Goblin Squad Member
|
Didn't keep Robin Hood himself from being an epic archer. I'd think most would call Friar Tuck a high level cleric etc,...
And I agree chaotic settlements should suck in other ways, collecting taxes etc. But you should be able to get the highest level training for Rogues, Rangers and Barbarians in them, right?
I think I would argue that Robin Hood and Friar Tuck received the majority of their training from lawful institutions prior to their fleeing into the woods.
But, to come back to what I think we know about PFO training systems: It costs some of your DI to maintain training facilities. Chaotic settlements are likely to have lower DI than equivalent Lawful settlements. Nothing will stop a Chaotic settlement from offering the highest level training in stealth, archery or melee combat, it just might mean they have to invest a higher percentage of their DI to do so.
Which is fine, because the Lawful settlements have the invest the extra DI in facilities to craft all the stuff that the Chaotic settlement gets by stealing it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Paladins should be an uber role only the elect should gain access to and from time to time given directives by GW HQ directly to go out and "cleanse" the scum (bots-one-shot eg, griefers dossier hunt and destroy etc) of the River Kingdoms to make the world a better place for everyone else... /fixed.We've not had a lot of discussion about low-rep Lawful Evils, have we?Yeah. We tried talking about LG Paladins for a bit but all the Paladins could do without a rep hit was stand there, rigidly with their arms out to the side away from their private parts. One sneezed when the cleaning lady tried to dust his helmet and his rep went through the floor. That made him KoS and he decided to join the UNC just so he could scratch when he itched.I think the Paladin role should simply be so very difficult to excel in that we have very few players able to really make an OP one... but I think it should be possible to make an OP one even if the player was unlikely to be able to maintain that state.
It would just be wonderful to see someone really do it.
The faith is strong in this one. +1.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think comparing alignment in PFO to myths, history, rp, and the tabletop is a mistake.
I don't see any mechanical system holding up to that type of scrutiny.
Don't agree at all. It is specifically the mythology of the setting that the mechanics have to hold up to. Comparing to reality is the mistake.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think I would argue that Robin Hood and Friar Tuck received the majority of their training from lawful institutions prior to their fleeing into the woods.
But, to come back to what I think we know about PFO training systems: It costs some of your DI to maintain training facilities. Chaotic settlements are likely to have lower DI than equivalent Lawful settlements. Nothing will stop a Chaotic settlement from offering the highest level training in stealth, archery or melee combat, it just might mean they have to invest a higher percentage of their DI to do so.
Which is fine, because the Lawful settlements have the invest the extra DI in facilities to craft all the stuff that the Chaotic settlement gets by stealing it.
As long as it's a hurdle and not a hard cap, I'm fine with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And he and his men were able to train in the wilderness and became some of the best archers and swordsmen in the land.
If bandits, barbarians and other non city / settlement types were able to train outside of the settlement system, we probably would choose that over joining settlements.
I'm hoping that Factions may also be a source of training, at least for mid-level training.
We are in agreement here, but I believe GW's design is heavily dependent on settlements and all the mechanics surrounding that. I think we would have to come up with a seriously argued, well organized position statement to get it even considered. I believe currently such a feature set will be considered out-of-scope.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't agree at all. It is specifically the mythology of the setting that the mechanics have to hold up to. Comparing to reality is the mistake.I think comparing alignment in PFO to myths, history, rp, and the tabletop is a mistake.
I don't see any mechanical system holding up to that type of scrutiny.
I don't think mechanics in an MMO can compare to either myth or history.
Reality and even myths are complex things. Myths are often exaggerated to promote a theme or moral.
In the real world, quite a bit is subjective and / or under debate.
I think neither would be well represented by a mechanical system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think mechanics in an MMO can compare to either myth or history.
Reality and even myths are complex things. Myths are often exaggerated to promote a theme or moral.
In the real world, quite a bit is subjective and / or under debate.
I think neither would be well represented by a mechanical system.
