
I do understand this is a sandbox with themepark elements so I do understand there will be traditional NPCs. Why not let players create as much content as possible?
Also, as Ryan argues, sandboxes are defined by their persistence...this system increases the "feel" of persistence.
On death...since we are now saying they do despawn after a given time, it makes sense to also have them despawn upon death. This also allows forces to "whittle" away at each other by killing NPCs (which, as argued, are really automated PCs). Decrease the productivity of a mine by raiding and killing the workforce. This decrease persists until the players log in and set their characters to work.
Alts would also be persistent...so you could set your 2 alts to work while playing your 3rd PC. This makes limits to alts meaningful and gives real benefits to players who buy more alt slots...without giving a bonus to any one character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So I'm trying to understand what that does for you aside from giving you a line on your character sheet that says "Level 50 Synthweaver"....
Or what would be different from just having the Dev's create a button in the U.I. that says "Make me a Level 50 Synthweaver"...let you click it and...Boom!.. you get promoted to Level 50 Synthweaver...
What's the gameplay factor that's involved with that which attracts you as a player?
I'm gonna assume you were not being some kind of elitist asshat...
The reason this appeals to me is becaue I want to play an adventure game, not a crafting simulator. In SWTOR its not either you spend time crafting or you spend time advancing your character, you can do both.
You still have to manage your materials and recipies. Each item you craft takes at minimum 3 minutes, and at level 50 upwards of 30 minutes to complete. You have to tell who you want to go where you want to get what you want, then tell them what you want to make. The bonus is you can send them off while you adventure. You can't do this at earlier levels so much, only a few classes can survive without thier pets regularly, but once you get 2 or more, they can spend the time crafting while you and another companion quest.
The only difference is I'm not wasting my time only crafting. Other than this, it's the same (except it takes much much longer to get the item you want).
The idea that as a player I need to take a bite out of the un-fun crap sandwich time sink that is crafting in most MMO's or it's not "real" or "earned" is preposterous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh sweet!
So anyone could stay 'in game 24/7' and simply leave their character macro-botting tradeskills and trivialise any tradeskill system in place and dump the economy with a mass proliferation of player made good seeling for far less than the base cost of the materials required to make them!
Uber-Gear for all!
I like it :)
Player economy? what player economy?
It used to actually be a choice of priorities... do I want to spend time adventuring or crafting, now I can get the benefits of both with none of that pesky required time sinking. Of course after maxing both so easily I won't last long as a player as I get to end game so much quicker, but hey the company doesn't rely on my subscriptions to survive right?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh sweet!
So anyone could stay 'in game 24/7' and simply leave their character macro-botting tradeskills and trivialise any tradeskill system in place and dump the economy with a mass proliferation of player made good seeling for far less than the base cost of the materials required to make them!
Uber-Gear for all!
I like it :)
Player economy? what player economy?
It used to actually be a choice of priorities... do I want to spend time adventuring or crafting, now I can get the benefits of both with none of that pesky required time sinking. Of course after maxing both so easily I won't last long as a player as I get to end game so much quicker, but hey the company doesn't rely on my subscriptions to survive right?
Any skills you chose to level will be 24/7 leveling, from combat skills to mining to crafting. Odds are by doing so they will increase the time it takes to get them drastically as the system will be anticipating you doing this. To an extent eve does this already, many mines are run with machinery, skills are leveled with time. It is compensated by skills themselves taking a very long amount of real time to gain that is not mitigated based on playtime. The resources gathered 24/7 is also compensated by constant destruction of in game items resources etc... Items should not and do not last forever, whether they are destroyed from time, stolen, burned down with the town etc...
Also the term endgame does not apply in sandbox worlds. From day 1 to year 8, you are on the same battlefield as everyone else, participating in the same wars, as you skill up you become better at what you do, but ideally the difficulty is scaled to where to some extent what you do still has impact on everyone else's actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It also wouldn't be quite as prone to "gaming" the system as the PC option... i.e. the opposition couldn't make 500 naked Level 1 Alts with lousy stats and put them on "guard duty" in the target city in order to reduce the number of NPC guards on defense to 0.
This is interesting and I missed it the first time...however, I think another solution might be possible. I as a high level officer in my guild have the ability to "hire" people for guard duty in our city. People cannot just walk up to the city and "sign up", they must be hired or invited. If I run a great city, people may line up to do guard duty and hence I can require them to prove themselves first. Once a player gets an invitation, they can always take a given job if the position is available.
