All the coin in the game enters via a faucet. Faucets are things like rewards from NPCs for completing various tasks, or payments made by NPCs when they buy things from player characters. New coin may also be found as loot when a monster is defeated, or it may be discovered as treasure while exploring.
Coin exits the game as well, via a drain. Drains include actions like paying an NPC vendor for something or paying a tax or a fee to an NPC or to some system service. Coin might be consumed by player characters in other interactions with the game world in ways yet to be determined.
I don't understand one thing: Why is coin being created/destroyed? You emphasize a 'real' economy, so when buying/selling from NPC merchants, why shouldn't the coin for that transaction be debited from somewhere (as opposed to being created on the spot) or be deposited to somewhere (as opposed to being destroyed)? How does the NPC part of the economy function if it never develops any coin value?
Of course, some people will want to do things like create banks and insurance companies, offer loans with interest, and even sell stock in companies and settlements. All of those things and more are great additions to the game, and we're thinking about ways they can be implemented safely and without causing problems with griefing and fraud.
Cool. I've already wondered how 'insurance' systems could function in parallel to 'bounty' systems (or paid 'guards') re: protection of property and life/territory. Stock seems useful at the point where one oligopoly has formed, to 'kick start' a competitor... Perhaps at some point, a broadly useful function to accurately rate an entitiy at it's performance history would be useful for this type of thing, tying into the contract system with objective rating of degree of contract completion/etc.
Accounts come in four types:
Open: Characters who have access to open accounts can receive and disburse unlimited amounts without approval by anyone else. Player characters' personal accounts are always open to that character.
Approved: Characters who have access to approved accounts can receive unlimited amounts and disburse unlimited amounts after approval by a specified party.
Limited: Characters who have access to limited accounts can receive unlimited amounts and disburse amounts up to a defined limit without approval by anyone else, and can disburse unlimited amounts after approval by a specified party.
Capped: Characters who have access to capped accounts can receive unlimited amounts and disburse amounts up to a defined limit without approval by anyone else, and can disburse unlimited amounts after an election by either a settlement or player nation, depending on the ownership of the account.
I have to say: this sounds very confusing... If all of them can (conditionally) be allowed unlimited disburstion, it seems that (when condition is satisified) there is no difference... Less confusing to just 'upgrade' the account when condition is satisfied (and downgrade it when condition is no longer met), so that you instantly know the 'permissions' just by the account type.
I assume there will be controls to allow disburtions up X/unlimited coin for XYZ type transactions (or to XYZ parties) but not allow (or have different limits for) disburtions for ABC type transactions (or to ABC parties)?
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand one thing: Why is coin being created/destroyed?
Just imagine if there were a constant amount of coin in the game during the first seven months, when we intend to go from 4500 players to 16500 players—the economy would be a mess in no time! Even if our goal were just to keep the economy completely flat, we'd still have to be making constant adjustments as players come and go, and as coin gets locked up in the accounts of players who don't play for a while, or just don't spend for a while.
But we don't want a flat economy—we want an increasing economy. See the blog paragraph that begins "In general, more coin will enter the game than leave it" for the explanation.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I have to say: this sounds very confusing... If all of them can (conditionally) be allowed unlimited disburstion, it seems that (when condition is satisified) there is no difference... Less confusing to just 'upgrade' the account when condition is satisfied (and downgrade it when condition is no longer met), so that you instantly know the 'permissions' just by the account type.Accounts come in four types:
Open: Characters who have access to open accounts can receive and disburse unlimited amounts without approval by anyone else. Player characters' personal accounts are always open to that character.
Approved: Characters who have access to approved accounts can receive unlimited amounts and disburse unlimited amounts after approval by a specified party.
Limited: Characters who have access to limited accounts can receive unlimited amounts and disburse amounts up to a defined limit without approval by anyone else, and can disburse unlimited amounts after approval by a specified party.
Capped: Characters who have access to capped accounts can receive unlimited amounts and disburse amounts up to a defined limit without approval by anyone else, and can disburse unlimited amounts after an election by either a settlement or player nation, depending on the ownership of the account.
I think that you may not be getting that accounts can have multiple users with multiple levels of access. Take the main account for a bounty hunting organization: the organization's founder may have open access to it, while his most trusted companions may have limited access, and his most recent hires may have only approved access.
These aren't really types of account, even though that's what we said—these are possible types of access that may be applied to any account. From the user's point of view, they'll *seem* like different types of account.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have two requests. One is very much related to this blog, and the other to the LFG blog.
1. Can you please make it so that Accounts that require Approval for disbursements actually require the approval of some specified number of people from a list? For example, if we have a 12 person ruling council, we'd like to require at least 3 council members to approve any disbursement.
2. Can you please make it so that Chartered Companies and Settlements can also impose taxes? Ideally, the Charter for the Company or the Settlement would define the absolute range of possible tax rates, so that members could make informed decisions before joining. The LFG blog made it seem like only Kingdoms would have this power.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, Ryan, when you used this title (Money Changes Everything), were you by any chance thinking of this?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I remembered it as the one rule of the city of Lansk from the old, old Dragon Wars.
