Goblin Squad Member
|
EVE is a sandbox, but not all sandbox's are EVE. I think that's where a bit of the disconnect is. Just because a game is a sandbox doesn't mean it's going to be drawing more griefers then the typical themepark MMO.
Look at something like "A Tale in the Desert" which is also a sandbox (and doesn't even support direct conflict between players)... I'd wager you'd run into a higher percentage of griefers on your average WOW server then there.
There are alot of factors that make a game more or less likely to have a high percentage of griefers. From what I've read about EVE the design almost encourages griefing. I'll admit, I've got a bit of concern about how much griefing will be a factor in PFO. FFA PvP definately is a format that's prone to griefing.... yet at the same time, what we've read from Ryan and the GW Dev's indicate that they've put alot of time, effort and thought into creating mechanisms to discourage griefing in PFO. So clearly it's a very important design priority for them. Therefore, I remain cautiously hopefull. We'll see how things work out in the end, but the game certainly does NOT have to be a place where griefing is prevalent.
Also, as Ryan has stated, is that CCP considered griefers yet another feature of Eve rather than an issue and Goblinworks plans on guiding character behavior. I just hope the do so in a way that doesn't result in bans or suspensions such as having a duel system or some such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
EVE is a sandbox, but not all sandbox's are EVE. I think that's where a bit of the disconnect is. Just because a game is a sandbox doesn't mean it's going to be drawing more griefers then the typical themepark MMO.
Being a sandbox has nothing to do with having any number of griefers, there are 3 things griefers flock to:
-Open PvP
-Free to Play
-Player Looting
PFO has bits of all 3.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First of all I have to ask why any game designer in their right mind would choose to use a gear loss model with a gear dependent fantasy property.
The blog specifically says that you won't lose your equipped items or gold through death. You're only losing what's in your bags; likely potions, crafting materials, and monster trophies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since its a frequent concern brought up, what's the difference between Griefing and just Players As Content? If someone kills and loots another player, is that by definition griefing?
In my opinion, griefing isn't just killing other players (i like random world PvP). Its some severe level of systemically enabled overpowered deathmongering.
Also, PFO has plans to include the 3 features Valkenr has referenced. They aren't without a flip sides, and they're not the singular features of the game.
- Open PvP has severe gameplay penalties in low risk areas
- Free to Play will be an inefficient way to progress, naturally grativating interested parties to the Subscription model
- Player Looting is planned to be extremely limited in scope, marginalizing any profit margin to risk.
Sure, some people will try to break the game just for the Lulz of it, but that's the case in any online game, MMO or otherwise. With careful and clever moderation this can be ameliorated. Its like bad weather... you just need a system of preventing the rain and wind from getting into everything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The key to keeping any internet community from degenerating into really undesirable behavior is active moderation. It sounds like Ryan is fully on board with that, and the slow-growth with invitation-only initial seeding should go a long way towards getting a critical mass of non-griefers in the game. The combination of an sizable non-griefing player base and active moderation (banning griefers) should make the game attractive to new players.
I think monitoring the community is always a good thing!
Providing a very robust PvE experience and non-combat features is far more important!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Figured I'd respond to some of this because it's interesting to me.
Many MMO's can only dream of attracting the number of players who have quit EvE over the years.
That's true of any successful MMO. It doesn't take very long before the number of people who have ceased active play outnumbers the current active player population. It's just a function of attrition. Even EVE, which has one of the lowest attrition rates, and the highest long-term participation rates, has more ex-players than current players.
On the other hand, all the failed MMOs have more ex-players than current players. By definition.
That's not to say that the sandbox concept is without merit, but any game designer who is looking at EvE as a model also needs to review the history of Ultima Online (which followed a similar sandbox model).
UO had two big problems unrelated to its sandbox design. The first was that broadband internet was in its infancy, and UO pushed the network and the computers of the time to their limits and beyond. Players quit that game often because of technical problems even if they were having fun playing it.
The second problem it had was that it was built just as 3D cards were becoming widespread but it did not use them. The isometric perspective of the game proved to be unpopular and when first person alternatives became available, people flocked to them. The cost and engineering challenge of re-engining UO was so huge that it took years to accomplish and by then the players who were left had self-selected as being people who liked the isometric perspective so the work was wasted.
UO had two sandbox problems too. The first was that it's developers wanted to take a "hands off" approach and let the world develop as it would, regardless of the impact on the social network of the game. The result was a weird place where being a newbie was intolerable and walls of empty houses soon filled the world as people used them as fences. Splitting the game into PvP and no-PvP servers was its second mistake. Without the PvP players to make things intersting, the PvE experience became stale quickly. By acceding to the demands of the majority and giving them what they wanted (no more PvP), UO ended up destroying its value proposition.
First of all I have to ask why any game designer in their right mind would choose to use a gear loss model with a gear dependent fantasy property. In EVE acquisition of gear is relatively trivial. T2 items are produced in runs running from 10 items to thousands of items. Unless you are going to allow for industrial enchantment you are going to have a supply problem.
I think there's going to be a lot of magic item manufacturing, yes. Its implicit in the game design of the D20 system and its descendents. Enchanting items is a manufacturing process, not a miracle working. I also think we'll have a lot of really good ideas for things that you'll need to make a lot of (and consume a lot of) as you play, keeping the crafters busy.
In EVE this has resulted in vast blobs of cap ships.
The problem isn't the capships. It's the logistics system.
Once you've set up all the infrastructure to make a capital ship, the incremental cost to make a 2nd one is trivial. There's no operational cost either (unless you consider ammo). EVE ships don't use fuel, don't need spare parts, and don't have overhead like food or services for crews.
So the Alliances with capital shipyards crank them out at high volumes, and eventually all their pilots (who want one) can fly them (and the excess gets sold off so that they proliferate throughout space). Even the Titan production lines are well developed enough now that new Titans are being added constantly.
The solution is to have some kind of upkeep cost. The more you make of a capital ship, the higher the burden on the Alliance should be to keep it in service. The incremental cost should increase with each ship so that there's a point beyond which even the richest Alliance can't afford to add another one.
This is why the US doesn't have a thousand aircraft carriers. The cost to build a carrier is trivial compared to the cost to operate it. The cost to recruit and train all the sailors and officers is massive, and those ships need constant and continuous maintenance to stay in combat readiness. The worlds largest economy and largest military can only afford to have a bout a dozen in service at any one time.
Are you comfortable with potentially having a million dollars worth of digital pixels trying to murder each other on a single node of your server?
Very. I hope to heaven that it happens.
EVE allows for scamming and corp theft. Some of these thefts, most notably E-Bank and the asset theft that occurred with the dissolution of Band of Brothers represent losses with Plex values in the (low to mid) tens of thousand of dollars.
Not exactly.
There's no mechanism to convert ISK to real world money. The only way to do so is to engage in off-server, unsanctioned RMT. The conversion rate of ISK to RMT is nowhere close to the rate of ISK to PLEX. Like a thief who has to use a fence or a money launderer, you end up getting a fraction of the face value for what you steal.
And if CCP detects the RMT, they'll reverse the transaction. So you get the RMT, but whomever you sold it to gets screwed. As a result, the big RMT operations are loathe to deal in bulk for ISK purchases. They know that it's trivial for CCP to trace those money flows and ban that ISK. Getting a huge ISK purchase negotiated these days requires legions of accounts engaged in psuedo-real economic activity to "wash" the ISK well enough that CCP won't pick it up with its automated systems. It's just not a very viable option for independent operators.
How would you respond to a major theft that tagged the jurisdictional amount ($75,000 I believe) to land in federal court? How would a federal judge respond to a civil suit involving $75,000 in digital assets? Would the US attorney's office pursue such a loss as a Federal RICO violation?
