Goblin Squad Member
|
I would much rather see time spent making climbing and swimming available to all characters (to varying degrees based on skill/badges and encumbrance) than flying.So people who aren't good at climbing because they don't have much in the way of physical stats or skills get to be the ones stuck to the floor, right...
Yeah, it is called consequences of your choices. I don't see the problem illustrated by your sarcasm, I would call that a feature that enables everyone to be good at something.
Likewise, I would like to see non-combat and non-flight uses of magic, such as teleport, within visual range.That's dimension door, not teleport.
Opps, thanks for the correction...point still stands.
I hope dark, gloomy forests have trees with branchesThere is no true darkness because lighting is handled client-side, and therefore, is hackable.
I have two problems with this, one) lighting is handled client-side with all current games...there is no reason it must be this way, and two) the point was the ability to utilize branches (hence z-axis), the dark and gloomy was only atmosphere.
I hope progression is not linear...except when it comes to leaving a solid surface. It would be better to nail everyone's eyelids to the floor than to considee flight.
When it comes to negating the huge effort to make the ground game work as intended....yes.
let us explore the dungeon as we are able....as long as that doesn't include a flight spell.
I am obviously not against a very limited flight/levitation as illustrated here. Do I want to see Golarion look like Aseroth with flying mounts everywhere...no.
Did not bring either a grappling hook or wizard with teleport (or other similar effects)...unless that effect is flight or levitation.
As above.
well you do not get to see what is down the wing of the cavern with the entrance 30ft off the cavern floor....because only rope-climbers need apply for adventuring anywhere off a paved road.
As above.
Don't bring a rogue who can pick locks? Well you do not get to get past the part with the ancient portcullis.Since there's no way in hell a knock spell or the ability to break an "ancient" (and likely rusted) gate should be included.
I was only illustrating a point, in the specific case given, those spells would also have the desired results, an open portcullis. Either way, the effect is still that certain challenges have to be met of you do not get past.
But also creatures. It annoys me seeing a harpy that flies 3ft of the ground, a harpy would fly up and swoop down, not come charging at you hovering just above the ground.
Very good point, I agree that flying creatures should have a vertical pathing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Still it would be cool if there were bonus area, like treasure rooms, hidden chambers, or extra bonuses for opening something a certain way, you just don't know what you'll discover, so who knows whether your archeologist, tomb raider, thief/lock picker or wizard will have the best/fastest way or be able to locate something, or get more out of something for not having to destroy it.
Or as I said in the ai one, puzzles and the like that anyone can do that might need thinking or teamwork to solve,
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keovar, we're presenting opinions and reasoning for our stance on flying and vertical spaces, and all you're doing is responding with how our thoughts aren't in line with yours so they must be lame and closed minded. You're not actually considering any of the reasons against flying, or trying to see any disagreeing points of view as having any merit. You haven't even really explained why flying should be implemented.
Forencith, I really like your ideas about vertical space through climbing and other movement spells. I would love to see a dungeon where you have to climb on ropes or throw a grappling hook. There could certainly be alternative routes for those who don't have the means to do some of the physical skills, though. Say the locked door for the rogue starts a very different passage to the same ultimate destination as the climb up to the elevated door.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The portcullis is a good example of choices. Break it down, pick the lock, Knock spell, whatever it takes to get it open. And if you don't have what it takes to get it open now, it doesn't mean you can't get something (or someone) you need and come back and open it later.
Same with a crevass. If a fighter type doesn't have a way to cross, what's to prevent him from finding/ buying something, like a rope or fly potion, and returning later. A thief could climb a wall to a cave 30 feet up and drop a rope to the rest of the party to join him.
Saying that only climbers need to apply for adventuring anywhere off a paved road is like saying only fighters need apply for combat or clerics tackle undead. There should always be choices to do something outside your main specialty, but without diversity in character abilities then everyone is the same and your class is just a name.
I'm not a big fan of PUGs in MMOs, especially if forced, and prefer to go solo a lot, but a party does have its benefits.
I agree with you totally. All problems should have a variety of solutions...but if you do not have a solution (or cannot think of one) you do not get past that point. Also, I agree someone should be able to go get a solution if possible, but here is where we need to remember that most dungeons will be temporary affairs created when found.
I was using climbing as an example case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also I can see potential for all kinda of cool stuff in the air. There will be water craft eventually, so why not sky craft, why not huge, lumbering sky craft using magic or hot air balloons that take a team to steer and keep up, and smaller faster, lighter ones that can carry less. So they take supplies on their sky barge, that's fine, you come in on your faster little sky mauraudrr with a group of raiders and kill one of the sneerers, the whole thing lists and crashes to the ground, you grab their loot and hop back on your raider with its getaway driver and take everything back to your own hideout, city.
See an army coming in airships to raid your city? Shoot it down with a wall mounted ballista.
