Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being,
Yeah I do think I get what you are saying and I really wasn't intending to comment on whether the proposal was good, bad or indifferent. I do think it's an interesting concept for a game, even it may not exactly be my cup of tea. I believe there are even a few single player RPG's that have tried something similar (Fable ?)
My only comment was that I think doing it might require some significant revision of some of the current PFO design concepts, and thoughts on New Player Experience....since Alignment feeds into alot those systems. Having everybody Neutral for a significant amount of time/play effort...obviously has some implications for those systems.
There is also the issue of setting player expectations appropriately which I think is already going to be a rather big issue for PFO (so this really might not make much difference here). For those of us following these boards for the past year...that's not that big of a deal. For new players coming in there is going to be a certain set of expectations when they see the name PATHFINDER Online....those expectations will be entirely different then if it were called <insert made up name here> Online. If they want the IP to be a benefit rather then a detriment to them, they are going to have to be pretty carefull in setting and managing those players expectations. They are already standing so many things on thier head, that I'll be interested to see how that works out for them once the game expands beyond the small following here on the boards. The last thing they want to do is have a player come in and say "WTH? How is this PATHFINDER Online", even though the same player might have come in and given the game enough of a chance to find it alot of fun ....If they didn't have certain preset expectations driven by the name and found it not matching up with those expectations. I think that's going to be an interesting challenge for Ryan and the marketing team, as well as whoever is putting together documentation and the New Player Experience...not insurmountable clearly...but certainly requiring a very fine touch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Training guilds are hopefully going to be monitered very carefully. Either way could be disastrous.
1. training halls are too easy: every city has 11 maxed training halls in 1 year.
2. almost a year has passed and everyone on the server has thousands of Exp to spend but only 2 cities have advanced training halls and they are not sharing because they don't even have enough for their own community.
Definitely needs to be monitored, and I'm pretty confident that they will a pretty serious eye on this particular dynamic.
#1 is easy enough to deal with, by adjusting the price/requirements.
#2 If thousands are waiting, those thousands should be able to band together create a settlement and bargain/threaten the other 2 settlements, or work to build their own training halls.
|
Oh wow, that took a while to catch up:
1) Good Blog
2) Alt discussion: Everyone is also forgetting Cap Stone abilities. Unless they changed it and I missed it, if you play a Fighter for a year and then suddenly switch to a wizard, you are going to miss out on higher level abilities that you would have had with either. Just like in the PnP, you would end up with a Fighter 10/Wizard 10, not Fighter 20/Wizard 20/Paladin 20/Monk 20/Bus Driver 20 because of the lolz.
3) Is anyone else surprised by the line:
Every hour your character is able to advance (via being subscribed or otherwise buying advancement time), you gain Experience Points (XP)
Not in a "ZOMG, I WILL NEVER PLAY WAY!". I mean, I am a bit surprised and kind of confused. What exactly does that mean? I understand that part about the subs, but the part about buying advancement time. Does that mean that people can buy 'exp over time' for alts? Or that f2p players (that was an option for playing, wasn't it? I forget everything I have heard confirmed/hinted at/discussed/wished for over the year) will be unable to level up without buying the EXP time thing?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not in a "ZOMG, I WILL NEVER PLAY WAY!". I mean, I am a bit surprised and kind of confused. What exactly does that mean? I understand that part about the subs, but the part about buying advancement time. Does that mean that people can buy 'exp over time' for alts? Or that f2p players (that was an option for playing, wasn't it? I forget everything I have heard confirmed/hinted at/discussed/wished for over the year) will be unable to level up without buying the EXP time thing?
It is unclear whether you can login and play if you have not payed subs. I am assuming not.
HOWEVER let us assume the dev's do decide to let you log in and play without subs. Your characters will at this point not be advancing. You would then have two options, either pay real money for subs (and buy extra time if you have alts) or earn enough gold in game to buy advancement time off another player who has it for sale.
NOTE: It seems pretty clear from the blogs that no character can advance faster than 1 month per real month, buying extra training is only useful if you have alts to assign it to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everyone is also forgetting Cap Stone abilities. Unless they changed it and I missed it
They changed it, and you missed it. Instead of capstone abilities, you'll get a bonus of some kind for slotting only abilities of a single archetype or general abilities available to all, which scales with the "level" of the highest ability you have slotted. (Note that some abilities, e.g. weapon skills I'm guessing, may belong to multiple archetypes.)
