Goblin Squad Member
|
What is Pharasma up to? With characters coming back from the dead, in affect denying souls to the other gods, we could be talking millions of opportunities for souls to move on rather than being recycled. Rovagug may not care but Asmodeus might be really pissed. I was ruminating on in-game reasons for this and I want to see if any of these make sense.
1) The rest of the gods are in on this: When souls pass through the Boneyard they are momentarily closser to the gods than when in mortal form. This could be an excellent time for the gods to speak to mortals if the gods needed something. After all, what is a Crusader Road with out a crusade. Rarely and randomly characters could be given a vision of something as yet undiscovered by players, like a distant hex controlled by a powerful lich or monster. This event would be so rare that the PC might not believe that it occured. This would be a great way for GW to input information into the game in context with the game.
2) Giving griefers an option: I know that this sounds really Sarenrae, but if GW decides they have a griefer problem the player could be offered an option to their character's re-spawning normally. They could come back permanently as a monster in a distant hex. The griefer could then be as evil as they want whenever they want within the context of the game. Those persons can band together to raid "civilized" areas and kill to their hearts content. There could be enough players involved to build a monster settlement far enough away as to require a really major effort to attack, but still be a base for the transformed character to play the game. Heck, I think some griefers would pay extra to be able to do that.
What are your thoughts about an in-game context for Pharasma's behavior.
And, yes, "It's magic" is a valid reason, but not a very thematically satisfying one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What are your thoughts about an in-game context for Pharasma's behavior.
And, yes, "It's magic" is a valid reason, but not a very thematically satisfying one.
I would expect that the reason Pharasma is acting so weird in keeping thousands of souls from the afterlife would have something to do with Groetus. I expect that either Groetus himself or his cultists are attempting to bring about the End Time early, and Pharasma is blocking some souls from being judged to keep the Dooms from happening before the appointed time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call myself a griefer, but I'd pay for option two. I am a human every day of my life, when I RP I want to experience something different. Look through the world in different eyes. If I could roll a gnoll and become server wide for terrorizing the border kingdoms, I'd be a happy man.
And there would be a lot of RP involved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
from the blog:
Each character has a certain number of "threads of fate" they can use to tie their equipment to them, thanks to the rather unusual relationship the characters have with the goddess Pharasma—the same relationship that causes them to keep coming back from the dead.
Who knows what the Lady of the Grave is up to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Suggestion.
If you want to PK while as a monster, you must pay for the privilege of playing a monster, by not receiving any loot from your kills.
Personally I'm in the camp of monsters in general looting players in many instances, in which some loot is recoverable on the monsters death, but most is still lost to the destruction scenerio just like in PVP.
Monsters should still have a preference to fight living characters, so it is really only an issue in TPK scenarios. For the purpose of realism this should probably be namely for moderately intelligent creatures. but really I do worry on many levels of item loss being too rare, and why shouldn't a kobold loot you.
Now I would say if a player operated monster existed, it probably shouldn't loot, or if it did the contents should be automatically be destroyed.
That being said the ideas of players running monsters as a whole just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Ex griefers running as monsters, would likely all work towards one goal, intentionally draining down one particular group, at the points when they are at war etc... If someone is fighting in a war, they have to have a stake, same reason why to have any notable impact in a battle, you pretty much need a settlement. Being able to cause extreme harm, while not needing to defend from the retaliation, is not something GW intents to have as a main event.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) The rest of the gods are in on this:
Pretty sure this must be the case. Pharasma is simply noting that some beings have the Mark saying they are fated to not die yet. She does not necessarily care about the reason, only that noone tried to abuse or screw up the life-death balance.
My speculation is that several of the deities are trying new business models where their mortal agents are revived through pre-negotiated subscription schemes rather than on a case-by-case basis. Pharasma might not be thrilled but it is better to have clear up-front agreements rather than being half-way through judgement when the resurrection petition comes. The mortal individuals covered by the agreements are the same that would be regularly raised/ressurected/reincarnated (Pharasma knows this), so the net effect on the life-death balance is minimal.
in short: Pharasma is streamlining her business operations.
(gah, I should learn to read PFO forums at work before checking mail)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Systematic accounting error. Deities have been spending more souls than they actually had for centuries, and now there's not enough population left to make up the shortfall. Therefore Souls will be recycled until the books are balanced, sort of like printing money. In order to accelerate the recycling process, those souls marked for recycling will all be tossed into the same high-conflict region and nudged towards high-risk behaviour. At the predicted soul throughput, the shortfall will be balanced in another 30 years and people can go back to dying permanently as usual.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To Moridian's point of desiring to play a monster...
