Goblin Squad Member
|
Not if reasonable SADs can be rejected without consequences in addition to just having to fight to keep your loot. You have that ability even if we don't SAD.
Um... the consequences of rejecting a SAD for the victim are probably death and loss of all their unthreaded stuff, unless the bandits have been misled as to the strength of their target. You want more consequences than that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why have PVP rules that discourage PVP?
Because GW does not want [EVE 0.0] type PvP, that has been quoted many times. They want meaningful and conquest driven PvP...I have not seen anything that discourages that.
"Maybe Outlaw works best if you make reasonable SAD demands."Not if reasonable SADs can be rejected without consequences in addition to just having to fight to keep your loot. You have that ability even if we don't SAD.
Minimally, rejecting a SAD should cost the unflagged traveler reputation.
I think you missed the point, if you offer a reasonable SAD, it will not be rejected. It becomes a toll to pass not "give us half your stuff". The problem with hitting the travelers rep is that this system is designed not to dictate the interaction, nor to dictate the behaviour of the traveler (they afterall are not the aggressors). The whole reason for SAD with rep penalties is designed to influence bandit behaviour. The victim is free to do whatever they want...they just want to encourage aggressors into some modicum of civility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So basically what you are saying is that we get the most significant penalty, the attacker flag and the aggression stack, whether we SAD you or not, even if you reject that SAD offer.
Why would any traveler bother to fly the Traveler Flag? Why would they ever accept a SAD offer, knowing that eventually we would be forced to accept the 24 hour Murderer flag?
There is no balance in this, which leads me to believe that the rejection of the SAD does not trigger the Attacker Flag. If that is not the case than the devs should devise a penalty that stacks in similar fashion, for rejecting SADs by unflagged travelers. Those stacks eventually leading to a similar 24 hour flag, that does not dispel upon death.
Then we have a return to the comments that Chaotic Evil settlements will be severely gimped and not be able to support advanced training, regardless of reputation.
Why include an alignment that no settlement no settlement will support?
Why have PVP rules that discourage PVP?
"Maybe Outlaw works best if you make reasonable SAD demands."Not if reasonable SADs can be rejected without consequences in addition to just having to fight to keep your loot. You have that ability even if we don't SAD.
Minimally, rejecting a SAD should cost the unflagged traveler reputation.
Yeah, I dont like the way this is going at all... May as well be a PVE themepark if the PVPers and going to be penalized for playing in the sandbox style.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because GW does not want [EVE 0.0] type PvP, that has been quoted many times. They want meaningful and conquest driven PvP...I have not seen anything that discourages that.
Why have PVP rules that discourage PVP?
They wont with a reputation system. The problem is they are penalizing not only the PVP itself but also the training for PVPers that are not good in alignment.
"Maybe Outlaw works best if you make reasonable SAD demands."Not if reasonable SADs can be rejected without consequences in addition to just having to fight to keep your loot. You have that ability even if we don't SAD.
Minimally, rejecting a SAD should cost the unflagged traveler reputation.
Agreed
I think you missed the point, if you offer a reasonable SAD, it will not be rejected. It becomes a toll to pass not "give us half your stuff". The problem with hitting the travelers rep is that this system is designed not to dictate the interaction, nor to dictate the behaviour of the traveler (they afterall are not the aggressors). The whole reason for SAD with rep penalties is designed to influence bandit behaviour. The victim is free to do whatever they want...they just want to encourage aggressors into some modicum of civility.
The reasonable SAD could be rejected unless the traveler has way to much to lose. The system is designed for player interaction that is not abusive. If travelers are abusing the system for their benefit against bandits how is that not bad for the game?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically what you are saying is that we get the most significant penalty, the attacker flag and the aggression stack, whether we SAD you or not, even if you reject that SAD offer.
You get the attacker flag and the aggression stack if you attack an unflagged character. If you didn't offer them the SAD, you take a rep hit, too.
Every other long-term flag has penalties for attacking unflagged. Assassins lose their stealth and critical bonuses, unless they have a bounty/contract on the target - that makes for a very limited set of unflagged targets. Champions lose reputation for attacking unflagged evils. Enforcers gain the Attacker and lose Enforcer when attacking unflagged. Traveler drops when Attacker is gained. There's huge amounts of balance in this.
