Goblinworks Blog: Murder by Numbers


Pathfinder Online

301 to 350 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Being wrote:
Golnor wrote:

Adrenaline, eh?

So, would it be an active thing (activate to get +20 max stamina in exchange for a faster stamina decay rate for a few seconds) or reactive ( if you take at least X damage from one hit your max stamina goes up by Y)?

If I were going to try and model it I would write in a one time temporary boost to stamina that would kick in after the stamina normally is about gone, but only if the character had not used such an adrenal boost in the previous X amount of time. I might also want to factor their hunger state: well-fed enables, hungry disables said boost.

On that note, has anyone said if hunger and thirst are going to be used in PFO. If we are going to be ble to craft food and drink, it makes sense thay they should have a real purpose in the game.

Goblin Squad Member

@Urlord

There are a lot of threads on it. No official word confirming one way or the other, but Ryan has said in the past he's nervous about hunger and thirst mechanics. I believe his line was something to the effect that they are usually fun for a little while, then just a headache.

Goblin Squad Member

I have not commented on this thread much if at all. I would like to see less "generalization" of things like shield block, crit, fumble, and make some of these things outright chances versus smoothing them out over the entire combat sequence.

For instance, if I use a shield and get a 20% chance to block all damage, I want a 20% chance to block all damage versus reducing all damage by 20% across all the attacks. You never know if I might fully block my opponent's crit. Or I could drop my shield or otherwise get disarmed (which would really suck). But I want to see a more spikey attack/defend chart versus an undulating line like waves on the ocean. Fights are spikey, not wavy.


I honestly agree in disliking blocking be a direct across the board damage reduction. I understand that the goal is to prevent all-or-nothing occurrences, and this would be in line with that: Give shields a 'block rating' which would then go into a 'block' calculation.

This would take the defender's total block rating, total defense rating, attackers total attack rating and the attack's already calculated roll value, along with a block roll, and then calculate whether the attack is either not or partially blocked, in like fashion as to how the attack roll works. Balance this so it will on average block 10% of the damage from an equally matched opponent, and viola, you have a block formula that is exactly in accord with present damage-mitigation methods.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Blocks break from the paradigm in one important way: A 10% chance to block all attacks will only block 10% of damage on a 'large number' of attacks. (That's mathematical jargon, not to be confused with the vernacular phrase.)

A 'large number' is defined as being the number it takes to make all other numbers irrelevant to the average.

Now, I could see a 'block' skill that consumed stamina and negated the next one physical attack within a short time; or a block passive that converts one physical attack from physical damage to stamina damage every 6 seconds. But both of those are abilities outside of the framework that has been discussed so far, while a 'roll to dodge' mechanic seems like it should be within the framework discussed so far.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Dario wrote:
@Foscadh, That depends on whether or not collision blocking is enabled. If they can physically surround him and he can't move through them, it's very possible.

Certainly it's possible. However it isn't likely unless there are huge numbers against the experienced player and they are faster than him. How easy it is is indeed a function of how they implement moving, terrain effects, collisions and such. However the comments about timing being important and some of the other descriptions of how they are implementing things lead me to believe that they will be implemented in such a way that players have a lot of control of where they are relative to other players and to terrain features. Now if you are talking a mass of archers that's another matter but as I stated if you have 6 new fighters with melee weapons vs one experienced on the neos will be lucky to get 3 on 1 at any point in time.

Goblin Squad Member

Foscadh wrote:
... unless there are huge numbers against the experienced player and they are faster than him.

Thundering Monks of the Serengeti?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

It also depended on if the warrior is allowing himself to be surrounded in order to use whirlwind attack. We don't know the specifics of the combat system and maneuvers/abilities yet, but use of AoEs may be a way to even the gap for the more experienced character to quickly take out a group of less powerful characters that may overwhelm him otherwise.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urlord the Wonderful wrote:
You mention Teir 1, 2 and 3 gear. I would like to see Teir 1 gear being the only thing available to be crafed and then having an Inventor or Research type skill (like in Eve) where all the Teir 2 & 3 gear has to be invented, perfected and learned before it can be mass produced. This so make crafting much more enjoyable.

First, I hope there's not a generic Inventor or Researcher skill. Those should be tied to the general area of expertise. Just because someone can invent the Telephone doesn't mean they're particularly skilled at inventing a really awesome Rhubarb Pie.

