Goblinworks Blog: LFG! (Looking for Group!)


Pathfinder Online

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Related to higher tier organizations:

"Even a dictatorship should have a higharchy that automatically appoints the next highest ranked member for leadership upon the guild leader not logging in in a weeks time."

I hope your leader never get a vacation, is hospitalized, has connection troubles or need to move to a new house. All things that can easily remove him from the game for more than a week.

Right, which is why the default response is to put the second in command in charge... assuming a leader had good enough judgement to pick someone responsible to hold the guild together while he was away, I think automatically handing the leadership role to whoever the leader set up as a backup as a good thing.

Lets take the hospital scenerio

Option one, leadership holds to the hospitalized leader for 2 weeks he is in the hospital, With no one able to sign in, declare war, set to peace or whatever major function a guild leader has, the guild falls appart, city is taken, the leader returns in 2 weeks to a guild with almost no members, lost territory etc...

option 2. Trustworthy second in command takes over in leaders absense. keeps things together, secures relations and territory etc... 2 weeks later, leader returns and the backup gives him his old position back.

In an expected leave of absense any leader worth his salt would appoint someone else as interim leader, why not have a system that lets him pre-emptively set someone as a temporary leader in an unexpected absense.

The problem is the tone of the original suggestions, as I read it "automatically appoints the next highest ranked member for leadership" don't sound as guy with the power to cover from a leader absence, with the power to take decisions, but as a automatic overthrowing of the government.

The "automatic" part is particularly troublesome.

I don't know how it work in WOW, but in EVE the CEO of a a corporation can nominate directors that have all of his powers beside the capacity of nominating new directors and closing the corporation, then there are lower levels with varying powers, assigned by the CEO or directors.
So, even if a corporation is without his CEO for a period, a director can cover for almost all needs.

A new CEO can be voted to replace the old one if the corporation has issued shares and there is a vote to nominate a new CEO. During the election the old CEO powers are frozen and non working.

Let's consider it in the frame of PFO:
- the game will be free but the players will have to pay for perks (with a subscription option that will grant all the perks)
- being a charter company founder almost certainly will be something that only a paying costumer can do
- a system that will automatically or easily remove something for which the player has paid is almost certainly a bad idea.

Nihimon wrote:
It should be possible to found a guild without being subject to having griefers sneak in and take it away from you. If people want new leadership, they can form a new guild with new leadership.

Exactly my point, but apparently some MMORPG system that I don't know make that impossible.

I have seen plenty of people leaving corporations because their goals had changed, they had outgrowth the corp or the corporation has changed the way it did things.
I have been both with the people leaving and with the people staying.
Unless you are in a "communist" corporation where all the stuff is owned by the corp an you get what you need there is little problem with that.
And even a communist corp can't force you to give all your wealth to the corp.

Goblin Squad Member

Diego Rossi wrote:

LOL, so you want to exchange dictatorship of the founder with dictatorship of the masses or the more charismatic.

At the chartered company level (and please, stop mixing them up in the replies as this part of the discussion is only about the chartered company level, not the other organization levels).

Agreed, although my suggestion was aimed at an ambiguous system that allowed any number of persons...so it might start as a "team", and progress up to a kingdom in time...I had hoped for one set of rules. If, as the blog suggests there will be dedicated structures with set numbers minimum and maximum required and you will be forced to drop one to create another or change one into another, then agreed...then I am only talking about the bigger ones.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I would be quite surprised if members of adventuring companies were not permitted to be members of settlements. Alliances seem to explicitly have settlements as members, based on my reading.

Governance of a kingdom is far different from leading a company.

Goblin Squad Member

I understand and I agree...I just don't like it forced. I would prefer an ambiguous set of tools...with which we can create and dictate our own social structures. Those that work, advance...those that don't fail.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm with Kit. It would be phenomenally cool if GW gave us tools where we could establish a Charter and the game system supported that Charter. Let the Charter define whether or not the members are allowed to vote to change the leadership, and let it define a bunch of other stuff, too.


starchildren3317 wrote:

Finally, after so many years, an MMO Developer gets it! MMO - Massively MULTIPLAYER Online as opposed to MSO Massively SOLO Online.

Seriously though, every blog post I read, it is as if someone is reading my thoughts on how I would want to build an MMO.

