|
I noticed the trend alot with Sandbox MMOS is to only be on the one server, and to have you only have 1 character slot, perhaps 2, given the skill based nature of the game, and that 1 character could be whatever you wanted - it precludes different races as a downside.
Any thoughts? EVE Online was only a single Server game (as is DF/MO/ER)
Goblin Squad Member
|
They are trying for one server, training for one character per month per subscription. They stated we are free to distribute that one character-month worth of training however we please between different characters.
To illustrate, we could use and train two character on the server and train them equally. They would each be half as developed as someone with one character. On the other hand, we have been informed we are welcome to have multiple subscriptions, and each sub will give us one month worth of training.
This is how I understood it anyways.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, sounds like it will be single-server. And a hearty hooray for that! I'm getting sick of asking about LOTRO: "Oh, you play LOTRO? I do too! What server do you play on? Oh... any server other than the one I'm on. It's almost like we're not playing the same game, then. Damn." Ditto for Warhammer, WoW, etc.
At least Runescape, though it too has over a hundred shards, makes up for it by allowing you to switch shards every time you log out and log back in. But Runescape doesn't have open PvP, and you only have 1 character per account... oh well, trade-offs.
I really don't think Pathfinder will be single-character. That sounds way too limiting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't think Pathfinder will be single-character. That sounds way too limiting.
You will almost certainly be able to train skills on more than one character per account. Doing so almost certainly will not be free.
I think it's a done deal that you'll be able to have multiple characters per account, and that you'll even be able to train more than one per account, as long as you're paying appropriately.
I fully intend to pay for two characters to train:
Khimber Vhane - Human Paladin
Nihimon Vhane'Sylvan - Elf Wizard (or Sorcerer, or both)
I also intend to have a bevy of other characters that I train up a little bit here and there. From my limited experience with Eve, I expect I'll be looking at training a 3 week skill on Nihimon, and decide to take a week or so first to train up some low-hanging fruit on my alts.
This also reminds me:
1. Please don't require unique first names. Nihimon is an utterly original name, and I've never seen anyone else use it for anything, and if they do I have no doubt whatsoever that they stole it from me. However, Khimber is apparently from some book I never read, so I occasionally see it used by others. I work within 20 feet of 3 people named Mike. The universe doesn't shatter when I try to message one of them. Please break the cycle and get away from the silliness of requiring unique first names in PFO.
2. Please allow me to use a few non-alpha characters in my name, such as hyphens and apostrophes. Nihimon's name is "Nihimon Vhane'Sylvan". If I can't name him that in PFO, I will be disappointed.
3. Please allow us to assign nicknames to players we meet, so that I can "/tell nik" as a short-hand of saying "/tell Niklaus SomeLongLastName".
4. Please allow us to re-sort the characters in our group. I assume (and sincerely hope) you'll be using the standard F1, F2, F3, etc. for targeting group members. I'd really like to be able to drag different party members around in the party list so that I can choose who's going to be F2.
5. Please hurry, the anticipation feels like it's going to kill me :)
6. Please don't rush.
7. Never take me too seriously :)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
8. Accomplish everything in the list of mutually exclusive ideas at the same time without compromising.
As for the names, I second the request for player-assigned nicknames, and a UI element that is powerful, easy to understand, full-featured, easily available, and doesn't clutter up the screen in order to handle communication.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that we need to have only the whole name as a unique tag.
Mike Andersen and Mike Tyson are different persons. Similarly a few alphanumerics characters would be good.
On the other hand I would gladly like not to see numbers in the character named. Bob is ok, B0b 8ob and 80b aren't (at least in a fantasy game). If a player want to be Rambo the 13th he can use Roman numerals (i.e. Rambo XIII).
