Goblin Squad Member
|
Can't believe peeps are actually proposing that the destruction of a single building, no matter what it was, or the assasination of a single manager, no matter who that was, would win somebody a war.
If war is an extremely expensive proposition, a realistic expectation, then in PFO like the real world a very real strategy for winning a war will be removing the opponent's economic ability to conduct it. That is what ended the cold war. That is why economic sanctions have limited the practical belligerence of Iran and (hopefully) North Korea. That is why McNamara firebombed Dresden. That is why the Union beat the Confederacy.
War is extremely expensive. There are more examples of this basic fact than I can shake a stick at, even if I limit myself to the last 200 years.
So it shouldn't be difficult to understand that disabling your opponent's ability to finance his war also disables his ability to conduct that war.
Considering that a settlement also has maintenance overhead that may nearly match his income, disabling or crippling a single source of income can change the entire equation.
Can't believe peeps are actually proposing that the destruction of a single building, no matter what it was, or the assasination of a single manager, no matter who that was, would win somebody a war.If war is an extremely expensive proposition, a realistic expectation, then in PFO like the real world a very real strategy for winning a war will be removing the opponent's economic ability to conduct it. That is what ended the cold war. That is why economic sanctions have limited the practical belligerence of Iran and (hopefully) North Korea. That is why McNamara firebombed Dresden. That is why the Union beat the Confederacy.
War is extremely expensive. There are more examples of this basic fact than I can shake a stick at, even if I limit myself to the last 200 years.
So it shouldn't be difficult to understand that disabling your opponent's ability to finance his war also disables his ability to conduct that war.
Considering that a settlement also has maintenance overhead that may nearly match his income, disabling or crippling a single source of income can change the entire equation.
I agree completely with the economic perspective, as I have said I am fine with assassinations having effects which cause people to reconsider the war. What I am against is that ending the war doesn't come down to player decision and can be ended by the mechanic of assassinating a particular person or destroying a specific building.
By all means make the effects harsh just don't railroad people by saying they killed x so you have to cancel the war. It should be they killed x therefore are units are going to take heavy losses and we may not want to pay for that or we might bite the bullet and accept the cost in the name of finishing the job
As I said higher up the thread I would be quite happy if they confirm that. My worry was that the way I interpreted the blog was correct hence I felt it was worth raising so the devs could confirm or clarify
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am in favor of player selected disguise names, if for no other reason than being able to have a group of assassins/fighters/wizards disguised with the same name in order to generate multiple sightings as an act of confusion. Psychologically this could have an interesting impact. A band of Bluddwolf's, for example?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can't believe peeps are actually proposing that the destruction of a single building, no matter what it was, or the assasination of a single manager, no matter who that was, would win somebody a war.If war is an extremely expensive proposition, a realistic expectation, then in PFO like the real world a very real strategy for winning a war will be removing the opponent's economic ability to conduct it. That is what ended the cold war. That is why economic sanctions have limited the practical belligerence of Iran and (hopefully) North Korea. That is why McNamara firebombed Dresden. That is why the Union beat the Confederacy.
War is extremely expensive. There are more examples of this basic fact than I can shake a stick at, even if I limit myself to the last 200 years.
So it shouldn't be difficult to understand that disabling your opponent's ability to finance his war also disables his ability to conduct that war.
Considering that a settlement also has maintenance overhead that may nearly match his income, disabling or crippling a single source of income can change the entire equation.
I agree completely with the economic perspective, as I have said I am fine with assassinations having effects which cause people to reconsider the war. What I am against is that ending the war doesn't come down to player decision and can be ended by the mechanic of assassinating a particular person or destroying a specific building.
By all means make the effects harsh just don't railroad people by saying they killed x so you have to cancel the war. It should be they killed x therefore are units are going to take heavy losses and we may not want to pay for that or we might bite the bullet and accept the cost in the name of finishing the job
It sounds like this is where it is headed:
- Loss of War Status - adverse affect on alignment/reputation shifting of the settlement
- Loss of support for buffing/support an army - this must cost the index of a settlement to roll out the army = Size + Quality + Duration = Cost per day on the settlement's index? Along these lines. And the rate affected by the "warmaster quality + warbuilding rating"?
So settlement might stop the conflict (Q: temp or perm?) because it would mess their alignment or because their support is highly reduced or because the support is not high enough to support even a small, basic army for longer than a few hours??