CCP, like all MMO operators, does not relinquish ownership of its digital assets. The players use them, but do not own them. Therefore, it's impossible for there to be a "theft". Goblinworks will do the same, of course. There is caselaw to this effect if you want to search for it. There's several cases in family law about dividing assets in MMOs during divorces, and several suits have been filed by people seeking to recover lost or stolen virtual property. In every case I'm aware of, the courts have enforced the EULAs and Terms of Service, which means that there's no basis for any action.
Are you absolutely positive that the EVE model does not violate US anti-online gambling laws?
Yes, because there's no way to convert any in-game asset to cash. (3rd party RMT is not "a way" because it is not a transaction endorsed or processed by the MMO company. Its no different from two people selling tickets to a baseball game on StubHub; MLB may not like it, but they can't stop it; they're also not responsible for fraud, theft, or anything else related to those transactions.)
Have you reviewed the applicable US law relating to stored value cards?
Luckily, we're not using stored value cards. No MMO company does. Even Nexon, who sell a lot of virtual currency via card at places like Target, don't use stored value. There's no value being stored. You're purchasing a service, not moving cash to the card. They have no cash value, and can't be converted back to cash.
RyanD
Though, item theft in a game being prosecuted *does* have precedent.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/01/31/dutch-supreme-court-declares-runesc ape-theft-a-real-world-crime/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_economy#Controversy
However, Second Life has shown a legal example which may indicate that the developer can be in part held responsible for such losses. Second Life at one stage, offered and advertised the ability to "own virtual land", which was purchased for real money. In 2007, Marc Bragg, an attorney, was banned from Second Life; in response he sued the developers for thereby depriving him of his land, which he – based on the developers' own statements – "owned". The lawsuit ended with a settlement in which Bragg was re-admitted to Second Life.
The presence of a EULA doesn't guarantee a company is shielded from court action even when there is an arbitration clause. That happens most often when a company violates it's own terms of service agreements but if someone can show the company was even grossly negligent they can sue.
An example with a company who's ToS I'm sure was review by, no kidding, 100 or more attorneys: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-02-24/att-data-sued-iphone/532 36222/1
Nice to see some Dev/Ceo feedback :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The presence of a EULA doesn't guarantee a company is shielded from court action even when there is an arbitration clause. That happens most often when a company violates it's own terms of service agreements but if someone can show the company was even grossly negligent they can sue.
An example with a company who's ToS I'm sure was review by, no kidding, 100 or more attorneys: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-02-24/att-data-sued-iphone/532 36222/1
Very true, EULA's are like any other contract, just because something is in there, doesn't mean it's enforceable. I believe what alot of the "virtual property" type cases hinge on is what's ADVERTISED to the buyer by the seller. If the language of an advertisement makes it sound to a reasonable person that they were actualy being offered "ownership" of something in the traditional sense rather then just license to use it, then the seller can be skating on thin ice regardless of what thier EULA says. On the other hand, if the advertisements are unambigous about what you are actualy getting for your $$ then you should be on pretty solid ground. That's why service providers really have to be carefull about the language thier marketing departments use. Though in most cases, I suspect the values in question make it not worthwhile putting to the test.
When you are playing something like TOR or WoW at max level when you get all the skills you really have to be on top of things to remember all your abilities.
If I don't have a spellbook a mile thick, I won't be playing PFO.
A variety of spells, powers, skills and abilities, character customization and outfitting... That's what draws me to RPGs. The most repulsive thing in modern gaming is how "simple" everyone is trying to be. It's a race to the bottom of the IQ barrel because people apparently can't hold more than four or five buttons in their little pea brains. The most tragic thing to happen to PFO would be if it were to mimic Diablo or Dungeon Siege or some other mindless hold-down-one-button-until-you-win hack'n'slasher.
Give me the billions of extremely specialized spells, please. I relished no end hunting through my spellbook in EQ1. Let me pull out that rare and exotic effect to save the day. Reward me for painstakingly piecing together the research notes to scribe that unique spell that changed how I played my character from then on. I want to pour over my character options for hours, agonizing over each decision of priorities.
I won't even think twice about never buying another Paizo product again if PFO turns out to be just another attempt at grabbing a teat on the MMO money cow.
Make your customers proud. Don't just follow the money, because you won't get mine if you do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I won't even think twice about never buying another Paizo product again if PFO turns out to be just another attempt at grabbing a teat on the MMO money cow.
Make your customers proud. Don't just follow the money, because you won't get mine if you do.
And we should do this by copying the basic theme-park combat system found in the majority of MMOs. Got it.
Because there is no room for making complicated and fun character builds if you have to pick which spells you want to use from hundreds of options rather than just being handed 50 spells based on your ache-type that you can use at all times.
Obviously anyone who wants this is a "pea-brained" fool of inferior intellect and you are just superior to us in every way. Obviously we should all listen to you, because you are the sole source of intelligent ideas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was looking for the thread in which you posted about limiting abilities to a certain number of slots, Andius. That was way back on page 1 and 2! I have to say, the system you described sounds great to me. I never really played Guild Wars, so I have no idea how it worked in practice, but it sounds like creating a character build was a very involved process, which would allow you to customize your character to YOUR tastes, rather than relying on the developers to dictate your role to you and which abilities you use. It sounds like there was a wide array of unique characters within each class, all created by the players.
As some mentioned before, this could make balancing the 6 year character to the 1 year character easier, by making selection and correct utilization of skills (and gear, of course) more important than 'you have played long enough to get the best skill.' This also allows the 6 year player to CHOOSE his limitations, rather than going with some of the other suggestions I've seen for limiting multi-class characters (what armor you wear, what weapon you wield, etc).
The one thing I'm not entirely certain about is how often you were able to change your skills in Guild Wars. In any case, I think most of the objections to the idea are because people want to be able to have those few utility spells that come in handy only on rare occasions.
For PFO, I think you should be able to change which spells you use whenever you are out of combat, allowing that fighter-cleric to switch to healing when going up against a particularly tough PvE encounter, but help the group burn through 'trash mobs' with his/her melee prowess on the way there. Or, allowing players about to engage in PvP to change tactical strategies based on the classes they are up against. If you make the wrong decision once, you change your strategy the next time (this is the basis for almost all static content like instances, raids, etc in current MMOs).
This would also make utility spells or long-term buffs available (if these do exist) to you whenever you exit combat, and available to be moved to your quickbar if you think you will need them in the next engagement. Heck, PFO could just let me keep my hotbars just like I did in WoW and SWTOR: Put all my rarely-used abilities and buffs on the side hotbars, and just grey them out from use when in-combat. They could also allow multiple 'builds' to be saved to quickbars that can be easily switched between (like in WoW).
This mechanic also adds another aspect to PvP combat. Don't let that sorceror slip away out of combat to switch from fire-based damage (which your group prepared for and has resistance to) to arcane-based damage!
More strategy, more preparation, more tactics to consider in combat, and more total abilities. This is why I can get behind a well thought-out implementation of this system. NOTE: I did not include a specific number of abilities available at one time. 8-16 could be reasonable. The only downside I could see is the potential costs for creating 100-200 abilities for each class instead of 40-60. I think balancing these skills wouldn't be any more difficult than balancing skills to the fine degree necessary when everybody of that class MUST use that skill.
I won't even think twice about never buying another Paizo product again if PFO turns out to be just another attempt at grabbing a teat on the MMO money cow.
Make your customers proud. Don't just follow the money, because you won't get mine if you do.
And this type of post helps put your style of play upfront how?
If this is your strategy ... good luck :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kakafika & @Andius,
Can we try to have this conversation without referring to spells? The reason I ask that is because there is already a precedent in Pathfinder for preparing spells, and I don't want those preconceptions to muddy the waters about what is actually being proposed.