Why do you think Outlaw should be consequence free?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is no balance in this, which leads me to believe that the rejection of the SAD does not trigger the Attacker Flag.
It makes perfect sense to me that you have this viewpoint, and it explains why you resist what appears to me to be the plain language of the blogs.
I expect the devs agree with your concerns, and I hope their forthcoming explanation of their revamp of the flags satisfies everyone.
My bad. I see it now. The Paladin and the Bandit both get the "Involved with <whatever>" flag.Actually that example is all kinds of confusing. The description of Involved says that the PVP-flagged target of an unprovoked attack gains "involved" - but in the example, the bandit is NOT PVP-flagged, rather the attacker is a Champion who (from the description of Champion) gains the benefit of "Attacking unflagged evil characters gives the player the Involved flag instead of Attacker". So really the Bandit shouldn't have the Involved flag (or any PVP flag), and the Paladin should.
The way you explain it is the way I understood it. I'm hesitant to put too much effort into understanding it further right now, knowing that they're working on a significant revamp.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The system is designed for player interaction that is not abusive. If travelers are abusing the system for their benefit against bandits how is that not bad for the game?
What? Are you saying travelers who refused to be robbed are abusing the bandit? I cannot even wrap my head around that logic...
Those who refuse to raped are abusing the raper...
Those who refused to be terrorized are abusing the terrorist...
Nope, I don't get it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The system is designed for player interaction that is not abusive. If travelers are abusing the system for their benefit against bandits how is that not bad for the game?What? Are you saying travelers who refused to be robbed are abusing the bandit? I cannot even wrap my head around that logic...
Those who refuse to raped are abusing the raper...
Those who refused to be terrorized are abusing the terrorist...Nope, I don't get it.
Not exactly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It makes perfect sense to me that you have this viewpoint, and it explains why you resist what appears to me to be the plain language of the blogs.knowing that they're working on a significant revamp.
Plain language does not usually require significant revamps. Contradictory language or systems, usually needs just that, to make things clearer or to make old statements mesh with new ones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Decay is not a coin drain. You won't find a NPC in town who will fix your item for you so we can have another way to take extra money out of the economy. If you want to repair your item, you'll have to take it back to the same kind of crafter that made it in the first place, he or she will need to know the recipe for that item, and repairing it will take a proportional fraction of the original materials for making the item. Repair may still be a good idea if you have a really exceptional enchanted weapon, repair is probably simpler and cheaper than commissioning a new one but it's very similar to just using the damaged item as a component toward making a new copy of that item. Either way, the crafters continue to have work."
Seriously, do we really, really want to listen to people spamming chat all night long "LFBS 100 skill to repair SoIU"???
I suspect the end result will be people just training the required skills themselves to avoid the hassle which accomplishes the exact opposite, instead of keeping crafters in work, it puts them out of work as people become self sufficient.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Plain language does not usually require significant revamps. Contradictory language or systems, usually needs just that, to make things clearer or to make old statements mesh with new ones.
It makes perfect sense to me that you have this viewpoint, and it explains why you resist what appears to me to be the plain language of the blogs.knowing that they're working on a significant revamp.
It isn't a revamp of the phrasing, it's iterating on the design behind the phrasing.
Just like the new encumbrance and death information replaces the prior information, the next iteration of PvP flags will probably replace large portions of the prior system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Chaotic Evil settlements will be severely gimped and not be able to support advanced training...
I'm not certain it's a prohibition; I thought it was going to be a "it can be done, but it'll be DAMNED expensive to build" kind of thing. Even if it is prohibited, I think you'd have a pretty reasonable chance of finding a Lawful Evil settlement who'll sell you a training slot...even if you won't like the price they'll know they can charge you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Chaotic Evil settlements will be severely gimped and not be able to support advanced training...I'm not certain it's a prohibition; I thought it was going to be a "it can be done, but it'll be DAMNED expensive to build" kind of thing. Even if it is prohibited, I think you'd have a pretty reasonable chance of finding a Lawful Evil settlement who'll sell you a training slot...even if you won't like the price they'll know they can charge you.
The problem then is what you quoted in the other thread... Lawful evil settlements will be gimped as well.
