Goblin Squad Member
|
Aren't you forgetting the Summoner character class with there Eidolans?
Witch Familiars?
Currently classes outside of the core classes are way down the line, and not officially announced. If they are added, I expect it to be a year or more after the game hits open enrollment, and familiars anyway, those have always been 95% decorative/flavor. I see nothing in ryan's quote that would prevent a wizard from having the raven on his shoulder, cat or rat following etc...
the Summon Monster / Natures Ally line of spells
the entire necromancy line of spells (raise dead, command undead to name a few)
Meaningful pets have been an integral part of Pathfinder since the beginning and in all honestly this won't be pathfinder without them.
Limited duration pets are an entirely different animal than permanent ones. Summoning a bear for 2 minutes, is one animal. a 200 vs 200 battle where 3/4ths of the combatants have a bear, tiger, wolf etc... on the other hand is both outside of pathfinders expectancy, and one heck of a strain on the servers and clients.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. Geb is a separate country thousand of miles away, on another continent. The River Kingdoms see slavery as Evil/Bad/Wrong/Heinous, and Undeath is the worst form of slavery.
That said, all a town has to do is create a law that prohibits attacking someone with the Heinous flag. The necromancer is now on an even playing field with everyone, as if you are attacked everyone can pile on your attacker risk free. Come on, people, Lawful Evil exists for a reason...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
a 200 vs 200 battle where 3/4ths of the combatants have a bear, tiger, wolf etc... on the other hand is both outside of pathfinders expectancy, and one heck of a strain on the servers and clients.
EVE seens to handle pretty well the THOUSANDS of drones in a single battle, so I see no big deal.
Right. Geb is a separate country thousand of miles away, on another continent. The River Kingdoms see slavery as Evil/Bad/Wrong/Heinous, and Undeath is the worst form of slavery.
The point is that some people have no problem with undead. It'd be nice to give settlements more flexibility about something that can be used by neutral characters.
I've never been a fan of Domain Druids and Party-buff Rangers and likely would not want to play those classes if the pets were not there.Wow, for a moment there I read "Power-Puff" Rangers. *shudders*
I'm not sure how to feel about that, so I'm just going to assume a trio of rangers enhanced with Chemical X would be awesome and not surreal or anything. :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...If you want to harvest something you need to assemble a crew run by humans, not an AI. If you want to haul stuff from place to place, you need a caravans run by humans, not an AI. ...
This brings me to some questions about the Outlaw/SAD issue. From my reading of the dev blogs:
1) There is an encumbrance limit to each character, sometimes enhanced by the Traveler flag.2) I believe that Ryan is implying that there will be harvesting and caravans that have material greater than the encumbrance of any single individual character or party of characters. This will require the use of persistent objects like wagons, etc., with animals to pull them.
3) When a character dies non threaded items are available for looting with an Outlaw getting a somewhat larger percentage of items. But after that, items remain with the husk for a time then are destroyed if not looted or recovered by the character.
Therefore:
- What if the percentage of material offered for a SAD ransom exceeds the encumbrance of the Outlaws in the stick-up?
- Will the wagons require PC or NPC characters to drive/load/unload?
- What happens to the material in the wagons after the the traders are dead?
- If the Outlaws kill all the PC characters, do they also kill the NPC porters and drovers by default?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
3) When a character dies non threaded items are available for looting with an Outlaw getting a somewhat larger percentage of items. But after that, items remain with the husk for a time then are destroyed if not looted or recovered by the character.
AFAIK, if your husk is looted by someone not-you, everything not looted is destroyed.
So threading items is completely useless?...you were responding to THIS post...???
3) When a character dies non threaded items are available for looting with an Outlaw getting a somewhat larger percentage of items. But after that, items remain with the husk for a time then are destroyed if not looted or recovered by the character.
The tricky part with Chaotic Good characters will be finding in-game stuff to move you towards chaos that is not also criminal.