My only problem now is that I have so many ideas for a charter company....Havesting Corps anyone??

I'd certainly prefer if soloing is something that's incredibly risky and challenging (or reserved for those who have 'done their time' and are very high level/well equipped), making groups incredibly desirable if not a necessity.

However, just because I want to play in a massively multiplayer world, it doesn't mean I want to play with them all at the same time - all the time.

I far prefer small group activities with large group activities reserved for special occasions (rare spawn dragon or so) and special situations (pvp warfare). I don't want to log in and feel obligated to join up with a roving band of 20+ players all the time because it's not only possible, but most efficient thing to do every time.

I'd like to be able to accomplish anything outside of the kingdom game (managing, pvp battles, building etc) with a group of 5-6 players. I'm certainly hoping a small group of friends and I find it worthwhile to explore some ruins, dungeons & dangerous areas and not think 'What's the point? We'll only get trash compared to what we'd acquire if we joined up with that giant zerging army over there even though we find that less fun'.

That would really bum me out.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

I prefer different level of organizations, where you can be a member of multiple organizations, but most of them are part of different classes of organizations.

An example will work best, in RL you can be a member of:
- the firm for which you work;
- your church
- your state
- one or more local clubs
- Rotary, Lyons and so on.

Most of those organization are mutually exclusive with otehr organization of the same class:
- if you are a Catholic Christian you aren't a Protestant Christian at the same time
- if you are a citizen of the State of California you will not be a citizen of the State of Alabama at the same time

but you can be a Catholic or protestant or Buddist citizen of California.

So in PFO you could be a member of the Red banners (chartered company) that is a citizen of the city of Riverwood and a member of the Kingdom of Left bank.
But you can as easily be a member of the Red banners (chartered company) that is a citizen of the city of Tallmuntain and a member of the Kingdom of Right bank.

Some allegiance could be a prerequisite for another (Riverwood being part of the territory of the Kingdom of Left bank), others could be totally independent (being a members of the Red banners, unless they have been banned from a territory).

What I don't see is the Red banners chartered company expanding directly into the Red banners kingdom.

The members of the company could be the founders of the kingdom, they could even decide to keep the name, but the structure between a chartered company and a kingdom should be completely different, included the founding agreement.

As you can see I am not particularly good at naming organizations and states. Fortunately it seem I will be in a group with people with better skills at doing that. :P

Goblin Squad Member

Calling the player controlled hexes kingdoms doesn't sit well with me. Technically you need a king to have a kingdom. What's being described as possible is more akin to a nation, a state, or even a dominion. Maybe it's the Poli-Sci in me talking, but limiting the name of a variable political system kingdom doesn't look like a good idea.

Maybe grant the ability of the newly established political body to give itself a prefix or suffix depending on the type of government it is establishing?

For example:

The *blank* Federation
The Republic of *blank*
The *blank* Commonwealth

Goblin Squad Member

To those of you arguing how guilds should be led and under what conditions:

Man is a social animal. In any social context he will continue to make the same mistakes. The sheep are easily persuaded. What makes you think an online social game will be any different?

I highly doubt that the game's designers will wish to protect us socially from ourselves. I mean, they have to have some fun too, right?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Skwiziks wrote:

Calling the player controlled hexes kingdoms doesn't sit well with me. Technically you need a king to have a kingdom. What's being described as possible is more akin to a nation, a state, or even a dominion. Maybe it's the Poli-Sci in me talking, but limiting the name of a variable political system kingdom doesn't look like a good idea.

Maybe grant the ability of the newly established political body to give itself a prefix or suffix depending on the type of government it is establishing?

For example:

The *blank* Federation
The Republic of *blank*
The *blank* Commonwealth

Check the blog again: Player-controlled hexes, if there are such a thing, won't be kingdoms.
blog wrote:
The highest level of social organization is the player kingdom. These are created when two or more player settlements agree to bind themselves together to create a single political entity.

Either there can be multiple settlements in a hex, in which case a kingdom can be smaller than a hex, or there cannot, in which case a kingdom must span multiple hexes. I think 'at most one settlement per hex' or 'settlements must have n nonsettlement hexes between them' are both good rules, depending on exactly how much territory a hex actually is.

Goblin Squad Member

Daniel, I think Swiziks was merely arguing against calling them "kingdoms". I tend to agree with that. I would think calling them "States" would be more accurate.