It was along the lines of "One law, one punishment, one rule. No fighting in the city: that is the law. Death by dragonfire: That is the punishment. Money changes everything: That is the rule."
I'm sure there are other sources for the line...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds like their economy-tinkering will just be controlling the Faucets and Drains... that is, how actual coin is entering and leaving. So they wouldn't (and really shouldn't) manipulate prices on this or that good in the player market, but they can and will be tinkering with prices that NPC's charge for services, or prices NPC's pay for goods/vendor trash. They just want to prevent rampant inflation (which most, nay, all theme parks are plagued with) without letting the player economy wither.
Also, another question: When I read about NPC's paying for stuff, an idea popped into my head: I could just be making a dragon's den out of a rat's nest here, but does that mean NPC's will actually buy goods? Like, raw materials? Or even crafted materials? For prices that are actually comparable with player markets, at least stable player markets? Maybe these buy orders change from month to month, or as they are satisfied, meaning player harvesters/crafters could sell different goods at different times to NPC's, not just PC's?
My brother reminded me that this could just mean selling vendor trash to NPC's. Still, it's nice to dream... and maybe Goblinworks got the same idea too. I have no idea.
Guessing from EVE probably at the start of the game there will be a good number of buy and sell NPC orders to kick start the economy. They will be gradually phased out as the server population increase.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like it all except one part.
Convenience consumables: Things that your characters might want to use in–game in lieu of relying on always having specialist characters with you while you adventure, or as a way to recover from an encounter that goes horribly awry.
Is this to say that there will be items sold for real world money which might reduce or negate the need of things like:
A rouge to pick locks and disarm traps.
A wizard to identify items.
A cleric to heal away damage and remove negative effects after a battle
That is how I understand it, and if I am correct in understanding it that way I am 100% against it. You shouldn't be able to buy the ability to run without utility characters. If you don't run without utility characters you need to face the problems of not having them. Otherwise why would I roll as a rouge, take healing spells as a cleric, or take skills to identify items as a wizards? I'm better off rolling a fighter with my little cheat items.
The other thing is the ability to buy skill training does not bother me so long it is included in the subscription, and the subscription is not over 15$ a month. If a game is worth my time to play, its worth 15$ a month.
I like it all except one part.
Convenience consumables: Things that your characters might want to use in–game in lieu of relying on always having specialist characters with you while you adventure, or as a way to recover from an encounter that goes horribly awry.Is this to say that there will be items sold for real world money which might reduce or negate the need of things like:
A rouge to pick locks and disarm traps.
A wizard to identify items.
A cleric to heal away damage and remove negative effects after a battleThat is how I understand it, and if I am correct in understanding it that way I am 100% against it. You shouldn't be able to buy the ability to run without utility characters. If you don't run without utility characters you need to face the problems of not having them. Otherwise why would I roll as a rouge, take healing spells as a cleric, or take skills to identify items as a wizards? I'm better off rolling a fighter with my little cheat items.
When I read that I thought of DDO hirelings and open lock wands. Which basically let you bring a functionally retarded but better than nothing rogue/cleric/mage/etc with you, to fill a gap in your party lineup or solo better. If it's the type of thing I assumed, I don't have a problem with it. The convenience items and hirelings are vastly inferior to having a player in the role.
If however, cash shop healing items and/or hirelings can be brought into lawless PvP areas, I will have a huge problem with it. I'm fairly confident the developers are smarter than that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius, I think it's a fairly common thing for Blacksmiths to be able to craft Skeleton Keys that allow players to get by without a rogue. I don't really see a problem with that, although I certainly understand the desire to avoid mechanics that make it harder for utility characters to find groups. One of the things that really killed my wife's enjoyment of EverQuest was when she couldn't get a group anymore as an Enchanter because everyone was getting 2 hour or even 4 hour KEI's (major buff Enchanters gave out, Killian's (?) Endless Intellect, I think) at the Planes of Knowledge.
One thing to keep in mind about PFO, though, is that in general everyone will always want more characters in their group for the simple reason that it will help guarantee their survival. It's not like most of the people using these convenience items will be using them to solo dungeons.
In other words, I think there will be plenty of very strong reasons to bring other characters along with you, and that the convenience items will only really be useful when you simply can't find someone to bring along.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Speaking of buffs, and not making utility characters useless...
Buffs cast by Adventuring Archetypes should last quite a while (until cancelled?) on characters in their group, and should be short-lived (15 minutes) on characters outside of their group.
I'd like to see a non-Adventuring Archetype (I'm thinking SWG's Entertainers) that cast long-lasting (4 hour) buffs on characters outside of their group, but those buffs would never replicate the functionality of the buffs from an Adventuring Archetype.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Speaking of buffs, and not making utility characters useless...
Buffs cast by Adventuring Archetypes should last quite a while (until cancelled?) on characters in their group, and should be short-lived (15 minutes) on characters outside of their group.