Second, I think the design decision to couple real-time XP gain to in-game Achievements and require both to fully acquire a new Skill was absolutely brilliant. It gives the devs incredible freedom to design really interesting and meaningful Achievements for particular Skills. I think this, and having various others Skills as prerequisites, will allow the devs to easily create the flavor you're looking for.

Goblin Squad Member

Ok, so where is all this at then, before the next blog pops up?

I get the impression generally people have crunched numbers and found a fit with what GW's design intentions are and how the numbers are playing and given us (players) an idea of the raw character "power-progression" scales especially how this refers to equipment and level. Is there is slight leaning towards Tier 1, 2 and 3 being a little too coarse transitions and overall the power curve to be not as flat as GW seem to have indicated? Anything else?

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:

Ok, so where is all this at then, before the next blog pops up?

I get the impression generally people have crunched numbers and found a fit with what GW's design intentions are and how the numbers are playing and given us (players) an idea of the raw character "power-progression" scales especially how this refers to equipment and level. Is there is slight leaning towards Tier 1, 2 and 3 being a little too coarse transitions and overall the power curve to be not as flat as GW seem to have indicated? Anything else?

Well, speaking for myself, in addition to that I would also prefer a little bit greater variability in the results of individual attacks (e.g. allowing for clean misses, and more dramatic successes) then the currently proposed system. I think several others here have also expressed support for that position.


GrumpyMel wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:

Ok, so where is all this at then, before the next blog pops up?

I get the impression generally people have crunched numbers and found a fit with what GW's design intentions are and how the numbers are playing and given us (players) an idea of the raw character "power-progression" scales especially how this refers to equipment and level. Is there is slight leaning towards Tier 1, 2 and 3 being a little too coarse transitions and overall the power curve to be not as flat as GW seem to have indicated? Anything else?

Well, speaking for myself, in addition to that I would also prefer a little bit greater variability in the results of individual attacks (e.g. allowing for clean misses, and more dramatic successes) then the currently proposed system. I think several others here have also expressed support for that position.

I agree Grumpy. I would love to see more chance for randomness in combat, but being as that position is totally opposite then what they are wanting to do, I don't see much chance of that happening.

Goblin Squad Member

- I'm ok for the time-being if randomness is kept low and we see how things begin, I suppose is where GW might start from. IF... it's fairly predictable then I hope the deciion-making allocated to players in the universal 6-seconds IS unpredictable (player choice is unpredictable).

- The balance between no power curve and a flat power curve is still a question to me: Impression at the moment is that it is still a bit too high difference. Perhaps a bad thing in a wider context of progression and value of characters to players, so I'll come around to that for now. Fortunately a new player (day 0) power is very different from a new player (month = 3) due to a sharper rise in the curve at the beginning. I hope at THAT point then those egs discussed above (waffleyone, decius et. al) then the probability of certain defeat won't be so extreme - and what about a lucky blow that knocks an avatar's head clean off with a crit! ?

- I'm most curious about the pace of combat and the speed of pressing buttons. Again happy about choosing which buttons I can press anytime, that feels empowering tbh esp. if it's mainly 0-6 usage. But if the pacing in 6-seconds does not allow time to choose-look-react-reaccess-communicate-reposition etc all in that space and work out the stats in the blog to gain the maximum-effective choice, then I fear it would be combat too similar to other mmorpgs with all that junk of hopping about and passively reacting to opponents and spamming buttons to attack quickly enough in time (or macro).

- The more I read the blog the more I like how it explains things. Keywords seem like an exceptional point of interest, to finish on a positive note (esp. for PvE?).


AvenaOats wrote:


- I'm most curious about the pace of combat and the speed of pressing buttons. Again happy about choosing which buttons I can press anytime, that feels empowering tbh esp. if it's mainly 0-6 usage. But if the pacing in 6-seconds does not allow time to choose-look-react-reaccess-communicate-reposition etc all in that space and work out the stats in the blog to gain the maximum-effective choice, then I fear it would be combat too similar to other mmorpgs with all that junk of hopping about and passively reacting to opponents and spamming buttons to attack quickly enough in time (or macro).

- The more I read the blog the more I like how it explains things. Keywords seem like an exceptional point of interest, to finish on a positive note (esp. for PvE?).