Instead, let's consider a highly skilled Rogue who has spent a couple of years broadly diversifying in order to have a really large number of skills available to him.
Should that character be limited to 12 "active" abilities? Or should that character be able to utilize any of his known skills (assuming he has the right tools equipped, etc.)? How would a Rogue go about "preparing" Pick Locks such that he no longer had access to Backstab?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon
Sorry, I have no experience with how Pathfinder or D&D in general deals with spells specifically, so I generally use the term as synonymous with 'abilities'. By ability, I'm talking about an action that your character can take, usually based on class. These can be non-combat or combat related. 'Leg Sweep,' 'Fury of Fists,' 'Fireball,' 'Conjure Water,' and 'Lockpick' are all abilities, to me. If you wanted to go with another system like spells/day or something else (that I have no experience with) in order to deal with magical spells in particular, I'll leave the discussion to figure out how to transfer that 'feel' to an MMO to those that know more than I do about it =)
Should that character be limited to 12 "active" abilities? Or should that character be able to utilize any of his known skills (assuming he has the right tools equipped, etc.)? How would a Rogue go about "preparing" Pick Locks such that he no longer had access to Backstab?
I tried to address your concern in my post above, because I have that same concern, I think. In your example, I wouldn't want to lose non-combat utility in exchange for higher damage/combat utility. For this, I suggest that you be able to change your active skill make-up at any time outside of combat. After you defeat the boss, you go to his treasure chest, you scroll to your hotbar you set up that has lockpick on it (and sense trap, disarm trap, etc.), and you pick the lock.
Alternatively, we could make it so that all non-combat utility spells are always available, and I could place them on my side hotbars as I like to do =P Then you could have encounters where when your group enters a room, they get beset on all sides by a steadily increasing stream of phantasms, and your rogue needs to pick door locks until he finds the exit through which your party can flee from the room. Or in order to clear the orcs from your hex, you must defeat the Orc Cheiftan and his pack of loyal wolves, but you realize you can have your mages busy conjuring up magical steaks to keep the wolves occupied while you fight the Chieftan.
Do either of these address your concerns? I know there have been other suggestions for keeping the game balanced for the 1-year players vs the 7-year veteran that also address your concern, but I think the system Andius describes adds a lot to elements to the game (as described in my long post above).
Should that character be limited to 12 "active" abilities? Or should that character be able to utilize any of his known skills (assuming he has the right tools equipped, etc.)? How would a Rogue go about "preparing" Pick Locks such that he no longer had access to Backstab?
Non-combat, non-magical skills should be outside of the main bar, or selectable from hover menu opened by single <general skills> button, or maybe they just could be accesed by using the correct item - want to use Disable Device-like skills (however they will be named), use your lockpick kit on closed door, closed chest or detected trap.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do either of these address your concerns?
Not really.
I'm specifically trying to address the case where a character spends a lot of time learning a large variety of combat skills, perhaps across a number of different archetypes.
I don't have any objections to logical limitations (you have to have a Shield equipped to use a Shield Bash, you can't Dual Wield weapons while you have a Shield equipped, etc.) but I am adamantly, vehemently opposed to any system that results in arbitrary caps on what players can do, such as WoW-style Talent Trees, or a hard cap on the number of "combat abilities" a character can have equipped.
These kinds of caps inevitably result in an "end-game" mentality, and I am hopeful that PFO will avoid that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
INCOMING: Wall of Text. I suggest you read my post above as a TL;DR, and if you're still not convinced, here are examples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example of how this Might Work
Let's consider another example, if you don't mind. Also for this example, I'm making my own classes, since I'm not familiar enough with PF classes to argue specifics, and I don't want somebody to get hung up on something I didn't intend to be a part of the example.
A Berzerker (who can dual-wield 2-handed weapons) multi-classed with a Wizard and a Rogue (MMO usage such as in WoW or EQ, please don't think pathfinder tabletop specifics; I'm just using this as an example). This character has a wide array of abilities, whether we go with a classic ability system or a 'Guild Wars system.'
My hope is that this character will be able to simultaneously focus his blood-rage on hacking at foes with two two-handed weapons and throwing fireballs at enemies that are two cowardly to face him in melee combat, while also having his lockpicking pouch on his belt when he comes across an ornate chest in a dungeon. I would also like him it to be viable to backstab with those axes (maybe not stealthily?), magically root his target in place, and then go berzerk until his target is dead. And then, conjure up a little meal to replenish his strength after the battle.
He may not be as good at any one of these things as a single-classed person with a focus in gear stats and weapons for Berzerker, Rogue, or Wizard, but he has a lot of options for engaging an enemy. He also may not be as good as a player that plays the role that he/she chose better than he does, or a player that effectively uses a combination of abilities that other players don't expect, and so are unprepared to deal with.
The Problem that Needs Fixing =D
The argument for the Guild Wars system that speaks to me, is that while the 'classic mmo' style of abilities (found in WoW and SWTOR) gives you many options, every class has a few 'roles' based on their 'talent/skill point' distribution (tank, healer, dps; fire mage, ice mage, arcane mage; physical damage, magical damage; etc.). And for each of these 'specs,' there are core abilities that MUST be used in order to be viable.
Example:
In SWTOR, when I stealth up to a caster that I've seen casting heals, I know that I need to save my interrupt for his quick heal, which can put out a lot of healing at high cost. I'll let him cast his channeled heal, because I can interrupt most of it and altogether out-damage it, and if he's almost dead but about to get his slow, large heal off, I will stun him. Those are his heals. I know he's going to do that every fight. On my healer, I recognize the enemies that have worked that out, and the most I can do is try to avoid them (in vain), use my 1 utility CC (in vain), direct my team to attack them in particular (in vain), or hope that there is a player 'tanky' enough to cast 'guard' on me (absorb a % of the damage) that I can keep up along with myself.
Benefits
In addition to the benefits I already listed in this and at the end of my previous post, this system could address some of the concerns I've seen expressed about how to balance a multi-class system, and especially for a 1v1 (unlikely) situation of a 1-year player versus a 7-year player.
In keeping with the guitar analogy from Ryan:
Even if the 7-year veteran has a new double-neck guitar, the 1-year player can win the crowd's favor on his beat-up ukulele if he knows a song that plays beautifully on it and knows how to top the veteran's song (by this, I mean he has a well-developed strategy to defeat the veteran, based on knowledge of what the veteran did in past engagements).
I can even see some room for synergies between classes in the form of debuffs, if desired. A fighter/rogue uses 'sunder armor,' 'stunning blow,' then positions himself for a 'backstab.'
One of the other options:
One of the other proposals I've seen is to disable abilities based on equipment.
If you want to cast spells, you have to have both hands free, or holding a certain a magical stick/dagger that channels magical force! (lolwut??? but what about my magical-sword -wielding battle-mage...) You can't backstab with an axe! (But I'm standing behind him! Ok, maybe we can change the name to 'back-attack'...) You can't draw a bow in plate! (that one is at least somewhat based on realism, which we do generally want) You can't cast in plate! You just CAN'T!
Some of those restrictions are based on realism, some of those restrictions might be based on 'Golarion' realism (I don't know, I'm still discovering the world). But, we already know the game will deviate from from realism in favor of better gameplay (though, who knows, maybe a particular smith will develop a new type of plate that allows maximum dexterity in order to draw a bow! It's realistic in that most plate will be crafted with +str and +con/vit anyway), and we know that skills/abilities and spells will deviate GREATLY from what is described by the Pathfinder tabletop game, as necessary in transition to an MMO.
