Political complexity vs map size: don't implement fast travel


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

Kitsune Aou wrote:
Something like this might lead to easy spawn-killing (or whatever you want to call it - usually "geifing" in most books).

Well, if there is enough enemies in your settlement to camp corpses, you are better off disconnecting for a few hours anyway.

The malus could also be scaled on the distance between the hex of your death, and the one of your spawn.

Goblin Squad Member

Related but not being mentioned, why is dying to travel considered a problem but not dying during the siege and respawning 10 feet away to rejoin? If the latter isn't considered a problem, then why is the former really a problem? Because most sieges are not going to be quick or trivial.

Ideally I would think you want most battles to be static things. You don't want the defenders just respawning on the spot or the attackers for that matter. Then your battle isn't really about any sort of tactics or sound defeat criteria, it's about attrition or getting lucky with placing your flag when your opponents finally make a mistake by focusing somewhere else too much. That's really boring in my opinion.

I would think that a settlement under siege should lose it's normal respawn mechanics and be replaced with some other rules. Temporary limits to respawns based on some building? Resurrection spells and what not don't count against it? The siege camp itself can serve the same purpose for the attackers.

This would make assassinations a bit more dangerous too if they can sever your spawn point or reduce your ability to respawn.

This allows sound defeats or reasons to retreat instead of just back and forth waiting to finally destroy some objective when one side has a temporary or lucky advantage.

Goblin Squad Member

Kitsune Aou wrote:
Audoucet wrote:
-70% all characteristics against other players after death, for half an hour ?
Something like this might lead to easy spawn-killing (or whatever you want to call it - usually "geifing" in most books).

It's not griefing if done against feud or war targets, that is just a smart tactic to prevent them from returning to the fight.

Goblinworks Game Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

I'm wondering how GW is going to prevent Death-Travel?

In Age of Conan the easiest form of fast travel was to throw yourself off a cliff, and then choose your respaawn location.

Hence why I mentioned that if we have Teleport, it would be similarly restricted to what you can carry with you on a respawn. If we already have the suicide railroad (to use the term from the Riverworld novels), people will use that to get places, so blanket saying no teleport, even teleport that looks a lot like respawning, will just encourage people to suicide.

But we're not set yet on how much choice you'll have on respawn location, so a suicide railroad to a distant bind point may not be possible anyway, changing the math on the power of teleport.

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:

Related but not being mentioned, why is dying to travel considered a problem but not dying during the siege and respawning 10 feet away to rejoin? If the latter isn't considered a problem, then why is the former really a problem? Because most sieges are not going to be quick or trivial.

Ideally I would think you want most battles to be static things. You don't want the defenders just respawning on the spot or the attackers for that matter. Then your battle isn't really about any sort of tactics or sound defeat criteria, it's about attrition or getting lucky with placing your flag when your opponents finally make a mistake by focusing somewhere else too much. That's really boring in my opinion.

More boring than being told if you get killed during an attack on your settlement you have to sit out of playing until the attack is over? Not exactly conducive to encouraging people to defend their settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Atm you have finite death nodes to respawn from.

You could have a rule that these have a beacon area where they are effective, and when you're outside all the beacons your spawn condition is altered in some unpleasant fashion?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Please include "Off Target" results in teleport chances when implemented :)

Goblin Squad Member

Cal B wrote:
Duffy wrote:

Related but not being mentioned, why is dying to travel considered a problem but not dying during the siege and respawning 10 feet away to rejoin? If the latter isn't considered a problem, then why is the former really a problem? Because most sieges are not going to be quick or trivial.

Ideally I would think you want most battles to be static things. You don't want the defenders just respawning on the spot or the attackers for that matter. Then your battle isn't really about any sort of tactics or sound defeat criteria, it's about attrition or getting lucky with placing your flag when your opponents finally make a mistake by focusing somewhere else too much. That's really boring in my opinion.

More boring than being told if you get killed during an attack on your settlement you have to sit out of playing until the attack is over? Not exactly conducive to encouraging people to defend their settlements.

That is also a problem. The boredom and frustration of having to sit out. I wonder if the conditions of the objectives couldn't be mostly focused on the objectives themselves. Don't let them be repaired very fast. Let them be the main target if you can get defenders out of the way for a minute or so. Just as many other games do it.