I'm real curious about the pace of combat as well. I'm thinking that we will be able to adapt even if combats different then we are used to, i don't think workable routines will make anyone feel like the pace is too much like a fps. I way hope that jumping uses Stamina. We should end up with an interesting mix of attacks mixed a with defensive abilities and forms of debuffs, abilities that hamper your opponent all within a 6 second timespan.

Goblin Squad Member

I think that increasing miss chance as EE advances could be easily explained by the general population getting more skilled with time. Makes combat changes easier to swallow.

EDIT: They could do that gradually and not tell us, we might not even notice at first.

Goblin Squad Member

Harad Navar wrote:


EDIT: They could do that gradually and not tell us, we might not even notice at first.

I'd be shocked if they tried to ninja changes on us. The GW team strikes me as smarter than that.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

We'd notice changes pretty quickly after a patch, if they had any practical effect.

Just the difference between the historical rate of goblin slaying and the current one would be enough of a indication to start logging and comparing logs.

Goblin Squad Member

Kryzbyn wrote:
I hope jumping and excessive movement takes alot of fatigue too. Otherwise you'll have people running and jumping in cirlces around opponents hoping to get a pixel or two on your backside for precision damage.

DAOC had a good system to deal with this by having the target you're actively engaged in combat with have an "auto-face" toward them. But this system was dependent on having an auto-attack system to make it determine the combat state. I'm curious if it'd be possible to do that while you have something targeted then use a combat skill it enters this "Ready" state and makes for the auto face to function until you have 10-15 seconds of combat inactivity to drop out. This will allow for state changes and potential for an "Ambush" on people/players that are not currently in the "Ready" state.

Goblin Squad Member

Here's a preview of Archeage and there is some critical commentary on the combat system (of comparative interest): AA: Combat Look and Feel (scroll down a little)

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:
Here's a preview of Archeage and there is some critical commentary on the combat system (of comparative interest): AA: Combat Look and Feel (scroll down a little)

The article looks like it has some valuable things to consider for GW and EEers. It also, on a more personal note, reminds me how much I really dislike the "asian feel".


AvenaOats wrote:
Here's a preview of Archeage and there is some critical commentary on the combat system (of comparative interest): AA: Combat Look and Feel (scroll down a little)

This is really a well written article. I've actually watched a LOT of videos prior to beta "officially" starting back in Dec, Jan. I noticed a lot of things about the game, and the author confirms many of them in this article.

There are a few things that the author points out about Archeage that hopefully won't be relevant here in PFO, like these..

Quote:
I would have to say this game feels less like a sandbox game as you are extremely limited to where you play, place homes, and there is no system to set up your own vendor towns. Houses are there to benefit you and that is all.
Quote:

The press has pushed this game as a “Sandbox” MMORPG more than I think it deserves. That was the first time I saw an accurate representation.

You cannot go to any tree and start chopping for resources, you have designated resources for building and expanding. There is no dropped loot other than on specific missions, as are present in cargo ship trade route runs. The biggest problem here are the rewards for being a Pirate to intercept these types of missions to gain reward are outweighed by the exile you will get to a “pirate island” that is just for your kind. You’re cut off from the rest of the game and towns. Sure there should be consequences but it shouldn’t be so much that you don’t have a reason to give the opposing team opposition without feeling you are limiting yourself in the rest of the game.

The author didn't cover being able to plant things including trees, nor did they cover raising mounts, and farm animals from birth to maturity. Another major aspect to me is the building of castles, being able to place each piece where you wish allowing you to custom create any type of castle design you wish.


The problem with Archeage is that it is taking a theme park approach and then tacking on a few sandbox elements. Never for a moment in all the hype did I think that the game was really a sandbox. Why? Because the sandbox elements aren't core to the way the game works.

I think that looking at PFO on the individual player level, it may not seem much more sandboxy than AA (in some ways less: player housing is somewhere over the horizon still), key game systems that define how the entire game takes shape are all pure sandbox.

I really do hope combat will be good. I've been playing Tera lately and there's something gloriously magical about PvE content that feels like a real battle and not just preshin byoutans.

Goblin Squad Member

Waffleyone wrote:

The problem with Archeage is that it is taking a theme park approach and then tacking on a few sandbox elements. Never for a moment in all the hype did I think that the game was really a sandbox. Why? Because the sandbox elements aren't core to the way the game works.