Drawbacks
I can respect an argument against this completely open, player-choice -driven system on the grounds that it clashes too much with the 'feel' of Golarion (I'm not sure that it does, educate me!). But, as I said, we already know that a lot of things are going to be changed about classes, so why not spellcasting restrictions that were put in place and balanced for in the tabletop? =) Let's make our own balance, and give more freedom to players!
Even if we still want to close off options based on equipment worn in order to keep more in line with what is possible in Golarion, the other benefits of the 'Guild Wars system' still apply.
Conclusion
Same as previous post =)
PS - Hmm... don't hate me if I leave The Seventh Veil to start a heathen battle-mage, focusing his blood-rage in battle against those hoity-toity mages who spend their days with their noses in books and wear long beards, girly dresses, and carry bent wooden sticks =D
PSS - Wall of Text hits YOU for 9999 damage! You died!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do either of these address your concerns?Not really.
I'm specifically trying to address the case where a character spends a lot of time learning a large variety of combat skills, perhaps across a number of different archetypes.
I don't have any objections to logical limitations (you have to have a Shield equipped to use a Shield Bash, you can't Dual Wield weapons while you have a Shield equipped, etc.) but I am adamantly, vehemently opposed to any system that results in arbitrary caps on what players can do, such as WoW-style Talent Trees, or a hard cap on the number of "combat abilities" a character can have equipped.
These kinds of caps inevitably result in an "end-game" mentality, and I am hopeful that PFO will avoid that.
Also...
I believe any cap on the number of active combat abilities you can have equipped will inevitably result in "best build" configurations. I believe this is important to avoid.
Heh, this is strange, Nihimon. Like I said in both my posts, I share a lot of your concerns.
It's not strange because of that; in fact, I don't often disagree with your ideas. It's strange because I'm arguing for this system with the same goals in mind that you have when you argue against it!
Let's look at the WoW/SWTOR system.
We can both relate to this.
These games are built around the idea of a max level, and achieving that level allows you access to 'end game' content. The skills systems in these games are built around this 'end game mentality.' As you level, you get not only more abilities, but some that are unequivocally better abilities.
This is ok, because PvE content is designed such that somebody of your level (power) can overcome it, and most PvP encounters are against players near your level (whether it be in the world or in instanced battlegrounds/warzones).
Pathfinder Online
In PFO, we know players of all 'power levels' (years playing) will be potentially be in conflict with each other, and one of the goals of the dev team is to make the 'newbie' contribution meaningful, allowing greater access to the game.
I was leaning against this 'Guild Wars system' of abilities until Andius took the time to explain how this system actual gives more options to a player, rather than less. I'll paraphrase, as I understand it (or at least how I could see it working in PFO):
Rather than giving a class certain abilities that are so strong they immediately become 'core' abilities for you from then on, forcing you into the niche role they have designed for your class, you get 6 strong abilities, and you choose for yourself which of these strong abilities you want to utilize, if any. You can make these choices on an encounter-by-encounter basis if you so choose. In this way, you can stick to a particular niche that you developed with your choices of skill training, which reflect the character concept you have in mind or the things you enjoy doing/ are proficient in (at a player, not character, level).
Comparison
Rather than being forced to be a 'mutilate rogue' (Abilities: Mutilate, Hemorrhage), assassin rogue(Abilities: Ambush, Backstab), or combat rogue (idk), you create your 'spec' from abilities that are all powerful, all the time, but are more or less useful in different situations/encounters.
Rather than a wizard choosing Fire, Ice, or Arcane magic, and then having the group of wizards decide who would CC which target (and try to get out of it in order to up their name on the DPS meters, inevitably), give the option for one wizard to put 4 different CC abilities on his hotbar to specialize in controlling the pace of the encounter.
From Andius's description, it sounded like there were so many options available, that 'best builds' didn't become especially prevalent. One person's 'best build' might not fit another person's play style. They may want more CC abilities to increase survivability when alone, and save their full-DPS build for when they are in a large group with a few people dedicated to healing & CC. Also, when a 'best build' became prevalent, it seemed there was a strong rock/paper/scissors component to abilities that allowed people to specialize at fighting any build that gained popularity.
Last Remarks
This system gives more abilities and more choices for the player to make than existing systems, rather than fewer, as I (mistakenly) initially assumed. It adds an additional dimension to combat in the form of preparing your encounter strategy, as I stated in my first post.
I understand that you aren't arguing for a WoW/SWTOR system where talent trees determine ability usefulness. It seems WoW has moved away from this with the 'dual spec' system (though I haven't played for a long time, so I'm not sure). This system would be more like 'you make your own specialization,' but with a nearly infinite number of possible specs (consider multiclassing after 10 years), and the possibility to change your specialization at any time you are out of combat. It's on you to determine how best to contribute based on your strengths, the demands of the encounter, and how the players with you are specialized.
This focus on specialization (or generalization, if you choose; fire, ice, and arcane, just in case!) leads to elements of certainty/uncertainty in battle: "I know Jim liked to do x, but what if he has trained y and z to make my skills specialized against x less effective?" If you guess wrong and did not generalize enough or have enough CC abilities, you do what you always do when you're losing an encounter in an MMO, you run away =P Reset the mob or disengage the player, change your skills when you get out of combat, and then try again with your new strategy.
If after 5 years, I have 200 abilities I've taken the time to train on my character across multiple archetypes, I'm going to have a hard time finding somewhere to put them on my screen, not to mention utilizing them effectively (even with a Nostromo! =P). The thing is, I WOULD like to have 200 abilities, and be able to use these abilities effectively given a situation.
Situations can be prepared for. If I'm out in unfamiliar or hostile territory, I make sure one of my group members has CC abilities to defend against an attack, or I use a set of general abilities that will be useful in most situations. I think a well-planned and -executed ambush should win out in general, anyway. They don't know what you have set up anyway, unless you are predictable and/or they have a spy =)
Note
I want to point out that I haven't played either Guild Wars or EvE, so I could be missing out on some obvious things that won't work with a combination of these design goals, and maybe this is where our disconnect is. I don't think this is the case, however, since Andius is the one that proposed it, and he has experience in both, iirc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kakafika, I honestly can't tell if you're arguing for or against limiting the number of combat abilities your Berserker/Rogue/Wizard has.
This, as explained in my last post, is where I believe the disconnect is. I don't think either of us are arguing for more limits =)
I'm suggesting a system that increases player choices, rather than limiting them by what is hard-coded. The choice to either utilize some combination of the 3-5 'best abilities' (whether they be damage, CC, buff, or other utility, it doesn't matter) or not is not a fun choice.
Maybe you also don't want 3-5 'best abilities.'
If I had just 100 abilities that potentially healed, protected, or damaged, and each was viable at all times, I can see combat being dominated by those who could correctly utilize each of those abilities, in the form of learning and executing keystrokes and hotkeys, rather than being dominated by forming a strategy with a team and correctly implementing that strategy. And learning from defeat to change strategy as necessary =)
As Andius described it, the system does not reward levels with better spells, but simply different spells. In his example of the healer, he still used some of the heals at end-game that he got initially, since he decided that he wanted to have a certain capability, so he chose the abilities that he would use for a specific encounter from a long list of abilities available to him.
I'm glad we can flesh out our different expectations, because like I said, I was right there with you. This is just a suggestion; let's see where we can go with this =)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kakafika,
The choice is not between: 1) "giving a class certain abilities that are so strong they immediately become 'core' abilities"; and 2) "get[ting] 6 strong abilities, and you choose for yourself which of these strong abilities you want to utilize".
The choice, as I understand it, is between: 1) having access to a lot of skills based on your archetype, and then choosing which to equip; and 2) choosing which skills to train, and being able to utilize any of them.
If there are benefits that result from letting the player choose which skills to equip, then why do those same benefits not also result from letting the player choose which skills to train?