I think the people saying no are just thinking about it if its done a particular way that's just fast, easy travel, but there no reason that has to be how the air is used. No reason it should be less risky, faster or bypass content from a conceptual concept.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Likewise, I would like to see non-combat and non-flight uses of magic, such as teleport, within visual range.That's dimension door, not teleport.Because I pick nits, dimension door is a teleportation spell. Its school is conjuration [teleportation]. No, it isn't teleport, but it does teleport you.
Personally I'd like to see content that allows the skill-based class archetypes like Rogues and Bards to use skills. If you choose to be a type that focuses on straight up fighting instead of mobility, then you should be allowed to, but I'd like the ability to generalize more.
Fair enough, on the dimension door bit.
As to using skills like that, yes, I'd like those options too, but some here apparently think the options should not include magical flight. It seems to me that there are enough ways to make it challenging that it isn't an answer to everything like some seem to assume. If there are archers, they can shoot at a flying person who has no cover, while they can take cover from the guy in the sky. Flying monsters would be a problem for flyers too, since they would likely have longer lines of sight, and less obstruction to seeing others in the air. Weight carried is enough of an issue to keep this from being a way to move most trade goods or loot. The fly skill would limit speed and manoeuvrability, and many things - from taking damage to high winds - could impose penalties to that skill. Wind should also affect arrow and bolt accuracy, so there's some level of trade-off, but to-hit bonuses or feats/badges to compensate for conditions are likely to be there for dedicated archers. If you get knocked out of the air, the ground is likely to finish you off, or a least leave you stunned long enough for an enemy to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keovar, we're presenting opinions and reasoning for our stance on flying and vertical spaces, and all you're doing is responding with how our thoughts aren't in line with yours so they must be lame and closed minded. You're not actually considering any of the reasons against flying, or trying to see any disagreeing points of view as having any merit. You haven't even really explained why flying should be implemented.
Those who are presenting ways to make it a more interesting and challenging feature are worth more consideration than those who simply say it can't work. I'm not opposed to there being plenty of approaches to obstacles, but there isn't a good reason for magic to be singled out for exclusion. Give each approach advantages and disadvantages, and the game feels more open. You could encounter similar situations with a variety of character types and have a new play experience for each. Assuming that one approach will always be best and removing it is an elimination process, not a developmental one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only concern with removing flying is that it removes a huge portion of those obstacles...and those obstacles are the content. All the things I have read that suggest new obstacles for flying are all obstacles that should also be there for people not flying as well...so the end result of flying, nullifying content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only concern with removing flying is that it removes a huge portion of those obstacles...and those obstacles are the content. All the things I have read that suggest new obstacles for flying are all obstacles that should also be there for people not flying as well...so the end result of flying, nullifying content.
I'm confused, if they face the same obstacles, how are they nullifying content?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my argument against flying: to be done right, they would need to spend a significant amount of time developing the airborne game, almost as much as would be spent on the ground game (or else flying manages to wreck the economy). I would *much* rather the development time be spent generating a really good ground game. Further, the middleware and game engine etc that would be needed to properly run a 3d MMO would be really quite expensive.
EDIT: This is, however, a biased opinion. I doubt I would use the flying game.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Okay time for my two cents. Personally I think there should be flight in the game. The key to a good sandbox is to be able to do anything in it. Key word is anything. With enough time and jelly beans you can do anything. Advantages and disadvantages should be weight able to the amount of time spent being able to do it. Sorry but flight should not be for everyone. Want a special mount that you can ride that can fly. Well guess what you better have the handle animal time and training to even get it to like you let alone time spent getting a ride skill high enough. Want a caster that can cast flight. Cool doesn't mean you should be flying to high before your spell effect wears off you fall 200+ feet to your doom. Something hits you in mid-air and you cant keep control just like the table top game if you cant make the dice checks to regain control while your falling to the ground. Your going splat.
There should also be enough monsters that fly high enough over the river kingdoms that keeps the very same amount of danger on the ground, in the air, and even in the water.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only concern with removing flying is that it removes a huge portion of those obstacles...and those obstacles are the content. All the things I have read that suggest new obstacles for flying are all obstacles that should also be there for people not flying as well...so the end result of flying, nullifying content.
Heights that can be dealt with in multiple ways, winds affecting missiles and movement, falling damage, airborne monsters, weight limitations... these all sound like things that could affect anyone, and be surmountable by various means.
Imagine a deep canyon that sometimes has a hunting manticore in it. Climbing the cliffs or flying from one over to the other are both dealing with the content. Someone on a rope is more likely to be out of strong winds, and can stop at ledges along the way if it seems a fight is likely. The flying sorcerer might get across more quickly, but she'd also be more exposed to the manticore seeing her, and if she gets slowed by winds, she may get knocked out of the air in a place where there's not a ledge 20' below, only the canyon floor 100' lower.
If there's a 'safe' flight path, players with bows and spells can pick up on that, and be ready to shoot someone down or hit them with a dispel, so the flyer plummets to their buddies waiting below.