I think that looking at PFO on the individual player level, it may not seem much more sandboxy than AA (in some ways less: player housing is somewhere over the horizon still), key game systems that define how the entire game takes shape are all pure sandbox.

I really do hope combat will be good. I've been playing Tera lately and there's something gloriously magical about PvE content that feels like a real battle and not just preshin byoutans.

Snap. Though I hope combat is slower and more about decisions based on other decisions, than Tera's strong action-combat. In either case, both combats would be better than the halfway-house tab-target, very static and disassociated animations vs decisions stuff.

@Valandur, as above, AA was never as sandboxy as it led to believe ie "The AAA Sandbox Saviour" and combat always looked very familiar mmorpg combat and nothing really exciting. There does appear to be some nice things in this game, especially the large map, ships and sea is awesome.


Yea, it's like so many other games that have a couple of great features mixed in with the same old hum drum content and systems.

That's what really attracted me to PFO, it's got a lot more of the cool things and only some of the usual stuff when most games go totally opposite.

Goblin Squad Member

It's been 7 pages, and I have yet to see the discussion or answer concerning one part of the blog.

I know this is getting more in-depth, but still: The percentage increase from the Damage Factor, the percentage decrease from a partial Miss, and the percentage decrease from not using the right weapon against certain creatures. Those are three separate percentages affecting damage.

In what order do these three multipliers apply, and do one or more of them add with each other before multiplying?

If they apply in some order, say, 1 -> 2 -> 3, then the order matters greatly. Any percentage increase magnifies later percentages, while a percentage decrease will make later multipliers less significant.

If two or more of them add together, then they may cancel each other out. So, a high Damage Factor could make up for a poor hit chance.

I have no doubt these have already been discussed in GW, but I'm surprised these haven't been brought up in this thread yet.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Arbalester: Multiplication is commutative, so it doesn't matter if a 80% multiplier comes before or after a 120% multiplier; the result is .96 either way.

I didn't see any discussion where a particular weapon might have bonuses on the to-hit roll, but I suppose having equipment that grants a bonus to the relevant attack or defense skill is a reasonable thing for consumables or other equipment to provide.

I didn't see any official statement implying that there would be a further bonus for using the right equipment for the right creature; if anything, that would probably be implemented as keywords on the creature that negated keywords on the weapon (a construct might be Hard, which might negate keywords in the Sharp family)

Goblin Squad Member

Decius: Bah, and I'm forgetting basic math again. Thanks for reminding me!

Unfortunately, it seems I also worded my post rather poorly. Let me clarify myself:

-I wasn't talking about a To-Hit bonus/penalty directly on a weapon, merely the fact that a poor overall hit chance = much more likely that a partial Miss multiplier will be put on the final damage. Since this applies at the same time as the Damage Factor, they essentially cancel each other out, even more so if they add together rather than multiply together. So, a character with an unfortunately high miss chance could make up for it by wielding a Greatsword or some other weapon with a high Damage Factor.

-Right equipment on the right creature was at the very tail end of the blog this thread is about: Murder by Numbers. To requote:

Murder By Numbers wrote:
Some creatures may have an additional, final damage multiplier that applies unless the attacking weapon has a specific keyword (Silver for lycanthropes, Adamantine for golems, Bludgeoning for skeletons, etc.), reducing the final damage. This is the one time a better weapon is useful to players without sufficient attacks to use all the keywords: a Silver sword is still useful to a new player fighting werewolves. Players very rarely benefit from such vulnerability-based defenses.

(Mentioned as Step 9 of the Attack Resolution Sequence.)

My question still stands: Do these three multipliers multiply together, or add together, before being applied to the Post-Resistance Damage?

Goblin Squad Member

You mean for fighting skeletal were-golems?

(edit: oh, you mean all the different types of damage modifiers, not the 3 last ones mentioned in the quote)

Goblin Squad Member

You got it right, randomwalker. Though you do bring up an interesting point: How would those final damage multipliers act together, if there were more than one?

Oh, and not to brag, but just so that the last several hours weren't a total waste, I just finished calculating the odds of a 3d200 roll having a given number as its lowest, middle, or highest number. The results are now posted on the budding Library of the Caeruxi:

Attack Roll


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@AvenaOats: I agree completely. While I really like Tera's action combat, it isn't necessarily the right fit for PFO. The real importance is that the combat be strong, as opposed to run of the mill. They can do it however they want as long as it's good =D.