Guilds, since they have to pay their laborers, may determine they only need x guards on duty...so there would be a limit at any given time (I can envision a nice UI that shows me a list of jobs I have been hired for, the pay offered, and the number of job slots open at the moment).
Also, as this high ranking officer, I should be able to give raises and remove people who have done well or poorly, respectively.
This will also add a huge social engineering factor to the game for those who enjoy that challenge, owning a city requires you to actually run the city well...or it will be lost (the rest of us can just be laborers instead of managers if we wish).
Crafting...I am not sure how I feel about this. Per my suggestion, all laborers can do is either guard a spot or create the labor-hour resource which is used in construction or in the case of a mine, real resource output. I do not really see a difference between the mine and automating a single individual to craft x items that will require...ah, there is a difference, the mining does not require the use of any other resources...crafting does. So automating crafting would automate the production of labor-hour and the resource output (the product you create) while utilizing other resources that need to be manually chosen via a recipe. Crafting should not just be manual labor.
While my preference that crafting should not be automated may be entirely arbitrary (since mining is automated), there is a difference that can be used to justify the position (the necessity to manually choose resources to use in the labor).
*lots of good stuff but especially*
Crafting...I am not sure how I feel about this. Per my suggestion, all laborers can do is either guard a spot or create the labor-hour resource which is used in construction or in the case of a mine, real resource output. I do not really see a difference between the mine and automating a single individual to craft x items that will require...ah, there is a difference, the mining does not require the use of any other resources...crafting does. So automating crafting would automate the production of labor-hour and the resource output (the product you create) while...
I understand about the equality of work from your earlier reply, and I planned to address that here too, but I did want to point out (again) that I think individual prospecting, versus fully-industrialized mining, should both be viable functions, especially for certain types of materials that might be surface-available as opposed to deeply mined. To put it one way, inefficiency is its own punishment, and self-sufficiency is its own reward.
Management interfaces would definitely be nice. Kudos on the idea, and it ties once more into the value I hope that arises of having labor, be it as NPCs or Players, as a resource instead of an entitlement.
My perspective on differing values of 'NPC-mode time' is based on the relative exploitability of differing types of duty compared to their returns. I could see guard duty, with corresponding hazard pay, being something of a 'high demand' work option for people, and having a window of how long one can be a guard means others who register can proceed to get a crack at it, or at least allow for some measure of rotation so that one person isn't making all of the guard money.
With smithy-work, I would foresee that having multiple 'apprentices'/'journeymen'/trainee sorts working in a foundry at once would be less of an issue due to it being much more of an environment where there's room for people to work possibly abstracting the individual units of work further as the sort of 'crew experience' is emulated in such work that could be approximated by ye olde skill check.
Similarly, the work that could be done, and the extent of said work, would have corresponding limitations/inhibitions. Construction takes X amount of time, so you can feasibly only work on a project until it is complete, at which point another one is needed. Signing in would be required to accept the work, unless a lovely little app for the game is developed where one could do such things remotely. Similarly, merchants can't sell what they lack, but if a consortium is formed, and people pool their resources, then instead of working with their own inventory they have an amassed supply of goods to sell, meaning that so long as the inventory doesn't go completely empty, whatever agreed-upon division of money can be done - or it can require someone to log in to divvy up the profits and draw a quorum on what amount to reinvest. And that's not even taking into account the possibility of people bringing in their stuff to sell.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also the term endgame does not apply in sandbox worlds.
Kinda, because at the end of the day you still hit 'endgame' in that you have seen all the content, fought in all the theme parks, and gotten enough phat lewtz that there is little point playing anymore.
I cam from heavy end-game raiding guilds on EQ etc, so I define end-game as 'nothing left to do'. Sandbox might not have a predefined endgame, but there is still going to be unofficial benchmarks of what constitutes it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also the term endgame does not apply in sandbox worlds.Kinda, because at the end of the day you still hit 'endgame' in that you have seen all the content, fought in all the theme parks, and gotten enough phat lewtz that there is little point playing anymore.
I cam from heavy end-game raiding guilds on EQ etc, so I define end-game as 'nothing left to do'. Sandbox might not have a predefined endgame, but there is still going to be unofficial benchmarks of what constitutes it.
Sure, coming from another sandbox...there endgame constitutes the change in focus from grinding to "politics" or other forms of social play. Since the other players and the things they decide to do are the content, the real game does not even begin until this point. For everyone this is a different point...some never get there and are happy grinding away forever, others shift to endgame almost immediately.