The situation I am very much opposed to is where at one moment, my Rogue knows how to Backstab, but if I sit down for a minute and think about it, I no longer know how to Backstab, until I sit down and think about it again, at which point I know how to Backstab again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think I've ever felt the need to use 16 combat abilities in one encounter, but I'd be ok with allowing other players that advantage if they decided they wanted that many.
Maybe allow a class unlock to add more hotbar slots? This sticks with the 'jack-of-all-trades' theme of multiclassing, and better allows you to feel you are fully both classes, rather than one character that is half of each.
Maybe allow more hotbar slots as you level up, as well?
Maybe have a 'general' skill tree that gives some utility abilities and/or adds more hotbar slots.
I think we could adjust details of the system in a way that players that empathize with either of us could be happy.
In the end, I'd rather have a system where nstead of being limited to a selection of skills based on how they are designed, I'm limited by my choice of equally viable skills.
Instead of being limited by my personal dexterity, I'm limited by the choices I made in preparation.
I find the added depth that thinking about what an opponent is prepared to do an additional engaging aspect of combat.
Also, a balance note:
If every class has two 'interrupt' abilities, I'd hate to go against that 20/20/20 that has six.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think I've ever felt the need to use 16 combat abilities in one encounter, but I'd be ok with allowing other players that advantage if they decided they wanted that many.
Excellent!
Maybe allow a class unlock to add more hotbar slots? ... Maybe allow more hotbar slots as you level up, as well?
Why not just allow a character to use as many hotbar slots as they wish? They're already going to be limited by the number of skills they train.
This allows the specialist to specialize and the generalist to generalize.
Also, a balance note:
If every class has two 'interrupt' abilities, I'd hate to go against that 20/20/20 that has six.
A valid concern, but one very easily handled by shared cooldowns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What you have available should be entirely based on what you are carrying.
There may be a tree for one handed swords, but inside of the tree are multiple types of swords with differen't abilities they can use. For instance a Rapier would only get thrusting attacks, aside from basic abilities that all one handed swords get.
When all is done, i would like to see no combination of equipment that grants more than 20 active abilities, and combinations of equipment should have their advantages and draw backs and certain equipment should not be allowed be used simultaneously. One thing i liked about DCUO is that you where never prepared to do everything, or couldn't do anything amazingly well. This is the only way to balance a game where you are constantly unlocking new abilities.
As for magic, i wouldn't mind seeing players limited to one or two schools at a time. And every combination would come with something like two advantages, and three disadvantages, so there will always be a hole in your build.
Perfect builds should be impossible. The best tank in the game should be demolished by a noob with wielding his weakness. Thus you never take a single 'main tank' into an encounter, you will need another tank with different weakness' that do not overlap with the other tank. Not to say that 'tanks' will be in the game but you get the idea.
.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Likes/Dislikes
- I LIKE they idea of character having a FINITE number of points/levels/abilities to BUILD thier characters with. It makes the choices a player makes in building thier characters MATTER. It PREVENTS guys from walking around with the UBER-MAN suit because no matter how long they play they can't learn the OPTIMAL ability for dealing with every single situation in the game.
- DIFFERENTIATION between characters is a GOOD thing. Joe knows how to do X well, Sally knows how to do Y. It creates a reason for Joe & Sally to try to WORK TOGETHER to get things done. It also provides each with some sense of identity.
- Not Crazy about preventing characters from utilizing abilities that they KNOW at any given time. It tends to limit tactical options...but in the absence of FINITE build points, it can be a workable solution.
- There should be no overal "Best" build in the game.....but certain Builds should be better for some things then others. Making choices about how you BUILD your character IS part of the typical gameplay of RPG's and part of the fun/appeal for alot of players of them.
- Prerequisites are a Good Thing, learning certain abilities should unlock other more advanced abilities. Not vastly more powerfull, mind you...but more specialized in providing a specific function.
- With thier existing model GW is going to have to be VERY carefull about how abilities stack together or combine, or they will end up not meeting thier design goals of allowing players to be competitive with more experienced characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I should probably just start PMing Nihimon, as he's probably the only one that cares enough to read these posts... but I'll leave them out there, 'just in case' =P
@Kakafika,
The choice is not between: 1) "giving a class certain abilities that are so strong they immediately become 'core' abilities"; and 2) "get[ting] 6 strong abilities, and you choose for yourself which of these strong abilities you want to utilize".
The choice, as I understand it, is between: 1) having access to a lot of skills based on your archetype, and then choosing which to equip; and 2) choosing which skills to train, and being able to utilize any of them.
If there are benefits that result from letting the player choose which skills to equip, then why do those same benefits not also result from letting the player choose which skills to train?
Hmm, now I see where there is a discrepancy between the full Guild Wars system and the full EvE system. I think a hybrid system could still work, however. In a fantasy MMO it is even necessary; it wouldn't make sense in EvE to be able to use the abilities of all your ships at the same time. I think this is where the inspiration to lock players out of abilities they have earned based on equipment comes from.
I see the 2nd option of the choice you put forward as a step backward from utility:
You make it sound like you believe that there will be a significant amount of abilities you can skip (and that there will be many players WILL make the decision to skip) on your way to level to capstone, if you wish to specialize. So, I spent 2.5 years skilling up my rogue to be a very good 'mutilate' rogue. He has no burst damage abilities, but great damage over time. Now, my infamy got the better of me, and most people know how to mitigate the damage I do; or worse, my abilities got nerfed by Goblinworks (time to incite forum riots!!!)!
Now, what do I do, do I spend another 2.5 years specializing in another type of rogue combat?
This seems to function similarly to a WoW talent tree, only there is no way to respec; you're stuck with either bad decisions you made when you were a newbie (potentially 'easily' fixable given a couple months to train) or long-term decisions you were forced to make 1 year into the game (fixable in a year). I would not want to have to deal with either scenario, and if it can happen, it WILL happen. I believe I've seen posts by people about situations in EvE where people completely reset their char to start training from the beginning with a plan in mind that they had developed based on their experiences after a few months/year. That doesn't sit well for me in a fantasy, RP sandbox. And many players would rather just quit than start over with a new character or a reset.
If, in fact, you make class abilities broadly available among lower tiers of skills, and then let higher skill tiers add power or unlock synergistic abilities, that IS a WoW system with a non-respeccable talent tree; the choices you make for character advancement DO make some abilities better than others, and you DO gain access to abilities that become a core part of your 'build.'
Whether you design the system such that all abilities can be trained in a few months to a year and a focus upgraded for the following 1.5-2 years, or you make it such that to unlock the full potential of a particular focus, you must train 2.5 years, the end result is that you've created a system based on long-term planning that cannot be reversed. This is a faulty system that penalizes players that do not do a lot of research prior to playing.
When I ask myself, 'will I be able to utilize this ability in this upcoming encounter?', a very large portion of the answer is determined by my character's proficiency at using that ability. I'd rather it be determined by the player's proficiency at using that ability. And by this, I don't mean the player's dexterity and intelligence scores, which allow him to remember and hit complicated keystrokes (=P), but rather the player's ability to recognize an encounter (typical part of exploring an MMO) and prepare for it accordingly, keeping in mind variables such as possible enemy strategies, team strategy, and groupmates' abilities.
Maybe you can better explain a system that can achieve all the goals we have in mind? As you can see, I've put a lot of thought into it (3 pages of posts were made before I was ready to address it!), and I haven't been able to come up with a really great system other than what I've proposed.
In the system I imagine, rather than a character's strengths and weaknesses being a large factor in determining what the player does (albeit based on past player choices), group make-up, hostile group make-up, and player strengths and weaknesses would help them decide what they want their characters to do.
The player's decision is brought into the present, rather than abandoned, immutable, in the past.
Players still customize their characters.
