|
It is sad that that is the only death penalty, it means no one would ever use reincarnation which would just be very cool if depending on the situation, would you rather reincarnate or take the penalty?
For those that don't know, reincarnation brings you back to life as a random race(in pnp very small chance of not being humanoid even, though this would not work mmo).
With the size of the world etc... I highly doubt it, unless the fast travel mechanic is extremely strong, I would imagine that the trip out to the middle of the wilderness will be long and dangerous, you would more likely make a much better profit by hiring a group of players to be bodyguards, or perhaps just gang up with a bunch of people who want to harvest at the same time and watch eachother's backs. IMO if you've already taken the risk of going out there, you may as well get everything you can carry home.
To continue the analogy, gold can be found in the high-risk wilderness. A miner makes a long journey, mines one nugget of gold, and then journeys back to minimize the potential loss. Will this be worthwhile?
Maybe. But the longer you are out there, the greater the risk--higher chance to be seen by the enemy, higher chance for them to call in support to outnumber you. Gathering as much as you can may ultimately be self-defeating. I'm sure there's an optimum amount of risk, but I was merely exagerating to illustrate gold won't be mined like copper. Maybe the difference will manifest as a group activity.
Well they did mention that the game seems to have some knowledge of item rarity and value (I believe I recall only getting lower grade resources from people in high sec zones), so I'm pretty sure if it were a regular strategy the game could work around it and make it so that in low sec zones items of low value are exempt from being the ones looted, also though you are lowering how much you can carry (by using your own bag space) for a strategy that does not benefit you directly (as whether your enemy loots rocks or gold from you, you lose both anyway), only hinders your enemy.
But regardless of inventory size, as another poster pointed out, the loot mechanic can be gamed by carrying bags full of "rocks" that can be swapped out for loot. This would decrease the likelihood of an enemy being rewarded for a kill. This is also a pain to manage, but if it means the enemy has a 90% chance to loot a rock, people will do it.
The whole point would be to spite the enemy. They kill you partly to destroy your resources, and you "rock" them to rob them of good loot. But if the game incorporates item value into the chance to loot or destroy, it would be a redundant and unnecessary practice.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I would assume that the looter gets a percentage, rather than a fixed number, of items. The point of rocking them is to create a pattern of heavily laden travelers who have nothing of value, reducing the expected return-on-investment from intercepting travelers. In other words, griefing the bandits.
Goblin Squad Member
|
To continue the analogy, gold can be found in the high-risk wilderness. A miner makes a long journey, mines one nugget of gold, and then journeys back to minimize the potential loss. Will this be worthwhile?
The keep up with the EVE analogies, hopefully the players will set the value of the resources.
The NPC should not gather them (at least not unsupervised NPC) and the prices of the available NPC products should not dictate the price of resources.If gathering 100 units of copper will require me to spend 1 hour mining and travelling, with a 0% of losing the ore and in the same time, with a similarly experienced character, I can travel to the deep wilderness and gather 1 unit of adamntine with a 50% chance of losing it, the final price of 1 unit of adamantine should be at least x200 that of 1 unit of copper.
In EVE for a long time there were mechanics working against that kind of adjustment. At first there were NPC buy and sell orders, bracketing the ore prices in to a narrow band of variations. Then the NPC sell orders were removed, then the buy orders.
For a long time the spaceship insurance payout was still determining the minimum price for minerals, but it has been changed in a way that will remove that problem too.
At the start of PFO we will need some NPC buy and sell order for raw materials and finished products, but as soon as the server population will get high enough and lively enough they should be removed.
The NPC orders will help kick start the economy, but after that they risk hobbling it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the start of PFO we will need some NPC buy and sell order for raw materials and finished products, but as soon as the server population will get high enough and lively enough they should be removed.
I'm not sure about this.
I've always thought it would be helpful to the economy to have NPCs make up a significant portion of the economy, buying and selling raw materials, finished products, and everything in between. I would have thought Players should only account for roughly 20% of the market, with NPCs making up the rest.
The reason I think this is beneficial is that it makes it much more difficult, if not impossible, for a large group of Players to "corner the market" and create massive distortions. Are there factors I don't see that make this untrue? Or are there factors on the other side that I'm not seeing that make a Player-dominated economy better?
Keep in mind, I don't think NPCs should just be blindly buying and selling at static prices, I think they should definitely modify their behavior based on supply and demand. And yes, I do have a general idea of how difficult that would be to model.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the start of PFO we will need some NPC buy and sell order for raw materials and finished products, but as soon as the server population will get high enough and lively enough they should be removed.I'm not sure about this.
I've always thought it would be helpful to the economy to have NPCs make up a significant portion of the economy, buying and selling raw materials, finished products, and everything in between. I would have thought Players should only account for roughly 20% of the market, with NPCs making up the rest.
The reason I think this is beneficial is that it makes it much more difficult, if not impossible, for a large group of Players to "corner the market" and create massive distortions. Are there factors I don't see that make this untrue? Or are there factors on the other side that I'm not seeing that make a Player-dominated economy better?
Keep in mind, I don't think NPCs should just be blindly buying and selling at static prices, I think they should definitely modify their behavior based on supply and demand. And yes, I do have a general idea of how difficult that would be to model.