Daniel Powell 318 wrote:
Lots of great ideas for how a charter company and/or settlement might be run. What's wrong with making those options selectable at the formation, along with others?

Exactly what I was thinking.

The charter could function, at least in part, like a multiple choice question form that you fill out at the company's founding. Questions can vary from type of leadership to number and types of ranks to dissolution. Forming a company would require a certain number of people to agree to the charter. The answers you provide are then coded into how your company functions in the game. Very basic example:

Charter of Company X:

Leadership (choose all that apply):

[ ] appointed leader (ie: dictator)
[ ] elected leader
[ ] appointed council
[X] elected council
[ ] democracy (ie: no leader)

Elections (if applicable):

[ ] monthly
[X] quarterly
[ ] biannually
[ ] annually

Dissolution:

[ ] at leader's discretion
[ ] at the council's discretion
[X] upon a majority vote

Signed:

Founders 1-10 (or however many GW chooses)

So this company would elect a new council every 3 months and could only be dissolved upon a majority vote.

Nihimon wrote:
It should be possible to found a guild without being subject to having griefers sneak in and take it away from you. If people want new leadership, they can form a new guild with new leadership.

Definitely.

To that end, I urge GW not to employ the kind of perks WoW gave guilds. They subtly discourage so much--from creating and joining new guilds to playing the game with non-guildies.

Being in a company should be its own reward. You should not be rewarded simply for being in Company X.

Goblin Squad Member

Daniel Powell 318 wrote:
Check the blog again: Player-controlled hexes, if there are such a thing, won't be kingdoms.

By "player-controlled" I don't mean that players will have direct control over the hex, just that they will have made a claim on the hex.

I'm pretty sure it's modeled after EVE. In this case when two or more chartered companies agree to form a "Kingdom", before they start building a settlement they need to have sovereign claim over a territory/hex. This means building or capturing a particular structure that often requires a lot of time and resources. I could see PFO requiring that a "Keep" or "Fortress" be constructed first. Once that building is constructed, the "Kingdom" (player-faction) has sovereignty/control over that hex and may begin constructing other structures.

I could see this meaning clearing out any NPC bandit/monster encampments, or booting out any rival player-factions.

Now it may be that the same hex can be occupied by different player-factions but I don't imagine that will be the case.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

State is for the organization that will rule a territory seem a valid term, as it could be a kingdom, dictatorship, democracy, republic and so on.

My impression is that, if possible, we will not have the control of a hexagon, with clear cut borders. I think that the goal will be a seamless map, with control expanding for a set distance from specific structures (for example a keep will claim all the land in a 5 miles radius, a watchtower, if constructed within the control radius of state, will extend the a area of control by another mile around it and so on.

When the claims of two state clash over the same piece of territory they would get a numerical value dependant on the proximity and quality of the nearest control structure they own: The state with the highest value would be the one to control that piece of land.

This way we would not get borders defined with a ruler but more irregular borders generated by our structures.

Borders linked to geographical features would be even better, but probably hard to code in a MMORPG.

Goblin Squad Member

@Diego, Ryan has said they expect to have each hex running as its own process, kind of like a mini-server. There have also been a lot of statements about how the degree of civilization in a hex will determine the types of spawned content (dungeons) you will find there.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Diego Rossi wrote:

State is for the organization that will rule a territory seem a valid term, as it could be a kingdom, dictatorship, democracy, republic and so on.

My impression is that, if possible, we will not have the control of a hexagon, with clear cut borders. I think that the goal will be a seamless map, with control expanding for a set distance from specific structures (for example a keep will claim all the land in a 5 miles radius, a watchtower, if constructed within the control radius of state, will extend the a area of control by another mile around it and so on.

When the claims of two state clash over the same piece of territory they would get a numerical value dependant on the proximity and quality of the nearest control structure they own: The state with the highest value would be the one to control that piece of land.

This way we would not get borders defined with a ruler but more irregular borders generated by our structures.

Borders linked to geographical features would be even better, but probably hard to code in a MMORPG.

Are you thinking something along the lines of how territory was controlled in The Settlers real-time economic simulation?

Grand Lodge Goblinworks Founder

Chartered Companies
-----------------

I love the use of the term Chartered Companies. Guild is a fine term, but Chartered Company seems better to me.

