Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's unlikely we'd ever do anything to disrupt the desire of a player to have more than one training character at a time.
We are looking at being tab targeting being the primary targeting method...
As currently outlined, alternate characters will be incredibly powerful in Pathfinder Online. They will be used to grant additional crafting and harvesting skills, they will be used to avoid reputation consequences, and they will be used to grant one player multiple characters in combat through multi-boxing.
A lot of people will point to the cost of running all those characters but I think this issue runs a lot deeper than that.
In order to use alts at maximum efficiency you need to open up multiple game clients at the same time. This puts a much higher load on your computer and internet. Multi-boxing software and/or macros will be useful if you intend to be very effective, or capable of using them in combat at all.
So even if a player is willing to pay for multiple accounts they may not be willing to, or even capable of multi-boxing them.
This hands a distinct advantage to the players who go through all the hassle and expense of setting up an efficient multi-boxing operation.
Those are the facts we are dealing with so the big question is, how do we make the most of them?
Imagine if you could train up an alternate character with the same skills and costs to skill training used by every other player, equip it with the same gear, but let it run around with you as an AI controlled henchman who can fight for you, gather for you, and craft for you much like a SWTOR companion or hero from Guild Wars: Nightfall.
Now imagine you're allowed as many as you're willing to pay for, and you can take control of them as a main, switching your previous main into AI-mode when you do so.
Sounds a lot like multi-boxing but it's easier, more convenient, and more accessible to everyone. Oh, and it also generates more revenue for Goblin Works.
The first step in this system is organizing your character's into groups.
All groups have an identifying name over their head that can't be hidden or changed, for example:
Andius Meuridiar <- Character name
House Meuridiar <- Group Name
The Empyrean Order <- Company Name
All those characters will also share the same company/settlement affiliation and reputation. There may also be some bonuses, penalties, and other effects that can be applied to the whole group.
Alignment is not shared but many actions you take will apply their alignment effect to all henchman with you when the action is taken.
You are allowed multiple groups that are as separate of entities as two characters in EVE. They share no positive or negative effects, and have no common identifier. So you can keep your paladin a very separate character from your necromancer if that's important for you.
Once you are in a group they will follow your active character as henchmen, who support you in combat and carry out tasks you assign to them such as a command to pick a lock, attack/support a target, hold position, or harvest a resource.
You can also set them on longterm tasks or bind them to a rest point. A longterm task would be like overseeing a crafting facility. Binding then to a rest point would be assigning them to a inn/player house/settlement barracks. Whenever you go to a rest point you can pick up henchman at that rest point or switch your active character to any character at any rest point. In doing so you bind you active character and all following henchman to that location.
• Most of the benefits of this system are already achievable through complex, expensive setups that generate no revenue for GW. This makes it accessible and user friendly for everyone.
• This is the only system I've seen with a strong incentive to make characters share their affiliations and reputations with their alts, but still provides a simple way to keep them separate if desired.
• This allows players to switch between characters without the hassle of logging off and then back in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The biggest issue I could see is the software requirements for GW to set such a system up. Would they need to design sophisticated AI which can respond intuitively to player commands? Would the player get to customize their bots? It seems like it'd be a large project to implement it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The biggest issue I could see is the software requirements for GW to set such a system up. Would they need to design sophisticated AI which can respond intuitively to player commands? Would the player get to customize their bots? It seems like it'd be a large project to implement it.
I imagine the Minimum Viable Product version of this would just be the group and rest point system.
The hero system from Guild Wars Nightfall is about as far as it ever needs to advance. That allowed for NPC henchman with fully customizable abilities. Probably 90% of the work for that can piggyback off animal companions. And I would be very surprised if this doesn't massively increase the ammount of training time people purchase.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see this turning the regular single-avatar style RPG into a party-based game like Baldur's Gate... with everyone running around with their own party. It would limit socialization if you have every aspect of the Holy Trinity all by yourself imo. Good ideas really, just not for a game where social interactions are key.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My primary issue with this is as follows.
GW has already stated that they aren't going to prevent multiple accounts, but they won't design the game around the expectation that people will purchase multiple accounts.
I may have at most 3-4 characters.
I don't like multi-boxing.
I really don't like the idea of a system that emulates multi-boxing.
I can see the hiring of henchmen, but advancing them and equipping them or being in a party with all your own characters kinda seems less like what GW is going for.
