Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gaskon
If two fighters can't take a rogue and a fighter, there not that good imo. Figuring the lone fighter initiates the combat so the rogue can get off a a few sneaks attacks <due to not being targeted>, the two fighters will simply turn and focus the rogue down. Lets figure the fighter and rogue did pick the same target, That fight will be almost dead the same time the rogue goes down. That leaves the solo fighter who started with 1v2 and with alot less health than the remaining of the two fighter team. So 3/4 die with one fighter from the 2 fighter team wins. Even if the rogue has evade feats to get out of combat, both fighters have access to the leap feats etc to keep up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So with all the talk about stealth, here is an example of what I imagine a failed stealth check might look like.
just how do you come across this as a reference to PFO lol.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those glass cannon mages, with mage armor, bracers of defense, and some dex, you all run about AC18 in TT. Fairly comparable to a rogue. Add in mirror image etc. your not so glassy as it seems. Especially if HP is going to be comparable.
In tabletop, Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor don't stack, and you're likely to be at least two points of AC from Dex behind the Rogue to start. By high level, you're several more points of Dex, a mithral chain shirt, and maybe a Dodge and Two Weapon Defense behind. In theory, you're not spending your expected total wealth on weapons, so you might be able to be a little ahead of the Rogue on rings of protection and amulets of natural armor.
The behavior I generally see at my table is that Wizards and Sorcerers quickly realize that it'll be prohibitively expensive to stay competitive in the AC economy anyway (and the melee characters get first dibs on +AC rings and amulets), so they'll slap on a several-hour Mage Armor or wear Bracers that dropped as treasure, and hand-me-down rings and amulets, because all of that is essentially free, but otherwise they opt out of AC. Instead, they rely on spells like Mirror Image and Stoneskin that don't care about hit rolls, and generally try to avoid ever being an attack target in the first place. Their gear tends to be in the form of utility and stat-boosting wondrous items and eventually staves. I regularly see Rogues hit the low 30s of AC in their teens, and I can't recall a Wizard or Sorcerer crossing 20 except on special occasions.
But other peoples' mage players may be different than mine :) .
All that said, we've tentatively got a Wizard spec that gets some all-the-time Physical resistance based around the idea of Mage Armor. It can't match a Rogue without making some important tradeoffs in other places, but it's not nothing.
And, as you note, there will probably be spells that can make a caster quite resilient for a little while.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thank you Stephen Cheney, I hope that you choose to make the PFO arcane casters along the DnD lines rather than forcing them into being squishy fireball dispensers the way other MMORPGs I've played does.
Really looking forward to hearing more about the wizard and cleric once you get that far into development. Any speculative sneak peeks are welcome, as always ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thank you Stephen Cheney, I hope that you choose to make the PFO arcane casters along the DnD lines rather than forcing them into being squishy fireball dispensers the way other MMORPGs I've played does.
Really looking forward to hearing more about the wizard and cleric once you get that far into development. Any speculative sneak peeks are welcome, as always ;)
I will 2nd that.
Also Stephen, please quit making me miss my old TT group and the hard core way that we used to play! :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are likely to be a glass cannonLikely because you think that's what arcane casters want, or likely because that's what you're designing them to be? If the former, I will say that it does not apply to me, and as for the latter... well, I guess it's good to know that I needn't bother trying to play one.Yeah, I'm hoping it's "likely" in the sense of "most Wizards will choose to be glass cannons" rather than in the sense of "if you want to be a powerful Wizard, you're going to have to be a glass cannon".
I remain hopeful that a Defensive Wizard will be viable. I'd actually like to give up the high-damage Evocation spells in favor of specializing in Divination and Abjuration.
Yes, it's the assumption that high-damage blast spells are what it means to be an arcane spellcaster that I find disturbing. Clerics are not merely healbots and wizards are not merely glass cannons. You can do that, but its very basic and short-sighted. I find the utility spells most interesting, and in the inevitable combat of a tabletop game I tend to focus on being a force multiplier. A couple of allies with bows and swords can deal a lot more damage than a fireball while taking a lot less damage that needs healing if enemies are webbed or whatever.