3) Is anyone else surprised by the line:
Quote:
Every hour your character is able to advance (via being subscribed or otherwise buying advancement time), you gain Experience Points (XP)
Not in a "ZOMG, I WILL NEVER PLAY WAY!". I mean, I am a bit surprised and kind of confused. What exactly does that mean? I understand that part about the subs, but the part about buying advancement time. Does that mean that people can buy 'exp over time' for alts? Or that f2p players (that was an option for playing, wasn't it? I forget everything I have heard confirmed/hinted at/discussed/wished for over the year) will be unable to level up without buying the EXP time thing?
In a nutshell, yes, with the way the current blog spells out training, what was formerly buying "training time" is now literally buying "exp over time". However, as I understand it (and I hope I'm not just assuming something based on EVE Online, but I can't recall a specific quote or blog *casts a Summon Nihimon spell ;)*) buying that training time is possible both with real money (i.e. subscription, or game shop/MTX) or by buying it from another player using in-game currency. In the Early Enrolment period, as I understand it, it will be subscription-only at least until the game shop is implemented.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Keovar, sorry. I definitely didn't intend to misrepresent. I was just trying to illustrate the problem. Judging by Gloreindl's question, I didn't do a very good job :)
@Gloreindl, you didn't miss anything. I just did a bad job of making my point.
Keovar had suggested earning XP by account rather than by character. I was trying to illustrate the problem with this. In essence, because of things like Destiny's Twin and the ability to pay for additional XP Gain, you would have to end up doing some very funky accounting in order to ensure that a single character didn't have access to more of that account-based XP than they should be able to spend. At that point, what's the benefit of storing the XP by Account rather than by Character?
So we can divide our XP as we wish, instead of being stuck with the first two characters we make getting designated as our 'main' and 'destiny twin' neither of which could ever be changed.
Unlike those upset at the idea of starting with 10-12 in each stat, I do consider the 'cosmetic' aspects of my characters to be more significant than those of Monopoly pawns. Things like the race, gender, name, etc. can't be changed, unless they eventually make that a skymetal item.
It would be nice to wait on making my DT character for a while instead of having to design and designate two characters on day one.
As to buying catch-up training via skymetal, I don't see an issue with that as long as it isn't breaking the cap of what would have been possible from release (or the first day of their EE entry, as appropriate). Someone coming to the game late might want to catch up a bit, and if they're willing to drop all that money on GW, that just keeps the game operating for the rest of us.
Unless they changed it and I missed it, if you play a Fighter for a year and then suddenly switch to a wizard, you are going to miss out on higher level abilities that you would have had with either.
They changed it, you missed it. :P
Now your 'single class bonus' depends not on the order of your training, but on only using abilities appropriate to that class. If you have only fighter abilities (and perhaps non-class general ones), you get a focus bonus.For example, if you have a mix of rogue and fighter abilities slotted, you don't get the focus, but you may take advantage of the synergy between the two roles.
|
|
Unless they changed it and I missed it, if you play a Fighter for a year and then suddenly switch to a wizard, you are going to miss out on higher level abilities that you would have had with either.They changed it, you missed it....
Oh crap, when did that happen? XD I guess I must have missed a blog or announcement at some point. Mraw
In that case, then yeah, I guess you can be level 20 in every class, given enough time. Of course, assuming that is correct then it would still take many, many years. Having an alt would still help because you could different skills on different characters. It would defiantly assist if one of your characters is a chaotic evil wizard and you want to start building a Paladin or something, I guess.
On a side note, that kind of makes me sad to hear about the cap stone ability. I thought it was a cool idea to reward players for playing a certain type of character for all that time and rewarded making alts, but I guess I can see why.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You wouldn't be able to start out as Level 1 Paladins, Monks, Good or Evil Clerics, Assasins, etc...From what we know so far, you won't be able to start out as Level 1 anything. You won't learn Fighter 1 (or any other Role) until you've completed all of the pre-reqs for it....
My impression from Being was that he wanted some pretty significant effort on the part of the Player to earn thier Aligments...meaning that alot of core classes wouldn't be availble for players to pursue as part of the New Player Experience....they'd be more like Prestiege classes, I guess.Fair enough, but I wouldn't go that far. It will be in a player's interest to realize what it means for a character to be played Lawful and Good, to earn their LG alignment so they knew what it took to get there.
True, in PnP the player gets to pick Paladin if they want and gets aura of good right off the bat but they have a GM right there guiding them so they hopefully don't immediately lose their LG alignment and thus their Paladin benefits.