Thing is, if they design the game with the idea that a 10' wall or 45-degree gradient are impassible, the world stays relatively flat. Trivializing content is only an issue when flight is added to such a flat environment. In an environment built with z-axis consideration, content trivialized with flight is likely to be trivial for someone on the ground too. The difference between flying over a building and running around the block isn't that big of a deal. If you're hanging around town a lot, you're more likely to be carrying heavier amounts of stuff since you're probably crafting, shopping or storing something. When you're in a dangerous situation, flying may just trade one obstacle for the risk of falling or attracting more attention.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only concern with removing flying is that it removes a huge portion of those obstacles...and those obstacles are the content. All the things I have read that suggest new obstacles for flying are all obstacles that should also be there for people not flying as well...so the end result of flying, nullifying content.Heights that can be dealt with in multiple ways, winds affecting missiles and movement, falling damage, airborne monsters, weight limitations... these all sound like things that could affect anyone, and be surmountable by various means.
Imagine a deep canyon that sometimes has a hunting manticore in it. Climbing the cliffs or flying from one over to the other are both dealing with the content. Someone on a rope is more likely to be out of strong winds, and can stop at ledges along the way if it seems a fight is likely. The flying sorcerer might get across more quickly, but she'd also be more exposed to the manticore seeing her, and if she gets slowed by winds, she may get knocked out of the air in a place where there's not a ledge 20' below, only the canyon floor 100' lower.
If there's a 'safe' flight path, players with bows and spells can pick up on that, and be ready to shoot someone down or hit them with a dispel, so the flyer plummets to their buddies waiting below.Thing is, if they design the game with the idea that a 10' wall or 45-degree gradient are impassible, the world stays relatively flat. Trivializing content is only an issue when flight is added to such a flat environment. Content trivialized with flight is likely to be trivial for someone on the ground too. The difference between flying over a building and running around the block isn't that big of a deal. If you're hanging around town a lot, you're more likely to be carrying heavier amounts of stuff since you're probably crafting, shopping or storing something. When you're in a dangerous situation, flying may just trade one obstacle for the risk of falling or attracting more...
+1
Environments should be THREE DIMENSIONAL. The disadvantage of picking an already established map is that if it is made for a 2D environment, the landscape itself may not have the features to make interesting use of the third dimension.
I'd love to have options like climbing a steep and treacherous mountain pass, or several possible mountain passes, going through mines, caves and tunnels underneath or going around the mountain range through forests, towns and along roads and rivers all as viable options to get to the same place. The long, safe route, the shorter, more dangerous routes.
When playing MMOs I tend to go off road and explore, climbing mountains and the like, jumping up steep slopes, I hate it when you are restricted from making use of ledges and the like, either jumping off them or climbing up them, particularly when the slope isn't even steep. Flying, swimming are just more ways to get around and see things, explore and adventure.
Really I'd like to see things like craftable magic carpets, broomsticks and the like that have enchantments on them, so they only fly for an amount of time before requirring recharging or replacing... creates a crafting market.
And as I said, I'd love to see big airship things that take groups to pilot, exploring the sky, and air pirates! I think the idea of big, slow, lumbering cargoships floating slowly through the air would create awesome content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the point I have been trying to make us flying doesn't have to be super powerful just because it is in-game. If sustainable flight requires significant training time, and consumes enough of your gear / ability slots, then is relegated to a scouting and harassment role, it will be a meaningful character choice like wearing heavy or light armor, or being a bard or fighter.
With every form of increased maneuverability comes downsides. Barbarians and rogues are more maneuverable than paladins and fighters who use heavy armor but can't take as much punishment. Mounted fighters move faster but can't turn as sharply or handle certain terrain types as well / are less accurate.
A ranged character (including ranged spells) in the air should fire slower and less accurately. They should be in danger of a fall if anything smacks them hard enough. Melee characters in the air have to swoop into melee range to attack. They shouldn't fare so well if met head on with weapon upraised (But pretty well in a surprise attack from the side or behind.)
So if 90%... or 50%... or probably even 30% of your army can fly... Not such a great deal if you are facing well organized ground troops. You want fliers to keep an eye on things, take care if enemy fliers doing the same thing, and swoop in to toss an alchemist fire on your enemies if they let their guard down. Not to be a huge part of your forces and certainly not to face the enemy in a prolonged engagement.
They should gear down a bit to keep airborne even if all they want to do is fight so trade by flight should be a non-factor. For wizards and such who grant temporary flight... It's a useful skill that takes skill slots. I would make climbing only require training and perhaps some items like climbing axes or rope for certain terrain types.
So basically flyers are as useful to have as bards, and all flyers as useful as all bards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've only skimmed the thread, and I apologize if this has already been said...
Personally, I think using terrain features as impassable obstacles is a cop-out. A vast chasm or a high mountain range shouldn't be impenetrable absent flying. Flying should simply be one of many ways of dealing with that obstacle. Teleporting past it should be another. Grabbing some rope and a Sherpa should be one as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've only skimmed the thread, and I apologize if this has already been said...
