Goblin Squad Member
|
By replicating the moves and timings of the players, with appropriate delays with reactive blocks, it should be simpler rather than more difficult to apply such a script to monster fighting routines.
The machine does not have to see its cooldown has finished and react, its timing can be perfect and unbeatable. By modeling the scripts of actual players the reaction times should be built in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the up side of this, it means UNC can totally test out all the other subsystems and work out the existing skills all ready to put SAD into action when it does arrive.That is unfortunate... That will make some of us create our own SAD system.
Just watch, players meta the concept of SAD waiting for it to be implemented. The ritual of it becomes a part of PO culture. Years down the road SADs happen every day, still no mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just watch, players meta the concept of SAD waiting for it to be implemented. The ritual of it becomes a part of PO culture. Years down the road SADs happen every day, still no mechanics.On the up side of this, it means UNC can totally test out all the other subsystems and work out the existing skills all ready to put SAD into action when it does arrive.That is unfortunate... That will make some of us create our own SAD system.
It would be very interesting to find that many of the "mechanical" things that we want, could be done by the players without the mechanics. Maybe not all of the benefits and drawbacks that programmed mechanics offer but with satisfyingly similar results anyway. The ways to do them become established and customary just because they are/were done from near the beginning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Therefore I think that we may need to impose some external forces on the game environment to rationalize the PvP until enough other features have been deployed to give alignment and rep meaningful consequences.
I vote for starting in the most advanced state of the Mother of All Escalations, River Kingdoms overrun with wall-to-wall baddies to test skills and learn new systems on (and keep us distracted). Pvp happens but anything that gets out of hand is condemned because of the bigger threat. Players have to push out of the besieged NPC town, investigate nearby areas, find the [mystical source of trouble] to defeat before that area of River Kingdoms is safe for township habitation again.
But instead of a trophy we get phase 2 of EE which includes some of those other features.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sure they could be done. You just need daring bandits who are okay with the consequences yet have enough of a sense of honor to let the merchant go when he pays up.
Anyone that kills after a ransom will lose game reputation and more importantly meta reputation; merchants talk. The ability to ransom a large sum and move on quickly is important to bandits and breaking the agreement damages their ability to do that.
Anyone that kills after a ransom is paid was most likely just using robbery as an excuse to kill. Meta reputations will gradually sort those types out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sure they could be done. You just need daring bandits who are okay with the consequences yet have enough of a sense of honor to let the merchant go when he pays up.
That honor system for releasing those that paid ransom was very much present in EvE back in 2005 - 2007 when I was most active as a pirate.
There are a few things that will make SADs work:
1. The traveler has to believe that you can and will kill him if he does not comply.
2. The SAD demand has to be reasonable enough to make it foolish to decline, but high enough that it isn't a waste of time.
3. When the SAD demand is accepted it is honored, primarily by the bandit but also to a lesser extent by the traveler.
4. Don't push the tolerance level of the local area too much. Once bandits move from being an acceptable nuisance to being a scourge, it's time to move into greener pastures.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I see is that even if alignment and rep is in the game on day one of Early Enrollment, it may be irrelevant. The only way to train skills will be to access trainers at the NPC settlements which will have to be open to all characters because there won't be enough diversity in the initial terrain to have lots of them. There won't be much to do against the environment besides kill groups of monsters which don't offer much threat. So the most interesting thing to do will be to fight other characters, and I expect that to happen quite a bit.
The challenge is that the message that sends to everyone is that the game is just a PvP free for all with zero consequences. If that becomes the accepted norm, the game will fossilize around those assumptions and we'll never be able to change them. Having alignment and rep doesn't mean anything if there are no consequences attached to changes in them.
Therefore I think that we may need to impose some external forces on the game environment to rationalize the PvP until enough other features have been deployed to give alignment and rep meaningful consequences.
Could have the costs for training be adjusted by reputation. Not necessarily coin cost alone, but perhaps the length of time it takes to complete the training and the difficulty of deed/badge it takes to finish it off. With no player-settlements there's not much reason to include (m)any alignment features, but reputation could still be given a significant effect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem I see is that even if alignment and rep is in the game on day one of Early Enrollment, it may be irrelevant. The only way to train skills will be to access trainers at the NPC settlements which will have to be open to all characters because there won't be enough diversity in the initial terrain to have lots of them. There won't be much to do against the environment besides kill groups of monsters which don't offer much threat. So the most interesting thing to do will be to fight other characters, and I expect that to happen quite a bit.