And, please, please, please, use a legible set of characters where 8 and B or 0 and O don't seem the same thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another thought... It would be nice to be able to get a CharacterID by clicking on a character, even if you don't know their name, so that you can attempt to communicate with them. And keep in mind, all of this should be compatible with PCs being able to pose as NPCs if they so choose :)
I think two or three servers would be nice. The main reason for this is that different players have different preferences. First, I really want this to be a game I can role play the hell out of, but this isn't everyone's cup of tea. Second, I dread the thought of playing in a server where friendly fire is off and you have wizards casting black tentacles at their feet and killing monsters/enemy PC's with impunity. Both things would kill the immersion for me, so if I could segregate the game into different servers based off these preferences I'd be happy.
A model I'd like would go something like this:
1) Standard Server: Hardcore rules, role playing heavily encouraged.
2) Non RP Server: Hardcore rules
3) Softcore Server: This is where I'd put friendly fire off if I were forced to. I don't think a server like this should even exist, but it would be something of a compromise for the non friendly fire cowards. You can think of this server as World of PathfinderCraft.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've often thought that there's a real opportunity for some MMO, not necessarily PFO, to use e-Harmony style personality matching to put like-minded players together in instances but still have one world server. Imagine being able to pick and choose each and every option you've ever read anyone asking for on a "special server". You could choose permadeath but no friendly fire, and then choose whether to shun players who didn't choose permadeath, etc.
As for what I hope and expect for PFO: I think it's extremely important to have a single world server, and that they should only deviate from that if there are technical problems for which segregating servers is the only cost effective solution. I think there are a lot of "hardcore" rules that could be enforced on the client only, and as long as you had the ability to see that the players you were grouping with had the desired options selected, you could self-select and get most of the benefits of a hardcore server.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A model I'd like would go something like this:
1) Standard Server: Hardcore rules, role playing heavily encouraged.
2) Non RP Server: Hardcore rules
3) Softcore Server: This is where I'd put friendly fire off if I were forced to. I don't think a server like this should even exist, but it would be something of a compromise for the non friendly fire cowards. You can think of this server as World of PathfinderCraft.
Personally I disagree due to the results of a modified version of a game. In general one version has to be catered to, and the other versions have to be neglected, or they can just get 3x the development level, the game. If the game is balanced for friendly fire to exist, it will be too easy without it, If something is implemented in a way to be meaningful, than it is required, if it isn't meant to be meaningful, then it may as well not be added to begin with. Same reason why PVP in a WoW PVP server is meaningless,
RP is the only exception I can think of, and with that... well the server will likely wind up with people divided up etc.. Joining kingdoms/guilds etc... that fit their play-style. Really everything I can see this game is designed around being massive as possible, from the massive land size etc... as a result splitting people into 3rds, will fail, as will an RP server (because RP servers do not tend to gather huge crowds of people, and are in general 1/4th the size of a normal server).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Splitting the playerbase is the last thing that should happen. If you get too many players, lease a lot of hardware to scale up the server- make the world larger if you have too, or spin off different areas onto different pieces of hardware, but the only different 'select a server' choices should be production and test.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are problems with that Daniel, there are limits to what modern servers can manage, but it is a large limit so it will not be a problem for years, and in the meantime the technology will grow giving us a bit of margin.
The main problem are the big battles. When you have enough people on the server and there is a big battle a lot of them will try to be there and that will be hard to manage.
I've often thought that there's a real opportunity for some MMO, not necessarily PFO, to use e-Harmony style personality matching to put like-minded players together in instances but still have one world server. Imagine being able to pick and choose each and every option you've ever read anyone asking for on a "special server". You could choose permadeath but no friendly fire, and then choose whether to shun players who didn't choose permadeath, etc.
As for what I hope and expect for PFO: I think it's extremely important to have a single world server, and that they should only deviate from that if there are technical problems for which segregating servers is the only cost effective solution. I think there are a lot of "hardcore" rules that could be enforced on the client only, and as long as you had the ability to see that the players you were grouping with had the desired options selected, you could self-select and get most of the benefits of a hardcore server.