Personally, I think using terrain features as impassable obstacles is a cop-out. A vast chasm or a high mountain range shouldn't be impenetrable absent flying. Flying should simply be one of many ways of dealing with that obstacle. Teleporting past it should be another. Grabbing some rope and a Sherpa should be one as well.
I agree with most of what you said, the only impassable environmental features should be an ocean, without a boat of coarse, and some mountain ranges. Mountains even in the real world are hard to get over, the safest route is through a mountain pass and even those can have rock slides to make it impassable. Now just people on foot might be able to make it through a mountain range, but if you try to bring wagons and trade equipment it would be impossible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the point I have been trying to make us flying doesn't have to be super powerful just because it is in-game. If sustainable flight requires significant training time, and consumes enough of your gear / ability slots, then is relegated to a scouting and harassment role, it will be a meaningful character choice like wearing heavy or light armor, or being a bard or fighter.
This I could get behind. If you want to fly, you have to set out to make a character that can fly. It makes you sacrifice other character options to pursue it, which can make it less desirable for some people, which would make it less common.
I do still worry that flying scouts would end up being the superior scouts in most any situation, though. The advantage of being high above the ground, unrestricted by terrain is a pretty big one. The distance for sight will likely be higher than the distance for attacking, and all a scout has to do is see someone to ruin a well-laid plan. "Alright guys, we've been setting up this ambush for a while now. They'll be coming along this road any minute, and-- ah crap. They've got a flying guy. He sees us... and he's out range. Well, let's pack it in, fellas. They had a flying guy."
I've only skimmed the thread, and I apologize if this has already been said...
Personally, I think using terrain features as impassable obstacles is a cop-out. A vast chasm or a high mountain range shouldn't be impenetrable absent flying. Flying should simply be one of many ways of dealing with that obstacle. Teleporting past it should be another. Grabbing some rope and a Sherpa should be one as well.
I know you skimmed, but that's not what we're saying at all. Terrain obstacles absolutely shouldn't be impassable. They should present choices as to how to deal with them. There's a mountain range ahead, do you A) go around? B) try and climb it? C) look for a pass through the range? D) try and find a cave to go through from underneath?
My own worry is that if there's E) Fly over it, then that's what people are going to do every time. I get the feeling from this discussion that flying's going to get into PFO eventually. I'm not going to say that "That's a bad idea and it will totally ruin the game, nyah!", I just think it should be added very carefully, with a mind to all the ways it can affect the world an the choices in it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do still worry that flying scouts would end up being the superior scouts in most any situation, though. The advantage of being high above the ground, unrestricted by terrain is a pretty big one. The distance for sight will likely be higher than the distance for attacking, and all a scout has to do is see someone to ruin a well-laid plan. "Alright guys, we've been setting up this ambush for a while now. They'll be coming along this road any minute, and-- ah crap. They've got a flying guy. He sees us... and he's out range. Well, let's pack it in, fellas. They had a flying guy."
A flying scout can cover more ground more quickly. But I think stealth in the air should be impossible. When you are up there anyone who looks up can see something flying around pretty easy so traditional stealth scout are more useful when.
1. You don't want the enemy to know you see them.
2. They have strong anti-flier cover.
3. Your view is restricted from above due to trees, smoke, fog, etc.
4. The fight takes place underground
5. There are strong winds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Flight only cheapens the experience because it isn't integrated, it's tacked on.most of the time the sole purpose of flight becomes to get from a to b in the fastest possible time, this while thread has been some people saying it doesn't have to be and the other half saying it is.
With the bandits and scout- that assumes your bandits don't have a flier to take out scouts, and that your ambush site is visible from the air. Neither of these can be assumed.
Ever been oin a plane and looked at a forest? You can't see what's underneath the canopy. But that doesn't mean they can't see you.
Several solutions have been offered to the objections, but we never hear WHY they wouldn't work, or how content is bypassed, just that it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought I was pretty clear in my posts on the first page why I'm less than enthused.
Swimming, climbing, etc are different because they are extremely limited in scope, and so additional dev time only needs to be devoted to those places where it can take place. I am ambivalent about these limited mechanics because I think even these are a pretty ambitious goal, and I want to play all the other great stuff that PFO has to offer NOW ;)
I'd rather have resources devoted to a narrower focus and help improve quality of what is in that focus.
I guess it comes from my thinking that games that try to do too much, don't do anything very good. A game promises a, b, and c on release, and when it does release:
a. is passable
b. never sees the light of day, and
c. sucks so badly, it may as well have been left out
I think this is the same reason that so many people that have taken just a quick peek at the Kickstarter come to the forums and post assuming everything that they've read is just empty promises ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And what I just said was that you're thinking about a flying system tacked onto the world. Why does flying have to be less restrictive than climbing? We've given several ways in which there would be plenty of situations it would not be viable or difficult and bypass NOTHING.