In other MMO terms, consider it the difference in the way a CoH (non-healer)defender or controller plays as opposed to a blaster.It might even be useful to use the "OMGFIREBLLZ!!" assumption that many make to get an opposing force to charge the arcanist and allow the rogues and fighters to chew up their flanks, if there are enough defensive spells to let the caster survive the process. I'm not a glory-hound.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All that said, we've tentatively got a Wizard spec that gets some all-the-time Physical resistance based around the idea of Mage Armor. It can't match a Rogue without making some important tradeoffs in other places, but it's not nothing.
That's so heartening to hear. I really, really want there to be multiple, viable options, all involving trade-offs, for building our characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All that said, we've tentatively got a Wizard spec that gets some all-the-time Physical resistance based around the idea of Mage Armor. It can't match a Rogue without making some important tradeoffs in other places, but it's not nothing.
And, as you note, there will probably be spells that can make a caster quite resilient for a little while.
I'll most likely be including that spec into my multi-role Fighter-Mage-Rogue pseudo-monk. Bah, I'm starting to feel like Nale.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
the two fighters will simply turn and focus the rogue down.
Potentially not good tactics against a fighter specialized in attacks of opportunity.
With the limited information we have, this is wild speculation, but I can see a rogue + fighter pair giving their opponents a choice between letting the rogue get his sneak attack, or forcing the rogue to evade while granting opportunity to the fighter.
I think it will come down to coordinated target switching and having to evaluate which of the opponents is more dangerous: the rogue or the fighter.
And that's just straight melee brawl, without even considering that any of the combatants might have trained some range skills or a few key spellcasting abilities.
If any obviously superior combinations come up, like "a trio of rogues can wipe out any other group", thats what tweaking abilities during EE is for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you Stephen Cheney, I hope that you choose to make the PFO arcane casters along the DnD lines rather than forcing them into being squishy fireball dispensers the way other MMORPGs I've played does.
Really looking forward to hearing more about the wizard and cleric once you get that far into development. Any speculative sneak peeks are welcome, as always ;)
I'll bring the motion up to 5.5. That being said, I really want to say more about this.
I think the reason I so often played stealthers over mages in MMO's even though I always play a mage (Sorc) in TT, is the fact that the stealthers had invisi-stealth combined with the fact that mages were mechanically not much different from archers.
They just couldn't stealth, and had a little more variety in their damage, with a little bit of crowd control, but also couldn't melee and were more squishy.
The Sorcerer I play in PFTT is SO much different than anything I've been allowed to play in any MMO, and he still has A LOT of damage spells.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love running mages in TT and not being a flash bang type character; as mentioned elsewhere I love conjuration and summoning creatures. Many times I don't have any evocation type spells; preferring to use buffing and Divination/Abjuration type spells whilst the whirling chihuahua of death bites the dragon's toes.
A well placed enlarge on a raging barbarian tends to leave a rather messy battlefield.
In MMOs, I tend to run rogues as they are more fun to play than fireball spamming wizards.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those glass cannon mages, with mage armor, bracers of defense, and some dex, you all run about AC18 in TT. Fairly comparable to a rogue. Add in mirror image etc. your not so glassy as it seems. Especially if HP is going to be comparable.In tabletop, Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor don't stack, and you're likely to be at least two points of AC from Dex behind the Rogue to start. By high level, you're several more points of Dex, a mithral chain shirt, and maybe a Dodge and Two Weapon Defense behind. In theory, you're not spending your expected total wealth on weapons, so you might be able to be a little ahead of the Rogue on rings of protection and amulets of natural armor.
