Goblin Squad Member
|
There are no levels, and the relative power difference in combat between a character who is a few weeks old and another character who is a year old in combat will likely only be 10-20%. The only character will have a much broader range of abilities and can do many more things outside of combat, but the newbie can still be a threat if they initiate combat and won't be a guaranteed win if the vet attacks first. The vet will have the advantage in a 1 vs 1 fight, but the outcome is not per-determined like it would be in WoW if a level 20 fought a level 80 or in PnP if a level 1 fought a level 5.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan Dancey has said that it will have a "heartbeat" timing mechanic and a stamina system that will promote efficient use of actions. Additionally I think he supports the idea of time dilation from EVEONLINE + some kind of amalgamation of CIV & RISK formations for massive combat. He has said he likes the conventional hotbar (f1/f2/f3) of actions for use in PFO. He is also fully aware of the malfeasance of online players, and has repeatedly supported the development of solid game concepts to transcend these issues for fairness and fun game play.
For fairness, it would make the most sense to allow players to select scripted behaviors for reactive game play.
if: non-response from player, or loss of connection, or behavior selectionUO had a self defense reactive game play mechanic, where the player wouldn't move, and would defend himself against any constant attacks until he successfully logged out from inactivity.
Baldurs Gate allowed multiple behavior scripts, such as Thief Cautious(attack in self defense, if < 50% health, then hide from enemy), Mage Berserk(cast most powerful spells on sight of an enemy, once out of mana, then move to melee) and so on.
Eve Online allows you to set behavior of drones or autopilot behavior. But still has problems with bots.
WEBL Boxing allowed players to create boxers and build a huge fight plan with logic and AI.
I am really hoping the game will be like a chess match on hexagon tiles, with 6 second forced moves for players to plan each action. Like parry next turn, or try to riposte, or prepare this spell, everything that is already defined in pathfinder mechanics but in an MMO setting.
Additionally since the introduction of visual lego like programming languages like blockly from google, im sure they could easily allow players to build their own reactionary behavior for their characters, or write them down in scrolls or books in game and sell them to other players as fighting...
Fascinating idea, Xaer.
I have noticed that Ryan likes to foresee what the uncommon player is going to do and counter that with something GW builds into the game for everyone. So: we gots a problem with deBots? GW builds in botting that will be available to all.
I can see that happening.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Starting to feel like I'm beating my head against a wall here
@okimbored tell me you won't get bored if you can't keep up the precision button mashing that people using macros can. Tell me when you keep losing fights, knowing the other guy is playing in a way that seems more "boring" to you but is giving him an edge that you won't get bored of the nonsense.I won't get bored because IF captain macro gets his jollies by repeatedly killing me he'll have a heinous flag in a day and be hunted like an animal, or he'll be banned for griefing.
Look I don't have an issue with simple macros that remove hours of tedium while crafting or whatever, but at some point in a combat situation it should have VERY LITTLE to do with my macro building or button mashing and 99.9% to do with the skill levels and abilities of my toon.
If a level 1 toon walks up to a lvl 5 toon and takes a poke at him the lvl 1 SHOULD DIE 99.999% of the time PERIOD, if not the game is essentially broken because char skill means nothing and it's really just macros online with a bonus to whomever has the fastest internet
I agree that combat should have nothing to do with macros and more to do with character skill, although I'd like to see a large share of that be player skill as well.
Nothing more boring than a combat oriented game that does all the combat for you (ie. 99.999% based on character skill).
And it won't be just "captain macro". If you don't use macros in a game where they give a meaningful advantage, you better bet most other people will either write them (which is stupidly easy to do with the right program) or find out where to get them. The point, which you completely missed, is not that one person will be griefing you, but that compared to the many other players who will be using macros, you will be obsolete in battle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One other thing:
Starting to feel like I'm beating my head against a wall here
Don't go making implications about another person's ability to comprehend your oh so vaunted point when you fail to understand theirs. If that's your approach, then beating your head against a real wall might do you some good.
you don't get it at all dude. There is no endgame, being king of PvP will be totally meaningless, no reason for anything beyond whatever level of player interaction each player decides for themself.
If I'm part of a guild that meets my social desires I still win.
If I choose to spend 12 hours a day crafting and never use a macro I win,
if I choose to spend my days playing scarecrow in a local farm field I win.
if I log in and do anything, macro or not, that gives me enough pleasure to keep playing how have I lost? you seem determined to convince me that unless I see the light and come over to your vision of PFO that I've somehow lost and should move on.
my hope is that PFO doesn't become a macro twitchfest it's nothing personal, I don't see why your determined to make it so
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
my hope is that PFO doesn't become a macro twitchfest it's nothing personal, I don't see why your determined to make it so
This line right here. That sums up what I'm trying to tell you.