Wind, air currents, creatures in the air, other players, traps, skill/ability based, time limits, range limits. How many more ways do you need? There's already more possibilities to make it more limited than ground travel right there!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But those things should also effect people on the ground. My non-flying bard should have to worry about "Wind, air currents, creatures in the air, other players, traps, skill/ability based" in addition to the ground -based content..so you are still bypassing all the things limited to the ground.
The other two, "time limits, range limits" are not content or challenges, they are simply limitations to your content defeating abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flight only cheapens the experience because it isn't integrated, it's tacked on.most of the time the sole purpose of flight becomes to get from a to b in the fastest possible time, this while thread has been some people saying it doesn't have to be and the other half saying it is.
With the bandits and scout- that assumes your bandits don't have a flier to take out scouts, and that your ambush site is visible from the air. Neither of these can be assumed.
Ever been oin a plane and looked at a forest? You can't see what's underneath the canopy. But that doesn't mean they can't see you.Several solutions have been offered to the objections, but we never hear WHY they wouldn't work, or how content is bypassed, just that it is.
The flier to take out the scout doesn't change the fact that the scout would see your flier or your party on the ground. Cover on the ground could help, I suppose that would be partly dependent on UI, whether or not brightly colored names will appear above heads. If they do, would they be obscured by foilage? Would tab-target be prevented by foilage?
I'm agreeing that a lot of these limitations and solutions to the problems that come flight could work. However, I think it will be a tricky balancing act to have these restrictions capable of keeping flight from being the go to form of transport for most players, and nerfing it into worthlessness. As much as I don't like or want flight personally, I'd also hate to see it implemented in such a way that those that want flight are handed a near useless version of it. Then no one really gets what they want.
Having it be something a character must focus on to get its usefulness sounds good. Having to spend training in flying specifically would make players choose between gaining flight or other, perhaps more practical skills.
Weight limitations seem to me to be a given, and would considerably help with preventing flying from becoming too powerful, but I don't see it as much addressing the problem of flight becoming too common.
Limited uses of flight from items would also be good. If its a finite resource, each use of flight will need to be considered, rather than "I need to get across town. Time to fly!"
I suppose I don't so much buy the "strong winds" bit that's getting thrown about. Building wind physics for it, as well as audio and visual cues to indicate its presence and direction, as well as a maneuvering system able to incorporate resistance in three dimensions is a lot of work.
The flying monsters solution doesn't seem a great fix to me either. In order to make it a real danger and limitation to flying, those monsters would need to be everywhere. A sky constantly full of griffons and giant eagles would be annoying to look at, and just wouldn't make sense in-universe.
And as for how content would be bypassed... it's on the ground. You fly over it. You avoid the dangers and risks of travelling where the people and monsters that can't fly are. You avoid geography that may be designed to present challenges and force you to make choices on how to deal with it.
Like I said, I know I'm in the minority against flight. I'm not trying to say there's no way it could work, or that the game shouldn't have it because I don't like it. I'm trying to point out that there are a lot of considerations to be made whenever the design of flight in PFO comes up. Some people are approaching flight as a given; that the issues its inclusion raises are trivial and easily addressed, and anyone opposed to flight is some kind of close-minded spoilsport. That's not really the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If bright names show up through trees, how do you expect it to work ground level? You'd have EXACTLY the same problem from ground view.
As for flying over obstacles, how do you fly over a terrain obstacle if you can't get above it? A canopy could be in the way, overhanging rocks, and if you did get up, wind might host you in the opposite direction. Flight doesn't mean it can overcome an obstacle. If what you use to fly is too large, you might not be able to steer it over the obstacles anyway.
The sky would not have to be full of monsters- the air could be a zone in itself that spawns monsters when people are flying up there and not when they're not. Or they could have long above tree aggro ranges. You still have air currents to mean aiming somewhere in the air doesn't mean you'll get there.
You might be heading west, then hit a gust that sends you south, collide with a tree, plummet to the ground and find yourself in a hobgoblin camp having your head caved in. Flying again won't help if you just hit the same gust .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Like I said, I know I'm in the minority against flight. I'm not trying to say there's no way it could work, or that the game shouldn't have it because I don't like it. I'm trying to point out that there are a lot of considerations to be made whenever the design of flight in PFO comes up. Some people are approaching flight as a given; that the issues its inclusion raises are trivial and easily addressed, and anyone opposed to flight is some kind of close-minded spoilsport. That's not really the case.
That right there sums it up, said better than I did (apparently, better than I did twice ;)
Looking forward to seeing you around the forums in the future, Suviont!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If bright names show up through trees, how do you expect it to work ground level? You'd have EXACTLY the same problem from ground view.
True. That's why it's a question.
Also, if someone on the ground can just see you, you haven't picked a very good hiding spot. Assuming anyone that comes your way will do so from the ground, you can pick your location such that you can monitor the avenues of approach, hide from the common ones, and set your self up to see them first. This is still possible when flight is included, but the avenues of approach for most locations have been increased exponentially. You can't cover or control them. The freedoms of movement and location afforded by flight are extremely potent.