The behavior I generally see at my table is that Wizards and Sorcerers quickly realize that it'll be prohibitively expensive to stay competitive in the AC economy anyway (and the melee characters get first dibs on +AC rings and amulets), so they'll slap on a several-hour Mage Armor or wear Bracers that dropped as treasure, and hand-me-down rings and amulets, because all of that is essentially free, but otherwise they opt out of AC. Instead, they rely on spells like Mirror Image and Stoneskin that don't care about hit rolls, and generally try to avoid ever being an attack target in the first place. Their gear tends to be in the form of utility and stat-boosting wondrous items and eventually staves. I regularly see Rogues hit the low 30s of AC in their teens, and I can't recall a Wizard or Sorcerer crossing 20 except on special occasions.
But other peoples' mage players may be different than mine :) .
All that said, we've tentatively got a Wizard spec that gets some all-the-time Physical resistance based around the idea of Mage Armor. It can't match a Rogue without making some important tradeoffs in other places, but it's not nothing.
And, as you note, there will probably be spells that can make a caster quite resilient for a little while.
I'm playing a Sor/Oracle/MyT, investing in high CHA, the sidestep secret revelation (use CHA instead of DEX for AC/reflex, Arcane Armor Mastery, and eventually Celestial armor. With rings and amulets, I expect to have an AC and Touch AC competitive with everybody, but will never have the HP to keep standing the line after getting hit once, nor the melee ability to make it worthwhile. However, being able to say "I got this." in a few more situations is a situational advantage worth the opprutinity cost for me.
I'm sure that PFO will allow arcane casters to make meaningful choices to sacrifice lots of power for traditional defenses, and be much more of an iron musket than a glass cannon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In tabletop, Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor don't stack, and you're likely to be at least two points of AC from Dex behind the Rogue to start. By high level, you're several more points of Dex, a mithral chain shirt, and maybe a Dodge and Two Weapon Defense behind. In theory, you're not spending your expected total wealth on weapons, so you might be able to be a little ahead of the Rogue on rings of protection and amulets of natural armor.
The behavior I generally see at my table is that Wizards and Sorcerers quickly realize that it'll be prohibitively expensive to stay competitive in the AC economy anyway (and the melee characters get first dibs on +AC rings and amulets), so they'll slap on a several-hour Mage Armor or wear Bracers that dropped as treasure, and hand-me-down rings and amulets, because all of that is essentially free, but otherwise they opt out of AC. Instead, they rely on spells like Mirror Image and Stoneskin that don't care about hit rolls, and generally try to avoid ever being an attack target in the first place. Their gear tends to be in the form of utility and stat-boosting wondrous items and eventually staves. I regularly see Rogues hit the low 30s of AC in their teens, and I can't recall a Wizard or Sorcerer crossing 20 except on special occasions.
But other peoples' mage players may be different than mine :) .
All that said, we've tentatively got a Wizard spec that gets some all-the-time Physical resistance based around the idea of Mage Armor. It can't match a Rogue without making some important tradeoffs in other places, but it's not nothing.
And, as you note, there will probably be spells that can make a caster quite resilient for a little while.
Most certainly, and with keeping within the scope of the PFRB rules as well (no "house rules"). A character's AC score effectively begins when that player sits down and rolls the 6 stats. I am the Wizard in our Kingmaker campaign and I rolled an 18 and a 17 initially. I put the 18 in Intelligence and the 17 in Dexterity. Our Rogue's highest roll was 15. I'm ahead by +1 out of the gate.
He purchased Studded Leather with his initial funds, I picked up Mage Armor as I have always done since the spell was implemented in RPG gaming. I'm ahead AC wise by +2 now.
Now, our group pretty much does the same as yours in dividing up loot. We d20 roll and high roll chooses first, after all have picked we start in order again if anything is left. If a Ring of Protection is there and the Rogue chooses the Dagger +3 as his first choice (and he picks ahead of me) the all bets are of and I take the Ring.
It also doesn't take too many levels before as an Arcane Caster I can make Rings and Amulets for myself via Feats. The only part of Pathfinder I find lacking is its implementation of Metamagic Feats. I have never found an instance where slotting a lower level spell was preferable to slotting a spell of the appropriate level. So we both have Dodge and are Medium sized.