I've played on an mmo that basically everyone was on multible servers, but the servers flowed together, like you'd be transferred every once in a while. I'd be nice to have it with the eharmony thing, and when you 'flowed' you got people that were like minded around you. Of course your party flows with you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. Please don't require unique first names. Nihimon is an utterly original name, and I've never seen anyone else use it for anything, and if they do I have no doubt whatsoever that they stole it from me. However, Khimber is apparently from some book I never read, so I occasionally see it used by others. I work within 20 feet of 3 people named Mike. The universe doesn't shatter when I try to message one of them. Please break the cycle and get away from the silliness of requiring unique first names in PFO.
2. Please allow me to use a few non-alpha characters in my name, such as hyphens and apostrophes. Nihimon's name is "Nihimon Vhane'Sylvan". If I can't name him that in PFO, I will be disappointed.
3. Please allow us to assign nicknames to players we meet, so that I can "/tell nik" as a short-hand of saying "/tell Niklaus SomeLongLastName".
4. Please allow us to re-sort the characters in our group. I assume (and sincerely hope) you'll be using the standard F1, F2, F3, etc. for targeting group members. I'd really like to be able to drag different party members around in the party list so that I can choose who's going to be F2.
5. Please hurry, the anticipation feels like it's going to kill me :)
6. Please don't rush.
7. Never take me too seriously :)
I also agree with your wishlist on naming parameters, Nihimon. Please no unique first names. Instead, I prefer unique surnames with the ability to emphasis non-alpha characters. I disagree with wishlist item number seven! :-P
A model I'd like would go something like this:1) Standard Server: Hardcore rules, role playing heavily encouraged.
2) Non RP Server: Hardcore rules
3) Softcore Server: This is where I'd put friendly fire off if I were forced to. I don't think a server like this should even exist, but it would be something of a compromise for the non friendly fire cowards. You can think of this server as World of PathfinderCraft.
I also agree with your recommendation for server type. I would prefer to be apart of a server that emphasizes roleplay as heavily as possible; which would include naming convention of character, and general out of character or lack of immersion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Of course we need to be able to name our characters whatever we like.
Single server is a concern. I'm looking for fairly hard core role play. I'm happy to role play for hours with out leaving the tavern, or whatever.
I keep my dialogue 'in character'.
A lot of people don't like to play this way. I don't blame them at all it is not for everybody. Mixing in the action players who make no attempt to stay in character will seriously dilute the experience for the role players.
1. Please don't require unique first names. Nihimon is an utterly original name, and I've never seen anyone else use it for anything, and if they do I have no doubt whatsoever that they stole it from me. However, Khimber is apparently from some book I never read, so I occasionally see it used by others. I work within 20 feet of 3 people named Mike. The universe doesn't shatter when I try to message one of them. Please break the cycle and get away from the silliness of requiring unique first names in PFO.
2. Please allow me to use a few non-alpha characters in my name, such as hyphens and apostrophes. Nihimon's name is "Nihimon Vhane'Sylvan". If I can't name him that in PFO, I will be disappointed.
3. Please allow us to assign nicknames to players we meet, so that I can "/tell nik" as a short-hand of saying "/tell Niklaus SomeLongLastName".
4. Please allow us to re-sort the characters in our group. I assume (and sincerely hope) you'll be using the standard F1, F2, F3, etc. for targeting group members. I'd really like to be able to drag different party members around in the party...
I fully support this list of requests aside from number 7 :D Also I think the fact that this game will have a single server element is fantastic! I also love the fact that if you want to have more alts that you will have to pay for more alts (or along those lines... more of alt xp). This really will help the overall feel of gameplay within the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A model I'd like would go something like this:
1) Standard Server: Hardcore rules, role playing heavily encouraged.
2) Non RP Server: Hardcore rules
3) Softcore Server: This is where I'd put friendly fire off if I were forced to. I don't think a server like this should even exist, but it would be something of a compromise for the non friendly fire cowards. You can think of this server as World of PathfinderCraft.
Personally I'd prefer a single server as I would like to do a bit of RPing but also be able to go OOC and maybe do some PvPing or PvEing without having to motivate reasons for it IC.