Once you and your friends are happy with what you can contribute to a team, it becomes time for your team to start acquiring stuff and fortifying your holdings...and it becomes time for your team to start becoming a clan...and then into an army. This involves convincing others of your path...
@TheAntiElite: Agreed, I would not be against some veins of minerals being solo-able. In fact, why not have most veins start sticking out of the ground and when you find one, you can mine it...and you can probably conclude that there is more of the material underground...time to sell your knowledge of a mineral location.
And many spots may simply be inaccessible/impracticable/unownable in which case you can mine the above ground stub indefinitely (based on the regen rate).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also the term endgame does not apply in sandbox worlds.Kinda, because at the end of the day you still hit 'endgame' in that you have seen all the content, fought in all the theme parks, and gotten enough phat lewtz that there is little point playing anymore.
I cam from heavy end-game raiding guilds on EQ etc, so I define end-game as 'nothing left to do'. Sandbox might not have a predefined endgame, but there is still going to be unofficial benchmarks of what constitutes it.
It is going to be rather difficult to see all the content
You Are The Content
The theme parks are going to be a very small if present part of the game at all, the "Phat Lewtz" are not going to come directly from theme park instances, and I would say it is almost certain they will not be permanent (see equipment damage thread, I believe it is almost universally agreed, gear has to be destroyed somehow).
Everquest is not a good example to compare this game to at all. in eve you could be considered doing end game "content" 15 seconds after you start, as the primary focus is the battles/wars between players, and even a brand new character, is capable of participating in them, and already has potential to make a difference (maybe not as much of a difference as a vet, but absolutely make a noticeable impact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In general,
I'd prefer to see them build up the crafting , resource gathering and kingdom building portions of the game to be as dynamic and entertaining as the adventuring/combat portions of the game.
In that regards, I don't think they should be "bot-able" anymore then adventuring or combat should be....nor should they be boring/dull/tedious enough that players will typicaly feel the need to "bot" them. That's not something that most MMO's out on the market nowadays do.
I don't neccesarly object to some sort of abstraction of the manual labor capacity of PC's being represented in the game in some automated fashion.... as long as that doesn't become an effective substitution for ACTIVE player participation in those activities.
I.E. I don't ever want to see someone that "bots" crafting EVER compete with or outclass someone that is ACTIVELY engaged in playing a dedicated crafter in-game.
If some game function is really ancillarly to play (as crafting tends to be in most existing MMO's) such that it's not really fleshed out or offers interesting online play opportunities... then I don't have any objection to automated offline labor systems...but I'd rather avoid those situations from coming up in the first place.
I'd rather have people that really enjoy adventuring to focus thier play activities on adventuring and depend upon crafters for thier crafting needs.... and in return have people who really enjoy crafting focus thier play activities upon crafting and depend upon adventurers to fill those needs requirements.
It does mean that people will have to depend upon each other more then is typical in most of todays MMO's. However requiring some level of social interaction is REALLY not such a bad thing in this style of MULTIPLAYER game (IMO).
|
|
I like the idea for gaurding and similier things but absolutley not for crafting progress.
That said if a building takes a long time to construct then it would be cool to a player who's making a house continue to hammer nails when he's offline even if this doesn't actually make progress on the house.
All crafting should be minigames or instant. Mabinogi is somewhat good, when tailoring there is a minigame at end and how well you play minigame affects quality of item.
The minigames should also allow one to make different choices about color and such
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't ever want to see someone that "bots" crafting EVER compete with or outclass someone that is ACTIVELY engaged in playing a dedicated crafter in-game.
My objection to this kind of thinking is that your definition of "botting" is really subjective. It all boils down to whether you feel the other player deserves their in-game abilities. I've tried to illustrate this before by pointing out that some people will consider it "botting" to simply click a skill to learn, and have that skill be learned some time later. Unfortunately, you have been impervious to this line of reasoning.
I'd rather have people that really enjoy adventuring to focus thier play activities on adventuring and depend upon crafters for thier crafting needs.... and in return have people who really enjoy crafting focus thier play activities upon crafting and depend upon adventurers to fill those needs requirements.
And what about those of us who really like to do both? What about the people who are willing to give up some time early on and not be quite as effective an adventurer right away in order to be relatively effective at making their own gear?
Again, it seems to all boil down to your wanting the other players to play the way that you want them to, rather than letting them play the way they want to.
It does mean that people will have to depend upon each other...