There won't be that guiding GM present in this game so if the player has to work a bit to achieve LG alignment then Paladin skills should open to them as soon as they do gain LG, and maybe something earned will be something valued. Maybe they will be careful to not lose what they took the trouble to earn.
How hard it is to achieve LG from 0,0? No idea. But my recommendation is that it should be noticable, and even if it is easy I hope there is something significant about it that leaves an impression on the Paladin that his or her perseverance is worth the trouble, even if it means a visitation by Iomedae.
I can't imagine that it will work as most people seem to fear. I imagine that SOME Paladin abilities will require a certain alignment to use, not all of them. If it were all of them, a Paladin that lost his alignment would suddenly not be able to fight. That makes sense neither from a realism nor a gameplay point of view.
I fully expect the first (few?) 'levels' of any class to be trainable by characters of any alignment. It could even be staggered such that some 3rd level Paladin abilities require neutral or above on both axes. Progressing further through the tree will start to impose LG alignment restrictions on some/all skills. This way, when a character loses their class's required alignment, they will still have some low-power combat abilities to fall back on while they work/wait to get it back.
@GW
Another great blog! I see nothing to take issue with, and I'm excited about all the great new systems to engage with.
Maybe it's just me, but I seem to have noticed that you've taken extra care in the last few blogs to describe some of the general concepts for those that may not frequent the forums much, or who haven't been here long (the last section of this blog, for instance). Thank you! That takes the burden of constantly quoting dev posts off the community. Now, if we could get a blog mention about the Capstone Abilities being replaced by the Dedication system...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh crap, when did that happen? XD I guess I must have missed a blog or announcement at some point.
On a side note, that kind of makes me sad to hear about the cap stone ability. I thought it was a cool idea to reward players for playing a certain type of character for all that time and rewarded making alts, but I guess I can see why.
The point in capstones for the tabletop PFRPG is to incentivize sticking with one class rather than moving to a prestige class or making a multiclass build that has synergies no single class would. It's for balancing, not really to tell you you're 'supposed' to be singleminded.
What would have happened in PFO is that training the wrong skill, either by mistake or just not understanding the system yet could mean you're left with a permanently broken (in the bad way) character. Took a week off from Fighter because your friends really needed a Cleric? No capstone for you, may as well delete and restart, or just quit the game altogether since it punished you for doing something that you thought was helpful.
With the focus/dedication bonus, the capstone effect is spread out over many levels not left to level 20 alone, and you don't end up in situations where one mistake ruins your ability to be great at one class. It still serves the goal of balancing single-classing vs. multiclass synergy.
There are some here that seem to like the idea of punishing people for misunderstanding the systems or just not spending hours designing years of character advancement. I'm not sure why they're like that, but I like the idea of removing unrecoverable mistake traps wherever possible. I'm not saying someone should be able to reshape their character on a whim and do it every day, but there should be some way to work towards a change. It will keep players in the game much longer, and that's good for everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All fairly good announcements.
At the end of the blog it seemed you may have been implying that you will take longer than 2.5 years to develop the abilities that require 2.5 years of training? If so I am glad to hear and fully support that. Will be nice to get in some diversity while we wait on higher level abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really happy with the XP change from the EvE training system (and at least my phone won't be bleeping at me all the time that my training queue is nearly empty in PFO). I just hope they find some way to implement a system similar to the EvE certificate system to help people plan things out a bit.
As for the training "monopolies", well isn't that all part of the player interaction. It's just another thing for players to negotiate among themselves and for settlements to come to arrangements about. I love it.
Really happy with the XP change from the EvE training system (and at least my phone won't be bleeping at me all the time that my training queue is nearly empty in PFO). I just hope they find some way to implement a system similar to the EvE certificate system to help people plan things out a bit.
As for the training "monopolies", well isn't that all part of the player interaction. It's just another thing for players to negotiate among themselves and for settlements to come to arrangements about. I love it.
Ryan has said that they will add their own version of the certificate system, not to worry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only concern with the NPC alternate roles and the dedication bonus. If you've built a Ranger/commoner(harvester) and slotted abilities from both, that kind of goes together, likewise a Fighter/aristocrat(battle-leader). That seems very different than slotting heals from the cleric skill tree along with spells from a mage tree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only concern with the NPC alternate roles and the dedication bonus. If you've built a Ranger/commoner(harvester) and slotted abilities from both, that kind of goes together, likewise a Fighter/aristocrat(battle-leader). That seems very different than slotting heals from the cleric skill tree along with spells from a mage tree.