Substituting the bracers of armor for the Amulet of Natural Defense I created (and that the Rogue doesn't have currently) my AC is comparable to his. I will admit it does help for me that we did have a loot scenario like the one above in which he chose a very nice magic weapon (it had elemental dmg and enchantments that brought it's threat range down to 15 or 16) and in doing so passed up a Belt of Incredible Dexterity +4, which I took.
My AC sans Mage Armor is 17 and over 20 with it. Over his by a point or two and not by going too far out on limbs to do it. We don't run (don't believe in) Monty Haul and enforce settlement levels and the probability of there being enough coin in circulation to even buy found items we want to sell. We even have session where there is no loot generated, just roleplay. As conservative as our campaign is in those regards, I still at this time would have had the means to craft the Belt +4 on my own if I had desired.
And that's not even maxing out the respective item bonuses of the items I have. A Ring of Protection, Amulet of NA at 1 under max bonus with Mage Armor plus your inherent AC base (and Dodge) is over 20.
So yeah, again, not going BSC it is fairly easy and normal to build high AC mages. Especially if you aren't keen on the Metamagic Feats.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rolled stats make any TT comparison worthless. If you were using point buy to make your characters per PFS rules, I think you would be behind in AC vs the Rogue.
Well, I don't agree with you in that it's worthless. That said if anything it only changes the numbers by a point or 2 and the wizard still has an AC of over 20. The wizard just may be on the trailing side then and only by, again, a point or two.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rolled stats make any TT comparison worthless. If you were using point buy to make your characters per PFS rules, I think you would be behind in AC vs the Rogue.Well, I don't agree with you in that it's worthless. That said if anything it only changes the numbers by a point or 2 and the wizard still has an AC of over 20. The wizard just may be on the trailing side then and only by, again, a point or two.
Except if you are playing with Point buy, you don't have enough points to keep your Dex as high as the rogue, because you need to have you Int high for spellcasting, so it is more like you are 3 points behind in AC.
If you are playing with wealth by level per PFS, then the Rogue will likely have a decent weapon, a suit of armor, and a Dex belt to match your own.Through the randomness of die rolls and the randomness of your magic item acquisition, your character is better than the rogues in terms of power. That isn't to say that's not a valid way to play. You're having fun, the rogue is having fun, and it works for your group. But it's important to realize that there is no balance in your game, and comparing it to a situation where there is going to be balance between characters is not that worthwhile, because it would be much more difficult to do it if your and the rogue had access to equal resources.
Again, I never said it's not possible to build a wizard/sorc with a good AC. But doing so when every character has access to the same resources require trade-offs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rolled stats make any TT comparison worthless.I don't agree with you in that it's worthless.
It's useless to draw any kind of comparison from an randomly unequal starting point that has nothing to do with the character itself or even your skill with using the system.
Try this: Point Buy Calculator
Use the Pathfinder calculator at the top of course. The max points spent should be 20, as that's what PFS uses and it's a good number for characters that are solid but still leave you with some hard choices. If a character is human, be sure to remember the +2 that you get to place.
Trivia: There was once a graphical-MUD/MO (500 players at once isn't very 'massive') that actually had you roll stats. It was the original Neverwinter Nights, hosted on AOL in the early-to-mid '90s.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If stealth makes it into the game and is truely underpowered I'm all for buffing it.
I think this is a great system for implement a stealth skill that won't be entirely overpowered like any stealth system from any themepark ever would be in an Open World game.
So let's put it in the game, test it, and if it doesn't work decrease the range at which you are likely to be spotted and/or implement a "dash and stab" type opener for melee based stealthers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only change I would actually like to see, which might even make some of the detractors happy, is a variance to perception based upon the relative position of a target to the perceiver.