No, it doesn't. You can't control the behavior of other human beings this way. If they want to make all their own gear, they'll find a way to do that. If the game punishes them too much for trying to do that, they'll quit playing.
There are people who want to be self-sufficient. There aren't levers you can tweak to make them behave as if that is not what they want to do.
There are a lot of ways that the game can reward interaction. It doesn't have to punish non-interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My objection to this kind of thinking is that your definition of "botting" is really subjective. It all boils down to whether you feel the other player deserves their in-game abilities. I've tried to illustrate this before by pointing out that some people will consider it "botting" to simply click a skill to learn, and have that skill be learned some time later. Unfortunately, you have been impervious to this line of reasoning.
"Botting" means the player not being at the keyboard while thier character is doing something in the game world. It's a pretty widely recognized term in gaming. Many may choose to disagree with me whether "botting" should be considered an acceptable behavior in a game or not.... but I don't think there's all that much legitimate debate about the definition of the term itself.
I've noted, and you've consistantly failed to address that "learning a skill" in the context it has been so far described in PFO does not actualy do ANYTHING directly to enhance a character. It simply unlocks a number of "Merit Badges" that the player can then pursue through ACTIVE PLAY.
Consider what role that described mechanism FUNCTIONALY would play in the PFO system, because it is NOT what you seem to imply it would be. It does NOT function mechanicaly as a method of offline ADVANCEMENT....since you need ACTIVE PLAY in order to earn "Merit Badges" which enhance your characters abilities. Functionaly it serves as a LIMITATION on the degree which a player can advance a character in any given period of time. I.E. A Player can't advance thier Character to level 20 in the course of 6 months no matter how much they play, because in order to unlock the "Merit Badges" to pursue to get you those levels you need to have learned the appropriate skills...and skill learning is tied to REAL TIME, not Game Time. FUNCTIONALY, the "skill learning" as described provides nothing more then that....a hard break on how quickly anyone can "power level".
And what about those of us who really like to do both? What about the people who are willing to give up some time early on and not be quite as effective an adventurer right away in order to be relatively effective at making their own gear?Again, it seems to all boil down to your wanting the other players to play the way that you want them to, rather than letting them play the way they want to.
Nothing in what I described prevents people from pursuing both an adventuring career and a crafting career. They just split thier ACTIVE PLAY time between the 2 careers as suits thier level of desire in each.
No problem. What it does prevent is one person being able to advance an area without devoting ACTIVE PLAYTIME (i.e. effort) to it in comparison to someone who does devote ACTIVE PLAYTIME (i.e. effort) into it.
It does mean that people will have to depend upon each other...No, it doesn't. You can't control the behavior of other human beings this way. If they want to make all their own gear, they'll find a way to do that. If the game punishes them too much for trying to do that, they'll quit playing.
There are people who want to be self-sufficient. There aren't levers you can tweak to make them behave as if that is not what they want to do.
There are a lot of ways that the game can reward interaction. It doesn't have to punish non-interaction.
What you are describing is an Oxymoron. In game terms, witholding a reward for non-interaction is functionaly equivalent to punishing non-interaction. I.E. If I give 20 gold pieces to everyone who talks to me, and I decline to give you 20 gold pieces because you haven't talked to me....I've just "punished" you for non-interaction. You may not percieve it as such, but functionaly the results are the same.
Any design is going to incentivize or disincentivize certain types of behavior merely by the mechanisms involved in the design....and any designer is pretty much going to have to make some decisions about what sort of audiences they are going to cater with thier designs. PFO is no different in that regards.... I strongly suspect they won't get alot of players who truely hate PvP as that is a very large design focus of the game....any more then they'll get a large number of players that truely hate the fantasy genre.
I'm just placing my vote for emphasis on group play and player interdependancy. I happen to think that dovetails nicely with alot of the other described design goals of PFO. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've noted, and you've consistantly failed to address that "learning a skill" in the context it has been so far described in PFO does not actualy do ANYTHING directly to enhance a character.
Rather than rehash how I've tried to address this in the past, I'll just address it directly again.
Before I click the skill that unlocks my ability to wear plate armor, my character can't wear plate armor, or he has some penalty associated with doing so. If I click that skill and begin to learn it, then stop playing until that skill is complete, I can come back into the game and my player is materially different than before. Before, I couldn't wear plate armor, now I can. This all happened while I was not interacting with the game.
I understand quite well that, subjectively, you don't see this in the same light.