I imagine there might be abilities that apply toward multiple roles and you get the dedication bonus from the role with the largest number of slotted abilities that apply to it. That would be the way I'd do it, anyway.
Example:
ability A = Fighter/ Rogue/ Ranger
ability B = Cleric/Ranger/Druid
ability C = Fighter/Ranger
Your dedication Bonus = Ranger 3
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe GW could give a few blogs on character progressions for the normal PC 'classes' and NPC 'classes'.
Also love to hear how non-settlements for druid progression is going to work. I sure witch 'class' in the future would be similar to druids, in terms of living outside of settlements, as the common folk normal fear them, regardless of alignment, simple because they tend to be freaks and cast out of the community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I remember in Temple of Elemental Evil, The village of Hommlet had a Druid grove in town with Jaroo function as the town spiritual leader. In Game of Thrones there is a Godswood(Druid grove equivalent) in Winterfell. Golarion is a different world, but it would be entirely possible for a settlement that meets the alignment requirements to have a Druid Grove "building" in the settlement and provide a place for Druid and Ranger training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why can't druids and rangers belong to settlements? Couldn't they have groves, or big-ass trees or something that mechanically count as settlements?
Yeah I think eventually the settlement rules will allow for all sorts of interesting structures to serve as training areas for chaotic and neutral types. Tree cities. Stone Henge with stone cottages. Villages with fighting pits for Barbarians, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*casts a Summon Nihimon spell ;)*
Sorry, that almost fizzled. But yes, I would say that being able to buy training time with real money and trade it to other players for in-game money is - like relatively open PvP - one of those things that's a virtual lock to be in the game.
From Kickstarter Community Thread: Subscriptions & Microtransactions:
We are also intending to have a system where you can trade game-time with other players for in-game currency. We think systems like this, similar to the PLEX system created by CCP for EVE Online, address a lot of issues with real-money-trading and strikes a good balance between controlling the in-game economy and rewarding players for mastering the game and spending time playing and the interest of some players to increase their enjoyment of the game with real-money purchases.
I remember in Temple of Elemental Evil, The village of Hommlet had a Druid grove in town with Jaroo function as the town spiritual leader. In Game of Thrones there is a Godswood(Druid grove equivalent) in Winterfell. Golarion is a different world, but it would be entirely possible for a settlement that meets the alignment requirements to have a Druid Grove "building" in the settlement and provide a place for Druid and Ranger training.
Personally I don't see a problem with a Druid or Ranger being a member of a settlement. They could always go into the woods to commune with nature. Even if they don't allow for groves inside settlements, I see no reason that one couldn't be set up right outside of town?
If we can plant trees then we can create groves anywhere. Even inside a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The XP system they are using is actually already part of the EVE Universe as well. It's the same system used in Dust 514
minus the ability to earn a certain amount of skill points from active play each day.
For those of you who own a Playstation 3 I would go download Dust 514 right away. It's free to download and play and despite the fact it's in beta there will be no more character wipes. It's a good, free, opportunity to familiarize yourself with a skill training system similar to PFO. Plus it's incredibly fun.
Add Tharak Meuridiar as a contact and send me a PM saying you did so, or join The Empyrean Agency if you want someone to squad with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like more information on the "instructor" limitations.
Is it a set amount of instructors?
Is this amount a fairly large amount of instructors?
Can they be increased?
How long would they be occupied? If its just as long as it takes to purchase, then that seems like a non-issue, but if there is some set amount of time it takes or the instructors need to "rest" for a time then this seems annoying.
Im guessing its not as bad as it sounds, but I cant help but imagine the worst. Like trying to gain access every day for 2 weeks then finally getting it just to do what is basically a 2 min transaction from the instructor. Or like really long lines that take hours like Disney World or Communist bread lines.
Depensing on how bad or good the availibility is could be game breaking for me. It seems ridiculous to have this limitation, if there is no work around. You have in game money, ability score, prereq. skills, training time, and action requirements (kill 10 of x using a sword). And settlements could charge a high amount for high quality/rare training types. What is the point of having limited "instructors"?
Other than this issue, everything else in the blog sounds perfect to me. Id like to hear a dev response for the reasoning for this, as I doesnt make any sense to me. I dont understand the purpose.