Sorry but I gotta call poppycock here. They are designing pretty much everything around the mythology of Pathfinder. The game mechanics for wizards and fighters is based on the strengths and weaknesses of the mythology behind them Same for elves and dwarfs. Same for Paladins apparently and all I'm asking for is the Rogues, Rangers and Barbarians to have the proper mechanics as well
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rangers and rogues don't have alignment restrictions.
What I am saying is no alignment mechanic is going to live through the scrutiny that is being thrown at it using myths and historical references. Both are too in depth to be calculated.
Take Raislin from the Dragonlance novels. It would be a disaster to let a wizard in pathfinder online to get that powerful. Everyone would be a one shot wizard.
Mortals have survived the test of the Starstone in pathfinder lore, and went on to become gods. It would be a disaster to let anyone do anything similar in PFO.
Arguing from a balance perspective is more reasonable IMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rangers and rogues don't have alignment restrictions.
And barbarians can be neutral. I think that mechanically, if high rep neutral and chaotic settlements can have the same level of training capability of the lawful settlements, the balance might be in limiting the breadth of training those settlements can provide, like Gaskon suggests.
But I'd think that barbarian capitals would lean more lawful (that is, all the way up to neutral) than many of their lesser settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Apart from Alignment and Reputation what about a Cleric figure that goes around giving out some other player-driven measure of social standing?
What about a role that actually qualitatively ranks players in a purely human-construct system (100%) as opposed to the computer systems tracking in (Alignment and Reputation)?
A lot of roles are boiled down to how well you kill another player.
Well some roles could be how good you are and trusted/reliable rating other players socially?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think comparing alignment in PFO to myths, history, rp, and the tabletop is a mistake.
I don't see any mechanical system holding up to that type of scrutiny.
That is because alignment isn't a mechanical system and it is a mistake to try to make it so. GW will have to spend countless hours, days, weeks perhaps even months trying to balance it.
The truest sign that it is imbalanced is when over 60% of the server population switches to the alignment of the month.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think comparing alignment in PFO to myths, history, rp, and the tabletop is a mistake.
I don't see any mechanical system holding up to that type of scrutiny.
That is because alignment isn't a mechanical system and it is a mistake to try to make it so. GW will have to spend countless hours, days, weeks perhaps even months trying to balance it.
The truest sign that it is imbalanced is when over 60% of the server population switches to the alignment of the month.
All of those statements are yet to be seen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There should be numerical metrics available, at least for economic transactions and honoring contracts.
A sort of ebay reputation?
Concerning Clerics they could dosh out religious points (for lack of a better term) that flag hostile or friendly etc to anyone of said religion? This could a good way to integrate Faction PvP more fully with player-driven choices to PvP??
Though that's a departure from social ranking above, where the intention is to highlight the socially noble players as it were which could tie-into another system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A sort of ebay reputation?
The only problem with that (from what I know of ebay) is that most people on ebay give a poor critique because you deserved it, not because they want to damage you personally. If player critique in PFO could damage your reputation, it would be griefed by your opponents with alts.
As much as I tend to call for less game mechanics, if reputation is actually going to work as a game system, I would think it would need to be totally without bias or prejudice.
It would be a different system (100% player feedback) as opposed to the current Reputation (big R!). "Trustworthiness" would be a more applicable term.
....and therefore a measure of how many people in your group to vote you up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're suggesting a way to track player opinion of one another and make that visible to all, but with no mechanical effect - strictly a way to see what others think of them? That would simply provide a quicker means by which polarized groups would attempt to trash other's meta reputations... a means faster than forum and TS chat will already be providing. Is that really something positive for the game and something you want GW spending dev time implementing?
I think people who do disreputable things often will be known quickly enough through all the currently proposed game mechanics as well as the various forms of in and out of game communication. I'm not sure I see the benefit of creating yet another game system to this.
If I'm misunderstanding your intent, I apologize.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would be a different system (100% player feedback) as opposed to the current Reputation (big R!). "Trustworthiness" would be a more applicable term.....and therefore a measure of how many people in your group to vote you up.
Of course, different weighting for eg people you know/have done business with and their ratings vs "non-mutual associates".
