Goblin Squad Member
|
Most recent games that I can think of have unlimited ammunition. Whats PFOs take on this? Unlimited basic ammo? Recoverable arrows? Can you make arrows in the field or do you need a crafting station? Will there be a slot for magic quivers? Thrown daggers recoverable?
Well in general the reasoning for that in many games is to make it so that ranged classes aren't far more obnoxious to play than mellee and spellcasters.
From the sounds of it, I'm seeing high possibility of the opposite. Many hints have been made to using melee weapons to optimum efficiency to rely on.
So... TBH I think it will be more likely that swords will need something that functions similarly to ammunition, rather than bows won't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
granted finding a +1 bow/crossbow solves that b/c your arrows are +1 when shot.
My guess, (and this is entirely a guess, but based on reasonable evidence). The general viewpoint of the consumable portion of weapons and armors, vs the portion that cannot be lost if equipped and can be used on your trip to find your husk. Is that the consumable portion of the weapon, is the enchant, whether we are talking swords, bows, daggers, staves etc... In other words a +1 flaming holy sword, could actually just be a sword, using a +1 flaming holy consumable. That sword itself may be something you just buy once, but those consumables will regularly be upgraded and switched out. Now how the consumables will work is fully unknown, it could be anything from an orb that uses up one charge every swing, or every hit, or used once every X time period, day, hour, refresh, who knows.
The intent of the weapon and armor not dropping on death, is to give a character the minimum they need to be able to use their skills, on the trip back to the corpse. By that logic, regular arrows do need to be either protected with the weapon, or viewed as an unlimited portion of the bow (as obviously a bow skilled character, needs some arrows to use his skills), but the consumable portion will still have to exist for the bow to function "optimally".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was thinking the consumables would be more like sharpening stones. A +4 Holy consumable would have to be common enough to buy in quantities which would severly take away the excitement of finding such a great weapon.
Completed great weapons are unlikely to be "found" ever. it isn't an absolute rule but it has been stated as a guideline, for the most part, enemies will rarely if ever drop completed items, NPCs will sell some basics, and the good equipment is going to be crafted. Killing monsters etc... is another form of harvesting, that will grant crafting materials, that will be refined, and constructed into something else.
Secondly why would they have to be found in quantities that take away excitement of getting them? That is mostly founded on the stereotype from theme park MMO's that assumes you use the best thing you have, always for everything. While I believe the intent is not that you use your +4 holy weapon to clear out the boars in the forest, the minor undeads etc..., but you hold onto it for the epic battle against a great demon lord, or a great dragon, or in the seige that determines if your kingdom stands or falls. Your super powerful weapons, are not needed or intended when delivering moderately expensive goods, harvesting basic materials, or even your every day dungeon crawl, they enable you to take leaps and bounds of greatness, not necessarily become permanently great.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the concept of some consumable element for all weapons holds. For melee and thrown weapons it could be something like oil & whetsone. For missle weapons (bows and crossbows) it would make sense that the consumables were the arrows themselves. What you could probably do is allow archers a fairly easly learned merit badge to put together "improvised arrows" from the surroundings which functioned as inferior ammunition. That pretty much preserves the concept that weapons still be functional in a reduced capacity when the player was out of consumables.
This preserves the basic high level concepts of combat/weapons while still allowing for some meaningfull points of differentiation within weapon choices for the player. For example, melee and thrown weapons have limited range but never run out of ammo...they continue to function in a reduced capacity in combat even when thier consumable wear out. Missle weapons have longer ranges but are dependant upon ammunition to function... the archer must have some consideration about ammunition consumption because they need to be out of combat to resupply thier weapon with at least inferior ammunition from the surroundings.
It's a meaningfull difference that forces the player to consider how the weapon is used and employed and it's advantages and disadvantages relative to other weapons but doesn't stray outside the bounds of the basic concepts for how weapons function within the game/game economy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... enemies will rarely if ever drop completed items...