Now to answer Arbalester's concerns, most of which the information is already in the blog.

The attack resolution sequence goes in order.

Steps 1-6: Determines partial hits
Step 7: Base Damage versus Resistance
Step 8: (Modified damage * damage factor) * incomplete hit multiplier
Step 9: Final creature damage multiplier

So the damage goes:
dmg1 = (Base Damage - Resistance)
dmg2 = dmg1 * damage factor
dmg3 = dmg2 * incomplete hit multiplier
final damage = dmg3 * creature specific multiplier

I think you're overthinking things. The question didn't come up because to us there wasn't a question =D. The three modifiers are multiplicative, so the only thing in the order that actually matters is that base damage isn't multiplied by anything before comparing it to resistance.

Regarding creatures with additional damage multipliers: There are three basic formulas that GW could be using in the event this happens, and a only a very outside chance of them using something else:

// csm means creature specific multiplier
1) final damage = dmg3 * csm1 * csm2 * csm3
2) final damage = dmg3 * [ 1 - ( csm1 + csm2 + csm3 )
3) final damage = dmg3 / ( 1 + csm1 + csm2 + csm3 )

Now to analyze these.

1) Each csm makes the monster take X% less damage, multiplicative. if the csms are all equal to .8 for example, then one through three strengths make the monster more durable by a factor of 1.25x / 1.56x / 1.95x. There is some possibility GW will use this method if monsters with multiple strengths are to be extra tough.

2) Each csm makes the monster take X% less damage, additive. if the csms are all equal to .2 [equivalent to above], then one through three strengths make the monster more durable by a factor of 1.25x / 1.66x / 2.5x. GW will almost certainly not be using this method, because it is bad practice and things can get really out of hand really easily - if the CSMs were .5, then players would do half/zero/negative half damage.

3) Each csm makes the monster X% more durable, additive. if the csms are all equal to .25 [equivalent to above, again], then one through three strengths will make the monster more durable by a factor of 1.25x / 1.5x / 1.75x. GW will most likely use this method, because it is the most conservative and reasonable one. It is possible they will opt for 1) in favor of making multi-strength monsters really tough.

@ Arbalester. If you want that to be useful, you need to round those numbers: 17 digits of precision is way too much, it turns the whole thing into an eye-bleeding experience. I would recommend no more than four digits of precision, and get rid of the x.xxxxxxxxE-5 stuff, present it as decimals.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

A page or so back I have the full tables including frequency out of 8M and %. When I can figure out how to import it to nicely formatted wiki markup I will try to make it prettier.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks for the help, Waffleyone. I'll spend some time over the next few days refining that data; I got it all out of a Java program I wrote over the course of a few hours, so it's not perfect.

However, one benefit these have over Decius' data is that they're not inductive; they're deductive. This isn't data collected over X number of rolls, it's the actual probability chance for each number.

Goblin Squad Member

Waffleyone wrote:

@AvenaOats: I agree completely. While I really like Tera's action combat, it isn't necessarily the right fit for PFO. The real importance is that the combat be strong, as opposed to run of the mill. They can do it however they want as long as it's good =D.

...

We just need to adequately describe an agreed evaluation of 'good' combat, such that the designer can compare our best estimate with their own.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Arbalester wrote:

Thanks for the help, Waffleyone. I'll spend some time over the next few days refining that data; I got it all out of a Java program I wrote over the course of a few hours, so it's not perfect.

However, one benefit these have over Decius' data is that they're not inductive; they're deductive. This isn't data collected over X number of rolls, it's the actual probability chance for each number.

I didn't pick 8M (200^3) rolls at random, and if your data differs from mine at any point one of us made a math error. I track and use frequency so that I don't have to display any leading zeros on the percentages.

There's some deep mathemagical way to describe the frequency distribution in terms of N, and I'm trying to remember/figure it. Once that happens very close approximations of things like marginal benefits of gaining a point or five become trivial with calculus.