People with lots of money will end up monopolizing the game because they'll have 10 to 20 accounts. Allowing people to switch between characters is going to exacerbate this. It's another form of pay to win.
I don't mind being able to hire henchmen and control them like a pet, but being in a party with your alts just isn't something I can get behind.
Just my two copper.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sort of ambivalent here. We know that people will multibox. It seems to be a good concept to allow a player to tie together two or more characters and say: this is my main. These others are his supporters - who are fanatically local. It's honest and above board.
On the other hand, I thought part of the entire concept was that other players would serve the functions of the different NPCs. Lifedragn is maybe the village mayor. Maybe Pinosaur and Gedichtewicht are your henchmen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure what other people's experience was but when I was in null sec multi-boxing was incredibly common. If memory serves our corpleader had somewhere in the range of a dozen accounts he multi-boxed, and the friend who brought me out there had about half a dozen. This in a game where an account cost 15$ a month or a PLEX a month. PFO will have it's own version of PLEX but will not require a 15$ subscription to play after OE.
So the reality is:
1. There WILL be multi-boxers everywhere at least in the Darkfall sense of characters crafting/gathering on one screen while the main goes out to fight on another.
2. There WILL be multi-boxers in combat unless the combat system doesn't lend itself to that style of combat.
3. Pretty much any form of tab-targeting WILL lend itself to multi-boxing.
So either we do something like this, we throw tab-targeting out the window, or we hand a huge advantage to people willing to jump through the hoops while losing out on all the revenue and greater equality we get if we just embrace it.
I'm up for either of the first two solutions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Doesn't this fall under "people who care enough will cheat = something must be working to get people to care enough about the game they decide it is worth their while cheating"? That Ryan more or less said previously? On my smart device so linking is a hassle atm.
I'm not so sure removing the barriers for the regular customer is therefore a good thing? I mean you could argue automatic software plays the game 24/7 for you or at least when you are not flying your avatar, pop on auto-pilot or even paying someone in a 3rd world country to log in during your off-hours: In fact isn't that the problem with EVE the more characters you have the more you can exchange PLEX/ISK the more of those accounts can be played for free?
Simple fact for me is to find an awesome online mmorpg I can play alongside other things I'm doing for years with a solid online community. So long as I find a niche in game that is fun I don't mind being a small fish in a big pond. As I read elsewhere some organisation will possibly hire a full-blown army from China or somewhere and pay their skill-training in effect paying their time to play and take orders on who to declare war on!
Maybe it's not a bad result for the game to have dedicated players who create the atmosphere for everyone else?
I do concede that having a combat monster and a crafting character atst has potentially a lot of use...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems to generally go against design principles in PFO like sociality and resource conservation in development. Ryan's thoughts on multi-boxing:
Unfortunately, the resources required to attempt to try to enforce a ban on multiboxing are usually wasted. Those who want to do it have more ways to work around the systems designed to stop it than we have time or money to add new detection methods. Its an arms race the development team can never win.
The better solution is to use non-technical means to stop players from abusing the game via multiboxing. This falls under the category of "community management".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way to avoid multi-boxing is to make it so players are fully immersed in the game, and particularly combat. Thinking about what they're going to do at every given moment.
Though, considering how D&D/Pathfinder are set up, and particularly with the classless skill-based system, I have a feeling buffbots will be common and unavoidable.
Anytime you can make a character who's sole purpose is to buff, ALL the true min-maxers will roll with buff bots.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't see an advantage to spending limited development resources on supporting multiboxing by another name. Yes, players who invest in the hardware to run more characters at once will be on an (almost) level playing field with players who have more friends who can play at once.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wonderful, innovative idea: my compliments. The only obstacle I see to recommending adoption: Might it amount to P2W?
It does have a bit of an element of pay to win to be sure. However it's not adding an element of pay to win. That element will already exist. If you think pay to win is frustrating, imagine if it's pay to win, you have and are willing to spend the money to win, but your hardware and bandwidth aren't sufficient to allow you to do that and still enjoy the game.
Also I'll throw out there that most of the big time multi-boxers paid in PLEX instead of cash. CCP still got their money, but it wasn't always from the players doing the multiboxing.
This is going to be a huge thing in PFO. All the elements are here to create a perfect storm of multi-boxers. Open World / Non-consensual PVP, PLEX, free to play, and tab-targetting. I expect multi-boxing to be more prevalent in PFO than any other game ever by a year after OE.