I don't think that's right. I think NPC enemies will drop completed items, they just won't drop the "best" items. However, I'm having trouble finding the quote right now - there seems to be a problem with my browser or this website when trying to go to the 2nd or later pages of a search of user's posts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... enemies will rarely if ever drop completed items...I don't think that's right. I think NPC enemies will drop completed items, they just won't drop the "best" items. However, I'm having trouble finding the quote right now - there seems to be a problem with my browser or this website when trying to go to the 2nd or later pages of a search of user's posts.
Perhaps it is an exaduration, but I don't think I'm very far off. The general idea of what goblinworks wants, is for adventurers to be an active part of the supply chain. They are looking to make a full circle here.
IE refiners sell to crafters, crafters sell to adventurers/harvesters, adventurers/harvesters sell to refiners... I could dig up no shortage of quotes where adventurers are reffered to as a form of harvesters.
Dropping good gear that bypasses the use of the rest of the chain obviously causes a huge blocking point in the system. As would primarally just dropping cash/npc junk, as that would be a bit too big of a faucet, leading to excess inflation, while turning adventurer into an end point not a circle.
I think it would be best if the loot recovered from most bodies was crafting components. That's not a hard & fast rule, but it's a good starting point. Adventurers should be a resource faucet for crafters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi, I think you're right about it in general. I just wanted to point out that I think it won't be all that rare for enemies to drop complete items.
I could be wrong, though. When I was searching, the only thing I found was a quote about not being able to buy the "best" items via microtransactions, so I may have gotten that confused with mob drops.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi, I think you're right about it in general. I just wanted to point out that I think it won't be all that rare for enemies to drop complete items.
I could be wrong, though. When I was searching, the only thing I found was a quote about not being able to buy the "best" items via microtransactions, so I may have gotten that confused with mob drops.
Well I suppose it all comes down to what the definition of "most" will turn out to be I suppose. Most could mean anything from 99.999999%, to 51%. My interpretation of that seems to imply completed items as very rare, at the very least it is more common to find all the pieces needed to have something crafted, than it is to find a completed item (regardless of whether the completed one even holds a candle to the crafted one), again though that is my subjectivity, and more along the lines of how I would use the word "most".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In terms of drops, I'm kinda expecting what we'll see from humanoid type opponents mostly is broken weapons and armor. Things that can be scrapped/stripped down for crafting components.
I'm pretty sure that Onishi is dead on about the role PvE treasure is supposed to have in the overall economy...an input for cash and for certain types of crafting materials. Thematicaly it doesn't make sense for every NPC bandit and orc to be carrying around lumps of iron ore, etc... but not to hard to imagine that thier weapons and gear get trashed in the fight to the point that it's better to scrap them then try to repair them. The scrapped components can then act as a feed into the crafting system much the way that mined raw materials are. Maybe occasionaly you would get something in usable shape...that wouldn't be horrible if it was fairly mundane stuff (especialy consumables) and on an uncommon basis...but more then that and you would start circumventing the crafting cycle as suggested.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really torn on this subject. Consumable ammo is generally a pain.
Then again, it adds a level of authenticity, allows for interesting ammo types, and drives the economy.
One interesting compromise might to have a basic ammo type that is unlimited or can be created in the field for free, and an advanced ammo that is limited / made by crafters. For instance you can use crude stone head arrows / bolts for your bow / crossbow that can be created anywhere for free, or basic rocks for your sling. However to be more effective you need steelhead arrows / bolts made by a fletcher, or sling bullets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's an interesting problem.
In Theme Parks like WoW, I think there's good reason for unlimited ammo because it shouldn't be easy for players to make a simple mistake (forgetting to buy ammo) that makes them nearly useless.
I wouldn't be surprised to see unlimited ammo in PFO as well. But I could easily see there being "upkeep" consumables that are required for nearly all classes. To me, the key is not creating a mechanic that is particular to one Role, that makes it easy for players to completely cripple their character with a trivial mistake.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see what you're saying Nihimon to transpose resource management so that a particular mechanic for a particular weapon/role does not take you down a bad path.
But I do like the idea as DLH says of different costs to varying things. So I guess it's a toss up between a simple/safe and robust solution that deals with resource management and how to vary how players interact based on differences in that resource management. Good problems to have.