-
The question that remains open it seems to me, is how a settlement can get it's war status back if it loses it?
@Sepherum - I remember a story from the founding of Rome, where an assassin armed with a knife had stolen into the opposition/besieger's camp and brought before the commanding officer of that army: And they were impressed by his bravery and wanted to know why he had come with just a knife so boldly into the camp. The would-be assassin replied that he knew he might get caught but that all the remaining in the city were equally brave and would equally come with a single knife to assassinate the leader of the besieging army if he was caught. I think the story goes along the lines that they were so impressed, they released him and withdrew their armies. Heard that story a long, long time ago and so cannot remember or find it's origin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the end of a war does not mean the end of hostilities. We don't really even know what "War" means in PFO. We know that it allows for unrestricted PvP between the two sides, and that it is needed for conquest of a settled hex. Other than that we really don't know much. A state of War may be needed to fight in group combat or to build and use siege engines. Ending a war doesn't mean that you have to stop killing your enemies, and it may automatically end a siege if the war cannot be continued due to lack of leadership. But what it does do is give a pause in the fighting while one side has to either adjust their tactics or rebuild their economy. Assassination therefore would be more valuable as a defense against an invader than an offense against someone you are attacking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Love the approach taken towards assassination. Its making me rethink my character choices for PFO. Hmmmm..
With respect to the taking/assigning of contracts, my thoughts are as follows:
1. Contracts can only be established by someone with a high enough level in the relevant skills. Setting up contracts takes some experience/skill and shouldnt be easily done by just anyone (excepting perhaps extremely limited ones). To my mind this is especially true for something trickier such as assassination contracts. This also would help differentiate the clientele for assassinations and common thuggery.
2. As has been mentioned previously, assassins need to take their contracts at specified locations and not just 'ringing up' the local 'cleaner'.
3. Contracts should be open for a long period of time to allow for the subterfuge elements to come into play. To balance it, the longer a contract is open, the higher the costs of setting it up and maintaining it with the 'town hall/guildhouse/etc' that posts these contracts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is frickin' amazing stuff.
Thanks GW!Will an Assassin be able to use disguise to get training anywhere?
•You can use certain town services you might otherwise be barred from (like the markets), but others (like training) continue to be unavailable. This distinction is mostly based on the in-world time requirement: It's theoretically easier to pop into shops in disguise than to make it all the way through a training montage.
Signs point to "no".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can't believe peeps are actually proposing that the destruction of a single building, no matter what it was, or the assasination of a single manager, no matter who that was, would win somebody a war.If war is an extremely expensive proposition, a realistic expectation, then in PFO like the real world a very real strategy for winning a war will be removing the opponent's economic ability to conduct it. That is what ended the cold war. That is why economic sanctions have limited the practical belligerence of Iran and (hopefully) North Korea. That is why McNamara firebombed Dresden. That is why the Union beat the Confederacy.
War is extremely expensive. There are more examples of this basic fact than I can shake a stick at, even if I limit myself to the last 200 years.
So it shouldn't be difficult to understand that disabling your opponent's ability to finance his war also disables his ability to conduct that war.
Considering that a settlement also has maintenance overhead that may nearly match his income, disabling or crippling a single source of income can change the entire equation.
Ending the Cold War took decades. The Allied bombing campaign against nazi Germany lasted 3 years. The blockade against the Confederacy was 3 1/2 years and required Shermans' devastating march on land to be decisive. The economic embargoes against Iran and North Korea are not limited to single industries but include a wide spectrum of sanctions, over years. Yet Iran is still enriching uranium and North Korea has 5 or 6 nukes. How does this 'stick shaking' prove that a single assasination or destroying a single structure in an online game should be decisive?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ending the Cold War took decades. The Allied bombing campaign against nazi Germany lasted 3 years. The blockade against the Confederacy was 3 1/2 years and required Shermans' devastating march on land to be decisive. The economic embargoes against Iran and North Korea are not limited to single industries but include a wide spectrum of sanctions, over years. Yet Iran is still enriching uranium and North Korea has 5 or 6 nukes. How does this 'stick shaking' prove that a single assasination or destroying a single structure in an online game should be decisive?
It's likely won't be decisive in terms of the total war outcome. What it will do is cause short term chaos and an inability to effectively wage an organized war until those resources are again available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... How does this 'stick shaking' prove that a single assasination or destroying a single structure in an online game should be decisive?