For instance (for PCs):
Perception = Perception * 1.2 in a 2 degree arc directly in front of the perceiver (or in the target reticle in freeview)
Perception = Perception * 1 in 60 degree arc around the above
Perception = Perception * 0.8 in 20 degree arc around the above
Perception = Perception * 0.6 in 20 degree arc around the above
Perception = Perception * 0.4 everywhere else
Different NPCs could have different "Perception Fields". A dear (animal, due to the eye placement on the side of the head) could have:
Perception = Perception in a 260 degree arc in front
Perception = Perception * 0.8 everywhere else
Some skills change the "Perception Field", such as:
Tremorsense: Perception = Perception * 1 within a given range in a 360 arc
This, combined with Stealth as already described, would allow for less "twitch-like", yet meaningful positional mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Trivia: There was once a graphical-MUD/MO (500 players at once isn't very 'massive') that actually had you roll stats. It was the original Neverwinter Nights, hosted on AOL in the early-to-mid '90s.
Oh, that makes me miss my old gold-box games. I Never played Neverwinter Nights, but I played all of the Pool of Radiance series, all of the dragonlance series, The savage frontier games, and the Buck Rodgers games using the same engine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How would making people constantly spin their camera/player lead to less twitchy positional mechanics compared to the system currently described? Not necessarily saying I disagree with your system, but trying to understand why you included that.
Ah, true. I had not considered the use of simple facing or free view as "twitch-like", but I can see how that might be an oversight on my part. I was thinking of it from the other perspective, the ability to perceive is mechanically encoded in your position.
Going back to previous discussions, normally there has been one side arguing for "mechanical" support (such as the reputation system) and the other-side who want a more hands-off, emergent system. Usually I think of the latter as being more twitch based...want to sneak up on someone, actually sneak up to them Darkfall style (versus invisible stealth). The system is definitely creating a mechanic that builds a relative positional perception system...as opposed to simply relying upon the player's inattentiveness to allow you to sneak up on them.
Stated as I just did, I totally agree, I am not sure which would be more twitch based...But to be honest, the twitch-based comment was an afterthought...not my argument. I was looking for a compromise, a way to modify the current system to allow those who want to play the melee stealth rogue, while also giving that wary a way to prevent it, content for all...all the while adding a touch of verisimilitude.
I like stealth as currently planned, perception just seemed a bit "buffed" for me. I would not allow players on my TT game to spot a silent enemy when the tell me they are looking the opposite direct...no matter what their roll.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KitNyx, while I agree with the principles, I think there may be technical limitations. Ryan has previously talked about the difficulty in tracking "facing" in a meaningful way.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trivia: There was once a graphical-MUD/MO (500 players at once isn't very 'massive') that actually had you roll stats. It was the original Neverwinter Nights, hosted on AOL in the early-to-mid '90s.
One of the most interesting things to me about original NWN was the way PvP sprang up in the game. If I recall correctly, there was precisely one spot in the game where you could directly PvP other players. But Friendly Fire for AoEs was always on. So a PvP build was generally a Human Dual-Classed Fighter 10/Cleric 11/Mage 12 (with 12 as the level cap), and you'd PvP by running together into a PvE encounter and fireballing next to each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With respect to the twitch aspect of constantly turning, were that the only problem then the solution would be simple - incur a cost to spin. If an attacker would gain +1 to their attack if they hit you from behind, then give them +2 if they hit you while you're in the midst of turning away from them. That will stop people turning around all the time in order to avoid the +1.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KitNyx, while I agree with the principles, I think there may be technical limitations. Ryan has previously talked about the difficulty in tracking "facing" in a meaningful way.
Well, at one time we also discussed the impossibility "improved stealth".