I just read this thread for 1st time recently and I'm interested in this angle to combat and items. I think if combat is a form of tab-target, then the decision-making process must be that much more meaningful, and this consideration of what you do before, during and after combat and variable states of redress enhances the combat itself. That's not to paint tab-target in a bad light, but to ensure it serves the purpose of a mental combat as much as visually/spacially interesting scenario.
Eg When you have a few valuable arrows, does that mean you use them on a target and lose them or do you try to "gather" them back, leads to your decisions when using your bow. If you miss: you'll curse!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But I do like the idea as DLH says of different costs to varying things.
I do too. I would much rather see diverse, organic costs rather than a cookie-cutter cost that feels like they just changed the name from Role to Role. My only concern is having "hidden" costs that are much higher for one Role. If Human Nature would naturally lead one Role to experience a much higher "cost" due to simple mistakes, then that needs to be factored in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm really curious to know what people think of my compromise. Cheap less effective ammo that can be built in the field alongside expensive more effective ammo that must be made by a crafter.
For simplicity's sake I would say it is an action that you take and your character sits there and makes motions like they are picking up stones or putting together arrows, and at the end of the action 50 crude stone-head arrows or 50 sling rocks appear in your inventory.
It will solve the problem of ranged weapon focused character not having anything to shoot if they don't pack enough ammo for their adventure, but it still creates a market for premium ammo.
Plus it makes sense. Back in those days most people who used a sling or a bow would know how to make arrows in the field or find a good rock for hurling with a sling, but they wouldn't be as effective as what could be purchased through a fletcher or bullet maker, or supposing the character is one of those things, they wouldn't be as effective as what they could make with their professional tools/materials.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is the intended effect to make weak archery abilities cost coin and strong archery abilities consume worked resources? Is a coin or resource cost to use an ability consistent with game balance?
I was thinking the weak ammo would be free. I didn't specify if it would block abilities or just do less damage. I'd like to see more about the combat system before I say which is preferable.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Plus it makes sense. Back in those days most people who used a sling or a bow would know how to make arrows in the field ...
Actually this is false, back in the day arrows were treated with as much care as a blade, and were never considered expendable. They were recovered whenever possible and war arrows (war arrow heads were never used for hunting) were even more well taken care of. Therefore arrows were carefully crafted and made to last.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Is the intended effect to make weak archery abilities cost coin and strong archery abilities consume worked resources? Is a coin or resource cost to use an ability consistent with game balance?I was thinking the weak ammo would be free. I didn't specify if it would block abilities or just do less damage. I'd like to see more about the combat system before I say which is preferable.
I was considering every implementation of 'less effective' as 'weak'.
I think that having a meaningful cost to use some abilities is acceptable, but deciding what that cost should be requires looking at the entire combat system. One possibility would be that arrows require virtually no resources to create, but have very large variance in quality depending on the precise materials used, the buildings in the settlement used to make the arrows, and the abilities of the crafter. If so, then there would have to be analogous systems for melee and spells. I have no idea what a good analog for melee weapons would be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually this is false, back in the day arrows were treated with as much care as a blade, and were never considered expendable. They were recovered whenever possible and war arrows (war arrow heads were never used for hunting) were even more well taken care of. Therefore arrows were carefully crafted and made to last....
Plus it makes sense. Back in those days most people who used a sling or a bow would know how to make arrows in the field ...
Definately true for arrows and crossbows were only realy used by specialized proffesional soldiers so bolts wouldn't even be commonly available. Part of slings popularty was that one could litteraly pick up ammunition off the ground (stones) even if it was less effective. It was a very cheap weapon often employed by shepards in guarding thier flocks but could actualy be quite effective.