It isn't 'stick shaking'. It is draining your gas tank and puncturing your tires before the race even begins.
They didn't say it 'should' be decisive, they said it 'could' be decisive:
If they're reduced—either by permanently removing a structure or artifact that gave a bonus, or by inflicting temporary damage on them—buildings might stop working, wars may be cancelled
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ AvenaOats: Yeah I read the same story somewhere. I suppose you'd say that one assasin changed the outcome of a conflict. I'd say that one side decided they didn't want to face an army of assasins. Disrupting a settlements' ability to wage war or dislocating their marshall will is one thing. But 'target the city manager' and 'burn down the sandle factory' necessarilly granting you a win doesn't seem to me to engender a rich kingdom vs kingdom experience. If both sides have, as the chief objective, a single War Hall or somesuch, it feels like capture the flag to me. Different kinds of player realms should have all kinds of strenths/weaknesses/possible objectives.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am in favor of player selected disguise names, if for no other reason than being able to have a group of assassins/fighters/wizards disguised with the same name in order to generate multiple sightings as an act of confusion. Psychologically this could have an interesting impact. A band of Bluddwolf's, for example?
It's much more likely (and Ryan's already told us it will happen) that Goonswarm will send hundreds of people all named "something-just-short-of-bannable" into a settlement simultaneously, just for their version of lulz. You know they'll sell their services as assassin-hiders...or simply give them away, also for the lulz.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ AvenaOats: Yeah I read the same story somewhere. I suppose you'd say that one assasin changed the outcome of a conflict. I'd say that one side decided they didn't want to face an army of assasins. Disrupting a settlements' ability to wage war or dislocating their marshall will is one thing. But 'target the city manager' and 'burn down the sandle factory' necessarilly granting you a win doesn't seem to me to engender a rich kingdom vs kingdom experience. If both sides have, as the chief objective, a single War Hall or somesuch, it feels like capture the flag to me. Different kinds of player realms should have all kinds of strenths/weaknesses/possible objectives.
I don't think it's a "win" by default, as already posited by a few others. There are examples of situations where the key figures in organisations have been bumped off and resulted in substantial losses in moral, direction, leadership, will to carry on with a conflict. I think abstracting it to key player figures in PFO and possibly some structures (though I don't know how that works) simply works as approximation of all the above eg in modern times imagine a hack attack on the (primitive network) infrastructure of the energy grid in the USA - bingo.
I think in the laser-guided missiles of the Gulf War they called them "surgical strikes" on key infrastructure in that war. It's similar principle with Assassination: Going for the head/the nerve center. Softens up the enemy forces in the main ground/air battles etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless the game is forcing random names on everyone, the disguised name system will eventually get figured out. It could work great for a while, but eventually people will start to recognize which names are original, and which are generated.
Actually, yes, the game will be forcing random names on people, if they can't come up with an approved "appropriate" name themselves. However as a consequence I can see CCs and settlements starting to introduce meta-requirements like "no randomly generated names".
It seems like the 'Being Observed' mechanic will hurt the profession, the 'spread paranoia' idea is all well and good, but the big organizations will lock up and do a role call when a single person gets that debuff.
Unless your settlement is entirely closed to non-residents, it won't matter - I imagine in most settlements, non-residents will be free to come and go, assuming they meet some other restrictions (minimum reputation, etc) - which the Disguise skill automatically grants.
The development index thing seems nice, but it raises a question on how the game will handle offline players. I don't think it is fair to keep characters in game and at risk at all times, and I don't want to see indexes only seeing a bonus while the character is in game, features that greatly award high play times drive a spike in the community between the casual, and heavy players. A Master craftsman shouldn't get turned down for a position running a crafting index, simply because they only play 3 days a week for a few hours. What is going to stop these index leaders from logging off during sensitive times, and only logging in under heavy protection?
Already covered, or at the very least a known potential issue that will be watched:
We're going to try to give every PC, even a crafter alt, good reason to be online more than once every blue moon (if for no other reason, you need to go get achievements to spend your XP on the things you want). We may look into inactivity falloff on the benefits of a manager if this becomes commonplace anyway.