The challenge is that the message that sends to everyone is that the game is just a PvP free for all with zero consequences. If that becomes the accepted norm, the game will fossilize around those assumptions and we'll never be able to change them. Having alignment and rep doesn't mean anything if there are no consequences attached to changes in them.
Therefore I think that we may need to impose some external forces on the game environment to rationalize the PvP until enough other features have been deployed to give alignment and rep meaningful consequences.
Well a PVP free for all with no rep mechanic would be a horrible way to start out that's for sure. I'm guessing that we will either flag ourselves for PVP or have factions that flag you as hostile to another faction, that's fine with me until the game is ready for rep to be added. A no pvp NPC starter area combined with a good reason to join a faction at war could be interesting for a couple months, much better than just kill anyone who is flagged for pvp. We sure don't want PFO to start out being the opposite of what it was sold as, so it is better to go too far in the direction of limiting who can pvp and where until the game is ready for the needed systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that worries me is whether Ryan & Co. will find the right balance to attract both the folks who are skeptical about PvP and really don't want to be in an murder simulator and the folks who are perfectly happy with EVE. That's the kind of thing that would keep me up at night...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that worries me is whether Ryan & Co. will find the right balance to attract both the folks who are skeptical about PvP and really don't want to be in an murder simulator and the folks who are perfectly happy with EVE. That's the kind of thing that would keep me up at night...
I like the idea of a simple straight system of NPC rejection when you fall below a certain threshold, and working your way out of it if you want access to those NPCs again.
I also would be happy enough with a softer approach, that Keovar suggested, of higher costs and longer timers.
Some REAL consequences and some REAL reasons to get involved in PVP willingly. Even if they are crude at first.
I really would like it to be obvious, as early as possible, that this game is a different animal than previously similar games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the things that worries me is whether Ryan & Co. will find the right balance to attract both the folks who are skeptical about PvP and really don't want to be in an murder simulator and the folks who are perfectly happy with EVE. That's the kind of thing that would keep me up at night...I really would like it to be obvious, as early as possible, that this game is a different animal than previously similar games.
I think for me, the earliest that this is really possible, is when the Game of Settlements has started. That is what attracted me to PFO.
If I fail to ever care for the Settlement that I am part off, then the game will have failed for me most likely. If there is something to fight/craft/progress/die for then all the rest is gravy.
Sure, the mechanics of those other features will play a large role in my overall fun, but the real difference for me would be in the Game of Settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Three factions: Good, Evil, and Neutral. Three starting spheres for clerics. (simple and basic as alignment probably only matters to them for awhile)
Keep it simple. Your reputation is your standing in your faction (for now). If your rep is maintained above a certain level, your gold costs for training are significantly reduced. If you kill outside of one of the hostile factions, you lose rep as normal.
Tie alignment factors into it later, when they actually matter more.
Add some more things, to faction membership, that make it more worthwhile.
OR... Two factions: Good and Evil. Neutral is non faction.
P.S.: It wouldn't even matter if you called the factions Red, Blue, and Grey, leaving alignments out all together.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the things that worries me is whether Ryan & Co. will find the right balance to attract both the folks who are skeptical about PvP and really don't want to be in an murder simulator and the folks who are perfectly happy with EVE. That's the kind of thing that would keep me up at night...I really would like it to be obvious, as early as possible, that this game is a different animal than previously similar games.I think for me, the earliest that this is really possible, is when the Game of Settlements has started. That is what attracted me to PFO.
If I fail to ever care for the Settlement that I am part off, then the game will have failed for me most likely. If there is something to fight/craft/progress/die for then all the rest is gravy.
Sure, the mechanics of those other features will play a large role in my overall fun, but the real difference for me would be in the Game of Settlements.
I am not positive, but I get the feeling that Ryan (as well as some of us here) are concerned about how EE will not only look to the general public, but what kind of culture might become the normal expected experience in EE.
There is no doubt that most of us are looking forward to many or all of the features that have been suggested. Those are a long way off however, and there are many other games coming down the pipeline to chose from.
Edit: I would like to see people doing crazy things for the chance to get into EE. Especially those that are tentative about combat PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A simple solution to allow PvP in early EE might just be to have the faction system conflict be at a lower level than 4 for the short term.