Well assuming they don't allow the market to be cornered, the system works well. Eve had the flaw with only 1 item that I know of, and even that wasn't until recently, and the only reason for the flaw was that they only had it in about 2 areas. The solution to a cornered market, is to not allow it to be only obtained from one or 2 controlable areas. If something is available in 10 different areas that are 2 hours appart from each-other, than it will take an army that is 10x larger then any other army to hold control (and that's before factoring in multiple armies teaming up if they don't like what you are doing).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with being able to corner the market? At least initially, whoever first discovers a good source will have the entire market.
There doesn't have to be iron available if mithril can be produced without using iron; anyone who has all the adamantine mines still needs access to other resources, and they either have only one thing to trade, or they have vastly increased needs based on controlling a large variety of resources.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I love that you guys are embracing the idea of risk! Too many present MMO's have significantly removed serious risk from their game design, which has led to a kind of flat atmosphere.
I can see serious quests around finding one's husk. I also, think the bounty and marshal systems sounds really promising. Keep it coming!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hopefully Goblinworks will be able to modify the market, either by offering quests to 'reclaim' the mines via NPC Quest-givers (giving rise to reasons to PvP if the 'owners' of the Mine are horrendously high-powered PvPers) or even returning NPCs to the market and having these NPCs develop 'hate' towards the Mithril Marketeers and refusing to sell their ore to anyone affiliated with them.
I hope we can avoid the epic failure of the Warcraft Model in which a handful of people control the entire Auction House. Fantasy Game, not Sweatshop Simulation, please and thank you.
Being a Leader of the Market is one thing, and nobody should be restricted from that. Becoming 'That Guy' or 'Those Guys' who dominate the market to either A) become filthy rich and then break the game or B) to disrupt the game for 'teh lulz' should be dealt with in-game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the most basic equipment should be available from NPC vendors and probably be unlimited in quantity.
That prevents a person/group from inhibiting the ability of players to play the game at all.
But equipment above that level...things which provide some advantage...and are typicaly the type of gear that players will WANT to use for routiene adventuring should be entirely player controled.
Basicaly that allows for people to wage economic warfare and try to control/influnce the market without imposing an absolute inhibition on others from playing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But equipment above that level... should be entirely player controled.
There's another thread discussing the possibility of having the entire population be players, with no substantial NPC population even. To me, this would be great, as long as I could have a significant number (12?) of extremely low level characters to populate my little village performing menial tasks. With that in mind, I think I can see how a fully player-driven economy is reasonable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But equipment above that level... should be entirely player controled.There's another thread discussing the possibility of having the entire population be players, with no substantial NPC population even. To me, this would be great, as long as I could have a significant number (12?) of extremely low level characters to populate my little village performing menial tasks. With that in mind, I think I can see how a fully player-driven economy is reasonable.
there is no technical difference between deer NPC, human NPC or dragon NPC. they each perform specific function. also, it doesn't matter whether NPC was created by devs or players. if it's not under player direct control (when player goes offline) then it's NPC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But equipment above that level... should be entirely player controled.There's another thread discussing the possibility of having the entire population be players, with no substantial NPC population even. To me, this would be great, as long as I could have a significant number (12?) of extremely low level characters to populate my little village performing menial tasks. With that in mind, I think I can see how a fully player-driven economy is reasonable.
Sounds like a good way to add Player driven content and get players to pay for additional stuff (like extra character slots).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But equipment above that level... should be entirely player controled.There's another thread discussing the possibility of having the entire population be players, with no substantial NPC population even. To me, this would be great, as long as I could have a significant number (12?) of extremely low level characters to populate my little village performing menial tasks. With that in mind, I think I can see how a fully player-driven economy is reasonable.
That's a fine idea UNTIL you run into the situation where no one in the game decides it's worthwhile for them (offline or online) to make "basic iron swords".
Unfortunately the brand new level 1 player who just joined the game 2 hours ago happens to only be able to afford (or know how to use) a "basic iron sword". So they are essentialy prevented from playing the game AT ALL.
That's generaly not an acceptable situation for most games. That's why there needs to be some level of assurance (i.e. NPC vendors) that the gear players need on the lowest or most basic level in order to play the game is available to people.
Beyond that...anything goes... but if you can't at least aquire a rusty dagger somewhere....that's a big problem for a game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's a fine idea UNTIL you run into the situation where no one in the game decides it's worthwhile for them (offline or online) to make "basic iron swords".
... but if you can't at least aquire a rusty dagger somewhere....that's a big problem for a game.
If the game doesn't have anyone in it who wants to create basic iron swords, I would say "that's a big problem" regardless of whether or not there are NPC vendors to sell them.
But to address your point more directly, I did not intend to suggest there shouldn't be NPC vendors. I was actually explaining why I had changed my mind and come around to the idea of a (mostly) player-driven economy, as opposed to an economy where the entire player-base only accounted for 20-25% of the economy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But equipment above that level... should be entirely player controled.There's another thread discussing the possibility of having the entire population be players, with no substantial NPC population even. To me, this would be great, as long as I could have a significant number (12?) of extremely low level characters to populate my little village performing menial tasks. With that in mind, I think I can see how a fully player-driven economy is reasonable.That's a fine idea UNTIL you run into the situation where no one in the game decides it's worthwhile for them (offline or online) to make "basic iron swords".