Another thing to consider is this will creat more competition over PLEX, which will seriously hurt existing multi-boxer operations.
It could easily be argued this system does to multi-boxers what PLEX does to gold farmers. It drives up their competition and hands the profits to GW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow, apparently I am already a mayor! That was an easy campaign!
I do not know that multi-boxing is going to be the breakout advantage that it is being credited for. In a one-on-one encounter between players, the multi-boxer will have definite advantage. But as soon as you have two-player characters to one three character multi-boxer the advantage of micro-managing character use for optimal efficiency starts turning the tides.
The idea is not a bad idea, I just do not know if it is worth trying to work into the game in the first few years. Though I tend to agree that it is very pay-to-win by nature and implementing pay-to-win mechanics in games can turn a user base sour. Folks are more willing to forgive a developer that someone is able to cheat around the system and less forgiving if they feel the developer enables them to cheat because they pay more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well there are two main considerations in my mind. On the one side GW has indicated they would like to include for everyone what otherwise only a few could engineer and gain advantage. On the other side they have said they don't want to build stuff into the game the players could do for themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not arguing one way or another, but addressing the concern of the design goal of human interaction, there is also a previously stated design goal, eliminating the advantage of those who will cheat by simply making the "cheat" available for everyone.
For example, many people argued for meaningful darkness. The response was that since some people will cheat by finding ways to "see", and giving them an unfair advantage, everyone should be able to see. This removes the idea of darkness as anything by cosmetic effects. Using the same logic, since some people will get an "unfair advantage" by multi-boxing to run multiple characters (I am not entirely convinced it is unfair if they are paying for multiple accounts and not botting), everyone should be able to run multiple characters.
Of course, as previously mentioned, this also runs into the design philosophy expressed by the idea of the "Minimally viable product". So, I am not sure whether I am for or against...I personally do not play alts, so I will not utilize the ability even if allowed, but I will not support limiting others if design philosophy supports an idea.
...
And of course, many members of TSV have long supported the idea of keeping characters perpetually existing within the world. This would be a natural extension.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is definitely a decision for GW to make. I do not lean strongly one way or the other, just so long as the Henchmen system does not get around actual player logistics.
* Getting all the characters to the same location to link up. No teleporting/summoning of alts for this purpose unless players have a way to teleport/summon other players already.
* Same gear/wealth loss mechanics apply to NPC'd Henchmen. The boon of allowing AI to strengthen your character through the use of other characters is offset by the risk of loss to the character being brought in.
* Character bind points are respected. Unless all characters are threaded to the same bind point, death could cause you to have to re-address the first bullet point again. If you share bind points, well... watch out for assassins who could decide to cut one of those henchmen off from the bind point.
Each henchman needs to be treated as if they were each their own player character in regards to consequences of victory and defeat, location, and even affiliations (IE: different factions or company membership could open some characters up to sanctioned PvP but not always the whole group of them).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And of course, many members of TSV have long supported the idea of keeping characters perpetually existing within the world. This would be a natural extension.
I had the same thought :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The idea is not a bad idea, I just do not know if it is worth trying to work into the game in the first few years. Though I tend to agree that it is very pay-to-win by nature and implementing pay-to-win mechanics in games can turn a user base sour. Folks are more willing to forgive a developer that someone is able to cheat around the system and less forgiving if they feel the developer enables them to cheat because they pay more.
I remember once on a game having major issues with gold farmers, I suggested that the company sell gold themselves, and under-bid the gold farmers. I was crucified on those forums for suggesting such a thing, and they instead went with another more detailed approach that had a seriously negative impact on other aspects of the game and eventually ended up having to be scrapped.
Then EVE did PLEX, and while I wasn't there on the forums to see the reaction I'll bet there was A LOT of moaning. Now people are ok with PLEX, and very few people complain about it. It in-fact was so successful that the game I was talking about is now implementing their own version of it.
If GW does this I foresee it going the same way. It's not going to be a popular announcement. A lot of people are going to moan and whine a lot about it, but in the end it's going to be a lot more healthy for the game than letting the multi-boxers run over the top of everyone, and people may even grow fond of it.
And I think anyone looking at this objectively can see that whether they feel this will enhance their game or not (As I'm sure we're all split on this issue) this would be an incredibly good move for Goblinworks in terms of turning a better profit as it would drive training time sales through the roof.