Sounds pretty sad that Good will be the only alignment worth playing as.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Speaking as a a guy who can see the game designers in their room, not as an actual game designer, I'd say that the cost to repair a fully broken item should always be less than the cost to make that item from scratch. That's a harder equation to compute than you might think, given that the cost to make the item and the cost to repair that item are variable due to the market.
The cost is measured in materials, coin drains, time, and possibly other factors; the cost is either incomparable (because e.g. one requires more steel but the other requires more time of the smithy {different scarce resources}), or comparable as higher or lower.
Price is going to vary wildly due to market shifts, and value will also have variance.
One trivial solution would be to allow a broken item to replace the blueprint-equivalent requirement to make one of that (exact) item, but no other cost reduction. Partial durability repairs could be scaled interestingly if it was done logarithmically: Where C=Current durability and M=Maximum durability, the percentage discount (from full cost of new construction) might be f(C,M)=ln(C)/ln(M) (C>0) or =ln(C+1)/ln(M+1) (For all C)
That would make it cheaper per death to keep high-durability items in good shape than to let them be worn down and repair them from a low-quality state.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...what you quoted in the other thread...
A piece of what I quoted in the other thread:
"Lawful Evil...will have awesome Settlements."
Seems straightforward. If Chaotic Evil towns don't, or don't yet, have what you want, it's reasonable to assume a Lawful Evil settlement might not ban you just for your alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lawful Evil settlements "will (potentially) have less valuable buildings than a Lawful Good Settlement - less valuable to a degree not yet determined. It will not have buildings as crappy as Chaotic Evil."
I was referring to this
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...f(C,M)=ln(C)/ln(M) (C>0) or =ln(C+1)/ln(M+1) (For all C)...
Look out, DeciusBrutus, or someone will introduce Black-Scholes option price-modelling for forward assassination contracts and third-order armoury derivatives in open settlement markets next! What will the River Kingdoms look like after that horror arrives?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Chaotic Evil settlements will be severely gimped and not be able to support advanced training...I'm not certain it's a prohibition; I thought it was going to be a "it can be done, but it'll be DAMNED expensive to build" kind of thing. Even if it is prohibited, I think you'd have a pretty reasonable chance of finding a Lawful Evil settlement who'll sell you a training slot...even if you won't like the price they'll know they can charge you.
People will still play chaotic evil. Absolute freedom without concern for repercussions (not because there aren't any, but because they just don't care) is its own reward, and they shouldn't expect to be loved for it. Those playing CE will still get their training done, and will try to taunt and shame everyone else for playing on 'easy mode'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We'll likely declare some areas free-for-all zones where conditions are so bad that nobody gets any penalty for whacking anyone. Where, how, why, how large, etc. all to be determined, but that is the kind of thing I'd expect in a land like the River Kingdoms. Of course, you'd have to be mad to go into such an area without being able to hold your own.... no easy targets.
No need for SAD here, and the looting and scavenging of corpses will also be unrestricted by penalties for violating loot rights.
This matches the description of the Uncontrolled hexes that were described in the Dev Blogs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not at all related the the rather spirited and nit-picky flag debate, I'm seeing a potential unintended consequence from this loot system, particularly in regards to trade:
Devs have indicated that inter-settlement trade is going to be a significant required component of growth. For this to be the case, fairly substantial quantities of material are going to need to be transported. With this loot system, transporting any significant quantity of a valuable material is an unsound economic decision unless you bring enough guards to guarantee safe passage. Thus, presumably, the as-yet-unknown caravan system exists. However, unless those caravans can easily be 'operated' by a single individual, they're likely to become a burden due to player logistics and the fact that most folks aren't going to want to schlep s*&+ around in a game. If a single individual can hire sufficient NPC guards to protect themself at a rate that's economical, no one will travel without this entourage. If the only way to make the rate economically feasible is through economies of scale, new players will be excluded from trade and an economic class of traders that will end up dominating the markets will likely emerge.
tl;dr: If caravans require PCs, they'll be too much work to be fun. If caravans can be hired NPCs, they'll either make all travellers immune to bandits or be inaccessible to new characters which will hurt long-term growth.
Thus, I suggest that individual transport of goods must be a economically feasible option. One way to enable this would be a special container that you could thread that could be used to carry valuable goods.