Goblin Squad Member

Unless I've misunderstood the problem:
http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/dochelp/StatTutorial/Frequency/

Cumulative Frequency Distributions

Cumulative frequency distributions contain all information present in histograms, plus the following:
Allows user to easily estimate frequencies over several class intervals.
Provides better estimates of probablities since there is no arbitrary division of data into classes.
Cumulative distribution function is plotted with cumulative probabilites on the vertical axis and data values on the horizontal axis.
Cumulative frequencies are obtained by the formula F = m / (n + 1) where m is the mth value in order of magnitude of the series and n is the number of terms in the series.
F gives the probability that a randomly chosen value will not exceed the data value by which F was calcuated.
Probability of any exact value occuring is zero.

Concave downward (upward) cumulative frequency distributions indicative of positively (negatively) skewed data.

Goblin Squad Member

Personally I'd rather melee damage to be mostly blocks and parries and those automated for the sake of the lagged and afk, a factor of relative skill, instead of just stabbity-stabbing one another until we drop, bleeding to death atop one another.

If every attack is a hit, just to greater or lesser degree, I just don't see it ending well.

A player character should be able to lunge and withdraw out of range, watching for the counter attack.

I saw no mention whatsever of range as a factor in melee and it was a little disturbing.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Being: I'm not sure which problem it is you think you might be misunderstanding.

For integer n 1=<n=<200, the frequency of rolling n using the low/mid/high model is:
Low: =3*((200-n)^2)+3*(200-n)+1
Mid: =6*(n-1)*(200-n)+598
High:=3*(n-1)^2+3*(n-1)+1

(results reduced to an intermediate form rather than standard form)

Proof:

For the low die, n is the result when the die fall into any of the patterns: n,n,n; n,n,<n; n,<n,<n. There is one permutation of the first set, and three of the other two (n,<n,n; <n,n,n,...) The number of possible ways to roll n on any given die for any given n is 1; there are 200-n ways to roll <n. Therefore there are 1+3(*1*1*(200-n))+3(1*(200-n)*(200-n)) ways to result in n on the lowest die.

For the mid die, the pattern must match one of: n,n,n; n,n,!n; n,<n,>n. There are 1,3, and 6 permutations of each of those, respectively, so the frequency of n is 1+3(199)+6(1*(n-1)*(200-n)).

For the high die, the pattern must match one of: n,n,n; n,n,<n; n,<n,<n. again we have 1,3,3 permutations possible, for a frequency of n equal to 1+3(n-1)+3(n-1)^2.


@Arbalester: I can confirm that decius data (and mine) is formulaic rather than experimentative.

More reduced forms for:
Low = (201-n)^3 - (200-n)^3
High = N^3 - (N-1)^3

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

[

Well, speaking for myself, in addition to that I would also prefer a little bit greater variability in the results of individual attacks (e.g. allowing for clean misses, and more dramatic successes) then the currently proposed system. I think several others here have also expressed support for that position.

Make that two of us.

Eliminating all chances of random results, and not allowing total miss or enhanced success makes the combat too much predictable, very far from reality.

I would like to see an arrow miss totally the target or a mace hit breaking a helmet and turning it into some uselless piece of metal, and stuff like that.

Predictable combat is boring and many times the players will just know the results of combat ahead of time.

For the tiers, I'm a bit worried about that (as I said before) the difference seem too high when you change tiers. Can't see how we will have a flat power curve with such big difference. Maybe, as suggested by other people above, a more gradual change with more tiers could work much better.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LordDaeron wrote:

Eliminating all chances of random results, and not allowing total miss or enhanced success makes the combat too much predictable, very far from reality.

Predictable combat is boring and many times the players will just know the results of combat ahead of time.

For the tiers, I'm a bit worried about that (as I said before) the difference seem too high when you change tiers. Can't see how we will have a flat power curve with such big difference. Maybe, as suggested by other people above, a more gradual change with more tiers could work much better.

For my part I think that battle can be unpredictable without being random. When I think of great games of chess, or great fencing bouts, they don't depend on luck but they are definitely not predictable. They depend on skill and strategy and the ability to surprise your opponent with a well judged move. Random is the opposite of skill, and most MMO crits are like awarding a fencer several points for a single touch.

And for me the gap between tiers are well merged by weapons of varying quality (1 to 300) as well as the keywords. So a high quality tier 1 weapon with the perfect keywords for your character could be more valuable than a low quality Tier 2 with keywords that you can't use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WillCooper wrote:
***Fantastic points wonderfully stated***

For players who are able to accurately gauge the strength of their opponents, their own strength, and are prepared, the results of battles will be largely known ahead of time. This is not a bad thing.