I do not know that multi-boxing is going to be the breakout advantage that it is being credited for. In a one-on-one encounter between players, the multi-boxer will have definite advantage. But as soon as you have two-player characters to one three character multi-boxer the advantage of micro-managing character use for optimal efficiency starts turning the tides.
In the same way, AI controlled henchman will not be as powerful as players and issuing them commands to make them work more effectively will not be paying as much attention to their main.
I would hope a player with 5 henchman and a main would be roughly comparable in strength to someone with a good multi-box setup for 6 characters. There would be some simple ways to make it that way if it wasn't, for instance making them take longer between ability activations than a player.
What's for sure, is the multiboxer with 6 characters is much more powerful than the single player with 1 in most situations, and that's what henchman balance.
This is definitely a decision for GW to make. I do not lean strongly one way or the other, just so long as the Henchmen system does not get around actual player logistics.
* Getting all the characters to the same location to link up. No teleporting/summoning of alts for this purpose unless players have a way to teleport/summon other players already.
* Same gear/wealth loss mechanics apply to NPC'd Henchmen. The boon of allowing AI to strengthen your character through the use of other characters is offset by the risk of loss to the character being brought in.
* Character bind points are respected. Unless all characters are threaded to the same bind point, death could cause you to have to re-address the first bullet point again. If you share bind points, well... watch out for assassins who could decide to cut one of those henchmen off from the bind point.
Each henchman needs to be treated as if they were each their own player character in regards to consequences of victory and defeat, location, and even affiliations (IE: different factions or company membership could open some characters up to sanctioned PvP but not always the whole group of them).
I agree with all of that except one part. The consequences of defeat, or more specifically the consequences of defeating you. I think if you kill one character from a group, you take the the regular rep/alignment hit but then don't suffer further hits for characters from the same group for awhile.
So if you kill someone and their 2 henchman you only get hit as if killing one player unless you take a very long time killing them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with all of that except one part. The consequences of defeat, or more specifically the consequences of defeating you. I think if you kill one character from a group, you take the the regular rep/alignment hit but then don't suffer further hits for characters from the same group for awhile.
I've wonder for a long time how GW is going to work this side of it, actually. We've been told that one person killing an unflagged person will result in alignment and reputation consequences.
Ok, what happens when a group of 5 characters attack and kills 3 unflagged characters in a party? You're proposing they take a single set of hits for the attacks and kills. So if they attack the one with the lowest reputation first they take a smaller rep hit? If they kill the most evil first and the most good last, the act is less evil than if they went the other way? What if the party dissolves halfway though the fight?
I could see it going a few ways:
- Each of the 5 attackers in a group take 3 separate rep hits for the attacks (and acquire 3 aggressor buffs) and take 3 separate alignment hits for the kills. (Sort of like US law - being there you're a party to the crime, even if you're driving the getaway car and didn't shoot anyone.)
- Each attacker gets the rep and alignment hits for their own attacks and kills.
- Each attacker gets the rep hits for the 3 attacks, but only suffers alignment for their actual kills.
I could see that a character, once he has been in a fight with another person, should be able to fight that same person without additional rep/alignment hits - within some amount of time. But once the bandit's attacker flag* expires, his previous victims can't attack him without consequence.
*understand that flags have changed to hostility, however that works.
edit to add: for the specific case of henchmen/wingmen, I could see reduced penalties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem comparing PfO characters to EVE characters is that in Eve you deal with fleets, under command of a single individual. Multi-boxing or not it is expected someone have multiple ships and to use them in a single engagement.
In PfO you have individuals. These people can be working towards a similar or disparate objectives but in the end are still individuals.
To finish off, this is an RPg, and by instigating this method I feel that the RP side will be set on a back burner with a cursory "oh they are my minions" explanation in order that the G side is empowered. Now there are some people who want to play like that but I intend to take my one character into this with an absolute will, p-level him, and BURN through anyone who disagrees or halfazzes their character(s). Not to look down on that style of play, but I feel like the RP side just will not develop nearly as well, and that is the cornerstone of this sort of game.
We should ask ourselves, what is more important? Wealth of money or Wealth of culture?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want my destiny's twin and any other alt character to be distinctly different from my main character and my other alts.
If I'm paying for separate training time, I want them to have separate experiences and be seen as unknown or separate entities from each other.
This system does provide for that if you want to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Imagine what 400 or 500 players in one settlement, each with a handful of henchmen would do to the server load.
