Goblin Squad Member
|
... when I ask you to give me the money you owe me...you will be concerned about furthering my agenda at that point?This is why I asked you "How will you pay them back?" That's a very important question. The only answer I have gotten from you is from the suggestion you linked where you suggest you will "pay them back" via "completing missions" for them.
If I give an Evil Salesman 100 coins in exchange for a Dagger, then no, I wouldn't think I'm furthering that Evil Salesman's agenda.
If I deliver a similar Dagger to an Evil Assassin in exchange for my Dagger, it's a little murkier.
If I have to assassinate a local shopkeeper in exchange for my Dagger, then it's pretty clear that I'm not only furthering that Evil Salesman's agenda, but I'm also doing something that clearly should make me slide towards Evil.
So, I ask again, "How will you pay them back?" If the answer is "by completing missions for them", then I think it's reasonable to characterize that as "furthering their agenda".
What do you think money is? It is just an abstraction of societies debt to you...So, you are saying that it is wrong to murder someone, but not wrong to pay someone to murder someone? Is money such a moral resistor?
EDIT: I would have no problem with one mission/quest/form of repayment being give x gold to my sales clerk (aka sales cleric). Would that mollify the debaters?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...also severed bind points can aparently occur outside an assassination event, just more rarely.I must have missed that, can you show me where it was said?
Attacks by an Assassin have a chance to sever a link to one of the target's respawn bind spots... Targets killed by an Assassin have a dramatically higher chance of this happening.
If there is a higher chance of it happening due to assassination then it has some chance of happening not due to assassination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there is a higher chance of it happening due to assassination then it has some chance of happening not due to assassination.
Being, read the quote again. The "higher" chance is related to the target being "killed", rather than being "attacked". Nothing in there says anything about assassination contracts.
I was originally misreading it in the same way, but Dario's explanation made it clear to me that I was wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Death Penalties
I think it depends upon the frequency upon which they want/expect death to occur in PFO. If it's something on the order of FPS games, then they can't really have overly significant penalties.
Personaly, I really wouldn't mind seeing something like Ressurection Sickness which acted as a strong/debilitating debuff for a few minutes after death in addition to the economic loss. That would help to cut down on the "lemming rush" factor. But that's just me.
Along with that, I'd also like to see something on the order of what is done with the PnP Rules... where a downed character isn't always automaticaly dead if someone can get to him within a few seconds to stabilize him (a manuver which would be dangerous for the person giving treatment to do if still in combat)
So something like...
Character A takes enough damage to go badly negative (or maybe fails a fort save, etc)...they get killed outright, leave husk, go back to bind point and get rez-sickness.
Character B takes enough damage to go just a little negative...they fall down and become immobilized/incapacitated....no one gets to them with in 10 seconds... they die. All normal stuff that occurs with death happens.
Character C takes enough damage to go just a little negative... they fall down and become immobilized/incapacitated.... ally gets to them and spends 3 seconds stabilizing them, during which time they are vulnerable to attack.... 20 seconds later (or however much time it takes to heal upto positive numbers) character is back on thier feet, but with very little health.
I think it would help make combat more tacticaly interesting... and may help address some other issues (duels, training, etc) where one doesn't always want a fight ending up with someone getting killed. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This doesn't seem that oddly worded to me. It seems very straightforward. If you are attacked by an assassin, you may have your bind point severed. If you are killed by one, expect it to happen.From I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die:
Quote:
Attacks by an Assassin have a chance to sever a link to one of the target's respawn bind spots... Targets killed by an Assassin have a dramatically higher chance of this happening.
All you can rightly conclude from that description is there is a higher chance of losing a bindpoint if an assassin kills you and that being attacked by an assassin is one way the player character can lose a bindpoint. There is nothing there to indicate an Assassin's attack is the only way to lose a bind point.
It may be that incurring a PK flag, for example, might be another way to lose a bindpoint local to the murder.
@Nihimon you might want to re-evaluate: If there is a higher chance of it happening due to assassination then it has some chance of happening not due to assassination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon you might want to re-evaluate: If there is a higher chance of it happening due to assassination then it has some chance of happening not due to assassination.
You keep saying "higher chance of it happening due to assassination", but those words aren't in the text.
Attacks by an Assassin have a chance to sever a link to one of the target's respawn bind spots, meaning they may have not have access to their preferred respawn point if killed. Targets killed by an Assassin have a dramatically higher chance of this happening. So assassinating someone may take them out of the action for a while as they work their way back to their original location over a longer distance.
The first case seems to be saying that any single attack (sword swing, dagger thrust, etc.) delivered by an Assassin has a relatively small chance to sever a bind point.