I'd like to see a non-Adventuring Archetype (I'm thinking SWG's Entertainers) that cast long-lasting (4 hour) buffs on characters outside of their group, but those buffs would never replicate the functionality of the buffs from an Adventuring Archetype.
Sounds like a great skill tree for a bard...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sounds like a great skill tree for a bard...
The point was more about how long buffs should last in different circumstances.
The problem I've seen in the past is that certain classes ended up only being valued for the buffs they could cast. When the game evolved to the point where the buffs could be cast on anyone, and lasted a long time, then no one wanted to actually group with that class.
The solution I'm trying to propose is that buffs would either: 1) have a very short duration (15 minutes); or 2) require the buffer and buffee to remain in the same group.
I was also suggesting that a new, non-Adventuring archetype could be added that would have buffs that could last a long time, even on characters that weren't in the buffers group. It would be necessary to ensure those buffs didn't replicate the effects of the buffs that Adventuring archetypes had.
The idea of the new non-Adventuring archetype was to give players who were more interested in RP than adventuring something to do, that made them valuable to Adventurers, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am against any item that can be bought to replace the abilities of certain classes. This negates any reason for having that class. Now that being said, if you can't find a rogue to be in your adventuring party and you need an item to help with the missing skills, make it so only the rogue can make the item. This way, he is the one still benefiting from his skill set. Make them single use stack items. They should also be some where in the archtypes skill tree, not a crafters. You shouldn't have to tree outside your archtype to keep your skills worthwhile. The tricky part comes in deciding things like healing potion. Definitely a clerics domain, but shouldn't an alchemist <the crafter, not the APG class> be able to make some. I believe so, but you would have to balance it so clerics aren't losing out on thier skill set.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am against any item that can be bought to replace the abilities of certain classes. This negates any reason for having that class. Now that being said, if you can't find a rogue to be in your adventuring party and you need an item to help with the missing skills, make it so only the rogue can make the item. This way, he is the one still benefiting from his skill set. Make them single use stack items. They should also be some where in the archtypes skill tree, not a crafters. You shouldn't have to tree outside your archtype to keep your skills worthwhile. The tricky part comes in deciding things like healing potion. Definitely a clerics domain, but shouldn't an alchemist <the crafter, not the APG class> be able to make some. I believe so, but you would have to balance it so clerics aren't losing out on thier skill set.
Well it certainly dosn't necessarally mean it will negate the class, DDO did this overall, they had things like bell of opening, that would automatically open up locks, health and mana potions, heck even self resurecting items. In general they were used by maybe 5% of the population, why you may ask... well not that many people want to spend $2 an hour to play, when they can get friends have more fun and do it for free. The 5% that had the wealth and the lack of desire to play with groups, probably would have quit the game anyway, so in a way it turned guaranteed lost customers, into high paying customers.
That being said, when PVP comes into play, the ballgame changes. If you can buy buffs that negate the need for a class, IE a group of ritch people can just replace all of the supports with damage dealers and win on pure money, then the game turns to pay to win. Now there are work arounds, you just have to make the purchasable buffs, less good then the class itself. Say healing potions have a 30 second cooldown, but a healer can cast every 3-4 seconds. Buffs can be set at a middle of the road caster level etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know. Balancing consumables purchased from real world money just sounds like an endless avenue of problems and resentment by F2P players, and monthly subscribers, of people who do so.
I like the idea of special cosmetic items and decorations you can get with micro-transactions. I like the idea of special quest and content packs that you can get through micro-transactions. I don't even mind that you have to buy the items you need to skill up with either real money or massive amounts of in-game money.
Basically what I would like to see is, I pay 15$ a month for VIP status. I get my monthly skill up items, access to the new content packages, and a few points I can spend to buy things like fancy mounts, cosmetic items, and decorations.
Someone who wants to divert a ton more than 15$ a month into this game would get more awesome pets, mounts, cosmetic items, and decorations, but no real advantage over me in either PVE or PVP.
People who pay less than 15$ a month might have a disadvantage because lets face it... I'm paying so that they can play the game for free. Someone has to be paying something or there would be no game, no servers, no developers etc.
I think 15$ a month should be the cut off for real advantages. A lot of people like me don't mind supporting the games they play, but if they feel disadvantaged because they can't afford 100$ a month it makes them less likely to want to pay anything. If I'm getting some half baked package that leaves me at a disadvantage for 15$ a month I am NOT going to pay it. If I feel like all I am losing out on is cosmetic bullcrap I am 100% willing to pay it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wholeheartedly agree. I had a blast hanging out with the entertainers of SWG. In fact, I really think that their Battle Fatigue mechanic might do well in PFO. Reduced healing or combat capacity while you have over "###" battle fatigue could be an interesting draw for making taverns in the remote wilderness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Skymetal Bits store will not sell much in the way of items with in–game mechanical benefits.
I think they're going to remain acutely aware that breaking that promise will alienate a large portion of their customer base.
If you're familiar with LOTRO, they sell "Morale Potions" that restore a small amount of hit points over time. Believe me, there is no way these can be used to unbalance the game, even if there was PvP. They just don't heal that much. I imagine the "convenience consumables" in PFO will be similarly gimped.