They can focus their attention on developing their skill with just a handful of damage-dealing abilities out of hundreds of abilities, or they can build for more general roles that can damage, buff/support, and CC all at the same time, or the player can practice several different specialized roles. When he/she makes a choice, it is not set in stone. Characters can be more fluid if the player chooses.
There is nothing wrong with role-playing a rogue that uses a set of 30 abilities out of 80 (indeed, you could choose any 30 skills to rotate through your hotbar, and still always be viable!), just don't impose this restriction with the game system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe allow a class unlock to add more hotbar slots? ... Maybe allow more hotbar slots as you level up, as well?Why not just allow a character to use as many hotbar slots as they wish? They're already going to be limited by the number of skills they train.
This allows the specialist to specialize and the generalist to generalize.
A valid concern, but one very easily handled by shared cooldowns.Also, a balance note:
If every class has two 'interrupt' abilities, I'd hate to go against that 20/20/20 that has six.
My point is that if you have hotbars with 100 abilities, the player is limited by how many hotkeys they can keep track of, rather than how many abilities they have available. I'm trying to get away from the suckiness that is wanting to do something 'new' in combat, and your enemy always knowing what it is that you have available to you.
If shared cooldowns are implemented, then you're really not getting all of the new classes skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What you have available should be entirely based on what you are carrying.
There may be a tree for one handed swords, but inside of the tree are multiple types of swords with differen't abilities they can use. For instance a Rapier would only get thrusting attacks, aside from basic abilities that all one handed swords get.When all is done, i would like to see no combination of equipment that grants more than 20 active abilities, and combinations of equipment should have their advantages and draw backs and certain equipment should not be allowed be used simultaneously.
Yes, this is the 'realism' objection I can see to this more open system. In general, I think most of us have agreed on these forums that gameplay value trumps realism, so the more important question to ask is, 'does this system add player choice and other fun?' Choices are fun. Incredibly 1-sided choices that only need to be considered for more than a moment in very specific circumstances, are not really choices except in those circumstances.
I'd prefer to see a system that doesn't define attacks as 'thrusting' or 'slashing' or 'blunt', but I realize this is moving away from what some are used to from previous D&D and MMO experiences. These systems lock a player into using abilities that use those types of attacks (unless they carry a spare weapon that could potentially be destroyed on death), and one of the goals I expressed was to open up player options.
One thing i liked about DCUO is that you where never prepared to do everything, or couldn't do anything amazingly well. This is the only way to balance a game where you are constantly unlocking new abilities.
Not being prepared to do everything, regardless of how long you have played and classes you have available, is a goal we have in common.
As for magic, i wouldn't mind seeing players limited to one or two schools at a time. And every combination would come with something like two advantages, and three disadvantages, so there will always be a hole in your build.
I suppose wizards could be different if there were a lot of lore-tastic reasons for making them so; maybe as a class feature, you could only learn abilities from so many schools but these schools would still be incredibly diverse, with some utility abilities having similar but subtly different effects. I can understand this because I would find it much much stranger to imagine a holy cleric raising a zombie army in a fantasy setting than an elf in light, elven mithril plate armor drawing a bow.
Perfect builds should be impossible. The best tank in the game should be demolished by a noob with wielding his weakness. Thus you never take a single 'main tank' into an encounter, you will need another tank with different weakness' that do not overlap with the other tank. Not to say that 'tanks' will be in the game but you get the idea.
Agreed. The system as Andius described seemed to incorporate a sort of rock/paper/scissors idea into it to combat this. Choosing your abilities based on what you think the enemies strengths are and what they are going to do is an incredibly engaging aspect of combat that can lead to infinite amounts of fun.
Combat is much more predictable and static when you know for certain the abilities the enemy is going to use based on past encounters, which were based on the unchangeable decisions the enemy players made in the past. I'd like that 'main tank' to be able to choose his weakness each encounter, rather than his enemies knowing exactly how to exploit his weakness every time they encounter him. That leads to unengaging combat like in SWTOR, where when I meet a specific character for the 50th time, I just go through the same combination of abilities that I developed for maximum effectiveness on the 3rd encounter.
EDIT: Grammar.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I won't even think twice about never buying another Paizo product again if PFO turns out to be just another attempt at grabbing a teat on the MMO money cow.
Make your customers proud. Don't just follow the money, because you won't get mine if you do.
And this type of post helps put your style of play upfront how?
If this is your strategy ... good luck :)
Just feel the need to point out that the tags in this post are wrong. The quote attributed to me is Aunt Tony's, and I think the quote attributed to Aunt Tony is Cruciare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is nothing wrong with role-playing a rogue that uses a set of 30 abilities out of 80 (indeed, you could choose any 30 skills to rotate through your hotbar, and still always be viable!), just don't impose this restriction with the game system.
It's statements like that that leave me confused about what you're trying to achieve.
This seems to function similarly to a WoW talent tree, only there is no way to respec...
PFO is 100% opposite of WoW Talent Trees because of the simple fact that, if I change my mind on how I want to spec after a year, [b]I still keep every skill I've already trained, plus all the new ones I train[b], rather than having to give up the old skills in order to make room for the new.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Consider how this would differ if instead of better abilities over time, you unlocked different abilities, in a flexible order. A pure fighter doesn't know how to do moves which are better in all circumstances, he learns moved which individually are better in different circumstances. He could delve into rogue, which would provide other situational benefits.
He would still be limited by equipment: shield wall requires a shield, and spear throwing requires a spear, and a poignard enables armor piercing, but not Bash.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kakafika & @Andius,
Can we try to have this conversation without referring to spells? The reason I ask that is because there is already a precedent in Pathfinder for preparing spells, and I don't want those preconceptions to muddy the waters about what is actually being proposed.
Instead, let's consider a highly skilled Rogue who has spent a couple of years broadly diversifying in order to have a really large number of skills available to him.
Should that character be limited to 12 "active" abilities? Or should that character be able to utilize any of his known skills (assuming he has the right tools equipped, etc.)? How would a Rogue go about "preparing" Pick Locks such that he no longer had access to Backstab?
Here is what I think would be the most fun model. All the numbers I'm throwing out here are changeable and can be substituted by X.
So each character starts with 8 activated abilities 5 consumables and 3 utility abilities that can be used in combat. Activated abilities would be things like great-cleave, fireball, and manyshot or healing and buffing skills. Skills directly related to combat granted from feats. Consumables are going to be things like potions, and bandages. Items used on the character to give benefits such as healing or increased strength. And utility skills are going to be things like sneak, set-trap, grenades/flasks, holy water, or the parley and battlecry ability described in my diplomacy thread. Skills not directly related to bashing enemies or are granted by items or skill-points rather than feats. (Of course this game likely won't use skill points and feats but I assume skills such as disarm trap will be separated from things like great cleave somehow.)
So those skill are all available for direct use in combat. If you are in-combat mode you have access to all of those said skills. You also have class levels and passive skills. Class levels would be like if you have 10 levels in rouge, 10 in fighter, and 15 in barbarian you can choose which 20 levels you want to run with. So you could have 10 barbarian 5, 5 rouge, 5 fighter. Each of these levels is going to come with minor passive abilities and effect your maximum health how many ability slots you have etc. It also might allow access to some higher level abilities though not all high level abilities will require you to have many points in their class to be used since they are supposed to grant more options as opposed to more raw power.
Passive slots are say 5 major passive abilities you get to choose based on the passive abilities you have unlocked and the passive abilities available to your current class configuration. Things like, grant 3 more active ability slots, grant extra melee damage, or grant increased healing output.
With the combination of class slots, passive slots, and race you will really have a lot of control over how many active slots, consumables slots, and ability slots you can use. For instance a someone with a lot of levels in rogue would have a lot of utility slots, while someone with a high level in sorcerer would have a lot of activated ability slots. A human is going to have more activated ability and utility slots than a dwarf is likely to, and finally you can make further adjustments using your passive slots.