Probably it will be a queue to the trainer, but you maybe right in waiting 2 weeks for a 2 minutes training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My impression is that no one settlement will be...Onishi is right on the money! a monopoly is exactly what it will be
I'm concerned that unless we settle a hex ourselves, most of us will always be dependent on someone else to train. While some dependence on others is fine, being able to play shouldn't be dependent on the whim of someone else, and by denying a player access to training you can effectively stop a player from playing the game at peek ability until they cave to your demands or they can find a settlement that will allow them to train at a price they can afford.
Will settlement A, created on day one of early enrollment basically always be ahead of settlement X created a year down the road? One would think so unless the folks at settlement A are real slackers, this would give members of settlement A a huge advantage in construction of training facilities able to offer the highest levels of training.
If the members of settlement A decide to close or severely limit membership they now hold an advantage over a large portion of the player base that will be VERY hard to overcome.
Or I can see settlement A, large and powerful, but involved in a long drawn out war with several smaller neighbors offering the latest greatest training ONLY to those who agree to serve in their army.
Or how about this, I come along, I'm not a member of settlement A and I want to train, settlement A will not allow non-members to use up the "limited" training slots available at their training hall, however settlement A is the only one to offer that skill what do I do?
Or take that same scenario, however this time lets say I'm one of the founders of settlement X and need to train a skill. I travel to settlement A, who invite me to train ONLY IF I'll leave settlement X and pay 3x the going rate, or marry their ugly sister, etc...
It basically comes down to a case of the “haves vs. the have nots” where the “haves” are always in a position to demand whatever they choose.
I agree with Okimbored and Onishi. A small settlement, even if specialized, have disadvantage against a great settlement (20x bigger).
I think this idea of a fighter can only train in a player owned structure that have level enought for his train will limit the game experience.
I have a solution for this: Instead of lvl limited and especialized traing ground, why don´t focus in training cost and training speed, or even training slots (that will result in traing speed). For example, a Fighter want to train weapon specialization, it will take 2x time and 2x gold if you train in a lvl 1 training center, or 1.5x time and 1.5x gold, if traing in a lvl 2 traing center. This makes the training ground lvl 2, for a great settlement, more important than for a small settlement, because the diference of costs in traing for many people makes it worth.
I this idea, you still can have a specialized center, that will reduce time and/or gold costs for a especific class.
This solve the monopoly/high dependence of training problem, while still reward a well organized settlement which will have reduced costs and traing time for leveling up his traing center.
Settlements with high level traing center can allow his alliance use his center for lower costs and traing time. And can taxes for outsiders use it. But this taxes won't be extremely high, because you can train in every settlement, including NPC settlement, paying more but YOU CAN.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I like the idea that higher facilities will be able to offer higher tier skills, or push through a much higher volume of lower-tier skills, but not both. In either case the upkeep per should increase- a higher capacity school can charge a premium per credit hour for a shorter wait list, and has to to break even on upkeep costs.
That way there's a market and potentially a wait list for every training facility- the smallest ones have the lowest price, but worst location (not close to major markets or other facilities), lowest volume of training, and fewest skills available. The facilities which can train the highest skills can't afford to match the prices of the lower tier ones on the more basic skills (don't go to MIT to learn basic physics).
It feels wrong to have larger facilities cost more per unit of training, but combining the ability to have a shorter wait list per unit volume with the ability to profit on a lower tuition is a triple blow against the lowest-tier facilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea that higher facilities will be able to offer higher tier skills, or push through a much higher volume of lower-tier skills, but not both. In either case the upkeep per should increase- a higher capacity school can charge a premium per credit hour for a shorter wait list, and has to to break even on upkeep costs.
That way there's a market and potentially a wait list for every training facility- the smallest ones have the lowest price, but worst location (not close to major markets or other facilities), lowest volume of training, and fewest skills available. The facilities which can train the highest skills can't afford to match the prices of the lower tier ones on the more basic skills (don't go to MIT to learn basic physics).
It feels wrong to have larger facilities cost more per unit of training, but combining the ability to have a shorter wait list per unit volume with the ability to profit on a lower tuition is a triple blow against the lowest-tier facilities.
This is the economics of the Skill-Training (as per the other thread). This is a good question.
Is Stephen Cheney suggesting that lower skill-training is sort of the carrot for big settlements to attract new players - who will also be important as harvesters/gatherers (Commoner roles) for the settlement's running?
So as Decius is asking, what is the attraction of a smaller settlement? Lower running costs/labour required - therefore more select intake possible and hence less requirement for new players through quantity, more through "quality"?