As for flying over obstacles, how do you fly over a terrain obstacle if you can't get above it? A canopy could be in the way, overhanging rocks, and if you did get up, wind might host you in the opposite direction. Flight doesn't mean it can overcome an obstacle. If what you use to fly is too large, you might not be able to steer it over the obstacles anyway.
Canopy? Can't get above it? How low are you flying in this scenario? Why are you flying so low? Why do you not stop, move up, then proceed? Why are you getting so close to these obstacles when you're flying? I don't get this one. (Talk about winds below)
The sky would not have to be full of monsters- the air could be a zone in itself that spawns monsters when people are flying up there and not when they're not. Or they could have long above tree aggro ranges.
Monsters that spawn specifically to get you? That seems a little strange, but okay. If well tuned it could work. How far above the trees?
Wait, do you mean flying monsters in the trees that aggro those flying above them? What about the poor saps walking below, do they now have to deal with griffons, too?
You still have air currents to mean aiming somewhere in the air doesn't mean you'll get there.
You might be heading west, then hit a gust that sends you south, collide with a tree, plummet to the ground and find yourself in a hobgoblin camp having your head caved in. Flying again won't help if you just hit the same gust.
You're still approaching this like a wind/maneuverability system is a simple, given thing. I think there's a lot more work and design that would have to go into this than you realize. The physics, the UI, the controls, and all at variable intensities and levels based on location and skill of the flying character? That's a great deal time, work, and money being put into one part (Wind) of one part (Flying) of a much larger game.
Here's more considerations for the winds:
- How high before winds become strong enough to affect flight? Too high and people just fly below them. Too low and suddenly there's gale force winds tossing wizards 20 feet above the ground while a breeze lightly tickles flowers in the meadow someone is walking through below.
- How do you monitor wind direction to avoid getting tossed like a rag doll? Can you tell if there's wind when you're on the ground?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As for currents, try did it with water in vanguard, so it can be done.
As for the specific details, yes, they would need to be fine tuned. You can't ask for specifics when we don't know anything about the mechanics of the game clearly yet. I can't answer those questions because I don't have access to information on how the current systems work, or the capabilities of the engine.
As for spawns. That's how dungeons work. Why is it strange that entering an air area would spawn challenges, but not whole areas appearing?
As for "a gust that suddenly hits you 20 feet off the ground, I was thinking more like reality where you get gusts from unpredictable directions, the higher you are and the less obstacles, the stronger the gusts, so yeah, if you're flying high over the tree line, you're dealing with strong and more frequent gusts. If you're flying just over the tree line, you've got less wind, but more other obstacles, like things on the ground or things in the trees.
There could be several things you could do to see what the wind was like, visual cues such as dust, clouds and pollen/leaves/seeds or testing things attached to flight skills like little weather balloons.
As for "why are you flying so low?" I was covering the idea of bypassing an obstacle by just flying over it. If you're flying that high above it that's already covered with the above things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I apologize if I've given offence. Some of what people say does sound like simple nay-saying, and I'm sure some of what I say sounds like unfounded magical thinking. It's strange; usually I'm in the skeptic's role, being frustrated at people thinking I'm attacking them or trying to crush their hopes just by asking questions or wanting to know the evidence and its sources. I appreciate your perspective... there just isn't any evidence at this point, only conjecture, and by the time there is evidence, I'm afraid the die will have been cast. I suppose I'm not being entirely reasonable to take a faith position on GW's potential to make it work well and add cool movement options to the game, but I'm a humanist and sometimes I just default to a sort of hopeful trust that I won't be let down by other people.
Anyway, philosophy aside, I think the main point of this thread is in the title. If they build a flat game, then lots of options like climbing, swimming, jumping (as more than an emote), and yes, flying are going to be handled poorly, if at all. If they build a world that takes into account that people can actually get off the floor, then all of these things become possible, whether they're in at release or later. I'm just hoping they don't neglect the z-axis. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Like I said, I know I'm in the minority against flight. I'm not trying to say there's no way it could work, or that the game shouldn't have it because I don't like it. I'm trying to point out that there are a lot of considerations to be made whenever the design of flight in PFO comes up. Some people are approaching flight as a given; that the issues its inclusion raises are trivial and easily addressed, and anyone opposed to flight is some kind of close-minded spoilsport. That's not really the case.
I hope that is not the impression I am giving.
My concern is a statement Ryan Dancey made in another topic where he basically said "A climbing system will be pointless once everyone gets rings of flying."
I would rather not see flying than a system like that, and I feel most people on both sides of this topic are in agreement with me there.
I personally would like to see a flying system like what my other posts allude at. I think it will create interesting character role choices and tactics in battle. I can see why some people can say it isn't worth the effort (development wise) and why in context if scouting and travel it will be too powerful.