This also seems like it could be abused to halt other organizations from gaining a foothold in the game. One thing that will keep new players away is knowing they will have to affiliate with existing organizations to gain a foothold in the game. There should be mechanics that prevent perma-locking a settlement, except in a time of war, and I would like to see a war system very different from EvE, you shouldn't just be able to randomly pick people and exploit the war tool for PvP in lawful areas.
This bit seems vague, rambling, and not related to assassination. Do you have specific scenarios in mind that are bad?
I prefer option 1 with the highest levels being absurdly difficult to obtain, the Master Assassins should deserve the ability to use indistinguishable disguises and take down a settlements production single handed. I want stealth to be viable at the highest levels of play, and I don't think I have ever seen a system where this was both possible, and not tedious. There should be a 'hump' that assassins have to get over(that is much larger than most others), and after they pass this hump their job becomes easier.
Where does that leave those players for whom the ideal character is a bodyguard or other role where it's' vital to detect stealthers? I get that you want to be the "ultimate stealther" in a game, but in an MMO there are also those who want to be the "ultimate tracker" - ideally, the winner in a confrontation between the two should be determined by tactics, not by one side having an inherent advantage over the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless the game is forcing random names on everyone, the disguised name system will eventually get figured out. It could work great for a while, but eventually people will start to recognize which names are original, and which are generated.Actually, yes, the game will be forcing random names on people, if they can't come up with an approved "appropriate" name themselves. However as a consequence I can see CCs and settlements starting to introduce meta-requirements like "no randomly generated names".
To add to this, random names can be quite good, and indistinguishable from personally-chosen ones, depending on the sophistication of the random-name generator. WoW's generator is terrible... but a couple of people in my group of friends are still using names that were randomly generated in DAoC, and which have never so much as raised an eyebrow even in heavy-RP groups. I think DAoC's generator used syllables from Gaelic and Norse name lists to produce random names.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am in favor of player selected disguise names, if for no other reason than being able to have a group of assassins/fighters/wizards disguised with the same name in order to generate multiple sightings as an act of confusion. Psychologically this could have an interesting impact. A band of Bluddwolf's, for example?
Have them wear Guy Fawkes masks?
Operation: "Occupy Thornkeep"?.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have time to do another answer round up right now, but here's something that may help with the broad strokes of concerns I'm seeing:
Our intention is that very few large settlements will find it desirable to lock down access to only their members. You want non-members to come into town, buy your excess training (you get the coin spent), use your markets (you get the market fee), and even rent storage (you get the rent) and use your settlement as a hub for their own operations. This will make it much easier for you to be financially stable, as you won't be relying on just your members for cash. So most large settlements should frequently have non-members floating around just using the settlement like they might use an NPC town; as long as they meet your rep threshold and don't break any laws, they're useful.
So settlements that establish naming rules to make it more clear who's not a member (or even just force all visitors to stand for a while next to the high-Perception PC that's been assigned as gate guard) will only wind up alienating potential visitors who'll wind up taking their business to nearby settlements who are less paranoid. Hardening your settlement against Disguise may not be worth it in the long term. Especially since, if you're that paranoid and still powerful enough that others want to hurt you, it makes even more of a niche for players that make alts to play a long con, meet all your requirements, and legitimately join your settlement to figure out how to take it down.
I hope Disguises do not disguise you as an NPC. It eliminates the chance of having a full persona, and of people trying to talk to you as you try to get away.
Also, I like the thought that an assassin's target may himself put on a Disguise to escape his pursuer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hate it when I'm out of the loop when these conversations first start. It's so daunting trying to catch up, and all of the questions I start to reply to have already been answered.
Fantastic blog. I wonder how many players are thinking to themselves "Yeah, I'll play a Wizard. A Wizard Assassin!"
Despite all of it's problems, Vanguard had really great, top-notch Class Design. I'm really glad to see that PFO looks to be raising the bar even higher.
But no, I probably won't be an Assassin :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I like the thought that an assassin's target may himself put on a Disguise to escape his pursuer.