Not only has GW managed to overcome the technical limitations, they have implemented and exceeded exactly what many of us were asking for in "improved stealth". What many in the community, including GW said was improbable, if not impossible...this convinces me that "technical limitations" will not stop GW from finding solutions to ideas they feel will make the game a fundamentally better one. At the same time, maybe I am just letting my pleasure...and the resulting optimism...get the better of me. *grin*
*hint, hint*...Dark of Night...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trivia: There was once a graphical-MUD/MO (500 players at once isn't very 'massive') that actually had you roll stats. It was the original Neverwinter Nights, hosted on AOL in the early-to-mid '90s.One of the most interesting things to me about original NWN was the way PvP sprang up in the game. If I recall correctly, there was precisely one spot in the game where you could directly PvP other players. But Friendly Fire for AoEs was always on. So a PvP build was generally a Human Dual-Classed Fighter 10/Cleric 11/Mage 12 (with 12 as the level cap), and you'd PvP by running together into a PvE encounter and fireballing next to each other.
Yeah, I had started to include those details, but deleted it. It was also expensive for most of its lifecycle, charging by the hour. Despite that, there were players who would idle their characters in the game so they could retain one of the 500 login spots. I only got to try it a few times a couple months before it was shut down, but shortly thereafter Ultima Online hit the scene and the rest was history.
When BioWare announced its own Neverwinter Nights there were a load of grognards from the AOL game on their boards complaining about everything that was going to be different. Some things never change, hmm?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*Cough, cough* Grognards? :)
I feel sick when I think of how much money I spent on that game grinding the red dragons.
I've engaged in some grognardry too, it's just what happens when you've been gaming for anything over a decade. I'm here on a Pathfinder board partially because I didn't care to relearn D&D again. I do regret the loss of Warforged (and artificers) though, and hope the Iron Gods AP late next year will include some kind of playable construct.
Grognard nostalgia aside, surely you can admit that the first BioWare-NWN turned into a classic of a degree the AOL-NWN never even dreamed of?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, an example on the very far end of the bell curve where a Wizard has a higher Dex than a Rogue isn't very useful for talking about comparisons.
Which is even better as I personally don't believe Wizards and Rogue should be compared against each other. The options available to Wizards should come from folks who are experienced in playing them within the rules and have the vision to see more than just the two or three "usual suspect" builds that constantly talked about.
Faithfully implementing as near all of the core RB spells as possible will help with this. If it is a point of it not being able to be done due to coding issues I understand. If it's a matter of the given dev(s) working on it just can't see a use for it or a way for it to cause an effect then I would hope that dev has both the freedom and permission to reach out to the us as a resource.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does this mean there is some relation between the number of keywords on a weapon/armor and its tier? Essentially some sort of hidden mapping between item quality and tier? I'd also assume that the major keywords are only available to top quality pieces.I'm not sure of the relationship between number of keywords and tier. But I thought there was a previous tidbit of a tier 2 weapon having 1 major and some number of minors, doing something north of 60.
Took me a while to find the reference to this. It's from the blog:
A starter longsword is a 40 Base Damage weapon with the "Slashing" keyword. A fairly potent mid-level longsword still does 40 Base Damage, but has the keywords "Slashing," "Sharp," "Razored," "Silver," and "Masterwork."
So that'd be a t2 longsword which (if you could access all keywords on a given attack) would effectively have 40+3*5+20=75 base damage. (The silver keyword doesn't count, except for overcoming extra resistance of lycanthropes and the like.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At some point a blog on how GW are finding the Unity engine would be good. Maybe when more of those tech considerations are nailed down that Stephen mentioned re cover and or night/day or a long those lines mostly.
It piqued my interest not only but also as well as the recent art blogs and so on. Also GameMaker standard is free to download atm and the get a studio licence for free to mess with. I did download Unity for iOS before but a bit too big for my feet to fit in so far.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I hate to turn this into another discussion of the merits or tech limits to meaningful day/night...but, what I was referring to with my "hints", was just the reference to the way GW implemented stealth.