Regarding the rather spirited and nit-picky flag debate, try looking at things from a broader perspective: When you pvp someone who isn't flagged for pvp (and "give me stuff or I'll kill you" is definitely pvp), there are negative repercussions for you. Always. (Except for Champions, maybe, because evil is 'bad'...) Following that logic, SAD gives you the ability to protect the bonuses you've earned by flagging for pvp, but not the avoid consequences of non-consensual pvp.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
...f(C,M)=ln(C)/ln(M) (C>0) or =ln(C+1)/ln(M+1) (For all C)...Look out, DeciusBrutus, or someone will introduce Black-Scholes option price-modelling for forward assassination contracts and third-order armoury derivatives in open settlement markets next! What will the River Kingdoms look like after that horror arrives?
I like Black Souls price-modelling for assassination contracts, capital projects to improve the seat of government, and newly repaired items which are valuable, but cannot be easily converted to coin.
Plus, part of my relative advantage in this community is in math.
Frankly, I think it would be boring if each point of durability except the last one had similar cost and value, and there's no reason it has to be that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Like I said in the other thread... Lets see what they do with it.
It should be an area that attracts everyone to go to. If you want it then fight for it. It should be the area with all the real wealth in the game. It also should be everything in the wilderness away from the main roads and towns.
Granted most people will not like that idea... How dare you make it difficult to control settlements. How dare you make it difficult to control all the wealth in the game.
Anyway...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would we want to loot other players when we're already struggling with our own inventory management?
Seems like an archaic design. It will be interesting to see how well the current generation of players support this feature.
Inventory management as they describe it is like this...
City 1 has your chest full of gold.
City 2 has your chest full of crafting stuff.
City 3 has all your combat gear.
You can leave stuff wherever you want to, but you must move it if you want it elsewhere.
Its not easy mode inventory like other games. You have to put some work into it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would make it cheaper per death to keep high-durability items in good shape than to let them be worn down and repair them from a low-quality state.
Dear god no!
That's actively penalizing someone for not doing what would quickly become a menial task. Choosing between continuing to dungeon crawl or go back to town to make repairs less burdensome isn't the sort of decision that is at all rewarding.
Or the penalty would need to be so low as to not matter, at which point why bother?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Frankly, I think it would be boring if each point of durability except the last one had similar cost and value, and there's no reason it has to be that way.
Alternatively, make every point of durability have the same cost and value: 0 durability items are unusable, but are not destroyed; repairs require linear amounts of resources.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its not easy mode inventory like other games. You have to put some work into it.
Have you ever played EVE? 'Easy mode' inventory exists because managing assets manually, which EVE requires, is a giant PITA. It's not fun. Most players don't want to deal with logistical minutia. Who really wants to count their arrows in a video game?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
tl;dr: If caravans require PCs, they'll be too much work to be fun.
I expect caravans will require PCs. I agree that some thought should be given to making this interesting rather than boring for the 95% of the times that no other players interfere.
I believe there will be the possibility of PvE monster encounters as well, so that's one option. Having interesting things that can be done while travelling through a hex (without significantly compromising the battle readiness of the guards) in general would be nice.
When you pvp someone who isn't flagged for pvp (and "give me stuff or I'll kill you" is definitely pvp), there are negative repercussions for you. Always. (Except for Champions, maybe, because evil is 'bad'...)
No, Champions are not excepted - they take reputation hits for attacking unflagged evil characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would make it cheaper per death to keep high-durability items in good shape than to let them be worn down and repair them from a low-quality state.Dear god no!
That's actively penalizing someone for not doing what would quickly become a menial task. Choosing between continuing to dungeon crawl or go back to town to make repairs less burdensome isn't the sort of decision that is at all rewarding.
Or the penalty would need to be so low as to not matter, at which point why bother?
I agree - it would also end up being a PITA for the crafter when players come back every 15 minutes expecting service.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not at all related the the rather spirited and nit-picky flag debate, I'm seeing a potential unintended consequence from this loot system, particularly in regards to trade:
Devs have indicated that inter-settlement trade is going to be a significant required component of growth. For this to be the case, fairly substantial quantities of material are going to need to be transported. With this loot system, transporting any significant quantity of a valuable material is an unsound economic decision unless you bring enough guards to guarantee safe passage. Thus, presumably, the as-yet-unknown caravan system exists. However, unless those caravans can easily be 'operated' by a single individual, they're likely to become a burden due to player logistics and the fact that most folks aren't going to want to schlep s*&& around in a game. If a single individual can hire sufficient NPC guards to protect themself at a rate that's economical, no one will travel without this entourage. If the only way to make the rate economically feasible is through economies of scale, new players will be excluded from trade and an economic class of traders that will end up dominating the markets will likely emerge.
tl;dr: If caravans require PCs, they'll be too much work to be fun. If caravans can be hired NPCs, they'll either make all travellers immune to bandits or be inaccessible to new characters which will hurt long-term growth.