That actually raises a question. Say the target breaks LOS with the assassin and throws on a disguise. What happens to the stacks of "Being Observed" debuff? I think they should be hidden (can't be seen by the assassin) but still in effect (if the assassin attacks, they should still get the bonus damage triggered off the debuff) and give the assassin a bonus to Perception checks to penetrate the disguise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ending the Cold War took decades. The Allied bombing campaign against nazi Germany lasted 3 years. The blockade against the Confederacy was 3 1/2 years and required Shermans' devastating march on land to be decisive. The economic embargoes against Iran and North Korea are not limited to single industries but include a wide spectrum of sanctions, over years. Yet Iran is still enriching uranium and North Korea has 5 or 6 nukes. How does this 'stick shaking' prove that a single assasination or destroying a single structure in an online game should be decisive?Can't believe peeps are actually proposing that the destruction of a single building, no matter what it was, or the assasination of a single manager, no matter who that was, would win somebody a war.If war is an extremely expensive proposition, a realistic expectation, then in PFO like the real world a very real strategy for winning a war will be removing the opponent's economic ability to conduct it. That is what ended the cold war. That is why economic sanctions have limited the practical belligerence of Iran and (hopefully) North Korea. That is why McNamara firebombed Dresden. That is why the Union beat the Confederacy.
War is extremely expensive. There are more examples of this basic fact than I can shake a stick at, even if I limit myself to the last 200 years.
So it shouldn't be difficult to understand that disabling your opponent's ability to finance his war also disables his ability to conduct that war.
Considering that a settlement also has maintenance overhead that may nearly match his income, disabling or crippling a single source of income can change the entire equation.
Sepherum, you need to be able to think at the margin to understand this. One building, one manager, one leader, may seem of small absolute value. But if the forces are fairly evenly matched, even a small absolute loss has an impact at the margin. This is a very basic issue in economics, where seemingly small changes--adding one more employee, making/losing one more cent per transaction, etc.--can have an enormous impact at the margin.
Think of it this way--on a scale with 5-ton weights, a couple of pounds on either side will tip the balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless the game is forcing random names on everyone, the disguised name system will eventually get figured out. It could work great for a while, but eventually people will start to recognize which names are original, and which are generated.
Don't think so. It would be fairly straightforward to harvest names from Early Enrollment and run an n-gram analysis for the most frequent word groupings, likely for bi, tri, and quadrigram letter groups. That would give you a probabilistic model of the most frequent morphemes players--humans with linguistics/cultural knowledge--use. A generator that uses high probability morphemes/relative morpheme placement would be able to make human sounding names.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just read through the blog. All in all it looks really good. I'm assuming the "Observation" feat uses the refresh system or some other mechanism so that you just can't spam "observations" on everyone you see? Obviously you'll want enough availble to put a strong vulnerability on the target and throw some "fake-outs"...but there also needs to be some limitation on it to keep the entire population of a settlement from being "observed" which would tip things too much in favor of the assasin. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know when I first saw the title of the Goblinworks Blog I thought it would involve a network of caverns.
I thought it was going to be: "Due to popular request, we've created The Underground Map of the River Kingdoms! Now enjoy adventuring and traveling in the murkier parts of the world..."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good blog from the devs and good discussin from you guys! (Just read the blog and whole thread)
But here are 2 questions I have:
1. How will interact two stealthed/disguised characters? Will they see/see through each other? What if they are friends? What if they are not? Seeing your invisible friends strikes me as silly. But stacking debuffs on your fellow assassins will be even sillier :) Probably party members will not test disguises of each other, but will they be able to see through these disguises?
Well, the disguised allies is simple. You just need to know what your ally's procedurally generated name is and you know who he is. Though it does raise the question of whether or not people you're teamed with will still degrade your disguise. I'm guessing no, but I could see it going either way.
Stealth we don't know enough about yet to say.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. How will interact two stealthed/disguised characters? Will they see/see through each other? What if they are friends? What if they are not? Seeing your invisible friends strikes me as silly. But stacking debuffs on your fellow assassins will be even sillier :) Probably party members will not test disguises of each other, but will they be able to see through these disguises?
Hmm interesting point. I'm trying to think of a clean way of determining some subgroup of people who shouldn't cause your disguise to start failing, and the best I can think of is either "those people who can see you at the moment you don the disguise," or "those people who are in your party at the moment you don the disguise." Any other group I think is too nebulous and subject to circumstance.
Speaking of parties and disguises, how thoroughly will the disguise cover your identity across various game mechanics? What happens when you try to invite someone who is disguised to your party? Or to your CC/settlement/battle formation/chat channel/etc? Or whisper to them, or use some kind of slash command that takes a player name as input?
Though it does raise the question of whether or not people you're teamed with will still degrade your disguise. I'm guessing no, but I could see it going either way.