However, I think it's fair to make some concessions in order to get the weapons to fit in with the overall weapon mechanics that the Developers intend for PFO. So not too hard to imagine that a skilled archer is capable of fletching crude arrows from the environment so that his primary weapon is still functional though in a less effective fashion if he happens to get killed and lose his inventory. I doubt most players would actualy want to go that route in most PvP or PvE situations due to the drop in effectivness. You could definately make it unattractive enough that the player would only consider it for the easiest of mobs and probably not at all in PvP unless they had no other option. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan imagines that weapons will be less effective without a consumable applied. I imagine that for melee weapons we will have something like oil, sharpening stone, etc. and for ranged weapons we will have ammo. 'No ammo' would be generic, while ammo that took resources to produce would be the oil/sharpening stone equivalent.
If we'd rather require the archer to use a 'forage' skill to find free ammo for his/her weapon for immersion/rp purposes, that's fine, though I wouldn't mind them to just default to some generic, free ammo.
In this case, ranged weapons would differentiate from melee weapons in that their effectiveness would decrease after a certain number of shots fired, whereas (I imagine) melee weapons will simply have a buff applied for a certain time period from the oil/sharpening stone.
Obviously, it could be set up so that both weapons had 'buffs' for a certain time period or that both buffs were based on use, but there are plenty of people that have posted in this thread that they would like some differentiation between this aspect of the weapons. I think that would be interesting and I support it, but dread the inevitable cries for 'balance.'
Another option is to have ammo to be in a protected slot. Say, a 'quiver of steel arrows' in the off-hand slot when a bow is equipped, and then still have oils or something to apply to the arrows/bow just like there are for melee weapons. This would be cool because it would differentiate ranged weapons from melee weapons in that there are two aspects to upgrade for increased damage. I personally like the other idea, though.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the balance is that ammo weapons work at full effectiveness until they run out ammo and then stop working, while melee weapons degrade gracefully over time and then need to be maintained, that's fine. It provides situational advantages and disadvantages, which is a good thing.
The case to avoid is where there are two equally effective characters, of similar time, where one has significantly cheaper operating costs without some compensating disadvantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the balance is that ammo weapons work at full effectiveness until they run out ammo and then stop working, while melee weapons degrade gracefully over time and then need to be maintained, that's fine. It provides situational advantages and disadvantages, which is a good thing.
The case to avoid is where there are two equally effective characters, of similar time, where one has significantly cheaper operating costs without some compensating disadvantage.
Agreed, and again I do have to make sure to emphasize one point however, operating costs have to remain comparable in the long run as well. One thing I see suggested too often is things like, a one time Huge cost, vs a low continuous cost, that IMO does not work. The general idea of weapons being upgraded at a predictable pace (presuming of course that they don't have a set finite expiration, now if the weapons do have say consistent degradation, and require comparable cost of materials to repair, then they can be balanced against ammunition/components evenly. But as a 1 time lump sum, then negligible repairs afterwards... in which the next cost is dependent on when the player choses to make a lump sum payment, you hit the same issue as why goblinworks doesn't do a lifetime subscription.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lots of depth to the discussion. Need to think about all this.
One consideration that perhaps people may not like but is worth mentioning, that you have your number of arrows and when you use them up, you need to be able to have time to fletch some more or get some more from somewhere readily available. And possibly scavenge some during combat.
This way, you run out of arrows and must rely on other weapons. I wonder if that makes sense to go more extremely in that direction?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Different capital costs for equally effective equipment also isn't very effective at balance. Long term economic trends will either leave no room for new players or allow long-established groups significantly richer over time, or both. What starts as a major investment will eventually become mass produced.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yup, having ammo be the consumable for missle weapons on a high level is functionaly equivalent to oil or whetstones or whatever they pick to be the consumable for melee weapons. Fits within the same system, just themeaticaly different. From there the specific details can be tweaked as neccessary to allow for meaningfull differentiation while still having some semblance of balance. Alot of that is really going to depend on the limitations of the game engine itself though, which we can't comment on intelligently at this point.
Missle weapons do have an inherent advantage in that you don't need to be standing right next to your target to damage it. Just how big of an advantage that is highly dependant on the game engine and resource requirements that GW ultimately decide on though.
For example in WWII Online, rifles (the basic infantry weapon) really do have an effective combat range in game of a couple hundred meters and movement rates of characters is pretty close to realistic. Thier engine is built to accomodate that. That means that the advantage of ranged weapons is so huge that melee is just a non-factor in combat. Which is themeaticaly appropriate for the setting.