That being said I think that IF they decide to have more servers your model seems fine, only just swap it so the "Non RP Server" would be called the "Standard Server" and the "Standard" one would be called the "RP Server" or it might create some confusion for people who have mostly played MMOs since RP servers generally isn't what we tend to think of as standard (not speaking for everyone of course, just basing this how me and my friends view servers).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gildur, the problem with Servers with "a bit of RPing when/if you want" is, that nobody will really engage in RP then except for a few hardcore players. And frankly, it's difficult to immerse yourself into the gameworld when people near you discuss the results of the newest football game. ALSO: xXnarutoXx
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Gildur, the problem with Servers with "a bit of RPing when/if you want" is, that nobody will really engage in RP then except for a few hardcore players. And frankly, it's difficult to immerse yourself into the gameworld when people near you discuss the results of the newest football game. ALSO: xXnarutoXx
I guess that's one way to look at it but having done a bit of roleplaying in World of Warcraft, where sadly the roleplaying servers have been used by quite a lot of non-RPers since day one, I think that it's actually quite possible to do very nice roleplaying despite the server not being 100% IC all the time. And with a game like PFO, where charters of like-minded people will probably create their own settlements and towns, I think that sharing a server is much less of a problem than in WoW (and they manage to make it work).
I also think that the very nature of this game makes it more RP friendly by default because everyone will be interacting with the world, trying to leave their mark on it, rather than playing through the "theme park".
Edit: I would like to add that I fully support a system with non-unique first names and unique surnames. I hate it when I think of a name that I feel would be perfect for my character only to be greeted by "That name is already in use."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Gildur, the problem with Servers with "a bit of RPing when/if you want" is, that nobody will really engage in RP then except for a few hardcore players. And frankly, it's difficult to immerse yourself into the gameworld when people near you discuss the results of the newest football game. ALSO: xXnarutoXx
Well while that point is valid, it also isn't resolved by multiple servers. Honestly RP servers either wind up with 50% non RPers who just didn't really know or care, 40% who think RP means cybering, and 10% actual RPers, and the biggest issue, is roleplay servers in general get 10% of the population of non-RP servers... meaning if the servers are equal otherwise, the RP servers will be just vast emptyness in a world built for 10x as many people.
That being said, guild/chartered company controlled towns, kingdoms etc.. opens all kind of doors for players to create RP based communities. RPers can work within their towns and organizations and asside from war/trade deals, rarely actually be surrounded by non-RPers.
I also love the nickname idea, though that theoretically just falls into a variant of an /alias command (which is very useful for dealing with other longass /commands).
I like the idea of trying for one server, or at least one server with numerous instances, the way Champions Online does it. I want to be able to play with people I meet on the forums without having to do a server transfer and sacrifice playing with people I already played with.
I'm not yet all caught up on this "month worth of training" thing and what that amounts to, but I definitely want the capacity to make multiple characters. I like making characters. In CoH I can have multiple Super Strength/Invulnerability Tankers and still find each to be unique and enjoyable because it's a different character with a different background and personal story. If I find the game "consuming" enough, I'm not above shelling out some extra money now and then (hey, it's cheaper than a drug habit, or even going to McDonald's once a week) but I don't want to have to deal with the hassle of managing multiple accounts to do this, let me just buy extra training (or whatever it is) when I want it.
I think numerous instances kind of goes against the sandbox design philosophy, separating players or taking them out of the game probably isn't a good idea.
Actually the numerous instances thing that I'm talking about is to specifically keep players in closer contact with one another... without setting your video card on fire when 1000 show up in the same place at the same time.
They all share the same broadcast channel, partied members coming into the "zone" default into the same map instance, and anyone who needs to change instances can do so easily and painlessly with a couple clicks of the mouse on the map controls.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think numerous instances kind of goes against the sandbox design philosophy, separating players or taking them out of the game probably isn't a good idea.Actually the numerous instances thing that I'm talking about is to specifically keep players in closer contact with one another... without setting your video card on fire when 1000 show up in the same place at the same time.
They all share the same broadcast channel, partied members coming into the "zone" default into the same map instance, and anyone who needs to change instances can do so easily and painlessly with a couple clicks of the mouse on the map controls.