This is also a concern of mine. I think if you are attacking people unprovoked in the wilderness, or where there isn't a LAW against doing that, you don't get the Criminal flag but you do get Chaotic. But I agree, there should be broader ways to get Chaotic alignment points... That goes for all the alignments really, and I do expect that to be fleshed out at some point. I would presume making/breaking contracts and the like would yield Lawful/Chaotic points, but that would also be reinforcing this issue with Chaotic to me, just like being Criminal or attacking people unprovoked shouldn't be the only ways to be Chaotic, breaking Contracts, which is just one step away from Criminality, shouldn't be the only other way to be Chaotic either... There should be 'positive' or 'like-able' ways to be Chaotic as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a 200 vs 200 battle where 3/4ths of the combatants have a bear, tiger, wolf etc... on the other hand is both outside of pathfinders expectancy, and one heck of a strain on the servers and clients.EVE seens to handle pretty well the THOUSANDS of drones in a single battle, so I see no big deal.
Mr. Dancy seems well acquainted with EVE. That isn't the issue. He's never stated the issue is capability of servers to handle it. He's stated that the issue is putting the focus on human to human interaction, not bot-swarm-wars. His mention of things like AI code made sense to me initially, but given that A) there WILL be NPC/Monsters that need AI combat code, B) there WILL be non-combat 'pets'/'mounts' that will have AI code, there should be plenty of suitable NPC AI code that could fairly easily be re-factored for this purpose.
The commentary about 3/4th of combatants having pets is something that I believe GW is reasonable to want to avoid, but IMHO that is not going to happen, if it happens it will be something that a minority of classes will be able to do: druids and necromancers being the main ones... and choosing to have/use these 'combat pets' will mean you are not using some other class ability. paladin mounts and ranger pets don't have to be in-combat relevant, they can be for movement and non-combat skill/scouting purposes. summoning spells don't necessarily need to play a big role in the game, and in any case they would just be NPCs not under your direct control.
I think it's 100% fine if druid companions and necromancy undead control aren't in the game in the first iteration of the game, but if it's succesful, i think it's something that does need to be done, say within a year to 18 months of the game's start.
You don't expect me to actually read what i'm responding to, are you? That would be completely ridiculous.
:-)
I have seen a few posts saying that the Traveler flag is not useful in war. There are uses to it just not apparent at first glance.
Right. Higher Move Speed should be tactically useful. And higher personal Encumbrance lets you carry more consumables, and more magic items... also combat useful. Still, I think there is design space left for a more Combat Focused Neutral PVP flag, whether 'all' Neutral aligned, or just 'True' Neutral (NN, or 2-axis Neutrality).
going more into atonements, one way for them to work is that for the duration of the atonement effect, you can't commit any evil acts (or whatever the opposite of your desired alignment is) or else the atonement immediately ends... it could even work such that if you commit any evil (etc) acts during the atonement period, the effect ends AND the 'bonus alignment shift' that was granted by atonement 'vanishes' or is canceled out. you would retain the NORMAL good (etc) alignment movement granted from your actions during this period, but acting against the wishes of the atonement means it ends and you lose any benefit from it.
it would also make sense that besides needing a caster of the desired alignment to cast the atonement for you, each atonement only works for one alignment. if you need to atone in both Law/Chaos AND Good/Evil axis, you would need to pay for (and be subject to restrictions of) two separate Atonements.
also, and this really applies even more strongly to the 'automatic alignment drift' approach, the automatic alignment drift can have a 'maximum' effect: if it will drift you towards LG (or N), it shouldn't drift you any further than the 1 point minimum to have that alignment... or perhaps not actually drift that last point, meaning at most it would leave 1 point of alignment for you to achieve yourself, before 'flipping over' into the 'desired' alignment. that can also work for atonement... especially if it follows a 'pushing your alignment approach'... if it follows the approach of 'amplifying' aligned acts you take while under it's effect (which i prefer), it would make more sense for the atonement effect to just instantly end ONCE you achieve that alignment, i.e. it won't help you get DEEP into that alignment (which is insurance againt opposite-aligned acts), it just helps you get there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My thoughts.