"Botting" means the player not being at the keyboard while thier character is doing something in the game world.
So, when I click "Make All" and create a stack of potions in LOTRO, or WOW, and then walk downstairs to make a sandwich, that's "botting"? You're right that it's a pretty widely recognized term, but I don't think many people would recognize that definition.
In game terms, witholding a reward for non-interaction is functionaly equivalent to punishing non-interaction. I.E. If I give 20 gold pieces to everyone who talks to me, and I decline to give you 20 gold pieces because you haven't talked to me....I've just "punished" you for non-interaction.
This is fundamentally wrong... unless you're the 99%, and can only measure you're well-being by comparing it to everyone else around you. I don't believe that making everyone else worse off makes me better off, which is what would happen if what you say is true. If everyone else suddenly shrinks by 2 inches, I haven't actually grown. If everyone else loses 20 gold, I'm not richer. And most importantly, if I choose not to buy my gear from you, I haven't hurt your gameplay experience.
|
|
As a usually solo player I want to play on my own and join up with others when going same way and forget them when we split. The social aspect is nice and can make things easier or provide a challange unlike any NPC but between challanges I should be self-sufficient IF I take the time to learn the skills
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've noted, and you've consistantly failed to address that "learning a skill" in the context it has been so far described in PFO does not actualy do ANYTHING directly to enhance a character.Rather than rehash how I've tried to address this in the past, I'll just address it directly again.
Before I click the skill that unlocks my ability to wear plate armor, my character can't wear plate armor, or he has some penalty associated with doing so. If I click that skill and begin to learn it, then stop playing until that skill is complete, I can come back into the game and my player is materially different than before. Before, I couldn't wear plate armor, now I can. This all happened while I was not interacting with the game.
I understand quite well that, subjectively, you don't see this in the same light.
No you have that wrong...and it's not based upon my subjective view, it's based upon the Ryan's blog post describing the mechanics of the advancement system as described.
You do NOT have the ability to wear plate armor after learning the "wear plate skill". What happens is that the "Wear Plate - Merit Badge" is now unlocked for you to pursue IN GAME. You must complete whatever task is required to earn the Merit Badge (i.e. kill 1000 orcs) before your character can done plate armor in the Game!
"Botting" means the player not being at the keyboard while thier character is doing something in the game world.So, when I click "Make All" and create a stack of potions in LOTRO, or WOW, and then walk downstairs to make a sandwich, that's "botting"? You're right that it's a pretty widely recognized term, but I don't think many people would recognize that definition.
Yes, techicaly that might be considered "botting"....although because the mechanic for making a stack of items doesn't require any interactivity from the player in LOTRO it's functionaly identical (i.e. no one would know the difference unless they were watching you in your home) to ACTIVELY Playing for that game. A clearer example would be creating a Macro that had your character go out and repitively mine all the Resource Nodes in the Lone Lands in order to gather all the resources to make that stack and let it run while you go off to work. In that case, there is a gameplay mechanic that you have circumvented by creating an automated process to handle for you.
In game terms, witholding a reward for non-interaction is functionaly equivalent to punishing non-interaction. I.E. If I give 20 gold pieces to everyone who talks to me, and I decline to give you 20 gold pieces because you haven't talked to me....I've just "punished" you for non-interaction.This is fundamentally wrong... unless you're the 99%, and can only measure you're well-being by comparing it to everyone else around you. I don't believe that making everyone else worse off makes me better off, which is what would happen if what you say is true. If everyone else suddenly shrinks by 2 inches, I haven't actually grown. If everyone else loses 20 gold, I'm not richer. And most importantly, if I choose not to buy my...
No, it's basic economics....and basic game system design. In multi-player games, particularly PvP based games you are measuring your performance against the environment. That environment includes (and in a game like PFO is dominated by) the other players in it.
If everyone but you has 22 Gold Pieces and you have only 2 Gold Pieces then the crafter looking to sell his longbow is likely to set his prices at 15 Gold Pieces because MOST potential customers have enough disposable income to afford that price. Price is determined based upon what the market is willing to pay for an item in order for the seller to maximize his proffit. What the market is willing to pay is heavly influenced upon how much wealth they have at thier disposal.
Likewise...everyone else in a game shrinking by 2 inches does not make you 2 inches taller....however it WILL result in you scoring more wins in basketball (for example) or any other competitive activity in which player height is a significant factor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually agree with both of you. I like the idea of the persistent character (our characters are the content for other players...maximizing this is good), but I also agree botting is evil. In my opinion, allowing PCs to become NPCs should only be allowed if the NPC is "employed" to produce labor resources...and only while doing so. The only product should be the money used as a reward/incentive for exchanging/creating your "labor resource".