This sounds like it could be really immersion breaking and, frankly I'd personally prefer to have more servers if 1000 people showing up in the same area at once becomes a real hazard.
This sounds like it could be really immersion breaking and, frankly I'd personally prefer to have more servers if 1000 people showing up in the same area at once becomes a real hazard.
It's no more immersion breaking than having a user interface in the first place. It works just fine in existing games like Champions Online or DDO, both of which are free to play, at least enough so that you could see how it works if you don't mind downloading the client overnight...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I don't want to have to deal with the hassle of managing multiple accounts to do this, let me just buy extra training (or whatever it is) when I want it.
With respect to being able to train multiple characters simultaneously on a single account, unless I totally misread Ryan Dancey's response to my thread:
You'll be happy.
As far as instances go, I don't really think it's going to be necessary. If it becomes necessary, I won't personally find it immersion-breaking because clicking a button and selecting an instance from a drop-down-list in order to be in the same space as someone really isn't all that different than typing "/tell" in order to talk to someone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This sounds like it could be really immersion breaking and, frankly I'd personally prefer to have more servers if 1000 people showing up in the same area at once becomes a real hazard.It's no more immersion breaking than having a user interface in the first place. It works just fine in existing games like Champions Online or DDO, both of which are free to play, at least enough so that you could see how it works if you don't mind downloading the client overnight...
The goals of DDO and the goals of PFO are more or less converting 2 different halves of P&P to the MMO side. Both at the same time is imposible from a technical standpoint.
DDO's goal was specifically a PVE game, to do dungeon crawls as deeply as possible, as well as to set the generic rules and leveling as similar to P&P rules as possible.
PFO's focus is on the persistance half. IE when X dragon is killed by someone, X dragon is dead forever, a new dragon may appear randomly somewhere else in the world but X dragon is dead. The dungeon that X dragon was found in is cleared, gone. If jim builds a house, Jim's house is there for everyone to see until or unless someone else tears it down.
Second difference is PFO is less focused on developer created PVE content. There will be some, but the majority of the focus of the game is intended to be random created things, the players are intended to be the primary source of content, whether that be their conflicts, the goals they are wanting to accomplish together, etc...
I do believe you're missing the point of what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting that PFO should replicate the purpose of DDO in any way, I'm simply extolling the value of a single piece of technology used by DDO, CO, and likely other games (CoH has a more clumsy variant) that allow population in a single in game area to be graphicly segregated for the necessity of computer performance issues, without requiring that the game population be segregated into different game worlds (or servers, or shards, or whatever) which creates the above mentionedThis sounds like it could be really immersion breaking and, frankly I'd personally prefer to have more servers if 1000 people showing up in the same area at once becomes a real hazard.It's no more immersion breaking than having a user interface in the first place. It works just fine in existing games like Champions Online or DDO, both of which are free to play, at least enough so that you could see how it works if you don't mind downloading the client overnight...The goals of DDO and the goals of PFO are more or less converting 2 different halves of P&P to the MMO side. Both at the same time is imposible from a technical standpoint.
DDO's goal was specifically a PVE game, to do dungeon crawls as deeply as possible, as well as to set the generic rules and leveling as similar to P&P rules as possible.
PFO's focus is on the persistance half. IE when X dragon is killed by someone, X dragon is dead forever, a new dragon may appear randomly somewhere else in the world but X dragon is dead. The dungeon that X dragon was found in is cleared, gone. If jim builds a house, Jim's house is there for everyone to see until or unless someone else tears it down.
Second difference is PFO is less focused on developer created PVE content. There will be some, but the majority of the focus of the game is intended to be random created things, the players are intended to be the primary source of content, whether that be their conflicts, the goals they are wanting to accomplish together, etc...
"Oh, you play LOTRO? I do too! What server do you play on? Oh... any server other than the one I'm on. It's almost like we're not playing the same game, then. Damn."
problem. We could pack everyone in like crowds at a convention, and lag would guarantee similar penalties to movement and perception, which I'm sure some purists would love, but it's otherwise impractical since first and foremost this actually has to FUNCTION as a multiplayer computer game.