The second case seems to be saying that when an Assassin delivers the killing blow, then there is a much higher chance to sever a bind point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being: Nihimon is correct. In order to sever bind points you have to be flagged as an Assassin. While so flagged any attack has a small chance to sever the respawn point. If the target is actually killed by the assassin, the killing blow has a much higher chance to sever the respawn point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In order to sever bind points you have to be flagged as an Assassin.That may well be true, but it's not supported by the text yet. There may well be other situations in which bind points can be severed.
I'm starting to feel like a lawyer... it's not a good feeling :)
You're correct again, I should have prefaced that with an "At this time, ..."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree totally with Bluddwolf. That was one of the strongest drawing points of EvE to me. What you did mattered. Whether it was protecting someone else or dieing, there were severe consequences to whatever you did. Death should have meaning and it should be stressful to avoid it. Not just an inconvenience, but stressful.
Stacking debuff is intriguing.
"Resurrection Sickness," or something like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I'm starting to feel like a lawyer... it's not a good feeling :)
My but I am argumentative today.
There are good reasons why people read Law. What is a problem for lawyers is that in practice they must often work counter to their ideals, and too many sacrifice those ideals on the altars of practicality and avarice.
Nevertheless we are afforded the opportunity to seek Justice without concern for how large a retainer we can command.
I suspect at least some lawyers might envy our latitude.
Many of my friends are lawyers. No, really! I'm sure they can fit into polite society.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're correct again, I should have prefaced that with an "At this time, ..."In order to sever bind points you have to be flagged as an Assassin.That may well be true, but it's not supported by the text yet. There may well be other situations in which bind points can be severed.
I'm starting to feel like a lawyer... it's not a good feeling :)
There was an allusion somewhere by a dev that a PK will discover his ability to resurrect locally may become restricted over time until he can only spawn far away from his chosen area of operations. This may inform the argument that indeed it is not only the action of the assassin that can sever a bindpoint.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This may inform the argument that indeed it is not only the action of the assassin that can sever a bindpoint.
I believe the mechanic of "sever a bindpoint" is distinct from "not being able to rez locally". My understanding is that the PK (random player killer) will have his options reduced as a direct result of his low Reputation in that he simply won't be able to create a bind point nearby.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is the real penalty to having you bind point severed? I'm guessing it means you respawn farther than you intended to.
To me that really does not represent being assassinated. I would much rather see a delay to respawn because if the victim only had one spawn point, then being assassinated would have no effect. I would also rather see a item thread be severed, than a spawn point.
I also find it odd that assassins' critical strike is not burst damage, it really should be. Assassins are not simple murderers, they are professionals. They do not kill by a thousand cuts, they kill swiftly and silently.
GW could tie the one-shot ability to having an Assassin Flag being fully charged for 10 hours. The ability cools then only be users once for every 10 hours, this limiting its over use. This cool down would simulate the Assassin plotting the demise of his or her mark.
The ability could also be further limited to the evil based skill tree, so that only true Assassins might have access to it.
Thoughts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is the real penalty to having you bind point severed? I'm guessing it means you respawn farther than you intended to.
To me that really does not represent being assassinated. I would much rather see a delay to respawn because if the victim only had one spawn point, then being assassinated would have no effect. I would also rather see a item thread be severed, than a spawn point.
...
I try to avoid underestimations. If you look closely at the utility of severing a specific bind point to the patron of an assassin who plans to assault a particular settlement, then sends his assassin teams to 'sever' the leaders of that settlement at just the right moment so that the defending leadership is 'indisposed' at the crucial time, then more is clarified.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're suggesting Evil characters be the only ones in the game who can one-shot people? Yeah, I don't see that going over well.
Actually I think there should be a very rare chance that anyone can one-shot anyone, but an Assassin would have a more advanced skill in doing so and without it being random.
The very rare chance of it happening would add that element of "any battle could be your last" kind of feel to it. Of you think about it, should there be a chance that an ax to your head could kill you in one shot? Yeah, yeah I know the excuses why it won't, but that doesn't make it make any sense that there are no instant kills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if the sandbox were to extend beyond the Material Plane of Golarion?
So when people die, they are transported to the river of souls. Evading Astradaemons and Night hags while swimming ahead to be quickly judged by Pharasma and be sent back. Or being placed in their alignment based plane (hell, elysium, heaven, nirvana, the abyss, etc) where they could interact and do meaningful things on that plane, that may affect Golarion?
Learning skills or things from the Axiomites?
Doing pious things for their god while waiting to be resurrected by the clerics of their faith?
Trying to escape back to Golarion via the WorldWound?
Resist the call of Pharasma and become a ghost or even a poltergeist?
Im sure more creative and more lore centric people of pathfinder could think of more clever things to do while dead. So the fun doesn't stop, but still has meaning on the Material Plane.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're suggesting Evil characters be the only ones in the game who can one-shot people? Yeah, I don't see that going over well.Actually I think there should be a very rare chance that anyone can one-shot anyone, but an Assassin would have a more advanced skill in doing so and without it being random.