I do not see setting your persistent character to be an automated NPC in an institutionalized function using a built in UI as botting (but, I think it should only be in that institutionalized function).
But, I think this is all moot...no GW has ever commented on a related thread so I must assume this is a dead-end idea for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You do NOT have the ability to wear plate armor after learning the "wear plate skill"...
Irrelevant. Whether it's "the ability to wear plate armor" or "the ability to go out and acquire the 'wear plate armor' merit badge". In either case, there is a real difference in my player before and after gaining the skill.
But, as I said, I've resigned myself to your refusal to try and see this point of view.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You do NOT have the ability to wear plate armor after learning the "wear plate skill"...Irrelevant. Whether it's "the ability to wear plate armor" or "the ability to go out and acquire the 'wear plate armor' merit badge". In either case, there is a real difference in my player before and after gaining the skill.
But, as I said, I've resigned myself to your refusal to try and see this point of view.
How is it irrelevent? Acquiring the "wear plate armor" merit badge REQUIRES you to go out and do something significant in ACTUAL game-play (i.e. kill 1000 orcs).
So please enlighten me as to exactly what role the "Learn Armor Skill" while offline is playing in the design except as a hard limit on how quickly a person can level thier character?
What functional difference is there to your character...except he now has access to the IN GAME tasks involved with earning the ability to wear plate?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So please enlighten me...
That will require you to momentarily stop trying to prove I'm wrong, and actually make a good-faith attempt to understand what I'm saying.
Go back and read my last post and you'll see I very clearly said my point holds true just fine whether it's "the ability to wear plate armor" that is granted by the skill, or "the ability to go out and acquire the 'wear plate armor' merit badge".
There is something I can't do in-game, and then I click a button and log out for three days, and then I come back and I can now do that thing I couldn't previously do.
Can you see the point of view I'm describing? Please understand, I'm not asking if you agree with that point of view.
Whether or not you can, we should probably stop going back and forth. This is probably fairly tedious for everyone else.
|
|
They are giving us skill based on real time so whether we are produce some other resource like gold and sellables is more in question then the ability ups, both of which I think should not occur while offline.
I do like the flavor of having my character guard something while I'm gone however which doesn't gain me anything other then the "that's cool" feeling but does help prevent loss, which is subtly different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there is something my character can grind up in-game (say, healing potions, for sake of argument) that give a direct benefit to combat, I should be able to create the same things while I'm offline. If the game is initially set up to allow offline creation of goods, then it becomes much more natural to create very, very long create times, such as multiple days or more for high-end armor piece.
The idea that the player who can sit in front of his computer for 18 hours straight deserves those items more than I do is obsolete.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They are giving us skill based on real time so whether we are produce some other resource like gold and sellables is more in question then the ability ups, both of which I think should not occur while offline.
I do like the flavor of having my character guard something while I'm gone however which doesn't gain me anything other then the "that's cool" feeling but does help prevent loss, which is subtly different.
But as you are AFK and guarding, you run the rusk of dieing which has repercussions/consequences. Why would anyone run that risk with no reward? While you are guarding, you are doing the guild/city you are guarding for a favor...why wouldn't they reward you for it? (the same exact argument goes for other things such as "assisting in construction" or mining).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I recall unlocking new equipment was actually listed as one of the effects of skills.
I just re-read the blog in question, and it's ambiguous.
Skills qualify your character to access all sorts of things from the kind of equipment the character can use to the types of items that can be crafted to how the character can access special powers and magical spells... but simply training the skill does not award those benefits directly.
Most merit badges require that you first finish training a specific skill or skills. Some also require that you do something in-game, such as harvest a certain amount of resources, or slay a certain number of monsters, or explore a portion of the map. When you have completed the requirements, the merit badge is awarded, and you will likely also get a new ability associated with that merit badge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I recall unlocking new equipment was actually listed as one of the effects of skills.You do NOT have the ability to wear plate armor after learning the "wear plate skill"...Irrelevant. Whether it's "the ability to wear plate armor" or "the ability to go out and acquire the 'wear plate armor' merit badge". In either case, there is a real difference in my player before and after gaining the skill.
But, as I said, I've resigned myself to your refusal to try and see this point of view.