I have a feeling that in my first year of PFO i'm going to read a dozen analyses of the art of war, but to start early: “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”.

It's worth noting that the partial miss stuff in some ways adds a huge unpredictability that isn't being taken into account by 'its too predictable' advocates: Duration of secondary effects due to partial misses. Anyone who has played MOBAs can immediately identify how massively different ~25% duration reduction of stuns and other CC are in application. When you KNOW something has hit but don't know how effectively, that adds a huge element of instability to a battle. Imagine if you have some plan of attack, and that 15 second root only lasts 8 seconds. That could turn into a catastrophe.

I do also trust that GW is willing to tweak formulas to make more sense should they turn out to be unsatisfactory once applied. The only really difficult thing about adjusting formulas is how mad the playerbase tends to get when you do it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

One possible change: Instead of using the die based only on the tier of the weapon involved, use the low die if the weapon is of lower tier than the defender's armor, the middle die if they are the same tier, and the high die if the attacker's weapon is a higher tier than the defender's armor. Change the target appropriately to always 100+defense skill.

Goblin Squad Member

Real life combat involves luck, P&P rpg combat involves luck as well, why should we remove all luckstrike possibility in PFO? Sh*t happens you know... and should still happen in any game. Just my oppinion.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

Personally I'd rather melee damage to be mostly blocks and parries and those automated for the sake of the lagged and afk, a factor of relative skill, instead of just stabbity-stabbing one another until we drop, bleeding to death atop one another.

If every attack is a hit, just to greater or lesser degree, I just don't see it ending well.

A player character should be able to lunge and withdraw out of range, watching for the counter attack.

I saw no mention whatsever of range as a factor in melee and it was a little disturbing.

Yup, I agree with that. I'd also like to see some ability for a character to set thier degree of defensiveness/offensiveness while in the fight. Something like the PnP rules "Fighting Defensively"...that allows character to adjust strategy to the situation.

Although honestly, they haven't talked about specific manuvers yet...just the core "to hit" and damage mechanics.... That being said, what's currently being proposed just feels too predictable for my tastes.

Greater variance in results creates more dynamic situations which forces players to adjust tacticaly for things they weren't expecting... and makes combat deeper (IMO).

If the super-uber, drop the hammer strike has some chance of whiffing...then the player is forced to adjust to that when it does...and the adaptability of the player becomes important.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adaptability is already important. If the opponent keeps using his Hammer-Drop-Of-Doom attack, dealing large amounts of damage every 6 seconds, I'd imagine there are several abilities that can deal with that. Defensive bonuses, giving yourself some actual Dodge chance (short-term buff that gives all incoming attacks a chance to out-and-out miss, sort of like Concealment in the tabletop version), extra damage reduction, all sorts of tricks.

If your opponent gets predictable, then shift to a set of abilities that gives you what you need to counter him.

Overall, I'm imagining combat flowing almost like a MOBA (DOTA, League of Legends, etc.), but slower-paced... and the idea that you can switch "Champions" (aka Weapon Sets) rather quickly. Opponent using a big, hulking, hammer build? Switch to something with high damage, or just move out of range and grab a bow. Is he using super-heavy armor? Switch to a weapon with a high Damage Factor, like a dagger, to get into gaps in his armor.

With three Weapon Sets per player, and six Abilities per Set, I can see a lot of flexibility even in a single character build. So if your opponent gets predictable, switch to something that can predictably beat him.

The flexibility doesn't come from the whims of the Random Number God, it comes from players switching their strategies on the fly.

Goblin Squad Member

Arbalester wrote:

Adaptability is already important...

The flexibility doesn't come from the whims of the Random Number God, it comes from players switching their strategies on the fly.

In a nutshell, this seems to be the direction of the vision for PFO combat. More along the lines of chess.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just realized another implication:
If defense skills are trained separately and require teacher, and there is a 'dark art' attack type, then there will have to be a defense vs. dark arts teacher.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I just realized another implication:

If defense skills are trained separately and require teacher, and there is a 'dark art' attack type, then there will have to be a defense vs. dark arts teacher.

Hah! Sign me up, though I understand it's a strictly temporary assignment.

Goblin Squad Member

Was that a Harry Potter reference?

Curiouser and curiouser.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Was that an Alice reference?

Here's some advice. Stay alive.

301 to 350 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: Murder by Numbers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.