Not familiar with how stable different sizes of groups of players are in mmorpgs (perhaps EVE has good data on this), but Dunbar's Number (approx. 150) suggests at least in real life communities the limit of everyone knows everyone. With Settlements populations rising into the '000s it really will feel like a hugely complex social world. Perhaps small settlements will simply be favored by players who wish to have close-knit groups at the sacrifice of "power"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In medieval European cities the guildhouses were powers in themselves.
If the settlement grows into a kingdom the training halls will likely function as guildhalls did.
The control and scope of a training hall could become its own subset, an element of the community, with a training hall leader and his chartered company.
Perhaps that is one of the ways a sponsored chartered company should work: the company leadership offers to a settlement a defined service in exchange for the priviledge of sponsorship. Focusing on one of the types of training halls still needed or the kinds of crafting expertise and resource gathering the kingdom is short on. The focus of that chartered company then revolves around their duty, to build and then improve that type of training, or to supply and produce the type of product in greatest demand. The wealth of nations will depend on commerce and education, as it should be. The best kingdom will be as attractive to players as hubs of interest, intrigue, and commerce.
So if a kingdom is now a population in the thousands that is okay, since really the individual has a limited sphere of business within that microcosm. Ensuring your company is well represented in the affairs of the kingdom, and well prepared to defend it, to defend its interests as if they were your own. Because really, they are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The control and scope of a training hall could become its own subset, an element of the community, with a training hall leader and his chartered company.
That's a thought now: Monopoly of section of skill-training, by a group of players (via infiltrating settlements, an across-settlement affiliation, and even organising wars on settlements that provide training in said area that this "shadowy" group lays claim to?! Cue: "This goes all the way to the white house!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That way there's a market and potentially a wait list for every training facility- the smallest ones have the lowest price, but worst location (not close to major markets or other facilities), lowest volume of training, and fewest skills available. The facilities which can train the highest skills can't afford to match the prices of the lower tier ones on the more basic skills (don't go to MIT to learn basic physics).
OK, but if I am out of market? If the unique lvl 10 Ranger trainer is in a enemy nation and my nation only have lvl 8 Ranger trainer. I will have to lvl up that trainer alone, because my nation have others priorities?
For market of items I agree. A vorpal sword need a lvl 20 workshop be build, but trade skill training? Thats makes no sense to me. And what about that history of get activements from doing things and learn skill from activements? It is still in Goblinworks plan?
You used MIT for example, so I will use it too. If I am a briliant and weathy student from an US enemy (like a Russian during the cold war), may I learn in MIT? Even if I have money, knowledge and inteligence, I dont think US goverment will allow that. But, an US enemy student can be better than an MIT student? Yes, but the US enemy studant will take more time and, maybe, more money to active that, because don't had a great MIT teacher.
I didn't like the monopoly idea. I prefer the idea of economically favored, like I said in my last post. Let the monopoly idea to itens and market, that makes more sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
OK, but if I am out of market? If the unique lvl 10 Ranger trainer is in a enemy nation and my nation only have lvl 8 Ranger trainer. I will have to lvl up that trainer alone, because my nation have others priorities?For market of items I agree. A vorpal sword need a lvl 20 workshop be build, but trade skill training? Thats makes no sense to me. And what about that history of get activements from doing things and learn skill from activements? It is still in Goblinworks plan?
You used MIT for example, so I will use it too. If I am a briliant and weathy student from an US enemy (like a Russian during the cold war), may I learn in MIT? Even if I have money, knowledge and inteligence, I dont think US goverment will allow that. But, an US enemy student can be better than an MIT student? Yes, but the US enemy studant will take more time and, maybe, more money to active that, because don't had a great MIT teacher.
I didn't like the monopoly idea. I prefer the idea of economically favored, like I said in my last post. Let the monopoly idea to itens and market, that makes more sense.
The more probable case is that there will be more settlements than you expect and enough of them will be closely enough allied with your alignment that you will be able to train up your ranger.
Possibly not to max.
If it came to pass where the only way I could max my Ranger would be to change my alignment long enough to get the training I needed, then that is just what I would have to do.: engineer my alignment to geive me access to the training I need, even if it is only a temporary expedient.
If I need MIT I will have to change my ways at least long enough to get accepted and then graduate, assuming I could assemble the money it would take. Probably by that time you will be able to see it coming: you will know what it will take. At that point you have two options that I can see: increase the training facilities of your own settlement or else change your self to an alignment that will be accepted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thing is, it is not a monopoly...yet. Some people are leaping to the conclusion that this is what it will become, and truth be told, it may. That is however a worst case scenario, and it actually gives you and your settlement something to do. That is, create your own training facility or find and lure trainers into your settlement.