PVP flags should be only for those that actively seek PVP. Not for someone who doesn't actively seek confrontation but instead wants to avoid it like a crafter and/or a merchant.
That's why I think the traveler's flag doesn't work. It gives all players an incentive and free pass to attack crafters and merchants even good ones. Good aligned characters shouldn't be attacking crafters and merchants whether they're evil(maybe in some cases) or not and not in any case without repercussions to their alignment. The traveler's flag wrecks the whole alignment system and brings a gap between good aligned and "good" aligned characters.
Most people don't RP unless necessary, but gravitate towards greatest benefit for their characters.
The traveler's flag seems overpowered and easily exploited.
Edit. Well, it doesn't wreck the whole alignment system, but brings a huge gap in it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I don't quite get one thing wrt. reputation ...
Heinous
The character has committed an act that is universally viewed as evil, such as raising and controlling undead, using slaves to build structures or gather resources, etc.
Each time the character gets the Heinous flag they lose good vs. evil.
Anyone may kill a Heinous character without fearing reputation or alignment loss.
I thought I understood rep. as a means (among others) to control "griefing". Now, neither raising undead nor using slaves seems to indicate any unfair behaviour on the evildoers part, so why would I be allowed to kill him w/o rep-loss? If I'm Good, I get that I can attack/kill him w/o alignment-loss, but I was under the impression that rep didn't track good vs. evil ... ??
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PVP flags should be only for those that actively seek PVP. Not for someone who doesn't actively seek confrontation but instead wants to avoid it like a crafter and/or a merchant.
This would break the philosophy of the game. A crafter or merchant needs to be constantly under threat to keep the economy interesting. Players cannot choose when they are susceptible to PvP, or the value of transporting goods plummets and prices normalize across the world. Not being open to zero/low consequence PvP should involve zero/low profit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The commentary about 3/4th of combatants having pets is something that I believe GW is reasonable to want to avoid, but IMHO that is not going to happen, if it happens it will be something that a minority of classes will be able to do: druids and necromancers being the main ones...
True, but the key thing worth mentioning, anyone can dabble in any class. So regardless of if someones primary class is fighter, monk etc... we still have to anticipate that the animal companion, is an option for them to get, and must be balances against whatever the other classes get in that slot. Though the discussion is obviously lessened until after we understand all of that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The heinous / undead rules are fully in keeping with the setting of the game. Now, if PFO were set in Geb it might be a different story.I think that if players want to be able to create a settlement based on Geb in the game they should be able to. Settlements can instate their own laws, so if a LE settlement states Undead an Slaves are okay, and Heinous flagged people are off limits, then if you gank someone who IS under the Heinous Flag, then you should still get the Criminal flag and the Law/Chaos alingment loss, even though you would be immune to Rep loss and Good/Evil alignment loss.
Good settlements should want to declare a war on evil settlements who say this is ok to bypass the criminal flags, and that is a desired effect, because large scale player wars are a desired goal of the game.
I absolutely agree. Undead control should be something that certain towns allow and certain towns definitely do not. Not everybody sees recycling dead tissue as taboo. ;D
This is nothing to do with game balance for me. I don't plan on playing a necromancer. But I think there should be Geb-style settlements where undead are common-place, ordinary settlements where dark necromancers are shunned and perhaps killed when possible, and maybe even settlements that are actively at war with the undead-tolerating towns.
The game is acting like undead control is automatically despised by everyone, and that's just balderdash. As people have said, ever been to Geb?
I don't see how there won't be Geb-style settlements where killing is a crime and perhaps killing undead is illegal.