Unfortunately the brand new level 1 player who just joined the game 2 hours ago happens to only be able to afford (or know how to use) a "basic iron sword". So they are essentialy prevented from playing the game AT ALL.
That's generaly not an acceptable situation for most games. That's why there needs to be some level of assurance (i.e. NPC vendors) that the gear players need on the lowest or most basic level in order to play the game is available to people.
Beyond that...anything goes... but if you can't at least aquire a rusty dagger somewhere....that's a big problem for a game.
Well in general, when a group of new players is starting, some of them will be crafting focused, or want just enough for themselves, low levels of crafting should be easy and quick to obtain, the ability to craft simple items should be practically automatic with materials, I also think if gear deterioration is a factor, even high level players will generate some demand for the cheapest most basic gear possible, because when doing a mundane task you can do in your sleep, you may not want to be damaging an expensive item in the process.
I can only see this being an issue when the game slows down to the point that only 1 player is starting at a given time... in which case the games sustainability is at risk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or you dont limit gear like that...why as a level 1 can I not pick up a +5 level 85 sword and use it as I would any other sword? I can see not getting the full benefit from its use (because I do not know how to use it as well), but it should at least be a base sword for me.
I think all gear should work this way.
Also, make it prohibitively expensive to make anything better than a base sword for grinding with...at any level. This will insure their availability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or you dont limit gear like that...
I see this from the other side too. In Eve, there is a real reason to use cheap equipment because it's easier to replace. I'd like to see something similar in PFO where there's a real reason to use cheap gear that can be easily made by low-level crafters.
Seems like the economy will be split in two--a "gear" economy of weapons and armor that will have long lifespans, and an "inventory" economy of things that are essentially consumables with short lifespans.
Another perspective on the "what if no one wants to make iron swords" argument is, newer players might simply have immediate access to better weapons than the older players did when they started for the same price. As the game matures, harvesting better materials will be more common and making better items will be cheaper.
We also have to consider that players will probably get starter gear, although I'm not sure how that would work. Maybe along the lines of NWN where you are given an appropriate starter weapon and armor by an NPC when you start working on combat related skills. Or starter gear as quest rewards from a tutorial.
What types of "inventory" items do people think we will see? Food, bandages, harvesting tools, etc.? Theoretically this market will be driving a big portion of the overall economy, so I expect there will be a large variety of these items people can craft.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the start of PFO we will need some NPC buy and sell order for raw materials and finished products, but as soon as the server population will get high enough and lively enough they should be removed.I'm not sure about this.
I've always thought it would be helpful to the economy to have NPCs make up a significant portion of the economy, buying and selling raw materials, finished products, and everything in between. I would have thought Players should only account for roughly 20% of the market, with NPCs making up the rest.
The reason I think this is beneficial is that it makes it much more difficult, if not impossible, for a large group of Players to "corner the market" and create massive distortions. Are there factors I don't see that make this untrue? Or are there factors on the other side that I'm not seeing that make a Player-dominated economy better?
Keep in mind, I don't think NPCs should just be blindly buying and selling at static prices, I think they should definitely modify their behavior based on supply and demand. And yes, I do have a general idea of how difficult that would be to model.
The problem is what EVE faced:
today, at the start of PFO, I the Dev have decided thata) copper is my reference mineral
b) iron is worth 1/2 of for copper.
c) adamantine is worth 1.000 times a piece of copper
so:
a1) NPC will buy iron ore at 0.25 and sell it at 1
b1) NPC will buy copper ore at 0.5 and sell it at 2
c1) NPC will buy adamantine ore at 500 and sell it at 2000
and
a2) you can mine 2 units of iron in the time needed to mine 1 unit of copper with basic skills,
b2) copper is my reference speed of mining, 1 unit for unit of time with basic skills,
c2) as the Dev suppose there is a 75% chance of loosing your adamantine ore to PvP you can mine 1 unit of adamantine in 250 time units with basic adamantine mining skills
now some time has passed, my Guild has secured a good source of adamantine, all the new player mine copper in a high security area
while no one mine iron
a2) iron sell orders still can't go above 1 as the NPC will sell at a lower price. It will pay 2 money unit for unit of time spent at best.
b2) copper can't go under the 0.5 price mark as the NPC will buy at that price. it will pay 0.5 money unit for unit of time spent.
c2) as my guild has secured the area we lose less than 1/100 of the adamantine we mine, but we still get at least 500 money units for each adamantine ore units we mine, so we get 2 money unit for each time unit spent.
As you can see the NPC prices put the market price into a cast. In my example it isn't so bad as the prices are still somewhat balanced, but if the initial prices are set thinking that copper will be somewhat arare, so the initial price is x4 iron and not x2 the players will have no incentive in mining iron. You can get to the point where they have no incentive in mining adamantine as a new character with little skills (i.e., someone that you can make in a free to play account) can mine copper for the same profit.
When I started playing EVE the NPC buy and sell orders for minerals had just been removed. They followed this kind of pricing sequence 1:2:4:8:16:32:64 and so on.
At that time mining Omber in high sec was the best revenue sources in high sec for miners as it had high quantity of Isogen, the mineral priced at 64 in that list. Tritanim, the basic mineral was priced at 1 in that list.