In most themepark MMO's though, effective combat/draw range is so tiny and movement rate of players/mobs is so accentuated that the range advantage of missle weapons is pretty small or even negilgable. Thus they balance off of that.
Where PFO ends up falling on that scale is going to have a huge effect on the inherent advantage that range has, and what that means to combat itself. So it's tough to have a meaningfull discussion about the details without knowing what those parameters are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... having ammo be the consumable for missle weapons on a high level is functionaly equivalent to oil or whetstones or whatever they pick to be the consumable for melee weapons.
Except that, once you run out of ammo, your missile weapon is completely ineffective. That's not the same as your melee weapon being less effective when your oil wears off.
You're absolutely right about the rest, though.
And I like your new avatar.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... having ammo be the consumable for missle weapons on a high level is functionaly equivalent to oil or whetstones or whatever they pick to be the consumable for melee weapons.Except that, once you run out of ammo, your missile weapon is completely ineffective. That's not the same as your melee weapon being less effective when your oil wears off.
You're absolutely right about the rest, though.
And I like your new avatar.
Well, I was assuming something like Andius's suggestion of being able to scrounge or the weapon automaticaly using crude, less effective ammo when it didn't have access to consumable ammo was in effect. That would make them functionaly equivalent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-snip- Missle weapons do have an inherent advantage in that you don't need to be standing right next to your target to damage it. Just how big of an advantage that is highly dependant on the game engine and resource requirements that GW ultimately decide on though.
For example in WWII Online, rifles (the basic infantry weapon) really do have an effective combat range in game of a couple hundred meters and movement rates of characters is pretty close to realistic. Thier engine is built to accomodate that. That means that the advantage of ranged weapons is so huge that melee is just a non-factor in combat. Which is themeaticaly appropriate for the setting.
In most themepark MMO's though, effective combat/draw range is so tiny and movement rate of players/mobs is so accentuated that the range advantage of missle weapons is pretty small or even negilgable. Thus they balance off of that.
Where PFO ends up falling on that scale is going to have a huge effect on the inherent advantage that range has, and what that means to combat itself. So it's tough to have a meaningfull discussion about the details without knowing what those parameters are.
That's what I'm thinking: You need to make a choice to use a ranged weapon based on your ammo supply and therefore target selection and timing of use of that ammo limit to maximise the advantage of range when you think it can be best achieved. That could vary with time to change weapons, rate of firing arrows, penalty for bow vs sword in hand-to-hand, total capacity to carry arrows/ammo - all those variables could be increased for players training in bow skills. Added to that fletching skills variables also.
That way ranged weapons have advantages, but not unlimited ones and possibly sub-optimal/jeopardy if target is within melee striking range or x seconds within range for eg.
I wonder if a lot of mmorpg combat with players pew-pewing to their hearts content really makes for a better combat experience? I think context should dramatically alter the use of bows and limited arrow is one of those? This all said from someone who likes nothing more than pew-pewing from a cowardly range!
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It is almost the same as having your weapon break and be unusable until you use repair kit. I don't see an in-theme way for unarmed attacks to have that mechanic.
I would love to see movement speeds compared to missile weapon ranges be the same inaccurate as the PFRPG; 1100 feet absolute maximum range for a composite longbow. A level 6 human monk with the right feat can cross this distance in the time it takes a level 6 ranger to fire 12 arrows, if he was going for speed and not accuracy; a fast character can close from outside of range to melee very quickly, but a slow character would be unable to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see an in-theme way for unarmed attacks to have that mechanic.
Broken hands/feet?
I would love to see movement speeds compared to missile weapon ranges be the same inaccurate as the PFRPG; 1100 feet absolute maximum range for a composite longbow.
I worry that there may be technical limitations that make it impractical to even have other characters rendered at such distances, much less targetable. Although, I wouldn't complain too much if in-combat movement rates were slow enough to provide a reasonably similar end result.
|
|
You also have to consider other factors as well, for example if bows did more damage then swords, would limited ammo be more acceptable then? I think so.