I see no problem with the heinous flag as is. If you choose to use undead, you become a more desirable target to be attacked. This seems to be the case in the PnP as well, and fits with Pathfinder lore. The many diverse responses by persons that play PnP on why it makes sense this way cemented my initial thoughts on this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PVP flags should be only for those that actively seek PVP. Not for someone who doesn't actively seek confrontation but instead wants to avoid it like a crafter and/or a merchant.
This would break the philosophy of the game. A crafter or merchant needs to be constantly under threat to keep the economy interesting. Players cannot choose when they are susceptible to PvP, or the value of transporting goods plummets and prices normalize across the world. Not being open to zero/low consequence PvP should involve zero/low profit.
To clarify I meant the long-term flags, sorry, my mistake.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have seen a few posts saying that the Traveler flag is not useful in war. There are uses to it just not apparent at first glance.Right. Higher Move Speed should be tactically useful. And higher personal Encumbrance lets you carry more consumables, and more magic items... also combat useful. Still, I think there is design space left for a more Combat Focused Neutral PVP flag, whether 'all' Neutral aligned, or just 'True' Neutral (NN, or 2-axis Neutrality).
Not just tactically but strategically. If, as I think, supply will be a consideration for armies in the field logistics will be critical. An army will have to have teamsters resupplying the troops for a siege remote from any friendly settlement.
It adds significantly to the economy and meaningful interactive opportunities. Ambush. Interdiction. Guerilla tactics in the asymmetrical conflict that can make or break an offensive, possibly win a war.
I think this will be the case because there will be interested parties whose numbers are inadequate to make a meaningful contribution to the cause unless smaller elements of the besieging force can be interdicted en route.
It is too great an opportunity for them to pass up on for very long once players get to the point where they cn actually field an army at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen a few posts saying that the Traveler flag is not useful in war. There are uses to it just not apparent at first glance.Right. Higher Move Speed should be tactically useful. And higher personal Encumbrance lets you carry more consumables, and more magic items... also combat useful. Still, I think there is design space left for a more Combat Focused Neutral PVP flag, whether 'all' Neutral aligned, or just 'True' Neutral (NN, or 2-axis Neutrality).Not just tacticlly but strategically. If, as I think, suply will be a consideration for armies in the field it will be critical to have teamsters resupplying the troops for a siege remote from any friendly settlement.
I think this will be the case because there will be interested parties whose numbers are inadequate to make a meaningful contribution to the cause unless smaller elements of the besieging force can be interdicted en route.
It is too great an opportunity for them to pass up on for very long once players get to the point where they cn actually field an army at all.
And I can see the side of the settlement under siege offering sums to any outlaws to come ply their trade against any travelers who may be resupplying the attackers to break the supply train.
Marvelous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't anyone else worried that lawful good characters start attacking neutral good traveler-flagged characters? I think it's a design flaw.
Well, by using the Traveler flags they are able to carry more goods and move them more quickly. Sounds dangerously close to smuggling. If someone feels the need to make sure that all the proper duties are paid, and the merchant flees, then attacking them may be an appropriate action.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't anyone else worried that lawful good characters start attacking neutral good traveler-flagged characters? I think it's a design flaw.Well, by using the Traveler flags they are able to carry more goods and move them more quickly. Sounds dangerously close to smuggling. If someone feels the need to make sure that all the proper duties are paid, and the merchant flees, then attacking them may be an appropriate action.
Except that smugglers tend to not want a visible sign that says "Smuggler". The Traveler flag would be visible to all, as I understand it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't anyone else worried that lawful good characters start attacking neutral good traveler-flagged characters? I think it's a design flaw.
Very good point I hadn't considered, but isn't that question one the beseiging commanders (and potential teamster logistics contractors) should have to confront?