Thus, I suggest that individual transport of goods must be a economically feasible option. One way to enable this would be a special container that you could thread that could be used to carry valuable goods.
Regarding the rather spirited and nit-picky flag debate, try looking at things from a broader perspective: When you pvp someone who isn't flagged for pvp (and "give me stuff or I'll kill you" is definitely pvp), there are negative repercussions for you. Always. (Except for Champions, maybe, because evil is 'bad'...) Following that logic, SAD gives you the ability to protect the...
Doesn't the same negative repercussions apply to transporting valuable resources from unsettled hexes?
You want special containers to protect your treasure. We want features that preserve the balance of using a SAD versus not using the SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Doesn't the same negative repercussions apply to transporting valuable resources from unsettled hexes?
You want special containers to protect your treasure.
Actually, I'm more concerned about transport between settlements, because that's supposedly going to be a requirement for settlement health. To your general point, the negative repercussion to transporting things of value is the potential to get killed and lose things of value. Obviously, a balance needs to be struck between that risk and the reward of trade. That could easily be done by carefully balancing the 'thread cost' of such an item and it's storage capabilities. Even something that required all of a characters threads should have a far lower capacity than the average trader's inventory.
We want features that preserve the balance of using a SAD versus not using the SAD.
Using SAD preserves the bonuses you get from flagging pvp (bonuses which improve your pvp ability) despite you forcing pvp on those who don't wish it... Forcing pvp on those that don't wish pvp is penalized, but using SAD reduces that penalty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The act of transporting valuable resources from unsettled hexes doesn't exactly inflict unwanted PvP on anyone...All economic activity is pvp. (Unless by some weird, unforeseen miracle money != power in this game.)
Crafting a sword is PvP? Carrying a sword from one place to another is PvP? No. PvP requires a 2nd P, neither crafting nor transport have opponents inherently (though some might want to stop you from doing them through other, pvp, means). Once you start swinging that sword at someone, though, or put it on the market in competition with other sellers - that's PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All economic activity is pvp. (Unless by some weird, unforeseen miracle money != power in this game.)Crafting a sword is PvP? Carrying a sword from one place to another is PvP? No. PvP requires a 2nd P, neither crafting nor transport have opponents inherently (though some might want to stop you from doing them through other, pvp, means). Once you start swinging that sword at someone, though, or put it on the market in competition with other sellers - that's PvP.
If you want to get pedantic, no, neither carrying nor crafting a sword from scratch is either economic activity or pvp. If you just want to stockpile swords that you made from raw materials you gathered yourself in some random settlement, that's not pvp.
However, if you ever plan on anyone use that sword, yourself included, you're engaging in a form of pvp competition against anyone else who sells swords (unless absolutely everyone gives away everything for free to anyone who asks).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Crafting a sword is PvP?
Yes you are competing with other players to sell that sword. When you sell a sword, you reduce the possibility that other players will sell their swords. Same with gathering the materials for the sword. If you get to a node before other players, you've just blocked a potential gathering node from them.
Its PvP because its player competition. Like a race. If you and me raced motorcycles, it would be Me vs You, 1 vs 1, P vs P. Its what I would call a more indirect PvP, if you will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it was Andius who mentioned this up thread: I think part of the changes for the flag system might be an additional long-term flag for evil.
Law has Enforcers; Chaos has Outlaws; Good has Champions; Evil has.. Assassins? That role is waaay too restricted. It's fine to keep Assassins, but there could be another long-term flag for more general-purpose evil. Maybe something with more of a Honey Badger approach to evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not easy mode inventory like other games. You have to put some work into it.Have you ever played EVE? 'Easy mode' inventory exists because managing assets manually, which EVE requires, is a giant PITA. It's not fun. Most players don't want to deal with logistical minutia. Who really wants to count their arrows in a video game?