Players interested in those minerals had to put up buy orders a slightly above the NPC buy orders to get them.
So tritanium at worst was sold at 1.01 and at best at 1.99, Isogen from 64.01 upward.
But there isn't so much real demand for the Isogen mineral.
Now that the prices are marked dependant only, Isogen still sell at around 63 isk for each unit while tritanium sell at above 3 isk for each unit.
So a price rapport of 1:64 has changed to 3:63 through market forces. It we still had NPC buy and sell orders it would still have been straitjacketed into a 2:64 rapport at best.
TL, DR: economic competition is a form of conflict and so PvP. In particular PvP for not combat character.
NPC buy and sell orders will remove it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What types of "inventory" items do people think we will see? Food, bandages, harvesting tools, etc.? Theoretically this market will be driving a big portion of the overall economy, so I expect there will be a large variety of these items people can craft.
I am a bit preoccupied about that, to be honest.
What will be the "equipped" gear mentioned in the Goblingworks blog?1 set of armour plus 1 set of weapons/shield?
The above plus a secondary weapon (i.e. a missile weapon if you have a melee weapon in your ready slot?
The gear you have in your ready slots (so a few potions, wands and scrolls beside what you have ready at hand)?
Your spellbook if you are a wizard or magus? (I really hope there is no risk of losing it)
As the list of what will never be lost get bigger the space for crafters is reduced. I would greatly prefer a very small list of "never lost" items and rules about item wear. But I like to craft things.
The "what if no one wants to make iron swords" in most games is born from the fact that they never wear out, so the iron sword made by the first characters are still there after a long time and have been sold or passed up to several character.
Those sword are "lost" only when a player retire from play a character whit them in his inventory.
So effectively there is little or no demand for them as people "outgrowing" them is selling them for a pittance, probably less than the production cost.
This problem can be partially resolved giving extremely basic gear to each character at character creation, something that the player will want to replace as soon as possible and giving a new set of basic gear to characters that ask for it at specific NPC stations (for example: the militia command in the Hellknight fort, the Bandit recruiter in the bandit camp and so on).
All the other gear should be player created with only special loot (mostly used from crafting) dropping from NPC.
Sure, it would be strange to see a goblin that use a shortsword and only drop a few coins, but if each goblin was dropping a sorthsword we will saturate the market extremely fast.
A possible solution would be to have him drop a broken shortsword that can be melted to recover a few units of iron or steel. But then we are creating problems to the people that want to specialize in resource gathering.
The Developers main problem (in the crafting production part of the game) will be to create items, resources and money sinks to balance the influx from gatherers and NPC drops.
I read the Inner sea guide yesterday night and wonder if the six laws & heavy armor rarity (which was mentioned under one of the city which has a strong leader leading a troop of 50 heavy armor riders) lore would be implemented in the game?
... your character will revive at a specific location that you've helped predetermine. Determining this location is a process we call "soulbinding." You will be able to select the location that your character is soulbound to, but only certain locations have the requisite soulstone needed for the binding. The distance between the location of your dead husk and your soulbinding point will often prove meaningful.
Will these locations be possible to build? If so what is there to prevent the defender in a siege scenario having an essentially unlimited supply of troops having built one in their town - especially seeing as after dying once in a fight and losing your inventory you have nothing else to lose.
Is it desirable to even have a way of preventing this or would that be gameplay as intended?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... your character will revive at a specific location that you've helped predetermine. Determining this location is a process we call "soulbinding." You will be able to select the location that your character is soulbound to, but only certain locations have the requisite soulstone needed for the binding. The distance between the location of your dead husk and your soulbinding point will often prove meaningful.Will these locations be possible to build? If so what is there to prevent the defender in a siege scenario having an essentially unlimited supply of troops having built one in their town - especially seeing as after dying once in a fight and losing your inventory you have nothing else to lose.
Is it desirable to even have a way of preventing this or would that be gameplay as intended?
Really I'd imagine that to be the norm, possibly a delay in how quickly one can be back in combat after respawning, but the goal being for the offense to knock out the shrine/whatever of the defenders. IMO the defense should have an edge and a much easier way back into their own bases, though not a full instant respawn or anything, maybe during a siege re-spawn time is set to 3-4 minutes or so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been pondering the whole assassin/bounty thing and there are a few things that stick in my craw. As discussed so far, there is no option or ability to conceal your identity from your victim. You kill someone, they automatically know who you are and can put a bounty on you. Second, if you take an "assassination" job from someone else, you are taking on all the risk of the bounty and the person hiring you takes none.
A couple proposed solutions:
Disguise: Have a disguise skill that you can activate. Once activated, it has a timer and a cooldown (in minutes) that will conceal your identity. Once you engage in combat, the timer (not the cooldown) increases in speed. If it takes you too long to kill your foe, you are identified. The speed at which the timer decays is based on where you are (middle of nowhere, slower; in the middle of town, very fast). The cooldown on the ability is to prevent folks from engaging and disengaging the target to prevent identification. The cooldown should be long enough that the target will have opportunity to heal/rebuff, if the assassin tries to go after them again.