Wouldn't the risk enhance, rather than detract? The teamster then needs to hire more guards, and the commanders contracting out their logistics should realize they will have to pay for the added risk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
More Questions:
1. Can you use the long-term PvP flags in war? I assume you can. If so most seem good, but Outlaw would seem to be almost useless and possibly get you killed by your own side just because you might seem like "everyones" enemy lol. To say nothing of the fact I doubt youd have time in a battle to worry about looting corpses anyway. Basically every other long-term PvP flag seems far more useful in war.
I plan to roll CN and be a bandit/merc sort. I would like to maximize the usefulness of my chosen alignment if possible. Otherwise, durring war times Ill probably just use the Traveler flag, as I see faster speed and greated carrying capacity being more useful durring a large scale battle than Outlaw. (I would guess stealth is useless durring a time like this, hence Assassin would still have thier other passive enhancements). Though its entirely possible the devs absolutely intended this?
2. The passive effects long-term PvP flags and how they increase over time are nice, but when you first activate it does it give you a bonus or do you have to wait the first hour. (ex: Activate it and instantly get a 10% passive bonus to whatever, but then wait an hour for the next percentage increase, etc , etc,. Or is it activate and wait an hour for any bonus)
Note: Id really like some bonus to start with even if its small.
Isn't anyone else worried that lawful good characters start attacking neutral good traveler-flagged characters? I think it's a design flaw.
I agree. I think the game should cut back a bit on flags preventing alignment change, at least with Travellers.
Also, I'm fairly certain I don't see much problem with the Heinous flag now. After all, if pets are going to be as rare as it seems, necromancers will have a notable advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I considered the background drift towards "good-lawful" and come to the conclusion that frequency of pvp + -ve change to alignment just needs a standard/constant/consistent background for everyone instead of a "grind x for +ve alignment". Initially I wondered if proactive +ve alignmnent actions would be included, but assume this is the main reason? Or a +ve would ultimately cloud the "ad hoc" pvp-slippery slope?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
+ve is positive and -ve is negative I'm guessing?
Yes, that's what they mean.
*laughs* I pretty much had that part figured out :)
My curiosity is with the "ve" part. Is it an acronym? Something from vector mathematics? Something AvenaOats just made up because his best friend was named Vince Edwards?
No, the "ve" is from positive and negative - it's a common mathematical/scientific shorthand. (Any field that regularly deals with lengthy terms like "differentiability" is going to come up with a lot of shorthand ;))
True, but the key thing worth mentioning, anyone can dabble in any class. So regardless of if someones primary class is fighter, monk etc... we still have to anticipate that the animal companion, is an option for them to get, and must be balances against whatever the other classes get in that slot. Though the discussion is obviously lessened until after we understand all of that.
The commentary about 3/4th of combatants having pets is something that I believe GW is reasonable to want to avoid, but IMHO that is not going to happen, if it happens it will be something that a minority of classes will be able to do: druids and necromancers being the main ones...
so if it's close to balanced like how a druid dip is in Pathfinder, do you really see a problem? If it's a dip companion, it isn't really an effective combat pet, yet you will be displacing one of your other class abilities to have the companion out. even if its full power for everybody who has it, it's displacing an ability, and given how multiclassing works, ALL abilities must be roughly balanced against each other, so whats special here?
GW simply didnt express that kind of balance concern for why companions may not be done. i don't see why this is a worry at this stage, it's a computer game so every aspect can be tweaked continually, we don't even know the vast majority of game mechanics, so i don't see how this is really relevant to the broader design being discussed?
i do think it is an open question exactly how GW pursues multiclassing balance, they have mentioned capstones but that is really only part of the balancing in Pathfinder... abilities also scale based on specific class level vs. total character level, and ANY 'dipping' or multiclassing directly impacts on the highest level class abilities you can access. those are ultimately STRONGER and more important disincentives to multiclass (while still allowing it to be viable) than any 20th level capstone (some of which actually are fairly non-impressive in Pathfinder). ...that does get into game mechanics far beyond what has been discussed so far.
i think the discussion so far on the Alignment/Rep consequences is very productive, and important for establishing the background of Alignment/Rep shifts which all character actions will be balanced within, having a good idea of the structure of that (if not every exact numeric weighting, etc) is probably a good idea to have established as a background before worrying about specific class ability mechanics. which is why i think GW have mooted the concept of Heinous without even being certain of the major class abilities/actions that may actually trigger it, conceptually it can exist independent of which specific things trigger it.