Simply having party members not degrade your disguise will make it quite unfairly easy to infiltrate someone's party while disguised.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though it does raise the question of whether or not people you're teamed with will still degrade your disguise. I'm guessing no, but I could see it going either way.Simply having party members not degrade your disguise will make it quite unfairly easy to infiltrate someone's party while disguised.
In the wilderness, yes. It's a concern, and the leading one I see for not excluding party members. Like I said, I could see it going either way, I'm not sure what the best path is at the moment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Disguise could be useful for so many people: Spymasters and their agents, bounty hunters, black marketeers, and anyone who wants to be the mysterious stranger in the back of the tavern. For the cost of a suit of armor, it sounds like a wizard or a monk could pose as a fighter until combat begins, then unexpectedly start slinging spells or swinging deadly fists. An elite army unit disguised as grunts could do a lot of damage when they're underestimated and engaged.That may be possible, but if I understand how it works, one's armor will be severely impaired since the Disguise has to be equipped in lieu of your usual gear.
That's how I read it, too, which is why I thought it would be most useful for wizards, sorcerors and monks, who don't typically rely as much on armor. The blog wasn't clear on what you could equip alongside a disguise. If spell component belts can't be combined with a disguise, then monks would definitely get the best use out of that trick.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's how I read it, too, which is why I thought it would be most useful for wizards, sorcerors and monks, who don't typically rely as much on armor. The blog wasn't clear on what you could equip alongside a disguise. If spell component belts can't be combined with a disguise, then monks would definitely get the best use out of that trick.Disguise could be useful for so many people: Spymasters and their agents, bounty hunters, black marketeers, and anyone who wants to be the mysterious stranger in the back of the tavern. For the cost of a suit of armor, it sounds like a wizard or a monk could pose as a fighter until combat begins, then unexpectedly start slinging spells or swinging deadly fists. An elite army unit disguised as grunts could do a lot of damage when they're underestimated and engaged.That may be possible, but if I understand how it works, one's armor will be severely impaired since the Disguise has to be equipped in lieu of your usual gear.
I'm not so sure about wiz/sorc/monk getting it cheaper. It strips the keywords off armor, and all three of those classes will have something in the armor slot with keywords they care about. (See the discussion on Monk weapons).
Edit: Added link.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought it would be most useful for wizards, sorcerors and monks, who don't typically rely as much on armor.In PFO, everyone will rely on armor for keywords that make them more effective.
Yup GW has made it clear, there will be no such thing as a "gear independent class", it breaks apart the entire harvesting resources etc... system, as well as creates a very undesirable effect when it comes to PVP. (IE the more effective you are, the more you should lose if you don't win. people who are able to attempt fights which they have a 10% chance of winning, but do them indefinently because they lose nothing when they die, need to be prevented)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yup GW has made it clear, there will be no such thing as a "gear independent class", it breaks apart the entire harvesting resources etc... system, as well as creates a very undesirable effect when it comes to PVP. (IE the more effective you are, the more you should lose if you don't win. people who are able to attempt fights which they have a 10% chance of winning, but do them indefinently because they lose nothing when they die, need to be prevented)I thought it would be most useful for wizards, sorcerors and monks, who don't typically rely as much on armor.In PFO, everyone will rely on armor for keywords that make them more effective.
I'll go check out the monk thread. It sounds like gear dependence had already been discussed there.
Edit: Confirmed. It sounds like monk fist wraps, wizard focus items and fighter swords will all fit in a category together (maybe Primary Hand). Using that approach, wizards and monks in disguise will lose access to items (robes and fighting harnesses, for instance) that are functionally equivalent to armor.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Also, the end of a war does not mean the end of hostilities. We don't really even know what "War" means in PFO. We know that it allows for unrestricted PvP between the two sides, and that it is needed for conquest of a settled hex. Other than that we really don't know much. A state of War may be needed to fight in group combat or to build and use siege engines. Ending a war doesn't mean that you have to stop killing your enemies, and it may automatically end a siege if the war cannot be continued due to lack of leadership. But what it does do is give a pause in the fighting while one side has to either adjust their tactics or rebuild their economy. Assassination therefore would be more valuable as a defense against an invader than an offense against someone you are attacking.
Yes. That's what I was trying to get at above.