Lord of the Rings Online had a player-monster system (wargs, orcs, and spiders), though in a limited region. Their take on it was that it was lore breaking to have player-monsters roaming through Hobbiton in droves since that didn't happen in the books. Not as certain that this would be a problem in PFO, though I would worry about a much higher skilled player-monster rampaging through starter zones.
From the point of view of someone who likes to create their own plots, this would be extremely helpful when needing an opponent in the story, but there are some issues to consider:
1. If you get to play more beast-like monsters (no hands, per se), then I would say that you shouldn't be able to loot, but you would have some trade-off, like faster movement on your four legs or wings. Personally, I'd have no problem with humanoid monsters looting - they have hands and they often collect their own treasure. If PKs get to loot an unthreaded item off your hapless corpse, why not player-monsters if they have the appropriate appendages.
2. You're attacked by any NPCs that you approach. Certainly settlement guards and especially starter town guards would attack on sight. Some players would suggest that their evil warg should be able to enter evil settlements, but evil kills evil all the time, so I don't know how many evil settlement NPC guards would care for a stray ogre stumbling into town. I would expect them to respond to it like any randomly spawned threat. If evil players want to conspire with you, you'll have to do it outside of "town".
3. More a question than a rule - how would you train your limited number of skills, or would you? If you can't progress in skills (even if only combat skills), how tough would you be when you started off? A newbie monster isn't going to be very scary. along that same line, can humanoid monsters gain limited skills in crafting or harvesting, or are they perpetual scavengers?
4. Lairs - Could you make the most rudimentary of homes in a hex, such as a bandit's hide-out, or are you limited to naturally occurring spots (caves, clearing in the woods, under a bridge)? If you can't supply the needed materials, I would say no - no lair for you. If you could, usually monsters hang with their own kind, so could there be a rule that you can only "create" a lair with similar monsters. If a group of player-goblins got together to make a lair, do they have any storage, like a limited settlement bank which can then be "collected" by regular players if they clean out the lair of those pesky goblins?
5. Would you have a limited number of spell-like abilities for the appropriate monsters, or could some, like an orc shaman, have the ability to train in some limited casting skills (evil cleric or other appropriate spell caster). Again, the question arises, how will they train?
What a lot of this comes down to is whether this is a fun role you get to hop into, but the role isn't dynamic in its progression, or is this going to be more of a character with the ability to advance? If the latter, then you're really just creating more character races. Personally, I think it should remain the former - you're a nasty monster, and you're staying the same nasty monster you were when you were first created. The fun is in the playing of it. Personally, I'd love to present that kind of fun for other players, but its not everyone's cup of tea.
Lord of the Rings Online had a player-monster system (wargs, orcs, and spiders), though in a limited region. Their take on it was that it was lore breaking to have player-monsters roaming through Hobbiton in droves since that didn't happen in the books. Not as certain that this would be a problem in PFO, though I would worry about a much higher skilled player-monster rampaging through starter zones.
I checked this out a few times when I was playing. I would have liked it better had they dropped me into a dungeon that players were going through. I understand not wanting a high lev warg loose in a starter zone though.
I wouldn't mind being able to play a mob, but it's not that big a deal to me.
@Hobbs in your case, it would be cool if you could requisition a creature or two in order to facilitate a storyline. Have players set to play the mobs. That would be a neat option as they will have a system in place for players to play mobs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that the monsters offered should be intelligent (as @Hobs pointed out) additional races, like hobgoblins (no offense Hobs) or drow. Monsters that have a social organization. That way they could build monster settlements. Intelligent monster races should be able to loot as PCs would to add more impact to the encounter.
That being said the ideas of players running monsters as a whole just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Ex griefers running as monsters, would likely all work towards one goal, intentionally draining down one particular group, at the points when they are at war etc... If someone is fighting in a war, they have to have a stake, same reason why to have any notable impact in a battle, you pretty much need a settlement. Being able to cause extreme harm, while not needing to defend from the retaliation, is not something GW intents to have as a main event.