The very rare chance of it happening would add that element of "any battle could be your last" kind of feel to it. Of you think about it, should there be a chance that an ax to your head could kill you in one shot? Yeah, yeah I know the excuses why it won't, but that doesn't make it make any sense that there are no instant kills.
I'm a bit upset that my Monk will likely never learn the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique aka Quivering Palm, but I do understand why instant death attacks are not good for a PvP game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a bit upset that my Monk will likely never learn the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique aka Quivering Palm, but I do understand why instant death attacks are not good for a PvP game.
I would hope there would be several versions of this: Good, Evil and Neutral.
I don't see why a very rare instant death occurrence is a big deal in an MMO with a not so harsh death penalty,
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why a very rare instant death occurrence is a big deal in an MMO with a not so harsh death penalty,
Many - myself included - have tried to make the point that the lack of a harsh mechanic on death is not the same as a lack of a harsh penalty.
We'll actually be fighting for meaningful reasons, not just for the "lulz", or some Honor score.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the real penalty to having you bind point severed? I'm guessing it means you respawn farther than you intended to.
To me that really does not represent being assassinated. I would much rather see a delay to respawn because if the victim only had one spawn point, then being assassinated would have no effect. I would also rather see a item thread be severed, than a spawn point.
I also find it odd that assassins' critical strike is not burst damage, it really should be. Assassins are not simple murderers, they are professionals. They do not kill by a thousand cuts, they kill swiftly and silently.
GW could tie the one-shot ability to having an Assassin Flag being fully charged for 10 hours. The ability cools then only be users once for every 10 hours, this limiting its over use. This cool down would simulate the Assassin plotting the demise of his or her mark.
The ability could also be further limited to the evil based skill tree, so that only true Assassins might have access to it.
Thoughts?
Instant Death in regular combat is probably a bad idea.... instant death tied to the stealth system where it's only availble if the victem is unaware of it happening and this unprepared to fight, I could see as doable.
The thing about the assassin, is they aren't really any more deadly (or at least shoudn't be) then you average fighter, and probably even should be a bit worse, in a stand up fight where the victem is actively defending themselves...where they get super deadly is when the victem doesn't know that they are there and they can get that one attack in from surprise before the victem is ready to defend. YMMV.
Though alot of how that could work in PFO is going to depend on how they are able to impliment stealth in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see why a very rare instant death occurrence is a big deal in an MMO with a not so harsh death penalty,
Because it's a game, and people are paying cold, hard cash to have fun. Getting instakilled is not fun, so people quit playing and the company loses money. It is one of the few things I think companies should do is work instakills out of their game machanics to keep players happy.
Trust me, there are far more people that hate instakill than would love it.
Damage mechanics are far more common than mitigation of damage or helaing of damage. That's why healers are so loved by their friends and so targeted first by their enemies. There does seem to be a "more DPS" mentality in many games; "big hits for big damage"......there would be much more entertainment for the money if the fights are a battle of attrition versus one shot kills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that stealth sneak attack specialist should be able to use their abilities to get a devastating critical hit on the first strike, causing higher damage than normal and a really debilitating wound on the target, possibly inflicting a paralyze and bleed effect that will be enough to kill the target with that one hit if they do not receive a heal within 30 seconds at the most severe. A sneak attack should never be an instant kill, but the odds of winning a fight should be in the attackers favor if a sneak attack was successful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alternately, have that initial sneak attack cause a slow bleed debuff that can only be removed by a (different PC) cleric at their respective altar. And...unbinds them from their closes respawn point. This increases the need for player interaction, one of GW stated goals.
This way the assassin can make a choice to strike and vanish, or strike and try to finish the kill. I also agree that assassins should get crushed by a fighter in 1-to-1 combat (hence the choice).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fighter, paladin, ranger, barbarian - melee and ranged specialists
Cleric, druid - healing
Wizard, sorcerer - AoE damage and crowd control
Rogue - staying unnoticed, sabotage, traps, locks, puzzles
Bard - buffs, debuffs
There should be a significant difference whether sneak attack is done to someone wearing cloth versus plate mail. With the classless system there will probably be lots of characters who are maxed fighter/rogues. But there should be clear differences through some sort of mechanism(armor, stealth success, damage) that would define whether character is a pure rogue or a pure fighter or half and half. This difference should clearly define a characters role and play style separated by these three different builds at least.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No Monk? And also, Cleric and Druids are not just healing.