My only other concern is about purchasable content like Modules, or access to new map areas if that ends up being purchasable. Again, based on my experience with LOTRO, I find it rather perverse that someone who has been paying a monthly subscription for years, and then stops, is suddenly worse off with respect to access to quest areas than someone who's never payed more than $50. Any purchasable content that comes free with a subscription should get automatically permanently unlocked after a suitable time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Skymetal Bits store will not sell much in the way of items with in–game mechanical benefits.I think they're going to remain acutely aware that breaking that promise will alienate a large portion of their customer base.
If you're familiar with LOTRO, they sell "Morale Potions" that restore a small amount of hit points over time. Believe me, there is no way these can be used to unbalance the game, even if there was PvP. They just don't heal that much. I imagine the "convenience consumables" in PFO will be similarly gimped.
My only other concern is about purchasable content like Modules, or access to new map areas if that ends up being purchasable. Again, based on my experience with LOTRO, I find it rather perverse that someone who has been paying a monthly subscription for years, and then stops, is suddenly worse off with respect to access to quest areas than someone who's never payed more than $50. Any purchasable content that comes free with a subscription should get automatically permanently unlocked after a suitable time.
I hope they don't follow a LOTRO model with thier store...it STARTED out relatively innoccous but has graduated to selling DIRECT ADVANTAGE.... including store only exclusives that can't be found in game,and those who's drop rate is so rare that it may as well be store only.
Personaly I regard the LOTRO store right up there with the worst of the "Pay2Win" shops these days....and this coming from someone who played that game since closed Beta (and USED to love it).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I'm not a fan of being able to buy any buffs or "convenience consumables" out of game.
I would prefer to see the Skill Training Packages be the only thing that can be bought with real money. Any other "convenience consumables" should be crafted by player characters and sold for in-game coin.
Well, I would also be fine with the developers selling access to Modules and even Map Areas, since those take real developer resources to create.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Selling Modules, yes. Selling map areas, No. If you have a continuous world, you shouldn't hit a point where some people can cross a magical line, and others cant.
Players who never put a cent into the game, will probably not be able to get to the added locations until they have accumulated enough wealth to purchase skill training with in game coin, which puts money into GW's pocket.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Also, another question: When I read about NPC's paying for stuff, an idea popped into my head: I could just be making a dragon's den out of a rat's nest here, but does that mean NPC's will actually buy goods? Like, raw materials? Or even crafted materials? For prices that are actually comparable with player markets, at least stable player markets? Maybe these buy orders change from month to month, or as they are satisfied, meaning player harvesters/crafters could sell different goods at different times to NPC's, not just PC's?
My brother reminded me that this could just mean selling vendor trash to NPC's. Still, it's nice to dream... and maybe Goblinworks got the same idea too. I have no idea.
Guessing from EVE probably at the start of the game there will be a good number of buy and sell NPC orders to kick start the economy. They will be gradually phased out as the server population increase.
In EVE (which has been running "live" for about 9 years now), most things are player-made. Just recently, it was announced that the NPC opponents will no longer drop the "basic" ship modules that can be made by players, so all of those will have to be manufactured. And those are the basis for the next tier of equipment (think "sword" > "magic sword").
NPC's in EVE won't buy (or sell) things like that, at least, not at the moment. If they did, it's been removed.I can imagine it might take a while to reach that point in the live of an MMO.
I am vehemently opposed to consumables that can be bought that alter any in-game stats. They mess up PvP/PvE and give an unfair advantage. Anything that can nerf a character within the game does not belong (when it is bought in a store). Now of you go see a crafter who makes these tyes of consumables and buy it from the crafter I'm fine with that.
I would be greatly disappointed if I saw this happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am vehemently opposed to consumables that can be bought that alter any in-game stats. They mess up PvP/PvE and give an unfair advantage. Anything that can nerf a character within the game does not belong (when it is bought in a store). Now of you go see a crafter who makes these tyes of consumables and buy it from the crafter I'm fine with that.
I would be greatly disappointed if I saw this happen.
I completely agree. It has already been said that you can indirectly convert real $$$ into Coin through selling Skill Training Time in game. This should be the only way to turn $$$ into Coin which could then be used to buy consumables. If a player goes out and has a bad adventure and needs more consumables, tough luck - they should have planned better. This is no different than if they wondered into a PvP area and got waylaid.
By allowing emergency consumables to be bought with $$$, you are really belittling the efforts of those players, like me, that take forever to plan an adventure to maximize the highest chance of survival.
It also diminishes the classes that those consumables replace. Even a 1d8+1 Cure Light Wound potion, takes away from a newly created Cleric character that could be earning experience and coin by being a member of a group.
Sometimes, if your adventuring party is looking for a mid-level cleric but cannot find one a the moment, they may have to resort to hiring 2-3 low level clerics instead. This is how low level players learn, grow and become members of the society. And aren't we trying to build a society here?
So again, no in-game items (other than bling) should be purchasable with real money!