How is it irrelevent? Acquiring the "wear plate armor" merit badge REQUIRES you to go out and do something significant in ACTUAL game-play (i.e. kill 1000 orcs).
So please enlighten me as to exactly what role the "Learn Armor Skill" while offline is playing in the design except as a hard limit on how quickly a person can level thier character?
What functional difference is there to your character...except he now has access to the IN GAME tasks involved with earning the ability to wear plate?
Direct quote from Ryan's "Your Pathfinder Online Character" Blog entry
"Skills: As in EVE Online, your character can train in a wide variety of skills. However, unlike EVE, skills in Pathfinder Online have no direct effects. Each is simply a prerequisite for another area of character development. Skills qualify your character to access all sorts of things from the kind of equipment the character can use to the types of items that can be crafted to how the character can access special powers and magical spells... but simply training the skill does not award those benefits directly."
I believe I've described the mechanism accurately. Learning a skill provides no direct benefits to your character. It simply unlocks the capability to pursue Merit Badges which are the things (along with Levels) that DO grant some direct benefit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe I've described the mechanism accurately. Learning a skill provides no direct benefits to your character. It simply unlocks the capability to pursue Merit Badges which are the things (along with Levels) that DO grant some direct benefit
Ah, but if you can only work for money while you are an NPC/AFK as some have suggested, then this same argument is valid. Earning gold provides no direct benefits to your character. It simply unlocks the capability to pursue better gear which are the things (along with Levels) that DO grant some direct benefit.
Money in itself gives you nothing, just as you have to go kill the 1000 orcs to gain the merit badge to allow you to wear plate, gold simply allows you to go pursue a social interaction that results in better gear. Without the gold, you would not bother.
EDIT: Sorry, the first line is suppose to mean: all you can do while AFK is earn money, not that you can only earn money while AFK.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe I've described the mechanism accurately. Learning a skill provides no direct benefits to your character. It simply unlocks the capability to pursue Merit Badges which are the things (along with Levels) that DO grant some direct benefitAh, but if you can only work for money while you are an NPC/AFK as some have suggested, then this same argument is valid. Earning gold provides no direct benefits to your character. It simply unlocks the capability to pursue better gear which are the things (along with Levels) that DO grant some direct benefit.
Money in itself gives you nothing, just as you have to go kill the 1000 orcs to gain the merit badge to allow you to wear plate, gold simply allows you to go pursue a social interaction that results in better gear. Without the gold, you would not bother.
EDIT: Sorry, the first line is suppose to mean: all you can do while AFK is earn money, not that you can only earn money while AFK.
Right, and I wasn't neccesarly using the point to address earning Gold while AFK (which I don't really support but is a seperate issue).
I was simply pointing out to Nihimon that "offline skill learning" doesn't accrue any direct benefit to your character (such as the ability to wear plate armor). It merely acts as a gating mechanism which controls how long (in real time) before you character can start to do things in game to earn that ability.
If you look at the post he was responding to that spurred that particular topic in question...I specificaly stated
"I.E. I don't ever want to see someone that "bots" crafting EVER compete with or outclass someone that is ACTIVELY engaged in playing a dedicated crafter in-game."
I was specificaly talking about Crafing...not some generic "gold-earning" activity. Although if you want to take it to the logical extension of what I stated...you could accurately say
"I don't want someone that "bots" (i.e. is NOT engaged in playing the game) to ever compete with or outclass someone that is actively engaged in playing the game in the amount of gold they can earn in a given time period."
That would be a fair/accurate translation of my stance on the matter. Unless "gold earning" is considered a completely ancillary/unimportant activity as far as the game is concerned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, well then we agree, I would not support crafting while off-line either.
As for:
"I don't want someone that "bots" (i.e. is NOT engaged in playing the game) to ever compete with or outclass someone that is actively engaged in playing the game in the amount of gold they can earn in a given time period."
If someone wish to pay their friend an uber amount of money for guarding a house while we are both AFK...then I don't see the problem with it. I only think players should hire players and I am not for telling players how they can or cannot spend their virtual possessions/money. If they do not do it wisely, they will end up broke and it will not be a problem anymore.