There could be intra-settlement or nation etc ratings and external businesses ratings.
Then you may get the situation of an outsourced business that runs such a database independently on players that charges for a "rating"??
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be a different system (100% player feedback) as opposed to the current Reputation (big R!). "Trustworthiness" would be a more applicable term.....and therefore a measure of how many people in your group to vote you up.
Ignore Pax Pagan this is an excellent idea
and those in your group would then have higher weighting because they are people you most often do business with
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're suggesting a way to track player opinion of one another and make that visible to all, but with no mechanical effect - strictly a way to see what others think of them? That would simply provide a quicker means by which polarized groups would attempt to trash other's meta reputations... a means faster than forum and TS chat will already be providing. Is that really something positive for the game and something you want GW spending dev time implementing?
I think people who do disreputable things often will be known quickly enough through all the currently proposed game mechanics as well as the various forms of in and out of game communication. I'm not sure I see the benefit of creating yet another game system to this.
If I'm misunderstanding your intent, I apologize.
Realization veering off topic. But it's not something the devs would work on immediately but a sort of information economy is the idea long-term. If you did get a player-organization which payed companies small fee to get their "tracking data" on deal (who well or not they've been rated and by whom and in connection to whom) then it could be interesting expansion to contracts system instead of the reputation system previously mentioned as part of this system which I think closely tracks PvP.
These ideas have been mentioned before, but going back to them now thinking about more social roles as opposed to just combat roles. Eg diplomat, religious preacher, merchant/clerical house credit-worthiness etc.
And it takes work and it would not be immediately. And it's going off topic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with a group actually playing this out...I could see playing the role or economic data trackers as interesting, possibly profitable, and certainly influential if enough people desired their service/information. But again, that would be players doing it instead of a game mechanic.
In keeping with the thread topic, TN would strike me as the best alignment for such a group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
and those in your group would then have higher weighting because they are people you most often do business with
Something like that. Though I am more focused on roles. The system to develop an information-economy is a bigger monster than I really want to take on atm and seeing as the devs are set on MVP anyway for a good stretch.
The central idea I'm working from is say an eg LG HR these players invest into a settlement that improves opportunities for all those players both skills and environment of the game world. That playstyle works that way ideally via alignment/reputation.
Conversely you could have playstyle high pvp that invests in more fun pvp but it lumps you with similar playstyles. This is obvious but worth stating.
I'm currently thinking of roles that improve the gameworld where it's not just about improving at killing. Eg a Paladin "regulates" the pvp'ers ; a "religious Cleric" gifts boons or curses to virtuous or abominable settlements (and their members) that reflects real sentiment in the player base or a contract system with the "trustworthiness" rating that provides diplomatic information gathering opportunities (requires some sort of signed deal skill).
Etc etc. Some of this is clearly undercooked, but it all flits about alignment and reputation and roles and group interactions.
The fear is that competitive gamers will make mince-meat of other playstyles, if there are not enough viable roles that work on the social side of the game. Which is tricky to work into a system without it becoming gamed anyway. Competitive players are good for driving the game but how to attribute "winning points" to players that enhance sociability? Maybe it's impossible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All of those statements are yet to be seen.I think comparing alignment in PFO to myths, history, rp, and the tabletop is a mistake.
I don't see any mechanical system holding up to that type of scrutiny.
That is because alignment isn't a mechanical system and it is a mistake to try to make it so. GW will have to spend countless hours, days, weeks perhaps even months trying to balance it.
The truest sign that it is imbalanced is when over 60% of the server population switches to the alignment of the month.
I think its a given. Players will play FotM however that happens. If alignment is a direct relation to power in the long run, then alignment will be FotM. Granted I think it will be more like FotY.
They have already told us that there will be powerful and not powerful alignments.
and those in your group would then have higher weighting because they are people you most often do business withSomething like that. Though I am more focused on roles. The system to develop an information-economy is a bigger monster than I really want to take on atm and seeing as the devs are set on MVP anyway for a good stretch.