Marks: When someone is killed by a disguised foe, a tradable "calling card" is left (as an item). Using an investigation skill, you can identify the assassin linked to the calling card (failure burns the card and you fail to learn the identity). You don't have to do the investigation yourself, you can hire someone else with more skill to do it for you.
Contracts and Selling Out: If you hire an assassin, you have to create a contract - the contract lists both the target and the employer. If, after an assassination, an assassin is targeted for a bounty, they can sell out their boss to the target, transferring the bounty to the employer. However, if they sell out the boss, it will be noted on future contracts and may affect reputation.
Anywho, just a few thoughts.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
First: Bounties can only be issued for murders, not for all player kills.I've been pondering the whole assassin/bounty thing and there are a few things that stick in my craw. As discussed so far, there is no option or ability to conceal your identity from your victim. You kill someone, they automatically know who you are and can put a bounty on you. Second, if you take an "assassination" job from someone else, you are taking on all the risk of the bounty and the person hiring you takes none.
A couple proposed solutions:
Disguise: Have a disguise skill that you can activate. Once activated, it has a timer and a cooldown (in minutes) that will conceal your identity. Once you engage in combat, the timer (not the cooldown) increases in speed. If it takes you too long to kill your foe, you are identified. The speed at which the timer decays is based on where you are (middle of nowhere, slower; in the middle of town, very fast). The cooldown on the ability is to prevent folks from engaging and disengaging the target to prevent identification. The cooldown should be long enough that the target will have opportunity to heal/rebuff, if the assassin tries to go after them again.Marks: When someone is killed by a disguised foe, a tradable "calling card" is left (as an item). Using an investigation skill, you can identify the assassin linked to the calling card (failure burns the card and you fail to learn the identity). You don't have to do the investigation yourself, you can hire someone else with more skill to do it for you.
Contracts and Selling Out: If you hire an assassin, you have to create a contract - the contract lists both the target and the employer. If, after an assassination, an assassin is targeted for a bounty, they can sell out their boss to the target, transferring the bounty to the employer. However, if they sell out the boss, it will be noted on future contracts and may affect reputation.
Anywho, just a few thoughts.
When you are murdered—that is, killed unlawfully—you will have the option to place a bounty on your killer's head.
Presumably, anyone who is collecting a bounty will be considered a lawful killing, along with anyone who kills a bounty hunter in self-defense or defense of an ally.
Player-issued assassination deals ("Contracts") would have to work differently- issuing a contract can be done by anyone at any time, but publishing such a contract comes with its own risks and tradeoffs; How many potential assassins can learn about the contract? Can the target learn about the contract just like a potential assassin? Can the target trace the contract to the person who placed it? Can the assassin determine the ability of the player to pay out the contract?
In any case, executing a contract would be subject to the same sanctions as ordinary killing. In areas subject to law, it would most likely be murder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Presumably, anyone who is collecting a bounty will be considered a lawful killing, along with anyone who kills a bounty hunter in self-defense or defense of an ally.
Player-issued assassination deals ("Contracts") would have to work differently- issuing a contract can be done by anyone at any time, but publishing such a contract comes with its own risks and tradeoffs; How many potential assassins can learn about the contract? Can the target learn about the contract just like a potential assassin? Can the target trace the contract to the person who placed it? Can the assassin determine the ability of the player to pay out the contract?
My initial assumption was that they were made on the spot between assassin and employer, not posted. If there are "hiring boards" in game, a potential employer might signal that they are looking for an assassin, but are unlikely to post the details of the target. Any chance of the target finding out about a hit is most likely going to be thru word-of-mouth "Hey Gary, I went in for an interview for a hit job and the guy wanted you put down. Just a heads up..." (or alternately, "Hey Gary, I went in for an interview for a hit job and the guy wanted you put down...want a cup of wine?")
In any case, executing a contract would be subject to the same sanctions as ordinary killing. In areas subject to law, it would most likely be murder.
Correct. However, given what has been said by Ryan previously, a target can renew a bounty on a murder repeatedly. At some point, the assassin either has to put up with it or make good with the target. Adding the option of "selling out" their employer, gives the assassin a way to get out of the bounty at the cost of reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Marks: When someone is killed by a disguised foe, a tradable "calling card" is left (as an item). Using an investigation skill, you can identify the assassin linked to the calling card (failure burns the card and you fail to learn the identity).
Ooooh! I love this idea! Basically, you're abstracting out all the evidence that the murderer will leave behind, and giving them a way to increase their skill at disguise while also making room in the world for detectives. I really, really like this idea. I also think it will be relatively rare for pure griefers to utilize it, since it will take a significant amount of investment to use well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Marks: When someone is killed by a disguised foe, a tradable "calling card" is left (as an item). Using an investigation skill, you can identify the assassin linked to the calling card (failure burns the card and you fail to learn the identity).Ooooh! I love this idea! Basically, you're abstracting out all the evidence that the murderer will leave behind, and giving them a way to increase their skill at disguise while also making room in the world for detectives. I really, really like this idea. I also think it will be relatively rare for pure griefers to utilize it, since it will take a significant amount of investment to use well.