That said, Rogues are not AD&D Thieves. They are listed as stealth specialists in the role list by the Devs, but the PF:RPG allows them to be extremely effective in melee or (short)ranged combat if they choose to be. While they are the only role that can effectively deal with traps in the game, Until we get PVE Dungeons or the ability to trap out settlements in war, that has no value to the role. Puzzles and Sabotage are things that should be able to be done by anyone. Rogues shouldn't be limited into being a thief / trap-monkey / scout. They can be Duelists, Swashbucklers, Snipers, and Spies as well.
The dev blogs have already said that Rogue abilities like Sneak Attack and Feint will be limited to Rogue Weapons. I am guessing that most Fighter abilities will not work with light rogue weapons, but will instead need heavier more martial weapons. While Fighters can wear heavier armor, it will restrict stealth and any rogue abilities that depend on it. Since there is no AC bonus from dex, Heavier armor will always be more desirable for absorption unless there is a defensive roll ability for rogues. That is where there balance will come from.
I don't see why a very rare instant death occurrence is a big deal in an MMO with a not so harsh death penalty,
Because it's a game, and people are paying cold, hard cash to have fun. Getting instakilled is not fun, so people quit playing and the company loses money. It is one of the few things I think companies should do is work instakills out of their game machanics to keep players happy.
I think your overstating the number of people who would quit a game because they got oneshotted. I can see a handful of people doing it, but likely those people would have found other reasons to quit playing anyway.
If it becomes epidemic then people will start complaining and the Devs should look into the matter. In DAOC a number of classes could trigger huge first strike damage numbers. I remember getting one shotted by Rangers often when I was playing cat and mouse with them in the frontiers, it sucks, but you pick yourself back up and be more careful next time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with a one-shot kill is that since you have no chance to defend yourself, it stops being fun. And if its easy to set up that one shot kill then it runs the risk of becoming the 'uber build' that everyone has to slot or defend against. I note that Bluddwolf was talking about a 'very rare' occurrence but I dont know how to gauge how rare is very rare.
I dont mind the idea of high damage crits as long as it has the following:
- It is a reflection of player skill and not just stats
- There is a tradeoff to having that high damage spike (e.g. high damage low armor rogues)
Of course, this is all subject to seeing how it plays out in game.
Questing for the evil, not just the good.
That evil wizard trying to take over the hex may need some help, drive off the locals, killing of the local guards, steal goods, burn homes, and so on.
Give the people who want to play the Anti-hero something meaningful to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What Bludd is suggesting, I think, is any old attack could, from a sword swing to a fireball, say once every ten thousand times, simply kill someone on the spot. Not a crit, not a build, just pure chance. Or so I think, can't speak for him.
It'd be interesting, but I'm not terribly in favor of it. Wouldn't mind if they did, but I really doubt they'd do it, it seems like it could cause a lot of issues with the player base.
Whether its pure chance, or due to a ability, one shot kills shouldn't happen often. If it is happening often then there's a problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Questing for the evil, not just the good.
That evil wizard trying to take over the hex may need some help, drive off the locals, killing of the local guards, steal goods, burn homes, and so on.
Give the people who want to play the Anti-hero something meaningful to do.
There have been many, many threads (even just recently) by folks that want the developers to show evil some love. In every game I have ever played, there are plenty of evil players with lots to do. No matter how "skewed" the game mechanics players who play evil type characters (bandits, pirates, assassins, etc) never have a problem finding "work".
Don't worry. based on the recent threads alone, there will be plenty to keep you evildoers busy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What Bludd is suggesting, I think, is any old attack could, from a sword swing to a fireball, say once every ten thousand times, simply kill someone on the spot. Not a crit, not a build, just pure chance. Or so I think, can't speak for him.
It'd be interesting, but I'm not terribly in favor of it. Wouldn't mind if they did, but I really doubt they'd do it, it seems like it could cause a lot of issues with the player base.
I was starting to wonder if anyone understood when I said "very, very rare".
I even had that 1:10,000 number in my head as well. It is just something I believe would add that sense of "you never know".
When characters are swinging swords at each other, a very skilled warrior can get cut down, by a peasant who has picked up a sword for the first time. Is it likely? No! But a 1 in 10,000 is rare enough to not happen often, but not so rare that it isn't in the back of your mind when you enter combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was starting to wonder if anyone understood when I said "very, very rare".
I'd imagine Ryan understood what you were suggesting back when he wrote this.
From Goblinworks Blog: RESPECT: Find Out What It Means to Me!:
Unfortunately the idea that something randomly happens to characters in an MMO is really bad game design - either it is so commonplace that it shouldn't be random, or it is so infrequent that it is meaningless. This is kind of a corollary to the concept that "It would be awesome if you could do "X" means nobody will do "X"". If the random thing is cool, everyone will want it and be pissed when they don't get it. If the random thing is trivial, nobody will care and its wasted developer effort.
For reference, "X" would be Cool ... becomes Nobody does "X"