What should be a 1 v 1 duel would become 6 x 6. An outpost raid would have 30 or more when it might have had only a group of 5 - 8.
The companion system in SWTOR, made the game very much a single player experience.
I'd certainly name my alt / henchmen: Meat Shield 1, 2, 3; HealBot; and Mule.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Making sure the game does not have a /follow command will help a lot to combat boxed alts, for combat and exploring. I know you can work around that but that pretty much ensures hacking. Which is not what 99,9% of the boxers do. Totally different beast.
Not having an /assist command is even more of a setback but I do not see how they could leave such a command out of the game.
I have boxed many a PvE game, with different setups:
Method 1):10 years ago I used 5 separate computers where I "steered" the characters with Microsoft Strategic Commanders(you could do very nice buffing macros with these btw). Nice pic of my desk back then: 6-boxing If you are wondering about the small room, my wife banished me to a large closet with my hobby. :)
Method 2): Then 5 years ago I did not want to bother anymore with having to control each character through these commanders, so I bought 5 wireless keyboards, glued all 5 receivers on a wooden latch and attached them to 5 separate computers, then made sure a single keyboard was synced with all 5 receivers: one buttonpress ---> all 5 computers received a single press. Set up your hotbutton bars on each client and go.
Method 3):Last year I decided to run all the clients on single computer and use Isboxer, a program that can send any single keystroke to any gamewindows/clients you are running. No sequences, macro's or loops can be done with this program, it is allowed by SOE and needs a player real time at the keyboard. With the proper hotbutton setup (and Everquests own 5-line macrofeature) you can set up a powerful 6 box no problem. Runs like butter on an i-7. Never have to change from your main window, I had the rest in stacked windows on a second monitor.
If Everquest did not have the /follow command I would never have bothered with any of this though.
Just wanted to show people will go far with boxes but convenience is important for a lot of them. Not having a follow command would be very inconvenient, I guess you could work something out with method 2 and 3 but it would be very unreliable. PvP is even worse.
Even though I am 100% sure that I will have a crafter/trader-alt on a second monitor, I am not so sure wether I will be taking more then 1 toon to the battlefield.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Making sure the game does not have a /follow command will help a lot to combat boxed alts, for combat and exploring. I know you can work around that but that pretty much ensures hacking. Which is not what 99,9% of the boxers do. Totally different beast.
Ryan's already officially announced that you'll be able to play multiple characters from the same account at the same time, trying to "combat boxed alts" seems strange to me.
I think you'd be surprised at the number of folks who use "hacking". It was a real eye-opener for me seeing it so rampant in Vanguard. I imagine it's a lot like how some people would be really surprised by the prevalence of drug use among High School students - even as others would be similarly surprised by how many High School students have never been exposed to it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan is a realist, that is for sure. I like that.
However I do get the idea from Ryans posts that he is not very fond of multiboxing(possibly to do with the social aspect), so if there are simple ways to keep it down a bit he could consider that. But not if it is too debilitating for the average player, off course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The way to avoid multi-boxing is to make it so players are fully immersed in the game, and particularly combat. Thinking about what they're going to do at every given moment.
Though, considering how D&D/Pathfinder are set up, and particularly with the classless skill-based system, I have a feeling buffbots will be common and unavoidable.
Anytime you can make a character who's sole purpose is to buff, ALL the true min-maxers will roll with buff bots.
I'm with Qallz on this.
To remove the multi-boxing pay to win problem, remove the tab targeting.
To remove the buff bots, set the system so that Alts can not be within one hex of each other when online and active.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The way to avoid multi-boxing is to make it so players are fully immersed in the game, and particularly combat. Thinking about what they're going to do at every given moment.
Though, considering how D&D/Pathfinder are set up, and particularly with the classless skill-based system, I have a feeling buffbots will be common and unavoidable.
Anytime you can make a character who's sole purpose is to buff, ALL the true min-maxers will roll with buff bots.
I'm with Qallz on this.
To remove the multi-boxing pay to win problem, remove the tab targeting.
To remove the buff bots, set the system so that Alts can not be within one hex of each other when online and active.
Those are both highly problematic. Removing tab-targetting would make the game very difficult to play for those who aren't twitch gamers. GW has said that this will not be a twitch game. Disallowing alts from being in the same hex means that my wife isn't allowed to play with me. That's a horrible plan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the idea to put the burden on GW servers instead of client resources to multi-box?