Access to VIP in-game adventure/quests is a completely different story and should be available with $$$. This rewards those that help to support the game. However, items found in said VIP Adventures must also be able to be found/crafted/purchased without $$$. Otherwise, you run the risk of creating a VIP Elite class that has far superior items to non VIPs. Finally, subscribers should also have access to the same VIP Content after over time. Perhaps, one or two VIP Access areas per year subscription.
Thanks,
Urlord the Wonderful
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
the thing about $$$-GP, and any sort of potential for restrictions, is that gp is fungible. Once you've got a pile of it, there is really no way to monitor how or which specific pile of coin goes to which purchase. If you did monitor and restrict, you're really just creating a new currency.
I'm not totally certain a limited money for coin exchange is really all that bad. If like in EVE the usage of items and consumables is limited by skills, I don't see a potential for the "Pay to win" concerns. Really all it allows (as far as i can tell) is the capacity to avoid in-game money making by a player with neither the capacity to do so, or the inclination. put another way, if someone simply doesn't have the drive or interest or capability to make money in game, they can spend a hunk of realworld money to supply their characters with equipment/consumables/fashion/whatever. The concern is really in how much of an effect gear and consumables will have on the success of a character in game.
Which brings me to my next thought:
It also diminishes the classes that those consumables replace. Even a 1d8+1 Cure Light Wound potion, takes away from a newly created Cleric character that could be earning experience and coin by being a member of a group.
this will never be the case, purely based on action economy and the force-multiplier effect of a healer type character. A CLW potion will never swing a mace the round after it heals you, and it will never heal you more than the max potential at its creation (9 points by example)
If gear is in fact 75% of the power of a character (as in WoW), then all bets are off, of course.
...so you can buy skill training with real-world cash now.You can buy skill training time.
RyanD
How is this not, as someone suggested earlier, a Pay to Win scheme? Do people who pay the monthly fee get "training time" automatically?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
...so you can buy skill training with real-world cash now.You can buy skill training time.
RyanD
How is this not, as someone suggested earlier, a Pay to Win scheme? Do people who pay the monthly fee get "training time" automatically?
Yes. It's not 'pay to win', it's 'pay to play' with a 'but if you can't afford a subscription or don't want upfront costs, you can play in a limited manner for a reduced price'.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The scheme of "buying\selling training time in-game" is derived from the EVE Online "PLEX" scheme. It looks like the plan is to have a bit more fine-grained options than EVE has, though.
In EVE, you either have an active account, or you don't. You cannot log in and play if you don't have an active account. Each account has (fixed) 3 character slots, of which a maximum of one can be training for skills at a time. If you want to train a second character at the same time, get a second account. If you want more than 3 character slots (say, for trading at more than 3 stations without flying around), get an extra account.
An EVE Online PLEX (Pilots License Extention) grants you the ability to run a second (or third, etc) account for a month, without paying any real-life money. However, some actual person needs to have bought the PLEX for real money and offered it for sale (usually for ISK, the EVE in-game currency, not to be confused with the Icelandic Kronar, or ISK).
From what I've read about the Pathfinder Online "skill packages", it's similar to this, but more fine-grained. You might not necessarily need a second account to do everything you want, you might want more character slots (to experiment, to have a crafting alt, to try something else), you might want to actively play and train a second character. Or you might not have too much real-life cash, but still want to play. And if you're good (enough) with getting in-game gold, you might be able to play for free.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, I am very excited about the complex economy concept. I am aware that when the coding is underway, and the deadline looms, that some things just have to get cut. Please don’t make this one of them. I would play more for the merchant aspect than adventuring.
I cannot imagine a powerful mage class without a portal or teleport spell. This would significantly change the dynamics of transportation. I am curious how you intend to utilize this. Perhaps that might make a mage useful as a wagon master. Perhaps the teleport spells will be limited in weight, and a mage can easily teleport 5 people, but that does not equate to a single large wagon. And bulk items like lumber, and iron would need many such wagons. Rare magic crystals, might be small enough to carry on the person without a wagon.
I also like the substitute materials. Does this mean there will be different types of the same base material, like types of wood? Hickory makes the best bows due to it’s flexible properties. You could make a bow from maple, but it would be less effective (perhaps shorter range.) A wooden shield on the other hand would be best made from Maple or Ash. A wand from poplar, a town wall or gate from Oak. A complex commodity would make it easier for a player to set up a small manageable valuable in game business.
Is there going to be in-game consumable commodities? For example: To make iron or steel, you need quantities of coal to generate the heat necessary. Coal itself is not valuable, but is necessary for the process, which adds another commodity to the market. In addition, this commodity would only be to the harvest, and process stage, with no crafting necessary. (Perhaps even no processing.)