Agreed, and since the card is destroyed upon inspection, win or loose, people who care will hold it and give it to someone with a high "investigation" skill...now we have a place for player detectives...who could also be part of bounty hunter guilds. Sounds like cops to me.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, what is the advantage of being disguised? Is the victim of a murder prohibited from placing a bounty on a disguised killer unless they are friends with/hire an investigator? Are the costs of an investigator nontrivial, but still on the same level as the costs of the disguise? If investigation has a trivial cost, then investigations will be cheap; if they have a significant cost, they will have to provide a significant benefit.
How does this differ from a system where a character can have multiple 'identities', each with a different name, bounty, and factional standing, but the same abilities? "The Masked Assassin" would simply be one of those identities. The investigator, then, would investigate the clues left by "The Masked Assassin" and might, over an extended time, determine that "The Masked Assassin" is also "Enthric the Kind". On completion of the investigation, Sherlock would be able to kill Enthric and claim all of the bounties on TMA, and/or blow the cover identity, in either a limited or general sense. There would be some element of player skill as well as character skill- If I notice The Masked Assassin going into Enthric's house, and Enthric leaving shortly afterwards, I've got a pretty good idea who is who.
Multiple identities also leads directly into guild and faction infiltration, one of the staples of Eve. The biggest objection I have to the practice in Eve is that there is literally no in-character way to detect it; if we give an in-game benefit to characters who infiltrate one guild while also being a member of the other (for example, if your guild has a spy high enough in the enemy guild, your guild can see and know the guild ranks of that guild, in addition to their affiliation if it would otherwise be hidden), then there is a motivation to infiltrate in a manner which is detectable in-game. That benefit would have to be information, and would have to be done in some manner effectively superior to simply posting screenshots of the spy looking at the infiltrated guild's information. Other options might include the spy getting information normally reserved for someone of higher position in the guild, at a greater risk, or providing false information (to either or both sides) by choice, or being fed misinformation by defensive spies.
"Oh look, this guy is spying on us and is trying to get officer-level information on disposition of resources. Let's tell him that there's a major shipment of lumber scheduled for this Friday, and put half of us in an ambush and the other half to raid their base while they get ambushed" or even "He thinks he's about to get top-tier knowledge, so let's plant the information in our files that their top ranger is actually one of our agents; I'll pay off a bard to flirt with her and give her a new bow to make her look suspicious."
In short, make some level of infiltration other than "Now I own the entire guild, so I'm going to take it into my personal possession and then disband it" practical and supported by the mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, what is the advantage of being disguised? Is the victim of a murder prohibited from placing a bounty on a disguised killer unless they are friends with/hire an investigator?
That is the idea. However, keep in mind, that unless the killer is skilled, there is a chance of him being id'd during the assassination attempt.
Are the costs of an investigator nontrivial, but still on the same level as the costs of the disguise? If investigation has a trivial cost, then investigations will be cheap; if they have a significant cost, they will have to provide a significant benefit.
It would definitely have to scale. In addition, while you could hope a friend had an investigator who could do the work for you, it is something that could contribute to the economy in that the investigator can charge above and beyond the cost of his investigation for his services.
How does this differ from a system where a character can have multiple 'identities', each with a different name, bounty, and factional standing, but the same abilities? "The Masked Assassin" would simply be one of those identities. The investigator, then, would investigate the clues left by "The Masked Assassin" and might, over an extended time, determine that "The Masked Assassin" is also "Enthric the Kind". On completion of the investigation, Sherlock would be able to kill Enthric and claim all of the bounties on TMA, and/or blow the cover identity, in either a limited or general sense. There would be some element of player skill as well as character skill- If I notice The Masked Assassin going into Enthric's house, and Enthric leaving shortly afterwards, I've got a pretty good idea who is who.
I considered that, and thought that it was a case where it would be better to be abstracted rather than go for total simulation. However, one thing you could do is make the mark so that it can be studied with Investigation or you can use it while targeting someone. If the person is the match for the mark, it counts as investigated and you get investigation points and can place a bounty, otherwise it is burned. (that way if you were killed but someone else saw the undisguised killer running away and told you, you wouldn't have to rely on investigation necessarily to cash in.
Multiple identities also leads directly into guild and faction infiltration, one of the staples of Eve. The biggest objection I have to the practice in Eve is that there is literally no in-character way to detect it; if we give an in-game benefit to characters who infiltrate one guild while also being a member of the other (for example, if your guild has a spy high enough in the enemy guild, your guild can see and know the guild ranks of that guild, in addition to their affiliation if it would otherwise be hidden), then there is a motivation to infiltrate in a manner which is detectable in-game. That benefit would have to be information, and would have to be done in some manner effectively superior to simply posting screenshots of the spy looking at the infiltrated guild's information....
That is a problem pretty much in all MMOs. You have to rely on out-of-character methods and knowledge to prevent it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If there is a disguise mechanic, I want to be able to place a bounty on the disguised guy, period. I figure the best way to do that is to put one on the disguise, and limit the number of different disguises that one character can have (either by having them cost resources, limited by skill, or some arbitrary limit, in order of decreasing preference). If he goes back to his cover identity, the bounty hunters might have a hard time tracking him down, but a larger bounty or bounties will make it worth more of their time to figure out. There should also be a chance to discover "These two false personae belong to the same person" and "This person has this other false identity".