It's a term that reminds me of Glenn Cook's series of novels about The Black Company. There is some discussion of these books on the Paizo messageboards. Green Ronin published a strong d20 campaign setting for this series by Robert Schwalb & Owen K.C. Stephens.

Cheers,
Jim

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is fine that there is a limit on group size. But, whatever you do please do not balance content around predetermined group sizes (for example LOTRO makes content for group sizes 3, 6, 12, and 24). It's a major pain to try and get the sweet number and makeup of characters. Difficulty should just be determined by spawn rate and mob difficulty. A group of 10+ should be able to obviously take on much more difficult challenges. But they do so by going to different areas (with possibly much higher level mobs).

Goblin Squad Member

Jim Rudnick wrote:


I love the use of the term Chartered Companies. Guild is a fine term, but Chartered Company seems better to me.

I think the matter depends on what the purpose of the organisation is. Guild is a grand old word, evoking the honorable crafts and trades which make civilisation possible. It goes with names like Smith, Fletcher, or Carter. Certainly craftsmen should organise into guilds.

Chartered Company, on the other hand, reaches directly to the history of adventuring. It conjures the shades of the London East India Company or their Dutch rivals, chartered adventurers who set out to make fortunes and by grit and luck founded empires. Further back it raises echoes of the Grand Catalan Company before which the Byzantine empire quaked in its boots. By all means, let the adventurers of the world become chartered companies.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Love all that this game seems to be evolving into. As for a LFG system, I would say very limited, because content isn't static or permanant.

Dungeons could come about a couple of ways:

A personal dungeon for some reward or achievement a character made. Therefor he recieves a map with a location. This would be an instanced private invite group only.

A general dungeon for any one in the area. A broad cast that announces a landslide that opened some caverns. this would be a noninstanced public group.

Either way, a group starts. So then you post on the message board you are looking for people to help you. The message has a list of people looking for a group. The board could be in the inn or in the town square and should be only interactive with in the same town. A bigger event needing more people could be announced by a NPC town crier in several towns.

As to group limitations I would have to say no also. A dungeon should have a recommended level and and numbered, but not limited to it. If 8 level 7 characters go into a dungeon for 4 level 5's, then they get less loot and XP. The rewards are less. But 4 level 5's go into one for 4 level 7's, they they get more loot and XP. You could have fast travel for the personal dungeon via the map and you should have to actually travel to the public one. But leave group size open.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dungeons should not have 'recommended levels', but rather be of an identifiable type (lair, cave, cavern, grotto; crypt, catacomb; den, lair). Each type should have typical characteristics, and each individual one should have variation from the typical. Experienced or well-read players will know from the presentation of the dungeon roughly how difficult it will be, but without recourse to metagame 'recommendations' that will quickly become requirements.

If a surplus of overpowering characters go into such a place, they should get exactly the same reward as anyone else- divided between them. The loot will be less valuable to them, the wear and tear on their more expensive equipment will cost them more, and most loot will have less utility value for them, so the value of the same reward will be lower.


thenoisyrogue wrote:
It sounds excellent. However, no word on that dreaded tool that did so much to take the social aspect out of MMOs - the dungeon finder. If players only choice to group is by making the effort to meet people in game then it will work. If all you need to do is press a button and consume then it won't. So I hope you're not thinking of putting any LFG tools in there.

Anything resembling a dungeon queue is an absolute dealbreaker for me. Hell, no one in WoW even knows what continent a dungeon is on anymore.

Goblin Squad Member

I like the idea of a dungeon finder that will list available groups looking for some one to fill a spot, and a list of poeple interested in being in a group. I don't like the ones where they automatically group you and teleport to the dungeon. But a tool to help you find one is a plus

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

I don't even like dungeon finders. Ask around, see what people can do. Take a chance. I *like* taking chances in games. For example, looking for a cleric for the party? Run with a druid or a Paladin! It won't be the same adventure, and you might meet some fun new people.

Goblin Squad Member

If there is a world wide chat, then that would be fine. But if its limited to area, then it might be tough. cosidering they are starting with low numbers, I dont think it will be a problem anyways

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If i remember correctly 'dungeons' won't be static. Your 'dungeon finder' is most likely going to be a ranger.