I am somewhat concerned about harvesting caravans. From what I have read, Pathfinder will be an open PvP game. My experience is that some people love to harass lower level players because they are easy targets. A level 30 character hanging out to kill a level 15 party, just because they can. With caravans, this gives that level 30 character significant monetary gain from that practice, with little to no risk to themselves. A couple of suggestions would be, that the common folk who drive the wagons would run at the first sign of battle. This would mean that the L30 character could only get away with the one wagon they could drive. If caravans often had multiple wagons, then that would be less of an impact financially. Also, that should be considered a criminal act, once the defeated return to the local town, they could notify the local magistrate. The local magistrate could close the town to the player. Meaning that character will have to drive their stolen goods to a town farther away. Another suggestion is lawlessness for a given region should have an impact on the number and quality of the common folk available. This makes it more valuable for the mayor of the town to keep the surrounding area free from this sort of thing. (I think the plan is to have players build towns, so the leader would be an actual player.) The merchant might only be a L15, but the person in charge of the area might be higher level, or he might extort money from the merchants to hire higher level players to keep the roads clear.
Are there going to be a means for merchants to pull together to create a common caravan? Some way of saying, we are taking a caravan from city A to city B, caravan leaves at 4:00pm EST. Then other merchants could add to the caravan and pay a fee, and the caravan master could afford to hire true muscle to protect the caravan. This type of announcement should not be made to the general message boards, but to the processors and crafters in the town.
What about ships? I realize wagon trains will be the most common method, but ships were a main method of transportation. This could bring a new skill set, sailor. It could also bring a new dynamic to the game. This also leads to the next logical question, will there be air ships?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also like the substitute materials. Does this mean there will be different types of the same base material, like types of wood? Hickory makes the best bows due to it’s flexible properties. You could make a bow from maple, but it would be less effective (perhaps shorter range.) A wooden shield on the other hand would be best made from Maple or Ash. A wand from poplar, a town wall or gate from Oak. A complex commodity would make it easier for a player to set up a small manageable valuable in game business.
Is there going to be in-game consumable commodities? For example: To make iron or steel, you need quantities of coal to generate the heat necessary. Coal itself is not valuable, but is necessary for the process, which adds another commodity to the market. In addition, this commodity would only be to the harvest, and process stage, with no crafting necessary. (Perhaps even no processing.)
Wow! This sounds like it would add great depth to an already exciting system. Very good ideas, sir.
I am somewhat concerned about harvesting caravans. From what I have read, Pathfinder will be an open PvP game. My experience is that some people love to harass lower level players because they are easy targets. A level 30 character hanging out to kill a level 15 party, just because they can. With caravans,...
I'd like to raise a few points. First, 20 is to be the maximum level. Second, it is my understanding that it should be possible to train heavily in fighting skills before reaching level 20; skill and level are more disconnected than in tabletop Pathfinder. Rather, high level characters will have a broader array of skills, instead of reaching god-status at one thing.
Third and most importantly, the dangers you describe are exactly the intended driving force behind an economy that can support mercenary guardsmen, etc. If you want to take a caravan into a dangerous area, you'd better bring some protection! This will not only drive up the price of rare resources that can only be harvested far from civilization, but it will also provide incentive for the establishment of a rich social structure including both respected merchants and feared outlaws. To me, that sounds exactly like the kind of engaging, thrilling world I want to RP in :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to raise a few points. First, 20 is to be the maximum level. Second, it is my understanding that it should be possible to train heavily in fighting skills before reaching level 20; skill and level are more disconnected than in tabletop Pathfinder. Rather, high level characters will have a broader array of skills, instead of reaching god-status at one thing.
There are no levels, least not in the traditional sense. From the blog:
"These are the 11 basic development paths, which we refer to as archetypes (the 11 base classes). The key to each archtype is a skill tree that encourages characters to train a skill that is directly linked to their development in that archetype, in addition to many other skills.
We also wanted to capture the idea from the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that dedication to one path would have additional benefits. Therefore, if your character chooses to stay committed to one of these archetypes until it has achieved all 20 archetype merit badges, your character will earn an additional capstone ability! (A character can train in many other skills outside of their archetype skill tree and still progress towards the capstone ability—they just need to avoid training in the skill tree of a different archtype. Don't worry—if you accidentally start to train a skill tree outside your archetype, you'll be warned, the consequences will be explained, and you'll have a chance to change that decision before it's irrevocable!)
Of course, if you decide that it would be more interesting or fun for your character to training in the skills of more than one archetype, you'll still earn the appropriate class-type bonuses when you meet the prerequisites—you just won't be eligible for the final special capstone ability when you achieve the 20th merit badge in that archetype."
Course this don't even include I bet all the non-archetype related skills like crafting and production.
Course the blog continues on to say:
"Reaching 20th Level
It won't be easy or quick to reach the 20th-level capstone in an archetype. Some of the prerequistes for archetype merit badges will be hard to achieve and will require your character to succeed in some extraordinary adventures. In terms of sheer time, I'd like to see the first 20th-level characters emerge around two-and-a-half-years after launch. Capstone-level characters should be unique, powerful individuals not commonly encountered."
I understand the relation its making to Pathfinder table top but it breaks down for me in the following:
"And of course, reaching the capstone doesn't mean your character has to retire—you can continue training the same character with a different archetype if you like."