World size looks like it will be plenty sufficient to manage population. The concern is large gatherings of characters that must be tracked and drawn, especially during "events" where lots of people are likely to show up in the same place, or worse, a malicious flash-mob intending to lag-crash lower end systems* and generally disrupt play in otherwise popular social hubs (*perhaps that would be a "Crash-Mob"). Sure, won't be a problem if everyone is playing from the terminal in their NSA/CIA cubicle, but it's a technological aspect that has to be accounted for to make a functional game that doesn't require the most up-to-date hardware available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instancing is a must, no matter what. Social hubs will exist and there needs to be ways to handle them. If there are 10 areas to start your character, that is ~450 people in a single area at least once a month, then triple that number for a while.
I'm starting to see an unrealistic push for realism. Technology is not yet to a point where a shot a full realism would be possible. Unless everyone want's to pay $200/month, have a $20,00 gaming tower, and a 1gb internet connection to run a super-physics engine and be able to draw 1000 people on the screen. And until we can 'jack-in' to the matrix and play a game that way, realism will never be achieved.
The less realism you expect now, the better the end product will be. I fooled my self into thinking SW:TOR would be a game to change the market, but found that is only set it back further, now i don't enjoy the game as much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's funny....in anticipation for this game I found myself relogging on to DDO and trying to recreate one of my characters that I've been using in a current campaign named Dorian Swift. The name instead came out to be something like Doreaeen Swift...and I was thinking to myself...if I want to play a character named Tim, and my friend also wants to be named Tim...WHY CAN'T WE BOTH BE TIM?! He has a different last name than me so that's how we tell each other apart not whether or not our first name is different! I fully support the aforementioned list!
It's funny....in anticipation for this game I found myself relogging on to DDO and trying to recreate one of my characters that I've been using in a current campaign named Dorian Swift. The name instead came out to be something like Doreaeen Swift...and I was thinking to myself...if I want to play a character named Tim, and my friend also wants to be named Tim...WHY CAN'T WE BOTH BE TIM?! He has a different last name than me so that's how we tell each other apart not whether or not our first name is different! I fully support the aforementioned list!
Agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes I'm fine with a goofy/weird spelling for a fantasy name, but if that's not what I'm aiming at, I don't want to be railroaded into it just because one of thousands of other people has similar taste in names for what may be vastly different characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
i deff think there should be a few servers....pve/pvp/pvp full loot ect
this way everyone is happy...if u dont like full loot pvp,play the pve server ect
i always reaad negitivity about full loot pvp,i know it can be brutal and it is neice market,its also i turn off for alot of people bla blaso having a server for it and pve means u aint stickin all ur eggs in the one basket and everyone is happy :D
This has been gone over numerous times, for PVP to actually have meaning, the game has to be built around it, and it needs to actually be a necesity for the game. If it has no role and the game can function without it, then it needs to be removed altogether. Meaningful PVP means that there are things that need to be protected, things that people should be coming in conflict over (resources, territory etc...). If those can always be handled without pvp, then PVP is just glorified griefing and shouldn't be in the game to begin with, or the entire game, concepts and structure need to be rewritten from scratch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is a question though that I've been thinking of, and I'd like to present it to the assembly:
In a world where PvP is the main source of conflict, how can someone who builds a character for role-play survive encounters with people who build their characters to kill other characters?
I would like to see a diverse world of players from all walks of life, but from recent descriptions I see an emerging problem of "If you don't have the best build, you won't get the best stuff." I like building characters, but a lot of the time, my stats, feats, and skills are chosen on a role-play basis and aren't exactly the best as far as character class optimization goes. As a king I'd like to be able to win my own battles, but I don't want to have to pump strength in order to make trip my primary method of attack so I can win every duel a'la DDO...
This probably won't be as much of a problem as I'm thinking, but I'd like some of you more experienced chaps to put my mind at ease if you can haha.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DMDragon123, this is exactly the problem that I had in mind when I made several rather adamant arguments that the character skill system must be truly open-ended. If there are a set number of points from which you're building your character, then players who are more interested in RP will always sacrifice some PvP "talents", and then they'll always be at a disadvantage. However, with a truly open-ended system it's simply a matter of which skills they pursue first.