FINALLY we can talk about non-combat slots. These are things like your skill in mending clothes, baking bread, negotiating with merchants, anything that is not an ability you will activate as a part of a fight. These slots = UNLIMITED. Everything you take the time to train you get. Plain and simple.
So basically as you take the time to train more and more classes and hunt down merit badges for more and more abilities you get A LOT of control of how your character's final ability setup looks. You can have many activated ability slots or very few activated ability slots, and you will likely have hundreds or thousands of abilities to pick from when setting up what you want in those slots. How hard it is to change around class levels and abilities I leave in the air as a subject of debate but I think this system is infinitely better and more suited to a multi-class game than WoW's system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for contributing, Mel! I often find that you're not nearly so grumpy in your posts as some would have you believe =P
Allow me to describe some of the possibilities for how these points could be addressed by a hybrid system.
Likes/Dislikes
- I LIKE they idea of character having a FINITE number of points/levels/abilities to BUILD thier characters with. It makes the choices a player makes in building thier characters MATTER. It PREVENTS guys from walking around with the UBER-MAN suit because no matter how long they play they can't learn the OPTIMAL ability for dealing with every single situation in the game.
In the proposed system, there is no uber-man. Choices matter. The only difference is that these choices are brought into the present, rather than made long ago (and you're stuck with them!). If you know what build Jim likes to run, you can counter that build... but this isn't an ambush. Jim has been glaring at you across the battlefield, and you're frowning grumpily right back. Jim is smart, Jim knows that you know what Jim likes to do. Thus, Jim can change his ability make-up to mitigate what he believes your strategy is, and still have a powerful character.
I like it when Jim has interesting choices to make every encounter, rather than knowing that you know what he is going to do based on his equipped items and past encounters, and having little he can do about it.
- DIFFERENTIATION between characters is a GOOD thing. Joe knows how to do X well, Sally knows how to do Y. It creates a reason for Joe & Sally to try to WORK TOGETHER to get things done. It also provides each with some sense of identity.
I'd like to add some nuance to this. DIFFERENTIATION between characters is inevitable when players must choose a relatively small set of skills from a large pool of equally viable skills. I had never imagined this being possible until I read Andius's description of his experiences in Guild Wars.
I think it would be great if Joe knows how to do A well, and Sally knows how to do Z well. They can do A-Z really well! But I also think it would be great if Joe's character could not only do A, but also B and C, and Sally's could do X, Y, as well as Z. So while Joe and Sally might not be very good at doing B-Y or C-X, they can still attempt those roles if they couldn't find anybody else to do them. This encourages them to WORK TOGETHER and experience content differently than they would otherwise be able to.
I think this is especially important considering that many players will likely play only 1 character; or, at least, Goblinworks wants players to be able to play only 1 character.
- Not Crazy about preventing characters from utilizing abilities that they KNOW at any given time. It tends to limit tactical options...but in the absence of FINITE build points, it can be a workable solution.
I think the absence of finite build points would be a good direction to go, as this limits characters from utilizing abilities based on past decisions. It blanks out an entire set of tactical options, rather than giving the player or group of players the option to decide their strategy in the present.
Players already make tactical decisions based on what they enjoy doing and their strengths/weaknesses. People play druids in WoW and never tank or heal, though they could. People play Sages/Inquisitors in SWTOR and never heal, though they could. This system would allow you to create personal build based on the tactical situation, regardless of the choices you made last year. It allows a player to have potent healing and damaging abilities in a single encounter, while not restricting their skill usage based on finger dexterity or memorizing keystrokes.
- There should be no overal "Best" build in the game.....but certain Builds should be better for some things then others. Making choices about how you BUILD your character IS part of the typical gameplay of RPG's and part of the fun/appeal for alot of players of them.
Completely agreed. Let's let players form these builds constantly as they adjust to new circumstances.
- Prerequisites are a Good Thing, learning certain abilities should unlock other more advanced abilities. Not vastly more powerfull, mind you...but more specialized in providing a specific function.
I like prerequisites in general, but I don't think it will work in this sandbox. Making advanced abilities just a little more powerful diminishes the ability of the newbie with whom the 20/20/20 is going to come into contact with consistently and promotes the gravitation toward a single or a few 'optimal builds.'
To return to the guitar player analogy, I'd like the guy with the beat-up ukulele to be able to 'beat' the guy with the beautiful, <insert favorite guitar here>, assuming that the ukulele player is well-prepared and can play the hell out of that thing. The other guy has 5 beautiful, high-quality instruments, but he chose the wrong tool to 'win the crowd.'
- With thier existing model GW is going to have to be VERY carefull about how abilities stack together or combine, or they will end up not meeting thier design goals of allowing players to be competitive with more experienced characters.
Definitely, and I think the hybrid system addresses this point exceptionally well, without limiting the player based on game code or past decisions. Letting the player choose his/her character's limits seems like a really exciting proposition to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius,
If I have trained whatever skill is necessary for me to learn active combat ability X, and I meet all the prerequisites to use X, then I want to be able to use X whenever I feel X is appropriate.
If you think I should not be allowed to do this, can you give your reasons why? I'm not asking you what you think would be fun. I really want to understand the specific reasons why you feel I should not be allowed to play this way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is nothing wrong with role-playing a rogue that uses a set of 30 abilities out of 80 (indeed, you could choose any 30 skills to rotate through your hotbar, and still always be viable!), just don't impose this restriction with the game system.It's statements like that that leave me confused about what you're trying to achieve.
Hmm, what exactly is confusing? I'm trying to make my goals clear at first and then at the end of my posts, with examples to help illustrate my goals in the middle.
This seems to function similarly to a WoW talent tree, only there is no way to respec...PFO is 100% opposite of WoW Talent Trees because of the simple fact that, if I change my mind on how I want to spec after a year, I still keep every skill I've already trained, plus all the new ones I train, rather than having to give up the old skills in order to make room for the new.
Here is the full quote:
This seems to function similarly to a WoW talent tree, only there is no way to respec; you're stuck with either bad decisions you made when you were a newbie (potentially 'easily' fixable given a couple months to train) or long-term decisions you were forced to make 1 year into the game (fixable in a year).
PFO has no code yet; this is why we can have a fruitful discussion on what it could be. You're right, though, in the PFO that you have loosely described, you would have the skills you already trained. But, you could not 'switch' those skill points to a different 'focus.' You will get all the new ones you train, but you have to wait a couple years for your character to reach the same proficiency in your new focus. For maximum effectiveness, you must continue using your current skills for awhile after you decide to change your tactics. This period may be as short as a month, or as long as a year; that depends on how abilities are given out. I might find a month to be nearly intolerable if I had come to make that big of a decision.
This seems functionally equivalent to a situation in which you can put points in whichever talent tree you wish or distribute them along the lower areas as you wish, but you could never switch where you put your points. The difference from WoW being that you could level up high enough to fill all talent trees completely, such that you could use all abilities and fill all class roles at full effectiveness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT; added this quote, as the next section further explains my thinking
If I have trained whatever skill is necessary for me to learn active combat ability X, and I meet all the prerequisites to use X, then I want to be able to use X whenever I feel X is appropriate.If you think I should not be allowed to do this, can you give your reasons why? I'm not asking you what you think would be fun. I really want to understand the specific reasons why you feel I should not be allowed to play this way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, the choice of which abilities to use and when is no longer dominated by what the developer designed the 'core' abilities to be or which build you chose:When I ask myself, 'will I be able to utilize this ability in this upcoming encounter?', a very large portion of the answer is determined by my character's proficiency at using that ability. I'd rather it be determined by the player's proficiency at using that ability. And by this, I don't mean the player's dexterity and intelligence scores, which allow him to remember and hit complicated keystrokes (=P), but rather the player's ability to recognize an encounter (typical part of exploring an MMO) and prepare for it accordingly, keeping in mind variables such as possible enemy strategies, team strategy, and groupmates' abilities.