Another major benefit of persistent disguises/multiple personae is that it gives the avowed outlaw a way to interact with society at large (by pretending to be an ordinary guy), as well as a way for the lawful groups to scout out the outlaws (by becoming one). It adds to the intrigue by requiring each player to decide with whom he is sharing his cover identities; if he gives that information to characters, then the UI can indicate 'This is a friend who is under cover as an enemy', and enemy spies can acquire the information 'This is an enemy who is under cover as a friend'. If that information can be shared in-game, with UI advantages, then there is no advantage to sharing it only in the metagame. Therefore there is less incentive to hack the guild messageboard or emails in order to uncover guild information, which results in a happier playerbase.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there is a disguise mechanic, I want to be able to place a bounty on the disguised guy, period. I figure the best way to do that is to put one on the disguise, and limit the number of different disguises that one character can have (either by having them cost resources, limited by skill, or some arbitrary limit, in order of decreasing preference). If he goes back to his cover identity, the bounty hunters might have a hard time tracking him down, but a larger bounty or bounties will make it worth more of their time to figure out. There should also be a chance to discover "These two false personae belong to the same person" and "This person has this other false identity".
Another major benefit of persistent disguises/multiple personae is that it gives the avowed outlaw a way to interact with society at large (by pretending to be an ordinary guy), as well as a way for the lawful groups to scout out the outlaws (by becoming one). It adds to the intrigue by requiring each player to decide with whom he is sharing his cover identities; if he gives that information to characters, then the UI can indicate 'This is a friend who is under cover as an enemy', and enemy spies can acquire the information 'This is an enemy who is under cover as a friend'. If that information can be shared in-game, with UI advantages, then there is no advantage to sharing it only in the metagame. Therefore there is less incentive to hack the guild messageboard or emails in order to uncover guild information, which results in a happier playerbase.
When I was thinking of disguise, it was less involved that coming up with whole other identities and personas. I was thinking more of "big hat and a bandana" :)
How about split the difference? At low levels of disguise skill, you aren't necessarily making a specific disguise, just masking your identity. The disguise is relatively easy to pierce or figure out; cost is minimal for both the disguise and for investigation to figure out (basically this is a skill up phase). Chances are you'll be able to figure out the assassin, but there is a chance he can get away clean. ("Bob, who killed ya?" "I don't know, never got a good look at him.")
Once you reach a certain threshold of skill in disguise, you can adopt additional personae as your disguise (make the number of personae either skill-based or merit badge based; the total max number should be fairly low...definitely less than a half-dozen). The cost of the disguise is higher, and you can still choose to "mask" yourself as above (still a small chance to get away clean). However, if you are id'd while disguised it is only your persona that is id'd and vulnerable to bounties. You can discard personae, but only if the persona hasn't been used recently or had a bounty placed on it in a fairly long time (weeks, probably months; you effectively lose one of your persona slots for a good while).
I do like the UI "tells" for the identities, tho I'm not sure how you enforce the player ID'ing his friends and foes in the first place or prevent them from changing their status on the fly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I seriously doubt this type of system will make it into the game. Restrict item looting to someone who actually killed you. Not just any random person that walks by that did nothing to deserve loot. Besides you'll end up with a lot of loot stealing. I can just wait until you kill someone then loot their corpse before you do.
Plus, there are too many deaths from going link dead to lose ALL your inventory.
The negatives of this system outway the positives.
Imagine two wizards battling each other at range. I can just go stand next to the guy about to lose and loot him as soon as he dies. No bounty for me and the winning wizard probably can't do anything to me unless he can take on 2 players back to back. And even if he can..he still doesn't get to loot the wizard he killed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I get why you guys like the idea of a disguise skill and ways to kill and not be recognized, I think you are underrating a point:
the only informations we will get are those that the program will give us. Nothing more.
The second in which the program start giving us false/unreliable informations we will have a major problem. Especially if the quality of those information can be further degraded by people manipulating the program on their PC.
The idea is interesting, the probable implementation in game risk to be prone to hacking and manipulations.
I see posts about the poor assassin getting a bounty on his head and how that will destroy his usefulness. My EVE experience is that with kill rights lasting 1 month it is almost impossible to catch the culprit.
After doing a spate of killing he will move shop to another section of the galaxy or go into 0.0 till the kill rights ends.
It isn't difficult to do the same in PFO: the bounty could last for a fixed time. After it has elapsed without being collected the money is returned to the issuer minus a administrative fee. If you want the bounty to last for a longer period you could pay a higher percentage fee.
That way you manage how in RL the older wanted posters are covered by the more recent ones and old crimes are somewhat forgotten and at the same time you keep a assassin character viable on the long run. After doing a big job he has to lay low for a period, but after the heat has cooled down he is free to act again.
Another thin: differently from EVe we should not go around with a symbol saying that we have a bounty on our head.
If someone is interested in knowing that in the area controlled by the Hellknigth character X has a bounty on his head he had to go to the hellknight headquarters (or sheriff office) and look the Wanted poster there. And when it is time to collect he will not get his money automatically. Again, he will have to go to the Hellknigth headquarters and present his target head or proof of his death, then he would get his money.
|
This entire system seems almost harsh on players. As excited as I am for this game, as it develops I am getting a weird sensation that this is not going to be Pathfinder in the end, because you're scared to be like WoW and had to change everything.