I thought I understood rep. as a means (among others) to control "griefing". Now, neither raising undead nor using slaves seems to indicate any unfair behaviour on the evildoers part, so why would I be allowed to kill him w/o rep-loss? If I'm Good, I get that I can attack/kill him w/o alignment-loss, but I was under the impression that rep didn't track good vs. evil ... ??
Rep doesn't track Good/Evil, it's independent... You can increase/decrease one without the other, even if some activities may change both statistics simultaneously (even when it does, because Rep/Alignment change is a factor of the target's Rep/Aligment, they will very unlikely change by the same amount).
Your understanding would place Reputation solely in the realm of metagaming statistic, with no relevance to in-game-world roleplaying or perspective. to the contrary, it's clear to me that GW indeed considers it an in-game-world-relevant 'statistic' that corresponds to in-game-world social norms/status. Reputation is far from just being an 'anti griefing' mechanism...
There really isn't any 'anti griefing' mechanism per se, Reputation parallel with Good/Evil and Law/Chaos, along with Criminal, Attacker, and their long-term variants, all determine whether attacking your character is more likely to be seen as a good idea by another character, by determining the repurcussions for that character. If you 'grief' somebody, that will make it more likely for SOME people to see you as a more ideal target (because of their desired Reputation/Alignment/Criminal status/etc), but for other people with different character goals, it won't stimulate them to attack you at all. If you are Chaotic Evil with Low Reputation, there is practically no incentive against 'griefing' you, outside of areas where Criminal Laws apply. It's clear that GW /does/ plan that certain characters will go around killing random PCs to loot them, that is the intended outcome of the game design. It's also intended that other people will have incentives to not do the same, but just go around fighting Evil/Chaotic/LowRep characters. Lawful and Good and High Reputation are all incentivized with benefits especially in terms of Settlments, which are the overarching focus of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not necessarily. It could be something you can toggle on and off. Or it could be like a colored aura around the character, or it could only be something you see when targeting that character. Maybe it could be only in a chat log when a character gets a certain distance away? If you are worried about immersion breaking floaty things, im not sure we cn totally avoid things of this nature with all the information needed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just thought of something that is related to the champion flag, where a person would switch on the flag when the player sees an advantage of using the flag to gain advantages. I say there should be a delay onset for effects to come into play, and when the flag is switched off, the flag remains for a while before vanishing along with the advantages. Onset time I was thinking should be 20 to 30 minutes, with same delay for flag effect removal after opting to switch it off. This should stop some griefing abuse of using the flags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just thought of something that is related to the champion flag, where a person would switch on the flag when the player sees an advantage of using the flag to gain advantages. I say there should be a delay onset for effects to come into play, and when the flag is switched off, the flag remains for a while before vanishing along with the advantages. Onset time I was thinking should be 20 to 30 minutes, with same delay for flag effect removal after opting to switch it off. This should stop some griefing abuse of using the flags.
Or you could just need to be in a settlement (or NPC town) that doesn't consider you a trespasser in order to change your flags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe an outlaw doesn't want items, but coin.
It doesn't really matter what they want, if they're asking for something the victim doesn't have. Naked guy goes by, bandits throw a trade window in his face and demand millions of gold. The victim obviously can't pay so they murder him.
I didn't see if anyone posted this but SAD should just be a % of value carried. Say 10%. Would be more difficult to exploitHow do you gauge 10% when someone only has two items in their inventory? Maybe an outlaw doesn't want items, but coin.
So merchants maybe should not carry coin when they travel, just items. The largest and heaviest possible?