I played eve for 6+ years. If you do not have to count your arrows... then its not an RPG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, if you ever plan on anyone use that sword, yourself included, you're engaging in a form of pvp competition against anyone else who sells swords (unless absolutely everyone gives away everything for free to anyone who asks).
I'd say instead it's removing yourself from the economic game entirely. You're simply not competing at all.
Regardless, though, economic activity (pvp or otherwise) does not warrant physical PvP flags and consequences - so, to answer Bluddwolf's question, "Doesn't the same negative repercussions apply to transporting valuable resources from unsettled hexes," the answer is no.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regardless, though, economic activity (pvp or otherwise) does not warrant physical PvP flags and consequences
Philosophically, I disagree that economic pvp is somehow of a different caliber than combat pvp. They're different varieties, but can be just as impactful.
However, from a game mechanics standpoint, giving flags that allow pvp to someone based on economic conditions is extremely difficult to balance and implement. Thus, I tend to agree that carrying valuables shouldn't automatically flag you for pvp combat, especially when you can still lose those variables upon death from pvp combat, flagged or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seriously, do we really, really want to listen to people spamming chat all night long "LFBS 100 skill to repair SoIU"???
I suspect the end result will be people just training the required skills themselves to avoid the hassle which accomplishes the exact opposite, instead of keeping crafters in work, it puts them out of work as people become self sufficient.
Nope. But this is what the second M in MMO is all about. Make friends or allies that can do this stuff for you.
I imagine some (all?) martial type character will train up basic crafting so they can repair and make basic (tier 1) items. Until we see the crafting system though, we don't know how this will pan out. But one of the GW team has said that it will take a crafter type the 2+ years to become master of their profession that it takes an adventuring character to reach the pinnacle of their profession. Thus, I don't think you will see too many adventurers able to craft/repair tier 2 or 3 items (unless they're a 5 year old character).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
finally got around to reading the blog.
I like the item decay. It allows for constant flow of items from crafters. Not only that but it brings a cost for PvP. PvPers not have to consider what items they take into battle.
I like how encumberance is being handled.
overall im happy with this one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would make it cheaper per death to keep high-durability items in good shape than to let them be worn down and repair them from a low-quality state.
This seems like a good idea to me.
I agree - it would also end up being a PITA for the crafter when players come back every 15 minutes expecting service.That would make it cheaper per death to keep high-durability items in good shape than to let them be worn down and repair them from a low-quality state.Dear god no!
That's actively penalizing someone for not doing what would quickly become a menial task. Choosing between continuing to dungeon crawl or go back to town to make repairs less burdensome isn't the sort of decision that is at all rewarding.
Or the penalty would need to be so low as to not matter, at which point why bother?
It's important to keep in mind that the items only decay on death. Hopefully, you won't be dying every 15 minutes.
Likewise, players will naturally make a cost/benefit analysis where the cost of putting off a repair is compared to the cost of stopping the dungeon run and going back to town to get the item repaired. Hopefully those costs would line up so that, when you're already in town and not putting anything else off, you take your sword over to the smithy to have it repaired.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. But this is what the second M in MMO is all about. Make friends or allies that can do this stuff for you.
Exactly. I have a sneaking suspicion that once the game matures past the initial rush to run out of town and explore the world, that you'll have players who keep their crafting alts or even mains stationed in their starter town or player settlement of choice, who will find enough entertainment there to contentedly occupy themselves for most or all of their game time, and who will be more than happy to repair your gear when you roll into town. They will be the constants of civilized settings - the characters you expect to find right around the same spot they were in the last time you were in town - the homebody types who hardly ever leave (proudly raises hand to be included in that group).
By requiring that the person doing the repairs needs to have a skill level equal to that of the item, I doubt you're going to have everyone investing their precious skill training time into crafting Tier 2 and 3 items for the self-sufficiency of performing their own repairs, when for a the price of a tip and possibly the raw mats, you can have someone else do it for you. I think this is a very good thing. It moves us back towards a game where you need other players...as Jiminy rightly phrases it, the second "M" that's been missing for far too long in most MMOs.
In fact, in a game where - by design - you will not be able to do everything for yourself, from single character on up to actual settlements (no one settlement will be able to have every feature), the most valuable skill in PFO might turn out to be one that isn't found in any skill tree - networking with other people.