There are many factors to consider not just money and time. You really need to balance damage over time and any other effects of useing that weapon,
Let's say a character can make 1000gp in a week,
A fighter buys a 650gp sword and spends 50gp avg per day in repairs,
An archer buys a 200gp bow and spends 100gp avg per day on arrows,
A mage spends 130gp per day on food and spell componants,
They all have about the same money costs over a week and the fighter will need a new sword next week because of durability, however each has advantages, the sword lasts throughout the encounter, the bow doesn't but it does more damage, the mage doesn't last either but she can do things the others can't as well as AOE effects.
Thus each is balanced by factors outside of cost, you can even play with the balance a bit by upping the cost and damage of arrows, and the archers still fits even though he gets less arrows each week. The fact that he must conserve his ammo and that each miss hurts makes him balanced to the fighter who can swing away ut won't hit as hard and will be replacing his blade next week.
Of course I hope they make the durability degrade by use, it would suck to play one day a week and always need to buy a new weapon everytime I log on.
Speaking as someone who intends to play a Ranger and also as someone who is hoping that combat options come from equipment rather than 'abilities', I'm very much hoping that ranged combatants get ammo that can adapt to a number of situations. However, it shouldn't mean that I get less backpack space as you did before they did away with ammo in WoW.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You also have to consider other factors as well, for example if bows did more damage then swords, would limited ammo be more acceptable then? I think so.
I think that if bows are generally better in every situation than swords, a failure condition exists.
If bows are more effective in some situations, equally effective in some, and less effective in others, but have an added cost in all situations, they are in general worse by the amount of the added cost.
I agree in principle that total cost of ownership could be managed with capital and maintenance costs. The economics of making that work are nontrivial, especially when those costs are most properly measured in raw materials and skilled labor of varying availability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You also have to consider other factors as well, for example if bows did more damage then swords, would limited ammo be more acceptable then? I think so.I think that if bows are generally better in every situation than swords, a failure condition exists.
If bows are more effective in some situations, equally effective in some, and less effective in others, but have an added cost in all situations, they are in general worse by the amount of the added cost.
I agree in principle that total cost of ownership could be managed with capital and maintenance costs. The economics of making that work are nontrivial, especially when those costs are most properly measured in raw materials and skilled labor of varying availability.
Cost of ownership does fall into the legitimate factors that can be used to differentiate weapons (IMO). I don't see much of a problem with a weapon that is generaly more powerfull then average but costs more to run/maintain. Generaly though, I would like to see bows/xbows balanced with melee by situational factors rather then costs. I think once you start digging down within a broad category of weapons then it's a good place to start bringing costs into the equation...i.e. X sword is generaly more powerfull across the board then Y sword but costs more to run, Y bow is more expensive then Z bow but is more expensive to use. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I would like to see bows/xbows balanced with melee by situational factors rather then costs.
Slightly off-topic, but I really hope that the magical bonuses that get added to weapons of any kind serve to differentiate them for different purposes rather than making them all-around more effective. For example, +2 vs Orcs rather than just +2.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see situational effectiveness come with situational disadvantages, e.g. bodkin point arrowheads versus flesh ripper arrowheads, or the armor piercing stilleto versus the lacerating handaxe.
Yes, although I don't think there is any need to limit things to a single axis, especialy once consumables get added into the mix....
So I'd see no problem with (for example)....
A Masterwork Yew Longbow which was firing a +1 Orc-Bane Bodkin Arrow.
You'd have some level in basic gradiation of the items. I see that as pretty much a neccesity in this type of game (especialy fantasy based genre) and not a big deal given that items are NOT expected to last forever (and can be balanced with significant cost differentiation), some factors that provide a situational bonus and only come at an OPPORTUNITY COST of eliminating other situational bonus (i.e. an arrow can only have a bane of one type) and same factors that have both a situational advantage and a situational disadvantage (bodkin arrows having better armor penetration but shorter range).
The Dev's cant set the cost of items directly in a crafting and player based economy...but clearly they can set how much effort goes into crafting a given item and how rare/common are the materials required for it.