This means, as I understand it, you can then "level" to merit badges in another archetype. And if merit badges = level wouldn't this make you a 20+ level character? Making your maximum total "level" 210 assuming you can't reach the 20th capstone in any other archetype? Or 220 assuming you can but you don't get the extra capstone power. Correction from Dev's if I'm reading this wrong would be welcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This means, as I understand it, you can then "level" to merit badges in another archetype. And if merit badges = level wouldn't this make you a 20+ level character? Making your maximum total "level" 210 assuming you can't reach the 20th capstone in any other archetype? Or 220 assuming you can but you don't get the extra capstone power. Correction from Dev's if I'm reading this wrong would be welcome.
I stand corrected. The issue is not one of level, but of number of badges earned. However, I have to wonder, how many of these badges will give a direct, stackable benefit to combat?
For example: Will having 20 Fighter badges and 9 Barbarian badges make you likely to defeat someone with "only" 20 Fighter badges and no others? How about 10 Barb vs. 9 Barb?
I am not convinced that it will be possible for a single evil bandit of X badges to roflstomp a caravan led by one or more good characters of X-minus-Y badges, where Y is a reasonable number. I certainly do believe that a group of evil bandits attacking as one could overwhelm a caravan, but such a group would surely gain a reputation quickly. This, I believe, would further contribute to the social dynamic I lauded above.
EDIT:
I forgot to add that I hope quality of gear & weapons plays a large role in determining the victor in a fight. Maybe we, the players, could work out a system of renting powerful gear for expeditions into dangerous areas? But I suppose this is a topic for a different thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This means, as I understand it, you can then "level" to merit badges in another archetype. And if merit badges = level wouldn't this make you a 20+ level character? Making your maximum total "level" 210 assuming you can't reach the 20th capstone in any other archetype? Or 220 assuming you can but you don't get the extra capstone power. Correction from Dev's if I'm reading this wrong would be welcome.I stand corrected. The issue is not one of level, but of number of badges earned. However, I have to wonder, how many of these badges will give a direct, stackable benefit to combat?
For example: Will having 20 Fighter badges and 9 Barbarian badges make you likely to defeat someone with "only" 20 Fighter badges and no others? How about 10 Barb vs. 9 Barb?
I am not convinced that it will be possible for a single evil bandit of X badges to roflstomp a caravan led by one or more good characters of X-minus-Y badges, where Y is a reasonable number. I certainly do believe that a group of evil bandits attacking as one could overwhelm a caravan, but such a group would surely gain a reputation quickly. This, I believe, would further contribute to the social dynamic I lauded above.
Considering we know nothing about the abilities badges give I can't even being to speculate on power comparisons or balancing. But I would assume based on the Eve model you would be correct. A five year character in frigate isn't (on average) going to beat 5 one year characters in frigates given those characters have a decent of amount of combat skills and know what the hell they're doing. However a 5 year in a frigate can very well kick the s#+% out of a 1 year in a battleship if he knows what HE is doing.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'd like to touch again on multi-classing and capstone abilities since the conversation has turned that way
Do not lock multi-classers out from capstones!
On most things I won't do this, but I put my Kickstarter Money for Executive Founder where my mouth was to say this.
The current assumption is 2.5 years of game play for mastery of an archetype. If I spend 5 years playing a Fighter/Wizard it should not matter if I spent it bouncing back and forth between the two or focusing one or the other. 5 years of payments (subscription or time-cards) is 5 years of payments.
The reward for focusing on a single archtype is that it gets done faster and the player can enjoy the capstone before a multi-classer does. The artificial stick of locking players out from capstones is not needed and is a huge mistake. Another reason to keep it open is that way capstones can actually be designed that are more then just fluff. It is a win-win for everyone if you don't restrict it.
The idea you're trying to capture from the PRG of dedication to a path only exists because that game is capped at 20. Pathfinder Online isn't capped the same way, it actually runs into the old 3.0 OGL Epic levels (kinda). At which point characters can begin picking up powers from other class or even end up completing two class and having both capstones. I would refer you to the guidelines on page 406 or so of the Core Rulebook as an example of where Pathfinder Online ends up after 2.5 years of play. Although hopefully it'll look more like E20 (a.k.a E6) and not have a continually increasing power curve.
Do not lock multi-classers out from capstones!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On most things I won't do this, but I put my Kickstarter Money for Executive Founder where my mouth was to say this.The current assumption is 2.5 years of game play for mastery of an archetype. If I spend 5 years playing a Fighter/Wizard it should not matter if I spent it bouncing back and forth between the two or focusing one or the other. 5 years of payments (subscription or time-cards) is 5 years of payments.
The reward for focusing on a single archtype is that it gets done faster and the player can enjoy the capstone before a multi-classer does. The artificial stick of locking players out from capstones is not needed and is a huge mistake. Another reason to keep it open is that way capstones can actually be designed that are more then just fluff. It is a win-win for everyone if you don't restrict it.
I think you raise some excellent points. At this stage in the discussion, I support your position. Is there another thread where we can discuss this, to keep this one on topic?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I extremely disagree, but ya different thread. But one quick point.