I rather like the overall idea. It gives an edge to settlements that concentrate on such things, much the same way as if they specialised in crafting, markets/trade or straight combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a skill related "guild" wanted to create a monopoly there would be a number of steps needed.
- establish a settlement and focus on buildings that trade your guild skillsets
- invest in buildings that are far more specialised in your narrow area than other settlements can afford or would be bothered doing
- charge a premium price for those high level skills and invest the profits in building even higher level training buildings to maintain your edge
- make sure the price you charge is not SO high that other settlements are tempted to invest in better training facilities themselves
What makes this viable under current proposed rules is your settlement can only be destroyed not captured. Hence attacking you is not a viable alternative to building their own training halls or buying your services.
There would be a few political implications. you would need to behave like Switzerland does in the real world and make your services indispensable to everyone. That way should you be attacked by a random group your vast collection of allies will leap to your defence.
NOTE: The general idea is that building some high level training halls may be so expensive that most settlements will only do it for common popular skill areas like fighting skills.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Part of my assumption would be that there would be very little short of open war that one group could do to prevent another from building a training facility, provided they had the resources to do so.
Gaining a monopoly via being the only group who can afford to build it grants the ability to charge what the market will bear for its use. If you charge too much, you provide additional incentive to other groups to get their own.
If you get to the point where you need a specific building in order to train more, then play the game and get one built.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the Char creation that sucks a lemon to me. It's counter intuitive, and all starting characters being tabula rasa clones is major anathema to role players. Characters should have flavor from day one.
This sounds much worse than it is. Character creation/progression strongly resembles EVE. In EVE, you have an exceptionally low amount of variance between starting characters. However, you train your initial skills so quickly that personalizing/individualizing your character is a fast, seamless process.
Anyway, the real diversity between characters is never in their stats. It's how they're played.
It is sort of sounding a lot like the most interesting way to play is go do something else for a month or two come back to a heap of XP and then spend a full weekend online doing the other stuff needed to rank up and get up to date then log off again for another month :D
Nah, because while you may skill up at a fixed pace, you'll gain wealth, reputation, standings, and your social network by your active participation in the game. If you only log in one weekend every month, your access to a lot of player-driven content will be more limited and your toon will be less prosperous.
Not to mention that the settlement you belong to would stagnate and it's training facilities would remain at whatever level they are forcing you to have to seek out places to skill up. It would also suck to log back in to find that another group has seized the hex and your no longer welcome :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's the Char creation that sucks a lemon to me. It's counter intuitive, and all starting characters being tabula rasa clones is major anathema to role players. Characters should have flavor from day one.This sounds much worse than it is. Character creation/progression strongly resembles EVE. In EVE, you have an exceptionally low amount of variance between starting characters. However, you train your initial skills so quickly that personalizing/individualizing your character is a fast, seamless process.
Anyway, the real diversity between characters is never in their stats. It's how they're played.
Kudos to you, Edward.
It is terrible the way we find ourselves the passive victims of the machine, isn't it?
Or maybe the distinguishing feature of every character, what makes the character completely unique, is the player himself?
Maybe if we thought like that we could get out from under the burden of victimization and realize that how you play your character is what matters most.
You know: stand on your hindlegs and take responsibility for your character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it came to pass where the only way I could max my Ranger would be to change my alignment long enough to get the training I needed, then that is just what I would have to do.: engineer my alignment to geive me access to the training I need, even if it is only a temporary expedient.
Good point. If I am a paladin, and I turn alignment to NG, what happen with my paladins powers? I will lose them all? They will be disable because I am not a paladin anymore? When I turn back LG, I will have to do a redemption ritual to get my powers back? A paladin trainer will only accept LG characters?
Maybe you are right, and I can change my alignment to get accept to receive training. But sometimes it will not be possible.
Change my char alignment to get trained shows that this system have a problem.
I know that could be interesting the skill traing market. But unlike a item that requires a high level workshop be crafted and can be sold to any char in PFO, a especific class level skill cannot be bought by anyone. An altenative is the possibility of class trainer craft a skill book, or something like that, that can be sold to anyone.
Change my char alignment to get trained shows that this system have a problem.
.
I don't know. The only real problem is a settlement that's your alignment hasn't done what's required to build that type of training facility. I see that as a problem for the settlement more so then a problem with the games mechanics.