I like the EVE system for the other CCP MMO that's supposedly being developed - World of Darkness. But Pathfinder? It's hardcore kill-monsters and find loot to the extreme adventure gaming. I want to level up and pick skills damn it, not wait for HOURS to do stupid little tasks and get minor boons. To me, that 'pick a skill and wait for it to increase even when you're not playing' thing kind of... makes playing and getting into the game meaningless, and that's coming from someone who doesn't really like how WoW is.
I think you should copy Skyrim if anything. That comment about people 'jumping' in place as an example of how Skyrims skills upgrade is silly. Mostly everything in that game was trained as I played with no real opportunity to do stupid grinding. You could even keep the 20-level system with some work, and just make skill-level gained experience upgrade -very- slowly, but it would probably work better on a 99-100 level scheme. Just saying.
As it stands, I'm really not diggin a lot of how the gameplay and character design is already turning out. Everything else, fantastic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Daniel, I finally get what you were saying about multiple identities as the basis of disguise. As much as I'd like GW to not use floaty names, I expect they'll be forced to, and having separate names you can display by using disguise would make that work well. It even still holds out the possibility of PCs posing as NPCs if most (if not all!) NPCs have names, instead of tags like "a villager".
One thing that would be really important in my mind is the greater chance to have your disguise blown the more you spend time around characters that know an alternate identity. In essence, you're walking around as the Masked Assassin when Enthric's mom sees him in the village square and says "Enthric? Is that you?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I seriously doubt this type of system will make it into the game. Restrict item looting to someone who actually killed you. Not just any random person that walks by that did nothing to deserve loot. Besides you'll end up with a lot of loot stealing. I can just wait until you kill someone then loot their corpse before you do.
...
Imagine two wizards battling each other at range. I can just go stand next to the guy about to lose and loot him as soon as he dies. No bounty for me and the winning wizard probably can't do anything to me unless he can take on 2 players back to back. And even if he can..he still doesn't get to loot the wizard he killed.
EvE has a very similar scenario - it allows the actual killer to loot the wreck (=husk) without repercussions. Anyone else is stealing from the killer, and can be attacked by that character for some time with no negative consequences. So in your wizard duel example, sure... the sneaky thief could rob the dead wizard, but would immediately afterwards be exposed to the same treatment that ruined the other wizard. If he wins, he loots you, getting a share of what you took, and some of your own stuff.
That's not to say that an exhausted, wounded opponent isn't going to be less able to defend his claim. Sometimes, the jackal wins after the lions exhausted themselves. Maybe being that jackal is my kind of fun in the sandbox? ;)
Plus, there are too many deaths from going link dead to lose ALL your inventory.
The negatives of this system outway the positives.
Going LD outside of combat will remove you from the world in a short time, afaik. So no huge problem here. I personally don't like everything about PFO, but played enough eve to grow the thick hide necessary to live with such losses.
In eve, you don't fly what you can't afford to lose. In PFO, you wear it, but don't ever take it off. PFO is downright gentle
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Daniel, I finally get what you were saying about multiple identities as the basis of disguise. As much as I'd like GW to not use floaty names, I expect they'll be forced to, and having separate names you can display by using disguise would make that work well. It even still holds out the possibility of PCs posing as NPCs if most (if not all!) NPCs have names, instead of tags like "a villager".
One thing that would be really important in my mind is the greater chance to have your disguise blown the more you spend time around characters that know an alternate identity. In essence, you're walking around as the Masked Assassin when Enthric's mom sees him in the village square and says "Enthric? Is that you?"
I'm not sure how to mechanically handle breaking cover identities; at the least, whenever you were unmasked by meddling kids you would lose the identify and all the negative faction standing that you had on that identity would transfer to your "real" identity.
I'll raise you one- one of your names can be "a villager".
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I can't imagine any nonepic investigator sitting in his armchair making elementary deductions and determining the true identity of anyone. Determining things like height, weight, shoe size, and scars should be crucial bits, some of which might come from eyewitness accounts, but the biggest part of investigation will have to involve playing.
Of course, magic will have some pretty significant things to say as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Plus, there are too many deaths from going link dead to lose ALL your inventory.
The negatives of this system outway the positives.
Going LD outside of combat will remove you from the world in a short time, afaik. So no huge problem here. I personally don't like everything about PFO, but played enough eve to grow the thick hide necessary to live with such losses.
In eve, you don't fly what you can't afford to lose. In PFO, you wear it, but don't ever take it off. PFO is downright gentle
Sure, but in Eve you can insure your ship. And I'm more concerned with going link dead during PvE content. I can be doing a very low risk activity, harvesting near a village, up pops a giant rat and i go link dead. Anyone who walks by can loot me and everything i harvested is destroyed?
Just too many potential penalties for something the players have no control over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sure, but in Eve you can insure your ship. And I'm more concerned with going link dead during PvE content. I can be doing a very low risk activity, harvesting near a village, up pops a giant rat and i go link dead. Anyone who walks by can loot me and everything i harvested is destroyed?Just too many potential penalties for something the players have no control over.
Leaving all eve details aside, you might want to occasionally take your haul home? Only what you currently carry is planned to be subject to anything