I expect a clear difference between active hostilities (such as killing an opposing player on sight), and formally declared State of War. A formal State of War will be a game mechanic with defined preconditions and defined benefits. If an assassination means you no longer meet the precondition for State of War then by definition the war is cancelled. But you can still engage in all the normal actively hostile actions while you rebuild towards a full State of War.
I expect we'll get a blog post at some point about what a formal State of War is, the preconditions and effects, and how it differs from normal hostilities.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
But you can still engage in all the normal actively hostile actions while you rebuild towards a full State of War.Except that you can't. Being at war is what allows you to attack them without running into the penalties to alignment/rep/whatever.
Do we know that for sure? I thought, for example, that we'd be able to ban a certain group from our territory and be able to attack trespassers on sight with no rep loss.
Happy to learn differently if you've got a link to something I missed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's been stated quite a few times. Being at war leaves the opposing faction war flagged to your faction, meaning you don't get the attacker flag (which is what keys most of the penalties) for attacking them. Being at war also allows you to disregard the other side's laws without getting the criminal flag. It prevents the NPC guards in some areas from killing you if you attack a member of a settlement you're at war with.
But like he said, on your own territory you can apply laws that make anybody you designate a trespasser, thus a criminal, thus making attacking them have less (no?) repurcussions. And of course, the Alignment PVP flags remove some of the Alignment/Rep penalties for attacking/killing if you act within the terms of the PVP flag, while allowing anybody to attack/kill you without Alignment/Rep consequence... i.e. similar to War except you have to conform to the Alignment PVP parameters. Otherwise, you can act offensively outside your own territory and outside of Alignment PVP parameters, you just have Alignment/Rep consequences, and of course you can act defensively in response to continuing hostilities from the other side.
I understood the blog about repurcussions possibly leading to no longer pursuing War more along the lines of shutting down bonuses such as NPC guards at watchtowers, causing economic problems with upkeep, organizing ongoing repairs to structures or otherwise counting as 'defense' vs. enemy attempts to destroy/take over settlements, and other things which if you don't have either make it very difficult to win a war (especially vs. somebody still receiving those things) or endangering your settlement's prospects even if you do continue and win the war. A repurcussion which solely meant that your War flag was negated doesn't really appeal to me personally. What would happen if the War flag is dropped while players are in the opposing side's territory? They are instantly flagged as Criminals and given Chaotic/Low-Rep points?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are the sort of hostilities I had in mind, Quandary, and a much more concrete set of examples than I could manage. As I say, I'd expect a blog post sometime soon clarifying the design of this stuff.
And I'm looking forward to the blog that makes being a senschal/war-leader as awesome as being an assassin/wizard! My attention follows the shiny...
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think the line of thought in question was "settlements should have a minimum development index requirement to be in a normal war; if their DI is reduced below those minimums during a war, the war ends the next time conditions are checked."
Assassinating a leader could be the maneuver that drops the DI below the threshold where war is possible, without also being a way to instantly end any war. It could also be just a way to discourage players from taking positions within a settlement at war (because they could have to become paranoid) and makes the selection of those people more complicated for the settlement (because the character with the Merit Badged and Abilities might also be out running ruins all the time and hard to protect against Assassination)
I wouldn't have a problem if the location of a major administrator was easy to research; the equivalent would be looking in the newspaper and figuring out where JFK's motercade would be going, or finding the location and time of a board meeting. (Grab the trash/recycling and find the memo, or subvert a peon in the organization, or pose as somebody that has something the board wants to see and/or discuss, or buy some pastries and explain to the baker what it is you want to know...)
And I'm looking forward to the blog that makes being a senschal/war-leader as awesome as being an assassin/wizard! My attention follows the shiny...
Well, it seems like most of the roles would map well to either filling a role in the administration of a Settlement, or coordinating the training of others of your class/skills.
For the latter, running a training center puts you into contact with lots of lower level people, ready to learn from you and giving you the opportunity to disseminate group tactics for abilities you're already familiar with, and maybe even promote some gear you like or gear sellers you like. Similar for crafting centers, once you're good enough you don't personally need to be making the low level stuff, but running the center puts you in a good position to keep the lower level crafters productive and organize their production for market, maybe even promoting them to pursue crafting paths that you haven't.