Read what I've posted so far. Read it again. When you actually get it, answer. until then, stop telling me I'm not getting it.
Everything I've posted so far here has been warning about why it is bad to make a system that can turn into a macro twitchfest, and yet you tell I'm saying the opposite?
Several people have pointed out that you are grossly misinterpreting, but you keep going.
Take a hint and stop making a fool of yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough, I totally get what he said
...again I say whay play? if I'm so bored with a game that I would rather make a macro to play for me then actually play, my time could be much better spent elsewhere
Isn't that exactly the point I've been making?
I'm bringing up the macro issue saying that building a game that is play that way is something to avoid (but will be done if it yields significant advantage)
And then you come back with criticisms about playing the way I have been saying GW shouldn't design the game to be played - thanks (rolls eyes)
When you say you totally get what I said: NO. You got nothing. Start over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a level 1 toon walks up to a lvl 5 toon and takes a poke at him the lvl 1 SHOULD DIE 99.999% of the time PERIOD, if not the game is essentially broken because char skill means nothing and it's really just macros online with a bonus to whomever has the fastest internet
Neither is the intent of PFO. PFO is not intended to be drastically segregated like a normal theme park. Which means if you start in late in the game, They do not want you to feel like winding up in a fight with anyone higher level than you is 99.999% fatal.
Participating in wars, PVP battles, dealing with bandits, etc... is core gameplay, not something you can start participating in after you reach the "peak" of a role. Meaning yes they want a real difference to feel like you've earned an advantage as you progress. But it is not going to be to the extent that a mismatch is 99.999% fatal.
Also as far as your captain macro. You seem to be under the impression that it is 1 in 10,000 who wind up like that. When realistically I would say the quantity of win at all costs type players is probably closer to 20%. Yes if captain macro killed you every tie you left town, he would be a griefer, but if bob macro killed you one day, joe macro the next, tim macro the next, ad infinium. The frustration from this, would likely result in a large portion of the non-macro either quiting or macroing themselves just to play on an even field.
The key is PVP is going to be an integral part of the game. Wars will be happening, and well if one side has a huge advantage, they will be more warlike. (also another arguement for why level should not be a 99.9999% advantage.
Again this is all nul and void, it can simply be avoided by the game being more about strategy and tactics, and not about button mashing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is no endgame, being king of PvP will be totally meaningless...
...If I'm part of a guild that meets my social desires I still win.
This is endgame. Of course I am sure social groups (Chartered Companies) will be able to be sponsored by the PvE towns so they can get started...but the goal is to move ones social group out to where the action is, to where the politics and wars are occurring (the "end-game").
For this, PvP becomes very important. If one looses their settlement or the settlement which sponsors their Company falls, they loose their social group too. There would no longer be in-game support for maintaining it. The identity of social groups are tied to the land they claim and the settlement/kingdom they choose to be sponsored by. Choosing wisely would be very prudent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think if your settlement falls, you might still have access to talking with other people of your former settlement.
There should still be a social group if your settlement fails. It's just that now you don't have your own town (and as such, maybe you should all plot your return to glory.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The way I understand it, a CC has a prospective size limit of 25 and is created through sponsorship by a settlement (and only exists by that sponsorship). The next largest "social group" is the settlement. If the settlement is destroyed, you would loose your settlement association and chat...and your CC would loose its sponsorship and chat...and be dissolved.
There is no in-game social group larger than CC that does not gain its identity from the land it "owns". Take that land away and so goes all the in-game support in maintaining that group. Please correct me if consequences have...softened.
Ok let’s take a look shall we?
You begin by telling us you like twitch games, then go on with 2 posts about making macros, in post 2 regarding macros you state “The only way around that is at least slightly action based combat”
Another 4 posts singing the praises of macros HOWEVER in post 4 you state “If I notice the situation calls for something different then the end result will be me letting go of the A button and holding down B or C instead. Like I said, it would be foolish to make a script that can't be stopped.” Here you clearly state your intention to use macros in PFO
Moving on to your next post you inform us that “They'll know it's cheating, but do it anyways.” Then drop in the “putting at least a little action into combat is just as important.” Comment again as a method to counter act macros
Next is a post suggesting short battles to counter macro use
Then a post asking me “Tell me when you keep losing fights, knowing the other guy is playing in a way that seems more "boring" to you but is giving him an edge that you won't get bored of the nonsense.”
How would I know? If someone beats me they beat me why would I instantly assume they had to use a macro to win?
Moving on to your next post, you begin by dropping another thinly veiled pro twitch comment “I agree that combat should have nothing to do with macros and more to do with character skill, although I'd like to see a large share of that be player skill as well.
Then follow that you state “Nothing more boring than a combat oriented game that does all the combat for you (ie. 99.999% based on character skill).”
Can we all say twitch fest?