I'd like a system in which I'm neither limited by the character development choices I made over a year ago, nor the roles or niche the game designers believe my class should fill. I'm limited by my choice of equally viable skills prior to the engagement, with more choices earned in time through skill training.
As stated before, I would be fine with letting players decide for themselves how many abilities they wanted available to them in a single combat; maybe make it easy enough for somebody to go from 8-12, and, like other skills, add more time to have up to 16 available at a given time.
I think there are plenty of other perhaps 'more casual' players out there that don't want their personal fingertip dexterity and keystroke memorization to be a major a factor in how useful their character is in battle.
I find the added depth that thinking about what an opponent is prepared to do an additional engaging aspect of combat.
Removed a post and reply to it. This was entirely inappropriate. Please take a moment to reflect on the messageboard rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Andius,
If I have trained whatever skill is necessary for me to learn active combat ability X, and I meet all the prerequisites to use X, then I want to be able to use X whenever I feel X is appropriate.
If you think I should not be allowed to do this, can you give your reasons why? I'm not asking you what you think would be fun. I really want to understand the specific reasons why you feel I should not be allowed to play this way.
Because it is not balanced. After you add a certain amount of abilities it is simply too much for any human to manage. Unfortunately that doesn't mean people won't find a way to manage them.
For example in Darkfall one character could use any weapon, skill, or ability in the game that they had the skill level to use but there were simply too many spells for it to be viable to use them all. Rather than accepting those limitations we found ways around them. I now own a 17 button razor naga mouse and know how to create macros in auto-hotkey because of Darkfall. Sure it takes a lot of keystrokes to switch from your healing skillbar to your melee skillbar, change to your melee weapon, unsheath it, and select a good opening attack. Thankfully this wasn't a manual process for me:
*^1::
send, +q ;selects sword
send, +1 ;selects 1st hotbar
sleep, 150
send, +p ;unsheathes
sleep, 250
send, 2 ;selects whirlwind
Return,
That script basically says if I press control 1, to execute all those commands. If I got hurt I could duck behind an obstacle and immediately switch to my self heals:
*^4::
send, +z ;selects staff
send, +p ;unsheathes
sleep, 150
send, +7 ;selects 7th hotbar
sleep, 250
send, 1 ;selects stamina to health
Return,
Learning to be a better player was 70% a process of tightening down your macros and finding the best keybindings.
Now imagine for a second that we went with my system that allows you to access 500 abilities and you could access all 500 at the same time. Lets say we have the following abilities for your barbarian:
Hamstring- Cripples the opponent lowering movements speed by 50% for 10 seconds.
Slash- Does 20 damage and makes your opponent bleed for 10 seconds.
Wounding Chop- Lowers your opponents max health by 20 for 30 seconds.
Staggering Blow- Disrupts opponent's current action and staggers them for 10 seconds.
Cull the Weak- Does 10 damage for every condition on your target.
That requires you to activate 5 separate abilities. Memorize their locations on your skillbars and get them off at the correct timing. However I can use a macro:
*^4::
send, +z ; use Hamstring
sleep, 125
send, +p ; use Slash
sleep, 125
send, +7 ; use Staggering Blow
sleep, 125
send, ^8; use Wounding Chop
sleep, 125
send ^9; use Cull the Weak
Return,
With any decent amount of skills I can set up combo after combo like this, and with some fancy programming I can even put in ways to halt the combo in the middle of something goes wrong and resume it again later should I feel like it.
With the proper keyboard, mouse, keybinding configuration, and macro setup, and can REALLY tear it up.
People using the keyboard and mouse that came with the computer and no outside programs stand NO chance at all. I personally do not feel like expensive hardware and outside programs should be a requirement to play a game.
Limiting the abilities that you can use at one time means, sure you can have your 5 ability combo that rocks people's socks. But you give up some versatility to pull it off. You aren't going to be running tons of these combos just one or two. You are on a much more even playing field with people who haven't invested tons of money into their equipment and aren't using outside programs.
Goblinworks Founder
|
Biggest usage of slots are spell casters. Especially if you dip into another classes spell list.
Arcane and Divine share some similar spells but also have their own. You are going to need buttons for each spell you have prepared and by level 20 PnP game wise you had a ton of spells as your disposal. Would you use all them; not in a normal day, clerics might get the most use of lower level spells for their spontaneous spell switch for heals.
So you would have the spells you might use in an encounter, but then I guess I'm not putting into thought their spell system. If they are going to use mana bars/spell points or go more like the PnP version and have you use what you memorized and how many times you might of memorized that spell (three fireballs for that day). Then spells taking up slots modified by feats like Empowered spell.
Ones with special abilities have to have buttons for those too or separate spell ones set aside for classes like Clerics/Paladins who have their spells, undead turning ability, and Paladins Lay On hands taking up slots. Druids with wild shape and a menu that's either setup before hand of what animals they want to change into or on the fly. Gah then we have Bards with their Bardic abilities/spells. Like to see if Bardic Knowledge has a place in the game.
Only ones I see with low number of action buttons are Warriors/Rogues who were limited to Feats being their active ability and the basic attack button.
Then you have magic items with special abilities taking up 1+ slots as well. Unless they resort to on-hit abilities or just flat stat bonuses from enchants.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Biggest usage of slots are spell casters. Especially if you dip into another classes spell list.
Arcane and Divine share some similar spells but also have their own. You are going to need buttons for each spell you have prepared and by level 20 PnP game wise you had a ton of spells as your disposal. Would you use all them; not in a normal day, clerics might get the most use of lower level spells for their spontaneous spell switch for heals.
So you would have the spells you might use in an encounter, but then I guess I'm not putting into thought their spell system. If they are going to use mana bars/spell points or go more like the PnP version and have you use what you memorized and how many times you might of memorized that spell (three fireballs for that day). Then spells taking up slots modified by feats like Empowered spell.
Ones with special abilities have to have buttons for those too or separate spell ones set aside for classes like Clerics/Paladins who have their spells, undead turning ability, and Paladins Lay On hands taking up slots. Druids with wild shape and a menu that's either setup before hand of what animals they want to change into or on the fly. Gah then we have Bards with their Bardic abilities/spells. Like to see if Bardic Knowledge has a place in the game.
Only ones I see with low number of action buttons are Warriors/Rogues who were limited to Feats being their active ability and the basic attack button.
Then you have magic items with special abilities taking up 1+ slots as well. Unless they resort to on-hit abilities or just flat stat bonuses from enchants.
That is why I think my system is best. The designers can look at the classes and say "You know I really think this warrior needs less ability slots than this wizard." If they decide they want every paladin to have turn undead and lay on hands they can make it so slotting those skills generates another ability slot.
A system which just allows access to everything will like illustrated above, turn into a system where you spend more time on keybindings and macros then you do on your actual character.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Yeah limiting the buttons or at least letting you switch your action buttons on the fly like Guild Wars 2 is doing with weapon switches total of 10 (5 each) and another 5 for utility; it works out nicely and having you flip weapons for your combos. Still Pathfinder will have more to it in the way of spells so how they handle it remains to be seen.
I have my attack/spell damage bars, hit the "`" and it flips to my heal spell/buff spells or escape setup. Just depends on what you have out, if your spellbook/holy symbol is in your hand then it switches to select spells you've set up.
Can see the Lay on Hands or Turn Undead being passive abilities if they choose to go that route for their paladin or cleric oriented characters.