The central idea I'm working from is say an eg LG HR these players invest into a settlement that improves opportunities for all those players both skills and environment of the game world. That playstyle works that way ideally via alignment/reputation.
Conversely you could have playstyle high pvp that invests in more fun pvp but it lumps you with similar playstyles. This is obvious but worth stating.
I'm currently thinking of roles that improve the gameworld where it's not just about improving at killing. Eg a Paladin "regulates" the pvp'ers ; a "religious Cleric" gifts boons or curses to virtuous or abominable settlements (and their members) that reflects real sentiment in the player base or a contract system with the "trustworthiness" rating that provides diplomatic information gathering opportunities (requires some sort of signed deal skill).
Etc etc. Some of this is clearly undercooked, but it all flits about alignment and reputation and roles and group interactions.
The fear is that competitive gamers will make mince-meat of other playstyles, if there are not enough viable roles that work on the social side of the game. Which is tricky to work into a system without it becoming gamed anyway. Competitive players are good for driving the game but how to attribute "winning points" to players that enhance sociability? Maybe it's impossible.
You only improve the gameworld if what you do as a player assists your settlement to prosper and survive. If what you do is valued by your settlement there will be a place for you. If what you do doesn't help a settlement to survive and prosper then you will find it hard to make a place in a settlement and will find yourself living in the starter settlements.
This is a game of settlement and territorial control. It is down to you as a player to find a way to make yourself useful to a group which will offer you protection. It is not down to the game to create some artificial niche in which you can lodge yourself and get artificial protection.
Harsh? Yes it is harsh but it is also true. I fully hope that crafters, gatherers and merchants will be useful to player settlements which is why I think Ryan's plan to make crafting everything but a few keywords in npc settlements is a bad move for crafters and makes us less useful to settlements. If however it turns out crafters and merchants are not useful to settlements due to game design then I will not sit and ask for new mechanisms I will just shift my attentions to a more useful role for my settlement
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Though I agree with everything Pagan said, I would not be discouraged by it, but take it as a challenge. I think those of us who are not as traditionally "competitive" as other gamers should be looking at what we do enjoy doing and finding ways to make those things meaningful within the context of that competition.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The truest sign that it is imbalanced is when over 60% of the server population switches to the alignment of the month.
First, I think people will be changing their alignments often in Early Enrollment as they experiment and as new features are deployed. Alignment changes will be the norm, not the exception. That's not because the alignment system is broken but because people like to experiment.
Second, once things normalize, the Settlement alignment limits will anchor character alignments. The cost of switching alignment will be high and that will reduce the interest people have in making changes.
Third, I suspect that long term there will be 60% of the characters in one or two alignments but they won't change monthly. They'll play the alignment that maximizes freedom of action and access to character development. I suspect it will be chaotic good or neutral good. This will reflect the system working as intended. The objective is not to get evenly distributed characters across all 9 alignments. Alignment out of the "norm" characters will strongly reflect player choices to do unusual or exceptional things, so there will almost by definition be a lot fewer of those characters.
In other words most people just want to play and not think about their alignment much. The alignments that match the mainstream of play will become invisible. Only the few who want to get into the edges of the game system will really care about alignment.
Ryan's plan to make crafting everything but a few keywords in npc settlementsThat's the exact opposite of the plan.
Not according to Ryan Dancey
In order to craft quality equipment, the crafter will need to be in a player settlement that is outside of NPC areas.Probably not corrct. You will probably need PC Settlement resources to access some keywords and use some materials, but you will probably be able to craft high quality stuff in NPC Settlements.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Ryan's plan to make crafting everything but a few keywords in npc settlementsThat's the exact opposite of the plan.Not according to Ryan Dancey
In order to craft quality equipment, the crafter will need to be in a player settlement that is outside of NPC areas.Probably not corrct. You will probably need PC Settlement resources to access some keywords and use some materials, but you will probably be able to craft high quality stuff in NPC Settlements.
"Everything but a few keywords" is not the same thing as "high quality stuff".
Details are probably still TBD, but I would expect that the set of items that can be crafted in NPC settlements will almost exactly match the set of items that most players consider disposable or easily replaceable.