Goblin Squad Member

Playing Solo: Can my Deity heal me? Look if I have a deity and do what it says (quest style called "Pilgrimage"- "Find a lair", "Forge a sword", "Slay a dragon", "Pray at my alter [character only, no actual praying required lol]"), the more I do for my deity the more "healing surges" (please call it blessings or something else) I get per day, 2 types: consumable blessings and hourly blessings, if you are waiting for the recharge you can use a consumable blessing, which are only given for completing Deity Pilgrimage Quests (DPQs).

A "system" like this would allow people to play solo more efficiently without "wasting" character resources and sacrificing character levels in order to simply survive. It would also give a new feeling to the game which would feel more like an elder scrolls game because deities in most MMOs are USELESS.

Goblin Squad Member

Group Request Boards. In game "bulletin boards" in every town with messenger birds or magic to tell you who is interested, it should cost 1 copper piece to post a request and 1 copper piece to respond to a request. There should be a "magical" group chat like chatroom telepathy for parties that aren't very close to members, I think you should have to do some minor quests to earn features like this because not everyone in a realistic world setting (even with magic applied) would have telepathic or magical abilities melee classes are PRIME examples in every iteration of D&D/PF. "I'll ATTACK!"

Goblin Squad Member

Messenger birds is a really cool idea!! How cool would that be if say your out adventuring in the far depths of the wild and a falcon or pigeon lands on your shoulder carrying a scroll.

" Blackuhuru we need your assistance with some pirates on the southern Sellen River! We are trying to transport goods north but these pesky pirates are making it impossible to pass"

*Reaching into my sack I pull out a blank scroll and feather pen*

" Hold on tight and do not try to pass, set up defenses along side the river until I arrive"

I then tie the reply to the falcons leg and send it off to Nihimon...

That would just be fantastic in so many ways!!!

Ryan give us messenger birds!!!

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, RP fluff is always nice. But I doubt that in the ages of Teamspeak and Skype anyone except "a few" RPers will write more than "LFM Sellen - come TS?".

Goblin Squad Member

Goblin Works Blog wrote:

A Fighter, a Wizard, a Rogue and a Cleric Walk into a Bar...

The fundamental social unit that most players will experience is the party. This is a classic adventuring team that self-assembles to go out and kick down doors, whack monsters, and power up. But the party has other functions in Pathfinder Online. Parties may form to go harvest resources: some members will extract the resource while others patrol and fight off hazards that appear (see our previous blog for more info on how this system works). Parties could also be a caravan, with some members moving large quantities of goods from place to place, and some acting as guards to protect the group from hazards and brigands.

Parties will typically be small, just a few characters. We haven't picked an upper limit, but expect it to be only a couple of dozen characters at most.

There will be many ways to find a party to join, and lots of ways for parties to find new members. We want to make it really easy for people to group into ad hoc parties that may only last for a few hours while the group completes an objective. The people you meet during these adventures could become friends (or enemies) as you move deeper into the social networks of the game. You'll be able to track those you've been in a party with and see what happened during those adventures, and you'll even be able to note if those individuals were friends, enemies, or neutral for later encounters.

Of mild relevance to this party-unit (and social experience in teams/mmorpgs in general) thought this article was well written (& of interest to team-based games in general):

Designing Multiplayer Team-based Mechanics without adding Frustration

Personally if a team/co-op/vs (& pvp!) game is done right, definitely my favorite game experience.

Goblin Squad Member

@AvenaOats, fantastic article. I was especially struck by Rule #1.

One of the things I've always found frustrating about WoW was that you were expected to know an encounter precisely before you really engaged it. I've always wanted a more organic system where it was impossible to know all the details of the encounter beforehand, and where your ability to adapt and overcome was more important than your ability to execute a pre-determined strategy.

It's really helpful to see these thoughts laid out so clearly. Thanks for the link.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon:

Quote:
" I've always wanted a more organic system where it was impossible to know all the details of the encounter beforehand, and where your ability to adapt and overcome was more important than your ability to execute a pre-determined strategy."

Well said. I think one way this could happen is rival parties in dungeons! Do you agree to split the spoils (and wonder if backstabbing is going to occur?) or strike first (and hopefully last!). Either way, it was a useful article on the way people respond to each other, even good friends in a team situation! That was a good angle on how individuals in teams take defeat/victory and as a team. :)

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: LFG! (Looking for Group!) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online