I don't know Devs reasoning for that level but unless it is a minimum level to be able to travel to those other NPC areas? Maybe an Opt in Faction PvP setting for levels 1-3 with a short disclaimer? The setting could be removed when the Devs decide the system if ready for the changes? The only other thing that comes to mind would be an arena hex that is removed later, but I don't like that as much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that worries me is whether Ryan & Co. will find the right balance to attract both the folks who are skeptical about PvP and really don't want to be in an murder simulator and the folks who are perfectly happy with EVE. That's the kind of thing that would keep me up at night...
Ha! Only thing that's going to keep me up all night, every night, is this friggin game!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite
I have no good answer for that other then that GW should constantly manage expectations during the growth process. Both for people already in the game (who may get attached to certain temporary measures) as well as those looking to join.
They should probably start using the Goblinworks website as a place where people can get an immediate impression of:
- At which development stage the game is currently at(or a "Not implemented yet" list);
- Which features are using placeholder/temporary mechanics;
- A clear list of "Not Working Yet As Intended";
- And a rough timeline of features to be implemented;
This should be on the Main page of the Goblinworks website, in bold colorful fonts, with some nice graphics;
Show people that this is a work in progress.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite
I have no good answer for that other then that GW should constantly manage expectations during the growth process. Both for people already in the game (who may get attached to certain temporary measures) as well as those looking to join.They should probably start using the Goblinworks website as a place where people can get an immediate impression of:
- At which development stage the game is currently at(or a "Not implemented yet" list);
- Which features are using placeholder/temporary mechanics;
- A clear list of "Not Working Yet As Intended";
- And a rough timeline of features to be implemented;
This should be on the Main page of the Goblinworks website, in bold colorful fonts, with some nice graphics;
Show people that this is a work in progress.
I don't think that would be a bad idea at all. Lots of informative, open press release. It might help some. Now what about the other thing? The part where the Unintentional murder simulator becomes reality?
I really hope that it won't come to look like that is it for a general perception. Maybe it won't, but why gamble on it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A simple solution to allow PvP in early EE might just be to have the faction system conflict be at a lower level than 4 for the short term.
I don't know Devs reasoning for that level but unless it is a minimum level to be able to travel to those other NPC areas? Maybe an Opt in Faction PvP setting for levels 1-3 with a short disclaimer? The setting could be removed when the Devs decide the system if ready for the changes? The only other thing that comes to mind would be an arena hex that is removed later, but I don't like that as much.
I really think this is the way to go (use factions in EE) . I can't express how strongly I oppose a 'red vs. blue vs. grey' concept. The number of Kickstarter Pathfinder fans, heck, the number of MMO fans that are going to be disappointed when they first log in in early EE might be more than we expect. I've met two 100$ backers who thought they were getting into a sort of closed beta and had no interest in the messageboards. Boy, did I have a lot of explaining to do (they were tt Pathfinder enthusiasts). Choose six Pathfinder Gods, give 'em each a faction and representative npc who grants faction admission based on alignment and a simple mission. Start pvp based on something from the world of Golarion. There would be a lot of potential enemy/ally relationships. Leave out a CE faction completely if ya hate 'em so much-they'll truly be pariahs from the beginning (I don't support this but I think that's where we're headed anyway). Start the 4th level requirement all at once at the beginning of OE. The Kickstarter page does not explain in enough detail Minimum Viable Product or the paucity of content in early EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
. The Kickstarter page does not explain in enough detail Minimum Viable Product or the paucity of content in early EE.I agree. I think they need to start using the Goblinworks website though, or a dedicated website to PFO. Kickstarter was the start of the whole thing but I do not think it is a good vehicle for conveying the information to the public of a game that is actually in full development.
As to the danger of PFO getting branded as a murder-simulator: I have NO idea how to solve that.
Disable looting at first? Have PvP fights not be to the death but to a state of "knockout" after which a win is declared and the victim restores to full health? Consensual PvP?
I see huge disadvantages to all those. People getting used to the mechanics, people feeling it is pointless and so forth.
Maybe allow players to play monsters and only allow PvP in that manner at first? Would not help much in assessing the mechanics of real PvP though. Unless you just give half of the players a Monsterskin, so they stay being a regular character but disguised as a Monster.
Maybe if you only can get killed "pointlessly" by a "mob" this does something to the perception of PvP in the early game: less "murder", more "oh well, I don't mind being killed by a mob"?
Like give half the players a Goblin skin and call those early days "The Goblin Uprisings". Would even make some lore-sense, goblins do live in the towns do they(well, Thornkeep at least)?