I like the idea of having a henchman that I can build and grow but as a few pointed out that strips opportunities for socialization out of an MMO.
It sounds like a very customizable pet to me. My version would be one henchman for an active character and a branch of leadership skills improves henchman strength (or is even required?). Not sure how easy it should be to switch active between the two characters I guess it depends on the exploitation quotient.
The downside being, once that's available in a pvp game you suddenly have to be running a stable of characters everywhere to stand a chance against the other herds of player 2 and player 3. If some form of multiboxing were so widely available then setting foot out of town ALONE alone would become taboo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If some form of multiboxing were so widely available then setting foot out of town ALONE alone would become taboo.
This is a very good point. As stated before I plan really on only havin one character, and apart from my relatively small guild (max will be like 11 people) coming together for some form of a kingmaking mission, or a protection/assault gig I will generally be rocking it alone, travelling from power base to power base, increasing my fame and RP community-based influence.
Whether or not PfO becomes a worldwide gank fest I still will play this way, but again this just decreases social interaction and slowly reverts the game to what something like runescape has become: Bots everywhere, people just trying to p-level, and guilds staying within their tight social boundaries with little to no branching out unless it is to claim more fame/power/wealth which they will then use to peacock around and turtling up.
So I am firmly against the idea of multi-boxing. I understand the uses and whatnot, and I get that they can be very very useful in many situations, but I just have to say this is not the game for it. I don't want to play a game where all the people care about is increasing the self, I want a game where the community is playing off each other to the maximum extent, and multiboxing just won't allow for that full extent in my eyes due to the reduction in RP per individual, the mindless swarming, and the lack in social interactions that are intrinsic to an open-world PLAYER DRIVEN system.
Multiaccounts are fine, but you shouldn't be using them all at once in tandem.
You can have your nation of bots, I want my world of culture.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As much as I would love to see that I think this is a lost cause after the video presented in the last blog.I'm with Qallz on this.
To remove the multi-boxing pay to win problem, remove the tab targeting.
The Game Design Document is a living document, so things can and do change from what was originally planned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Game Design Document is a living document, so things can and do change from what was originally planned.As much as I would love to see that I think this is a lost cause after the video presented in the last blog.I'm with Qallz on this.
To remove the multi-boxing pay to win problem, remove the tab targeting.
True but it seems as though they have already expended a fair bit of effort into building a tab targeted combat system.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way to avoid multi-boxing is to make it so players are fully immersed in the game, and particularly combat. Thinking about what they're going to do at every given moment.
Though, considering how D&D/Pathfinder are set up, and particularly with the classless skill-based system, I have a feeling buffbots will be common and unavoidable.
Anytime you can make a character who's sole purpose is to buff, ALL the true min-maxers will roll with buff bots.
I'm with Qallz on this.
To remove the multi-boxing pay to win problem, remove the tab targeting.
To remove the buff bots, set the system so that Alts can not be within one hex of each other when online and active.
All targeting is the equivalent of tab targeting: If nothing else, the bot simply selects which target it is going after and generates a target vector that results in a hit.
Everything account-based is simply repackaging a requirement for serious botters to create multiple accounts, with the headaches that causes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hey BrotherZael, do you plan on playing a necromancer in game?
Nope. To be honest I'm still trying to figure out exactly what I am going to be playing. I was thinking maybe an off-cleric, but it lacks the skills I'll need. So next was rogue, but that won't fit the up and bruise em style my character would choose. Ranger? Again we don't see the proper style of fighting for my character nor the exact skills. Fighter then? But that generic blend will not be constructive to my goals.
In summation: My character is an ex-inquisitor who has had almost all his memories and sanity tortured from him via magic and some physical. He does not care about money or material goods, instead dealing in ideals, politics, favors, and what he calls "the most special of currency" (which if you ever figure out basically means he will work for you for free)
His goals are thus: become a kingmaker to ensure settlements and nations follow the correct path away from tyranny.
His style is thus: Mostly solo, though will answer wherever needed. Will have a small guild to help in his kingmaker efforts
His needed skills: DPS Burst, Either sustain or escape, Diplomacy, all in equal or near equal amounts.
Skills not needed: Crafting/Processing. Arcane magic. Standardized income
So as you can see, I'm having a hard time. He will be a cross between a Vigilante and a Politico