You finish this post with another doom and gloom “everyone else will do it” comment on macros
You end this with two final posts attacking me and telling me how I have no clue.
Here’s a clue, go back, read YOUR posts and tell me how your not actually a PRO TWITCH, MACROING, TROLL?
I'll stick with my statements, care to change any of yours?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ya, I like twitch games, in the sense of action, like FPS. That's not the kind of twitch that benefits from macros in the way I've described. If that wasn't clear, my very first post is about how "For one thing, it cuts down on macroing", so we got you missing important elements right from the get go. Very first of my posts.
The 4 posts "singing the praises" of macros: there are no praises at all. Not one of those posts is about what I want to see, but all about what is possible and why it will happen if they aren't careful about how they design the game.
To sum that up, describing is not praising. Not a word of praise in there. Complete misrepresentation from you on those 4 posts. Complete.
Then there's this
Then follow that you state “Nothing more boring than a combat oriented game that does all the combat for you (ie. 99.999% based on character skill).”
So I say it's boring for the game to essentially write the macros for you, but you still don't get what I'm saying. And you even come up with the brilliant idea to suggest it supports your backwards theory that I'm in favor of the game playing itself for us? Utter nonsense, and grotesque misinterpretation.
Can we all say twitch fest?
You did read the part where I said making the game more action/twitch based will make it harder to macro, right? And yet you think that is evidence I'm saying the opposite? And then accuse me of trolling?
You finish this post with another doom and gloom “everyone else will do it” comment on macros
And you insist you wont, and that's fine. But my point stands that it will be an appealing way to approach the game unless they make the gameplay in a way that makes macroing much more difficult, like more action oriented, like a game that needs a player playing it, not a program playing itself like you recommend (99.999% based on the character).
So yes, I stand by my posts that you have no clue. And your last post here just makes it that much more evident. And your weak "troll" accusations fall apart when considering that I'm not the only one calling you out on your hideous misinterpretations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The way I understand it, a CC has a prospective size limit of 25 and is created through sponsorship by a settlement (and only exists by that sponsorship). The next largest "social group" is the settlement. If the settlement is destroyed, you would loose your settlement association and chat...and your CC would loose its sponsorship and chat...and be dissolved.
There is no in-game social group larger than CC that does not gain its identity from the land it "owns". Take that land away and so goes all the in-game support in maintaining that group. Please correct me if consequences have...softened.
Ryan indicated there would likely be a grace period after the Settlement was destroyed before all the sponsored Chartered Companies were dissolved, to give them enough time to find another Settlement to sponsor them.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't remember seeing anything about CCs getting dissolved. These are quotes I have on the wiki.
When a settlement is attacked and destroyed: "if you don't re-establish your Settlement building in a limited amount of time the Settlement is dissolved."
You will not lose your membership in a Chartered Company if you join a Settlement, even if that Settlement is different than the one that issued the Charter.
Chartered companies are not a subset of a Settlement. Characters in a chartered company could be from different settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't remember seeing anything about CCs getting dissolved.
From Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing:
I suspect that a dying Settlement might calve off a number of Chartered Companies but they'll be in a race to find new sponsorship before their home Settlement is destroyed.
And the very next post:
... you get notified that your sponsorship has been revoked. Now you're on a short timer to find a new sponsor or have your Charter terminated...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You will not lose your membership in a Chartered Company if you join a Settlement, even if that Settlement is different than the one that issued the Charter.
I think it's an implication of this line right here. If a Charter is issued by a settlement, and that settlement ceases to exist, it's not unreasonable to assume the Charter issued by them ceases to exist as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it's an implication of this line right here. If a Charter is issued by a settlement, and that settlement ceases to exist, it's not unreasonable to assume the Charter issued by them ceases to exist as well.You will not lose your membership in a Chartered Company if you join a Settlement, even if that Settlement is different than the one that issued the Charter.
Agreed. This will make CCs have a stake in the well-being of their sponsoring settlement...and hence give settlements motivation to sponsor CCs (for their added support). In fact, I would go so far as to argue that as we understand the game today, one of the deciding factors of which settlements will be most successful, will be their management of CC sponsorship.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed. This will make CCs have a stake in the well-being of their sponsoring settlement...and hence give settlements motivation to sponsor CCs (for their added support). In fact, I would go so far as to argue that as we understand the game today, one of the deciding factors of which settlements will be most successful, will be their management of CC sponsorship.I think it's an implication of this line right here. If a Charter is issued by a settlement, and that settlement ceases to exist, it's not unreasonable to assume the Charter issued by them ceases to exist as well.You will not lose your membership in a Chartered Company if you join a Settlement, even if that Settlement is different than the one that issued the Charter.
It also makes Settlements a prime target for those looking to damage Chartered Companies it is sponsoring, above and beyond any resource/territory concerns.