Ryan's plan to make crafting everything but a few keywords in npc settlementsThat's the exact opposite of the plan.Not according to Ryan Dancey
In order to craft quality equipment, the crafter will need to be in a player settlement that is outside of NPC areas.Probably not corrct. You will probably need PC Settlement resources to access some keywords and use some materials, but you will probably be able to craft high quality stuff in NPC Settlements.
"Everything but a few keywords" is not the same thing as "high quality stuff".
Details are probably still TBD, but I would expect that the set of items that can be crafted in NPC settlements will almost exactly match the set of items that most players consider disposable or easily replaceable.
Go back and read the thread Ryan responded to. It is pretty clear that he is not talking about disposable items only he explicitly says "some keywords and use some materials".
I give credit to Ryan for having sufficient vocabulary that it would include the word most which he could of inserted if that is what he meant.
Ryan clearly says that the items restricted to player settlement only crafting would be some keywords and some materials not most keywords and most materials.
You merely choose to interpret his words to suit how you want the game to be. Me, well when I see the CEO contradict himself seemingly I prefer to ask him to clarify
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan's plan to make crafting everything but a few keywords in npc settlementsThat's the exact opposite of the plan.Not according to Ryan Dancey
In order to craft quality equipment, the crafter will need to be in a player settlement that is outside of NPC areas.Probably not corrct. You will probably need PC Settlement resources to access some keywords and use some materials, but you will probably be able to craft high quality stuff in NPC Settlements.
Then he said, in that same thread:
Every item has quality. Quality is not de facto related to utility. Keywords will reflect utility. You'll want PC Settlements to get the ability to make items with beyond-basic keywords.
Even if you had to exclusively craft items in PC Settlements I can guarantee you they'd be available as commodities on easily and widely accessible markets. Even if every market was in a PC Settlement the same truth would obtain.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If crafters could craft high tier gear in NPC settlements, it would not benefit them leaving NPC settlements. PC settlements only real service would then be high tier training. If anything I would like to see those reversed.
Let me get my training from NPC settlements or faction, and I will steal the gear I want.
If crafters could craft high tier gear in NPC settlements, it would not benefit them leaving NPC settlements. PC settlements only real service would then be high tier training. If anything I would like to see those reversed.
Let me get my training from NPC settlements or faction, and I will steal the gear I want.
Neither high level training nor crafting should be available in npc settlements any other way and you end up with the high sec issue and settlements just become the home to PVP'ers and everyone else does become a second class citizen purely because they aren't needed
You'll be able to do basic crafting in NPC settlements. You'll need PC settlements to do anything beyond the basics.
Some basic items can have high quality.
Thank you for the clarification Ryan that is nice and explicit
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it curious that you believe NG and CG would be the majority of the population, given that most settlements would benefit most by being Lawful.
.
I think there will be a lot of Lawful Good settlements with Neutral Good characters. I think that there will be a lot of Neutral Good settlements with Chaotic Good characters.
I don't think Settlements will "benefit most" from being Lawful. I think "benefits most" is a function that has many dependent variables beyond "highly advanced structures".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I find the idea that "I will steal the gear I want" really funny. In Darkfall where PvP loot drop is 100% there is nobody who runs around using 100% stolen gear 100% of the time.
When you kill someone and you take their gear. Sure you have a set of gear. But likely a great deal of that gear is not of a type or QL that is optimal for you.
For instance if you are a level 7 dagger wielding rogue and kill a level 4 greatsword wielding fighter you have a set of heavy armor you aren't trained to use and a sword you aren't trained to use, and even if you were trained to use both it's probably a lower QL than you want to run with unless you are dirt poor as the general QL of gear you should use is whatever you can afford to replace without worrying about it a great deal.
All this before you even go to consider things like some of their gear being threaded or that even another level 7 rogue may use different keywords.