I think that you describe how intelligent monsters might act. " "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of" monsters. I think that waging war on a monster controlled kingdom would be an interesting political situation. Who would evil PC settlements side with?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmmm ... random thought here, but what if you had to earn the right to control the monsters? Most of the discussion has been based on two assumptions:
1) Monsters are not 'alternate PCs'. Irrespective of skilling and looting, these are not meant to be your character, just a way of creating some interesting plots/events/etc.
2) Monsters should not be used to grief players.
So basically we actually want community oriented players to be using these monsters to provide events/plots for the community to participate in. Since the reputation mechanic is meant to provide an indication of who is well-respected/liked by the community, why not have access to these 'monster control tools' be unlocked by having, and maintaining, a high reputation?
It wouldnt be a perfect system to keep out the odd troublemaker who farms rep from friends. However, since rep trading is zero-sum (as I understand it, I could be wrong), it means that each troublemaker that gets access to the 'monster controls' is also keeping out several others by pooling all the 'positive rep' together.
Assuming we get monster controls in the first place of course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Like Moridian said, I would pay for the privilege of playing monsters to use in plots or just add to the fun of other people's gaming experience. Stumbling on a monster that moves and acts with real intelligence would be great fun and far more challenging.
In WoW I used to change into panther form and spend time in the new player zones either acting as a semi-intelligent animal or sometime stealth up to a player warlock and wait until he resummoned a killed imp. I'd appear and using an IC tell (telepathy), inform him that I was a more powerful demon who was somehow caught up by his summons and would serve his needs for an hour. After that, I would be free to return to my plane of origin. Having a LvL 32 panther as a temporary pet in a lvl 5-10 zone wasn't something too many people turned down. :)
Lets not forget that Ryan has stated more then once that players getting to play monsters will only be possible as a reward for backing the Kickstarter at a higher level. It's unlikely that he would change his mind as it would take away from those who pledged at the level they did in order to have that option.
Perhaps they could reopen the chance for players to pledge in order to play monsters. I think that's within the realm of possibilities being as they mentioned allowing ways for people to contribute and get into EE once they have the fulfillment system under control and rolling.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me a system whereby players could earn the ability to log in as a monster would be a net positive addition.
I do recommend some controls.
Players should have to achieve something to gain such a feature. The intention is to prevent or reduce abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me a system whereby players could earn the ability to log in as a monster would be a net positive addition.
I do recommend some controls.
Players should have to achieve something to gain such a feature. The intention is to prevent or reduce abuse.
No maps - the monster should not easily be able to tell his buddies where he is.
No in-game communications while in monster form.
Random spawn.
Single session, but no time limit.
No respawn: permadeath for that monster on defeat drops the player back into character select. If he opts for monster spawning it should be a different monster in a different area
I like it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me a system whereby players could earn the ability to log in as a monster would be a net positive addition.
I do recommend some controls.
Players should have to achieve something to gain such a feature. The intention is to prevent or reduce abuse.
No maps - the monster should not easily be able to tell his buddies where he is.
No in-game communications while in monster form.
Random spawn.
Single session, but no time limit.
No respawn: permadeath for that monster on defeat drops the player back into character select. If he opts for monster spawning it should be a different monster in a different area
I strongly disagree.
I mentioned in my own thread.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pihi?Polymorph-transformation-and-corruption
That I'd want the ability to play as a evil creature. Even felt certain penalties or restrictions should be in place. But I find those restrictions you mention would make the play redundant. So what I made a Gnoll warrior and when I log out it will be gone forever? If I die once all that hard work to earn the right to play a gnoll will be lost? Also most monsters can speak however difficult english may be for them.
This more reminds me of the event before wrath of the lichking where you could become a ghoul. You were incapable of speaking to your guild mates and anyone else but other ghouls. And of course EVERYONE was free to kill you.
Because of these few limitations alone you were nearly instantly killed, no matter where you were. And this was with the stats you carried over from your epic gear. I'd hate to consider how a random playable gnoll would fare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there's any ability to play monsters, I'd rather see it done like the alpha backer reward. Select members of the community chosen by GW, not for completing some specific in-game task. Kerafyrm taught me early that if you put something in front of players, they will find a way to overcome it, even if they're not supposed to.
I'd also rather see it be limited to GW-sponsored in-game events. Now, I think it'd be cool if you could plan out some big event, and petition it to GW to allow monster casting from the pool of approved players. You could give the other players in the monster pool instructions for how to play things out, and then send your group against an intelligent monster force.