There's nothing stopping a settlement from going to war just to destroy rival training facilities making theirs the "only game in town".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Change my char alignment to get trained shows that this system have a problem.
.I don't know. The only real problem is a settlement that's your alignment hasn't done what's required to build that type of training facility. I see that as a problem for the settlement more so then a problem with the games mechanics.
There's nothing stopping a settlement from going to war just to destroy rival training facilities making theirs the "only game in town".
Depends on the cost/difficulty of moving a siege over long distances. Only game "in town" is meaningless, players with little baggage can move across large distances with minimal difficulty, siege enginry on the other hand, could be made extremely difficult to move over large distances.
If say settlement destroying level of combat can only practically be waged with at minimum assistance from a settlement 3-4 hexes away, the monopoly issue vanishes. Also takes care of many other issues that could happen from group or groups at the top want to crush all competition as soon as they look like they may be getting close to their strength.
Now for the purpose of mercenaries, alliances, defenders of justice etc... nearby settlements could offer a jump off point etc... to launch attacks from, if they so choose, but this jump off point should also be known. Makes knowing who your neighbors are very important.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it came to pass where the only way I could max my Ranger would be to change my alignment long enough to get the training I needed, then that is just what I would have to do.: engineer my alignment to geive me access to the training I need, even if it is only a temporary expedient.
Good point. If I am a paladin, and I turn alignment to NG, what happen with my paladins powers? I will lose them all? They will be disable because I am not a paladin anymore? When I turn back LG, I will have to do a redemption ritual to get my powers back? A paladin trainer will only accept LG characters?
Maybe you are right, and I can change my alignment to get accept to receive training. But sometimes it will not be possible.
Change my char alignment to get trained shows that this system have a problem.
I know that could be interesting the skill traing market. But unlike a item that requires a high level workshop be crafted and can be sold to any char in PFO, a especific class level skill cannot be bought by anyone. An altenative is the possibility of class trainer craft a skill book, or something like that, that can be sold to anyone.
I assume if you were LG, then you'd be welcome to use a LG training facility eg "Paladin's Annexe".
Here's the blog that answers your question:
To give you an example, our interpretation of lawful good and paladins is that paladins do not have carte blanche to murder anyone they detect as evil. For all they know, that person could be working on atonement right at that moment. Killing is by nature a non-good action, but that does not mean it is not sometimes a necessary action or that all killings are equally punished. Indeed, a paladin who murders a peasant for no good reason will find himself quickly bereft of his powers, while one who kills a group of bandits is likely to need to perform some other good deeds to unburden his soul from the stain of blood upon it. Effectively, paladins have to go to confession eventually, or perform some comparable act. Any paladin who is prideful enough to settle all questions of morality with a sword is really not much of a paladin, or at least won't be for long. But demons, supernatural evil, and people with the Heinous flag are totally evil and you should kill them.
So what does that all mean? Killing other players without flags results in loss of good vs. evil along the same scope as losses in reputation described above. So if a paladin kills someone of average evil (-5,000 good vs. evil) they will lose 16 points on the good vs. evil scale. Assuming the paladin is likewise of average good (5,000 good vs. evil), they would have to kill over 150 people of average evil to lose their good alignment, though if they kill characters who are also good they will quickly find their alignment slipping to neutral and evil. Killing a single person of average good alignment will put most good characters on the verge of neutral, if not over the edge.
So if you change to Neutral you seem to have already killed people at the sacrifice of what makes a Paladin "noble/honorable" etc?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good point. If I am a paladin, and I turn alignment to NG, what happen with my paladins powers? I will lose them all? They will be disable because I am not a paladin anymore? When I turn back LG, I will have to do a redemption ritual to get my powers back? A paladin trainer will only accept LG characters?
If a paladin shifts away from LG (into NG or LN) they lose their class powers until they regain paladinhood. You keep your skills, proficiencies, and other things not directly tied to the paladin class, but you'd be functioning basically like a fighter with very few feats.
Read Code of Conduct & Ex-Paladins.In PFO terms, you'd first have to return your alignment to LG and then you'd probably have to purchase an atonement at a paladin training building or appropriate temple. There should probably also be an increase in cost for repeated falls from paladinhood, with one fall dropping off your record every 12 months.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
At this point the stats are there so you can call it a RPG, and have a tacked on system to give them meaning.Sad design choice.
Lee
There have been many RPG's over the years (online or not) that have not even included stats. I think what you're saying is that because stats and not 3d6, then it isn't PF - and that's all.