I think that it's something a lot of people are really interested in seeing. Some of the mechanics should already be in game in order to avoid "flying" NPCs that hover. And a lot of people just really like the idea of flying.
I think as long as the time investment and limitations are meaningful it will be balanced, I don't see where people are saying "Everyone will still do it" or "It will destroy trade" but I think some of the concerns still being raised are very valid. It still will be highly valuable for travel and scouting. I support that but I see how it could be opposed.
We disagree but that doesn't mean I don't value your input and concerns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Flying should be implemented if it's meaningful & requires a high level of training/time. This should be an important choice in your build if you choose to do so. I would prefer it not to be the common/expected form of travel for every character type. Maybe as a reward for capstones?
Aion introduced flying combat, & while it was fun at times, it was extremely frustrating for PVP purposes if on the receiving end. In combat, it was easy for me to swoop down from the skies above and prey on the victims below. There was no way for them to react in time to defend themselves. I understand alignment (choices I make) will take care of that here as this would move me to CE.
In PFO, there will not be any PVP instances (correct me if wrong)& one server. If people are given capabilities to fly from the get go, this will damage the player experience. It takes away from the resource search/discovery/crafting & exploration control of territory. Only the most dedicated trained individuals (if implemented) should be allowed/allocated skill training time to fly/summon capabilities. This to me is a huge advantage & should require the training time necessary to unlock/pursue.
I'm not against flying, only if implemented meaningfully & not a common ability we see for all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am for flight, in all of it myriad forms, provided it is properly scaled and balanced. And I have no doubts that it can be done. This is a game where reaching '20th level' is intended to take more than 2 years of dedicated play. If reaching 'level 6' takes a quarter of that time - which admittedly, it probably won't take THAT long - that means 6 months of time invested into a class to gain the ability to cast a Flight spell.
That seems like plenty of investment for the desired return, to me. Particularly when that same ability is very likely to have limited uses each day. The ability to cast a Fly spell that lasts, say, a minute, once every three hours of play can hardly be called overpowered.
Even crafted items like a potion of flying would be pretty rarely used, because they would be expensive - supply would not be high, because the number of players with the right abilities to craft them will be more-or-less low, and there would also be a cost of ingredients for them to craft the potions in the first place. Plus, you know that potion-maker is going to be trying to make as much money as he/she can, so prices are unlikely to get very low.
This cost and relative rarity means you save it for a special circumstances - which is good, to preserve the magical feeling of flying in the first place. It also prevents it from being overpowered.
Of course, that said, eventually flight would doubtless become a viable option for more and more players - but I still don't see it as something that will be squandered and trivialized. (Except by those arrogant spell-casters, perhaps.)
Also, bringing this thread back up to the top.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here, I see a good mix of them.
My opinion on flying: Should be expensive. Transporting goods via flight should not be cheap. You are essentially skipping everything that made the River Kingdom dangerous, and pretty much that.
Because there aren't incredibly dangerous flying monsters that you could run into while flying right?
Griffins, Harpies, Dragons, Drakes, Wyverns etc...
Hobgoblins on flying mounts.
Giant Eagles
Rocs
Giants hurling boulders...
Absolutely none of those things are a threat to you while flying?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One word people, spelljammers...!
I'm actually more of an Epic 6th man myself. While I would like to see flying in the game I would like it to be in a very limited form. Only the richest most powerful kingdoms should be able to field a handful of flying cavalry.
Spell based flight should not be an option for long distance travel. Maybe a magic user could keep themselves in the air for the duration of a skirmish or to reach a special area. It shouldn't allow them to Superman across the map.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Flying is fine and all, it has it's pros and cons, but is generally a part of Pathfinder and should be included. My concerns are more basic though, I just want the ability to jump, games where I can't jump are incredibly frustrating. I'd also like to see climbing.
To truly be a sandbox MMO, there should be no invisible walls, no borders, you should be able to go anywhere you want as long as you have the ability to do so. In the tech demo there was a room where you pass through on a lower floor, and then later after going up some stairs double back through on a higher floor. However, in a Pathfinder game, the players should be able to skip right to the higher floor simply by having sufficient jumping, climbing, flying, or teleporting ability.
Freedom of movement, freedom of exploration, freedom of choice, key features of a sandbox MMO. Also, hopping around is just good fun.
It'd be interesting to see if they can incorporate different movement speed types, fly, swim, climb; earth glide and the like would be particularly difficult to pull off but impressive if they managed to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with most of what you said, the only impassable environmental features should be an ocean, without a boat of coarse, and some mountain ranges. Mountains even in the real world are hard to get over, the safest route is through a mountain pass and even those can have rock slides to make it impassable. Now just people on foot might be able to make it through a mountain range, but if you try to bring wagons and trade equipment it would be impossible.I've only skimmed the thread, and I apologize if this has already been said...
Personally, I think using terrain features as impassable obstacles is a cop-out. A vast chasm or a high mountain range shouldn't be impenetrable absent flying. Flying should simply be one of many ways of dealing with that obstacle. Teleporting past it should be another. Grabbing some rope and a Sherpa should be one as well.