PvP looted gear will be sold in the equivalent of pawn shops or just torn apart for base components to be used by crafters. The best equipped individuals will find crafters (typically from their settlement or alliance) who will make them custom gear based on their skills, desired effects, and price range.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Plus, because of the Thread Economy, you'll rarely get weapons or armor drops from simple PvP. You might get them from ambushing traders but I'm unsure if weapons and armor will be transported in a lootable condition due to the low demand and high value. It may be rare to move them unthreaded.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius,
As I have often said, if the gear I just used to rob someone led to success, I don't necessarily need an upgrade, what I had just worked fine.
I'm likely not going to be running around using high quality non threaded gear myself, just maximum quality I can still thread. Any non threaded gear will be throw away.
Gear is not the targeted items for theft, it is most likely resources, but that remains to be seen what GW comes up with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius,
As I have often said, if the gear I just used to rob someone led to success, I don't necessarily need an upgrade, what I had just worked fine.
Then you might not want to bother training any high tier skills as you generally won't have the keywords to use them. What you'll want to do is train up low tier skills in a wide variety of classes and builds for those classes. Particularly merchant type characters since they will be your primary target, and loaded with merchant gear that increases their carry capacity.
If that is your intent, they you may really not need a settlement. You will however be much, much, weaker than groups with a dedicated soldiers who train in a specialty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It all depends on what skills and tiers are needed. Obviously I'd thread the highest tier / quality key worded weapon I can. Probably do the same for chest / torso armor.
Higher tier skills probably grant benefit regardless of what gear you are using. Your character can never have too much skill, especially not in a game where the character is the end game and we have years to play.
Don't get your hopes up that we won't be as dedicated to combat as your dedicated soldiers. Our bread and butter is PvP, that is all we will dedicate our bandit raiders to. No advanced basket weaving for us, and no extreme sports ; - P j/k
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's not how it works. Based on what has been revealed thus far if your ability requires your weapon have the "savage" keyword, and you don't have a weapon with that keyword, you don't get to use that ability. At all. If the plate mail you pick up requires a certain level of heavy armor training, and you don't have that heavy armor training, you don't get to use it. Period.
So if you train to use high tier rogue gear and high abilities that require certain keywords but you are primarily bringing in low tier and medium tier gear from a wide assortment of roles and specialties...
It's like training to fly specific race of dreadnought and use that race's capital weapons when you are mostly getting a wide assortment of frigates and cruisers with an assortment of modules for them.
Unless you find someone to supply you with dreadnoughts and the modules you want (Which will be much harder in a game with crafting specialties and much more customizable gear) you might as well just train in a wide assortment of frigates and cruisers.
You may only be training for PVP but that training will be all over the place and you will never truly master any build, I can just use my DT to fund a 100% PvP character, or dabble a bit in making a PVE build that is as close to my PvP build as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius,
Somehow you missed this, "Obviously I'd thread the highest tier / quality key worded weapon I can. Probably do the same for chest / torso armor."
You also seem to feel that the profession of bandits is populated solely by Rogues, and perhaps that they are squishier than fighters. In a classless system mixing and matching skills for optimization of PVP will be widely used. Dedication bonuses are probably far, far down the road and as of yet are unknown if the trade off between versatility and dedication is a wise one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius,
Somehow you missed this, "Obviously I'd thread the highest tier / quality key worded weapon I can. Probably do the same for chest / torso armor."
You also seem to feel that the profession of bandits is populated solely by Rogues, and perhaps that they are squishier than fighters. In a classless system mixing and matching skills for optimization of PVP will be widely used. Dedication bonuses are probably far, far down the road and as of yet are unknown if the trade off between versatility and dedication is a wise one.
I didn't miss either point. You will not get enough high level gear to fit any high level character build consistently. If you are a very successful PvPer you may be able to fit yourself in high level gear consistently once you have a dozen or so high level builds trained. If you don't have gear suppliers and a lucrative source of income you'll just have to reconcile yourself to the idea of generally using complete crap.
Rogue is just an example. You can substitute it with any specialized build. Even if you're running a fighter/cleric/bard/ranger the most effective ones will be ones that find high synergy builds and exclusively train skills/abilities/gear used by that build.
Otherwise you will be a jack of all trades and master of none.