Another thing that I think will significantly limit this problem is the fact that, once a character receives about 10 Merit Badges, they'll be durable enough to actually contribute to combat with "maxed out" characters, which means they should also stand a decent chance of getting away if they're dedicated to doing so and their attackers aren't filled with bloodlust.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Here is a question though that I've been thinking of, and I'd like to present it to the assembly:
In a world where PvP is the main source of conflict, how can someone who builds a character for role-play survive encounters with people who build their characters to kill other characters?
I would like to see a diverse world of players from all walks of life, but from recent descriptions I see an emerging problem of "If you don't have the best build, you won't get the best stuff." I like building characters, but a lot of the time, my stats, feats, and skills are chosen on a role-play basis and aren't exactly the best as far as character class optimization goes. As a king I'd like to be able to win my own battles, but I don't want to have to pump strength in order to make trip my primary method of attack so I can win every duel a'la DDO...
This probably won't be as much of a problem as I'm thinking, but I'd like some of you more experienced chaps to put my mind at ease if you can haha.
What makes you think that there will be one method which is most effective at winning, or that character build decisions have a whit to do with roleplaying? Stats, skills, and feats are only useful for determining what your character can do, not who your character is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like to think that who my character is has a pretty heavy impact on what I think he is capable of/wants to do. For example, If I was going to be a spell sword or magus of some kind I would focus on a single weapon, spells of a certain category based on the temperamaent of the character I'm playing (a good character wouldn't choose to use necromancy/enchantment etc., and the rest of what I think he could do depends on a character decision. Do I focus more on arcane knowledge because my character is studious? Or do I focus more on swinging my weapon because my character could care less that he has the ability to use magic and and only uses it for convenience? Yes I could probably roleplay it out any way I wanted to and no one would be the wiser, but I personally would feel like I am cheating my character....he's mine after all. And I personally think it would be weird to see a wizard running around in robes and pointy hat saying he's a fighter for roleplaying purposes...
And I personally think it would be weird to see a wizard running around in robes and pointy hat saying he's a fighter for roleplaying purposes...
Reminds me of this.
One thing I'm very curious about following the PvP centric sub-thread is the way the massively re-balanced classes end up looking. I wonder this because D&D 3.5 (for example) PvP is utterly horrible, and is clearly slanted towards gimmicky instant win stuff.
While it works in P&P because the PC's are spending all their time fighting DM controlled NPCS in party battles, it fails horribly in digital form. Which is why DDO wisely focuses exclusively on PvE and includes dueling basically for laughs.
Eve works just fine without instances, even in trade hubs that could have a few thousand players in the same system/server cluster. I have a vague grasp on how this is handled technically. Moving beyond technicalities instancing doesn't work too well in a sandbox.
The devs are the DM's of this MMO. They can tell the branching story of the world and players can direct where it goes via their resolution of in-game issues, if it's on one server. This won't happen otherwise, because it's a logistical and resource intensive nightmare.
-----------------------
On the topic of RP'ing, 99% of "RP" I've seen in MMO's has been some watered down form of cybersex. I don't RP in MMO's because in most cases the barriers to getting lost in a fictional persona are way too high. When telling another player something as simple as how to cut down a tree is an exercise in describing UI elements and gameplay mechanics there isn't a whole lot of room for make-believe.
It's easy to get lost in a fictional persona in a single player game like Skyrim. Or, with a group of friends and a well crafted P&P game. It doesn't work so well with a very complex UI and a bunch of strangers, half of whom may be drunk and angry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the amount of RP might depend in part on the numbers and varieties of skills and merit badges. If players have to choose between crafting and combat for example, then a group with pure combat builds might have an edge, but their settlement economy might suffer.
I'd like to see RP skills and badges, stuff like "leadership" that is required for groups above a certain size, or "peacemaker" that allows a group with more disparate members to function better.
Not that I roleplay - I'm happy to play a character not to different from myself.