It opens the option of treating characters outside a lit-up area as stealthed. The previous concern was that people would hack their clients to get the info of what exists beyond the light, but is not being rendered. This nullified the entire system and gave those hackers an unfair advantage. By using the stealth mechanic, the client does not even have the information. Of course, the choice to not have "blackest night" is also one of ambiance and gameplay. GW might make the choice the work to benefits ratio or even gameplay considerations make sense to simply use a darker and washed color palate for night.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not sure if it was brought up on the day/night discussion, but wouldn't a simpler to implement option just be to give a bonus to Stealth at night? Or conversely a penalty to Perception at night?
Day/night is already implemented in some form as we saw in the Milestone 3 video, so all that would be required is a modifier that only applies to Perception vs Stealth checks that changes with time of day. If someone isn't Stealthing or trying to spot someone who is then this system doesn't affect them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not sure if it was brought up on the day/night discussion, but wouldn't a simpler to implement option just be to give a bonus to Stealth at night? Or conversely a penalty to Perception at night?
Day/night is already implemented in some form as we saw in the Milestone 3 video, so all that would be required is a modifier that only applies to Perception vs Stealth checks that changes with time of day. If someone isn't Stealthing or trying to spot someone who is then this system doesn't affect them.
Well, a group of us were actually asking for zero vision darkness, like requiring sources of light or you are grue-bait. Zero light, zero vision, a black UI, no matter how much you raise the gamma. The conclusion was that the technical limitations and/or propensity for being hacked would preclude this.
Similarly, many of us were also asking for what we called "improved stealth" which was unlike other MMOs in that it was truly a battle between perception and stealth...rather than an invisibility buff. The conclusion was that the technical limitations and/or propensity for being hacked would preclude this.
The proponents proposed solution to both problems was to limit/filter communication to the client. It cannot be hacked if the client does not know about it. GW said they would explore that option...and apparently made it work for stealth (which I am sure they would have done even without our suggestion). I was just mentioning that if the objection was technical limits alone, true darkness might also be a possibility utilizing the same technique. I do acknowledge it might not be simply a question of technical limits.
As currently planned, I agree, I hope they give a stealth bonus at night/in darkness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nightdrifter - that seems the most practical implementation in my eyes as well.
I'd add Hex modifier (bonus/minus) for woodland too per hex categorized as another form.
In terms of day/night it could even be mid-night game world time eg smaller window than 50-50. Etc. Unpredictable "Weather effects" could further add to this down the line.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope there isn't a stealth buff at night, but a perception penalty for races that don't have low light vision or darkvision. They can see just fine in darkness, so they shouldn't have a more difficult time seeing someone stealthed at night than they do in the day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope there isn't a stealth buff at night, but a perception penalty for races that don't have low light vision or darkvision. They can see just fine in darkness, so they shouldn't have a more difficult time seeing someone stealthed at night than they do in the day.
Hrm. That's making for a little refinement to the system. Definitely worth considering. Either a stealth bonus or a perception minus, which ever makes sense. Perhaps a stealth bonus and no perception minus for said races? It's another turn/twist for the devs to think about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't really have a problem giving elves or those with dark or low light vision a bonus with perception at night. I would like my choice of race to be meaningful with both bonuses and drawbacks. For example, as a elf you get a low light vision but don't get a bonus to skills when starting in the same way a human does in TT. Maybe there should be both a stealth buff at night and an even bigger one for perception for creatures with low light/dark vision.
The racial bonus will soon become negated when you can pick up magical items or spells that mimic or improve on the ability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, the Racial bonus eg Encumbrance for Dwarves (I like Tolkien's spelling) and oc Night Vision Perception for Elves. These are really cool and of course quirk-bonuses not insurmountable. :) Although who gets Sylvain Perception/Stealth bonuses, that's a ton of skill-specific training right there for context.
Well I'm no Owl (wise or nocturnal?), so it's time for me to flutter off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Night vs Day
It would be hard to just give bonus to stealth due to light because races see differently. Dark vision and low light vision are limited in various ways. Both are limited to range, dark vision is black and white(contrast)and low light can't see with out some ambient light from somewhere. Both should have a penalty in the dark, just not as big as every one else and only out to their vision range. After that, they are just like every one else.