Buildings involved in maintaining settlement facilities, remote towers, etc, would be overseen by somebody whose interests coincide there... If you want to focus on military activity, guarding of harvesters and trade routes, then being in touch with the needs of watchtowers would make alot of sense. There could certainly be buildings which are required for certain class abilities to function (or function at high levels), e.g. temples supporting allied clerics, so administering that facility pretty much automatically puts you in the running for having alot of influence in organizing the Clerics of that settlement. Some of these roles may allow access to information like maps of ALL hexes being attacked, for example, or tracking all attacks/robberies of settlement members, so being in that position is supporting your involvement in related leadership areas.
The blog didn't go into the process of replacing somebody in a role, different players could very well 'take turns' multiple times per week. Some of the effect of administering seems to depend on skills you have, and if the different admins have different levels, the DI (or whatever) value to the settlement could fluctuate depending on who is currently in the role, but somebody whose actual skill at making the most of that role could very well counter-act that their numeric skill on their PC isn't as high.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I read through this blog. I must say im impressed. The flavor is really good. Im excited to hear that a group of assasins can work together to bring down a hard target.
Imagine in a large scale war you have a general on the field of battle, all of a sudden, your general starts getting observation....what does he do? does he try to run, possible disrupting what he is doing? does he run and get herded into an ambush? does he just wait it out until he knows a death attack will come? Do the assasins allow observation to go up, but wait until a critial moment of the battle to take out the leader, thus decreasing that armies ability to handle a counter attack?
ohh look they have a group of mages that are being used as alpha strikers.......awwww all of a sudden they start sweating because they all get observation......
this is going to be fun!
How about a blog on the opposite of assasins, the Champion, not that i am biased as a player who wants to play a paladin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Guardian can be a mercenary, who, as a non-member, would not be at war with the same people as her principle. Nor would she have to be pvp flagged to be 'on duty'... but assassin still seems too powerful.
Mostly because 'assassin' seems to be missing the same '2 years to reach full potential' verbage as other 'classes' in the blogs...
PS
Declaring war should be non-trivial, & killing one person should not end a war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Guardian can be a mercenary, who, as a non-member, would not be at war with the same people as her principle. Nor would she have to be pvp flagged to be 'on duty'... but assassin still seems too powerful.
Mostly because 'assassin' seems to be missing the same '2 years to reach full potential' verbage as other 'classes' in the blogs...
PS
Declaring war should be non-trivial, & killing one person should not end a war.
I don't think the devs intended to have the assassination of 1 PC be able to end a war out right. That being said, with the penalties that being assassination brings, it would be possible to "push the first domino" by assassinating 1 or more VIPCs. (Very Important PC's for those not knowing what that is.)
As for the "missing the '2 year...'" thing, While it wasn't specifically mentioned, I am assuming that it follows the same guidelines. A fighter learns to swing a sword and wear armor, then over 2 years, learns to swing it more effectively and wear the armor more effectively. The Assassin does the same. Learn a basic form of observations (if not make that a month or 2 into the tree) and basics of stealth and disguise. Then over the next 2 years, you learn better observation (more stacks faster, maybe more targets at once, ect.) and get better stealth and better disguises. It follows the same basic path that every other class will, just in it's own way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Guardian can be a mercenary, who, as a non-member, would not be at war with the same people as her principle. Nor would she have to be pvp flagged to be 'on duty'... but assassin still seems too powerful.
Mostly because 'assassin' seems to be missing the same '2 years to reach full potential' verbage as other 'classes' in the blogs...
PS
Declaring war should be non-trivial, & killing one person should not end a war.I don't think the devs intended to have the assassination of 1 PC be able to end a war out right. That being said, with the penalties that being assassination brings, it would be possible to "push the first domino" by assassinating 1 or more VIPCs.
As for the "missing the '2 year...'" thing, While it wasn't specifically mentioned, I am assuming that it follows the same guidelines. A fighter learns to swing a sword and wear armor, then over 2 years, learns to swing it more effectively and wear the armor more effectively. The Assassin does the same. Learn a basic form of observations (if not make that a month or 2 into the tree) and basics of stealth and disguise. Then over the next 2 years, you learn better observation (more stacks faster, maybe more targets at once, ect.) and get better stealth and better disguises. It follows the same basic path that every other class will, just in it's own way.
Yes, I also would assume that 'Assassin' requires various keywords that take time to acquire ... but it does come across as a game changer.
As someone who has played MMO's for over decade, I have an immediate reaction to FOTM mechanics...
at the risk of dating myself, let's not allow PFO to become hack//Sign online ;ppp