If they can make more money on AFK guard duty than actively gathering leather, then they will due the former when AFK and will instead just do what they enjoy when online...sounds like a good system to me.
mmm maybe crafting while off-line can be used for "spare time works" for the player.
i try to explain myself
I'm a metalsmith and i can forge weapons while online. ok, nothing strange. The game will decide the price and the time the item requires.
while i'm afk, i can designate a object i can do "in the spare time"
the construction is slower (like the pfrpg rules? i don't know but 1 day /1000 sp don't seems bad). I CANNOT returning and complete the object in the "faster" way, but only while offline and only if i've managed to return at my forge before quitting.
and only one object. if i manage to complete my sword, i have to designate another object manually.
if the game permits it, however, i can maybe build a set of 6 chairs while offline (not objects related with combat) or, like i've said in one another post, i can choose to do masonry or carpentry where the village need.
the crafting offline and the work as mason should be moderately convenient (like enough for eat something,,, or i don't know, maybe something else)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"I.E. I don't ever want to see someone that "bots" crafting EVER compete with or outclass someone that is ACTIVELY engaged in playing a dedicated crafter in-game."
I was specificaly talking about Crafing...not some generic "gold-earning" activity. Although if you want to take it to the logical extension of what I stated...you could accurately say
"I don't want someone that "bots" (i.e. is NOT engaged in playing the game) to ever compete with or outclass...
However, if the game mechanics allowed such things - crafting while offline - then that is part of the gameplay and not botting.
To me, botting is going outside the intended game mechanics for character gains.
If there is a button in the crafting UI that says I can craft these items while offline, I AM NOT BOTTING.And I should not be penalized for doing so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another interesting point...I have never seen an implementation of taverns that actually makes PCs want to go to one (other then as NPC missions hubs), and actually want to spend time there.
If players could hire other players for labor when they log out, employer looking for laborers could sit at taverns...and laborers looking for work could as well. It would be an ideal meeting place and a center of activity. I would much prefer this to the previously mentioned "mission board".
|
|
I Don't support gaining items or gold while offline and the guard duty only because there is no other reliable option without spending lots of resources. The idea is that it adds flavor performs a funtion without really increaseing the players wealth or power. The player shound be able to increase wealth and power only while investing time into it or else that wealth and power is meaningless.
If people gave you money all the time so you were rich but you did nothing for it then you wouldn't have any respect for it, not the way you would if you worked your butt off for it.
Part of rp is being part of a story and stories are only good when the one reading/watching/interacting with it are emotionally tied to it. If you spend hours reading about a boy and then he is about to die if loses this fight then what do you do? You root for him, you want him to win and you turn the page hoping the author doesn't rip your heart out with a tragic ending.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"I.E. I don't ever want to see someone that "bots" crafting EVER compete with or outclass someone that is ACTIVELY engaged in playing a dedicated crafter in-game."
So, to paraphrase, you're saying "I always want the player who has the most free time to dedicate to sitting in front of the game to ALWAYS be more successful at crafting."
That's... just... awesome...
Thanks
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The player shound be able to increase wealth and power only while investing time into it or else that wealth and power is meaningless.
Yes, the investment of Time should definitely be the limiting factor. I'm only asking that we use the entire potential of Time, rather than just the amount of it that the player can spend sitting in front of the screen.
If I'm free to use the time spent away from the game advancing my skills, why shouldn't I also be able to spend that time in other ways?
When I'm in front of the game, I want to be playing the game, doing the things that no AI could possibly do, encountering new experiences. Apparently, some of you really want me to spend what little free time I have to play the game sitting through mindless tedium so that you will be satisfied that I've earned my in-game rewards.
Pardon me if I'm less than thrilled by your reasoning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know if I'll do any better this time around, but I realized the last couple of posts I made were somewhat peevish.
I want my presence on these forums to be good-natured, positive, constructive, and welcoming.
I absolutely agree that there need to be restrictions on how characters gain power in-game, so that the other players will respect the game and not feel like it's just one big Easy Button.
The reason I believe Offline PCs doing constructive things still fits into that restriction is because there is a finite amount of stuff the character can do with its time, and I don't see why someone who is able to sit in front of his computer for 18 hours a day 7 days a week should automatically have a significant advantage over someone who's only able to sit in front of his computer 8 hours a week, if he's lucky. (Note: I'm not saying I fall into that latter camp.)
If it's going to take 3 days to learn to craft a pair of boots (gaining the Skill), and it's going to take 4 hours to actually craft those boots (for example), then why on earth is the person who is able to sit in front of his computer for that 4 hours more entitled than someone who instructed his character to craft the boots and then logged out?
I believe the goal should be to ensure that each Character has a finite pool of Time as their most valuable resource, and that the player should be able to choose how the Character spends that time, whether they're in front of the screen or not.