Considering after getting a capstone if you went into a another archetype you would now be multi-classing which would mean from my understanding you would be locked out from getting a second capstone. Only makes sense...though let's say they did,five years to get two capstones while gaining ZERO skills in anything else (crafting, production, kingdom management, trade, social, etc.)is a bit much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am sorry that my post fell into a level topic. It was not my intention. I am reading the blog very slowly. I read one topic, then think about that topic, and decide if I have any positive or negative input the developers might consider. The purpose of this post was to point out the good things (complex economy) that they are considering, and perhaps some additional twists they might not have considered.
The point about the levels was based on my experience with PvP environments. I have not yet read the section on skills. I will, and I will add posts there. I find that very exciting as well. However, my concern still stands. Finn stated “the dangers you describe are exactly the intended driving force behind an economy that can support mercenary guardsmen, etc.” indicating to me that there are people just as excited about camping trade routes and I am about making trade routes. I am OK with that so long as I have an effective means of fighting back!
So, if a L19 character camps out near resources which are generally harvested by L10 characters. The L10 players need an effective retaliation tool. So, if 3 L10 characters whose skills have been focused on combat, then escort the caravan, and the lone L19 attacks, and the three L10s can defeat the sole L19, then great. The L10 who got zapped by the high level player has an effective means of fighting back. Finding other similar leveled players should not be hard, and they should be able to afford it. Spending 6 months of savings to hire a L19 to fight the L19, just to have the original L19 come back next week, is not really an option. If the L10 player has no ability to fight back, then the game quickly becomes no fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would agree with you there, ricardopituski. It shouldn't be possible for one assailant to overpower a group of slightly weaker assailants. I certainly hope and believe that GW has thought of this, and I believe there is evidence in the blog to suggest that they have some ideas about it (e.g., the section on griefing in, iirc, this thread's topic blog post).
I think we as players can also generate some solutions. For instance, if the powerful evil character has gear that lets him AOE/CC a group of slightly weaker characters, then how about a merchant who rents powerful equipment out? Maybe your L10 guards can use this stuff as part of the per diem you give them. Since the merchant I postulate will need to rent to newer characters who haven't had time to get their own powerful gear, his target market is by definition not all that wealthy. So, in order to profit, his prices must be reasonable for you and your L10 friends to use on a regular basis.
What do you think about this system? How about an alternative? I bet that an economy driven entirely by players, from harvest to production to consumption, can dream up workarounds to this and a whole host of other potential problems!
EDIT: Rather than make a new post, I just want to acknowledge the post directly below this one as presenting a concise and accurate answer to ricardo's hypothetical scenario. My idea is perhaps viable, but only in the context AvenaOats describes. What can I say? I'm a dreamer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ricardo: Resources will be nearer safe(r) areas but not as valuable. So for lower lvls to strike out for valuables further into wilderness, require:
1. More people
2. More cost
3. More protection
... unless a small party wants to cut costs/corners and take a risk from mobs (camps attract these) and bandits but earn bigger profits.
Lvl difference according to blogs is slow progression so should not be big difference for a while. Also lvl difference is only one factor (not the dominant one) in how combat scenarios expected to affect outcome.
So contracts will create a good defence/deterrent but for a cut!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I extremely disagree, but ya different thread. But one quick point.
Considering after getting a capstone if you went into a another archetype you would now be multi-classing which would mean from my understanding you would be locked out from getting a second capstone. Only makes sense...though let's say they did,five years to get two capstones while gaining ZERO skills in anything else (crafting, production, kingdom management, trade, social, etc.)is a bit much.
Per the descriptions of the game, this is incorrect. A capstone is gained by training 20 merit badges in any archtype consecutively. IE going wiz 20, fighter 20, monk 20, in that order, will gain all 3 capstones, while going monk 10, fighter 10, wizard 10, monk 10, fighter 10, wizard 10. Will lock you out from all 3 capstones.
It does have to be noted, the devs have never implied the capstones being powerful abilities, Ryan has even mentioned the possibility of them being purely decorative. IE if you bypass them, you aren't going to be noticeably weaker than someone who got them, heck you may even be better since what you trained in a different archtype will likely be stronger than the capstone.
@ricardo
There will be high security areas in the game to harvest resources and there will be lawless areas where the reward is greater but the risk of attack is high. Life as a villian bandit(PKer) will be very hard if the game is done right. You are not welcome in most cilivized areas of the game and can be killed by many npcs and players on sight. A merchant can place a bounty on a bandit's head and keep it there if the merchent is rich enough.
This is done to keep greifers getting any fun from griefing others as they will die alot more and get no where in the game. Players can oraganize as a bandit guild and attack caravans in lawless lands and that is valid game play. A merchant who wants to harvest in those areas needs to oraganize a guard that can prevent those attacks by hiring other players. Players who attack other players in lands with security will have npc marshells spawn in to kill them and they are extremely hard to get away from let alone fight.
Pver's can still play the game and there will plenty to do for them, however this not a game where you are perfectly safe from other players. Chances of being attack by players in secured areas will be a rare occurance but it can happen. In a sandbox like this you need to make friends and allies. The more friends you have the safer you are.