Regarding mountains, those are acutally mentioned in the pen and paper rules. Things like altitude, thin air and the cold should make flying over the mountain not the ideal choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regarding mountains, those are acutally mentioned in the pen and paper rules. Things like altitude, thin air and the cold should make flying over the mountain not the ideal choice.I agree with most of what you said, the only impassable environmental features should be an ocean, without a boat of coarse, and some mountain ranges. Mountains even in the real world are hard to get over, the safest route is through a mountain pass and even those can have rock slides to make it impassable. Now just people on foot might be able to make it through a mountain range, but if you try to bring wagons and trade equipment it would be impossible.I've only skimmed the thread, and I apologize if this has already been said...
Personally, I think using terrain features as impassable obstacles is a cop-out. A vast chasm or a high mountain range shouldn't be impenetrable absent flying. Flying should simply be one of many ways of dealing with that obstacle. Teleporting past it should be another. Grabbing some rope and a Sherpa should be one as well.
I agree with all three of you.
(Heh, I like how quoting highlights Sebastian's typo, I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. )
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd be fine without there being flight. Half the point of the game is meaningful character interaction. Flying around, you won't see nearly as many people, trade goods will dodge blockades, etc. Flight is all cool when it happens only occasionally...but with thousands of players, it will happen all the time.
Yep, but imagine 1000s of ppl zooming around in a Battle of Britain style dogfight. Griffin mounted players steering while someone sits on the back as a tail gunner taking potshots with a bow at the Squadron of red cloaked wizards diving out of the sun firing magic missiles, puffs of smoke exploding around you from the defensive twin mounted AAA fireball emplacements around the settlement below that you are attacking. Would be hell fun :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Like I said, I know I'm in the minority against flight. I'm not trying to say there's no way it could work, or that the game shouldn't have it because I don't like it. I'm trying to point out that there are a lot of considerations to be made whenever the design of flight in PFO comes up. Some people are approaching flight as a given; that the issues its inclusion raises are trivial and easily addressed, and anyone opposed to flight is some kind of close-minded spoilsport. That's not really the case.I hope that is not the impression I am giving.
My concern is a statement Ryan Dancey made in another topic where he basically said "A climbing system will be pointless once everyone gets rings of flying."
I would rather not see flying than a system like that, and I feel most people on both sides of this topic are in agreement with me there.
I personally would like to see a flying system like what my other posts allude at. I think it will create interesting character role choices and tactics in battle. I can see why some people can say it isn't worth the effort (development wise) and why in context if scouting and travel it will be too powerful.
I think that it's something a lot of people are really interested in seeing. Some of the mechanics should already be in game in order to avoid "flying" NPCs that hover. And a lot of people just really like the idea of flying.
I think as long as the time investment and limitations are meaningful it will be balanced, I don't see where people are saying "Everyone will still do it" or "It will destroy trade" but I think some of the concerns still being raised are very valid. It still will be highly valuable for travel and scouting. I support that but I see how it could be opposed.
We disagree but that doesn't mean I don't value your input and concerns.
Well the comment about the rings of flying kind makes sense to me, after all in Pathfinder flying isn't all that difficult to get. And even if flying does come at a significant cost, it might still be more usefull for a lot of players. I can't really remember the last time when a character hat to make a climb check in the RPG.
However flying everwhere should and does have downsides:
A wizard, that spends all his spell slots on flying spells, will miss those slots when he comes into combat.
Cover is pretty hard to come by in the air, Dragon magazine once printed a story by Gary Gygax about a wizard with levitation and a wand of fireballs. Well as it turns out orcs can use bows...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Flying is fine and all, it has it's pros and cons, but is generally a part of Pathfinder and should be included. My concerns are more basic though, I just want the ability to jump, games where I can't jump are incredibly frustrating. I'd also like to see climbing.
To truly be a sandbox MMO, there should be no invisible walls, no borders, you should be able to go anywhere you want as long as you have the ability to do so. In the tech demo there was a room where you pass through on a lower floor, and then later after going up some stairs double back through on a higher floor. However, in a Pathfinder game, the players should be able to skip right to the higher floor simply by having sufficient jumping, climbing, flying, or teleporting ability.
Freedom of movement, freedom of exploration, freedom of choice, key features of a sandbox MMO. Also, hopping around is just good fun.
It'd be interesting to see if they can incorporate different movement speed types, fly, swim, climb; earth glide and the like would be particularly difficult to pull off but impressive if they managed to do so.
I totally agree, especially on the jumping part.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A wizard, that spends all his spell slots on flying spells, will miss those slots when he comes into combat.
Cover is pretty hard to come by in the air, Dragon magazine once printed a story by Gary Gygax about a wizard with levitation and a wand of fireballs. Well as it turns out orcs can use bows...
Kind of sux if someone dispels your levitation as well.