Something like, "Hey GW, we're looking for 5 monster cast players to play a lich and his four skeletal knight LTs. Monsters will be guarding a location for a storyline we're running consisting of XYZ. Can we use this resource?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there's any ability to play monsters, I'd rather see it done like the alpha backer reward. Select members of the community chosen by GW, not for completing some specific in-game task. Kerafyrm taught me early that if you put something in front of players, they will find a way to overcome it, even if they're not supposed to.
I rarely if ever saw Jedi's around in galaxies before the patch which ruined the game. Sure there will be those who over come any challenge, but like the Jedi in Galaxies, they just need to make it hard enough to reward dedication, while at the same time being difficult to achieve to the point where the majority may never achieve it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I strongly disagree.
...
Okay, sure I understand you have a strong desire to play a monster as a permanent character.
I believe GW already ruled that out. If it turned out I'm right about that, and playing a monster as a permanent character is not an available option could you go for a compromise such as I proposed?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not really sure that our definition of "Monster" is the same as what GW was saying in the dev blogs. GW may mean non-humanoids like dragons, giants, and liches. We seem to be discussing monstrous humanoids like gnolls, goblins, and hobgoblins. Those can be added as a player race down the road, since they aren't really any different from PC races from a power standpoint, it's just a question of resources to add them to the game. I also remember that it may be an option down the road for a player to become a werewolf as part of character growth.
I'm pretty sure we will have the ability to play monstrous characters in PFO. It just wont be at EE and probably wont be until well after launch.
As a longtime player of LOTRO's PvMP (Player vs. Monster Player). I can tell you how they do it.
There is a seperate area, where you can bring your regular player in to battle players playing Monster (specifically Orc, Uruks, Wargs, Spiders and on the special occasions Trolls).
These Monsters are like a regular player character, you level them up, get new skills etc, with some major differences.
- First Monster players are overall weaker that regular players, monster players many time need to group up to take on regular players
- Monster player take much longer to get to higher levels than regular players (keeping them generally weaker)
- Monster players get not "Permanent" equipment. That only get essentially get consumables
- Monster players are limited to the monster play area (the Ettenmoors).
Monster players cannot communicate with regular players except by certain emotes. If a monster player talks while next to a regular player, that regular player will see gibberish, and vice versa. They cannot even communicate via Private message.
The regions is a psuedo war. Monsters vs Free People. The map has several regions, keeps, and such, that give bonuses based on what is taken over to the army takes it over. Monster players level by doing monster based quest (all simple gathering, and kill quests, no real plot) and killing Free People.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would rather have a very limited opportunity to play such creatures (special occasions for a story arc) then play them locked away in a specific zone of the map. My motivation is to offer other players more fun, not PvP in a PvP zone with a different skin on.
In another thread, we're discussing player made dungeons. Being able to buy such a dungeon and take control of one of the mobs within it might be a fun alternative. I think I recall NWN allowing a similar function.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not really sure that our definition of "Monster" is the same as what GW was saying in the dev blogs. GW may mean non-humanoids like dragons, giants, and liches. We seem to be discussing monstrous humanoids like gnolls, goblins, and hobgoblins. Those can be added as a player race down the road, since they aren't really any different from PC races from a power standpoint, it's just a question of resources to add them to the game.
Exactly! And I'd want them to have to be unlocked. The thing about orcs, tauren and worgen in wow is that they should be a fierce sight... Should, be but their not. Mostly because of balance issues, even though a common orc is said to at least be able to take on humans two times his number, the orcs have pretty much the same stats as humans.
I'd want their ferocity to be reflected in their stats, and in turn make them unable to enter certain areas fully embracing the evil/outlaw life style, which really appeals to me.
I've often been "that guy" who wanders an area, hunting down unsuspecting prey and depending on the game, murder, rob them or eat them.... If not all of the above!
However that is just the problem in WoW a worgen, dispute being bestial is just another guy. Because owning CAT is the only requirement, there is nothing special about a worgen.
I am a regular player of the game Smite and so are my friends. And there is no bigger "Oh son of a..." Moment than comming up against someone with a uniqe skin. A uniqe skin cost money you see and if your willing to fork out real money for a cosmetic skin for one characters, it is usually a sign that his damned good with it.
Likewise a Gnoll could be a symbol for someone who is hardcore about PvP. He can't go back to most settlements, but he dosen't want to. He has devoted his entire character to killing off little meat bags like you and now his charging your way.