Other games that I have played also had a bit of distance between the objective and the closest respawn point. It always seemed to work out well enough with what they had designed.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I think that even the suicide railroad breaks distance if you can respawning in distant locations.

When rapid transportation of equipment costs only a unit of durability, nobody will take risky slow methods of transporting equipment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Audoucet wrote:
Yoshua wrote:
I don't see this as a problem personally. Every MMO has quick travel, and now instead of everyone having a hearth stone you either have to train up to get the spells, or pay someone who has them. There will be a sub market for wizards to sell their craft. The teleportation circle costs 1000gp worth of components to cast each time. It's not like spells are free, if there are material components you

A sandbox is not a themepark. It is very different, you can't compare with a hearth stone.

Did you play EvE ?

For a minute but not enough to say 'yes'. I played SWG however and we had instant travel from planet to planet and instant travel from starport to settlements via shuttles and it didn't hurt the economy or the pvp at all.

*pre-nge player, for some reason, we all feel the need to explain this*

And I agree, a sandbox isn't like a theme park, it is much better. But instant travel doesn't kill anything sandbox related. All it does is add another game mechanic to work into the system.

I want a game as close to the pen and paper as possible, in the pen and paper there is teleportation, with the chance of major failure. I would like that here too.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I'm wondering how GW is going to prevent Death-Travel?

Would it be such a bad thing?

Presumably you re-spawn at the nearest bind point. So you have to have traveled there once, and it's a one way ticket to where you are going(as you have to cut your other binds)

I would possibly put in a mechanic that requires more threads for a bind point that is far away from the others. For example lets say that I have a bind point at Phaeros, Brighthaven, and a tertiary outpost, all are within 10 hexes of each other so there is no penalty. If I want to set a bind in Riverwatch, it costs 4x as many threads. And for the opposite, I have a bind point in Riverwatch, if I want to set up the 3 bind points mentioned previously, they will be at a 4x cost. So order matters. If I wanted to do a death-teleport from Phaeros to Riverwatch at minimal cost, I have to setup my Phaeros bind, then go to Riverwatch and make a bind, then come all the way back to Phaeros, thread what I want to take, cut my Phaeros bind then kill my self somehow.

The amount of threads should be set on creation of the bind, so someone can't remove their close binds and see the far one drop.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Audoucet wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

I'm wondering how GW is going to prevent Death-Travel?

In Age of Conan the easiest form of fast travel was to throw yourself off a cliff, and then choose your respaawn location.

Yes, I know, PFO has 25% loss of unthreaded inventory / gear, but that does nit prevent this mode of fast travel if you are naked or you have 100% threaded gear.

Perhaps respawn location can be randomized?

Perhaps there will be no falling damage?

Perhaps suicide for fast travel could be labeled by GW as an exploit, and obvious uses of it could be reported. (Ie. all of a sudden 25 defenders show up at respawn point in a settlement you are sacking, but they were not killed in that battle.).

I'm sure there are other ideas for solutions.

-70% all characteristics against other players after death, for half an hour ?

Yeah, no, this ends up being a griefer groups dream come true. Penalize the people for being griefed and then camp spawn points for them to come back.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Bluddwolf wrote:
Kitsune Aou wrote:
Audoucet wrote:
-70% all characteristics against other players after death, for half an hour ?
Something like this might lead to easy spawn-killing (or whatever you want to call it - usually "geifing" in most books).
It's not griefing if done against feud or war targets, that is just a smart tactic to prevent them from returning to the fight.

Even though I don't agree with you, doesn't mean you are wrong.

That being said, the mechanic wouldnt be limited to the only use you listed here, in the grand scheme of things? This will be used by people who enjoy griefing, not a fine tactician who uses griefing to justify a tactic.

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:


I would think that a settlement under siege should lose it's normal respawn mechanics and be replaced with some other rules. Temporary limits to respawns based on some building? Resurrection spells and what not don't count against it? The siege camp itself can serve the same purpose for the attackers.

I would like to see respawn structures as some part of the seiging process. Perhaps a multi layered approach - the more of the structure that is damaged, the more the different types of respawn or teleportation begin to fail.

Goblin Squad Member

We know that's part of the design- that's what the Twice Marked of Pharasma mtx does. In order to construct a respawn point in your town you need a 2M character to mojo it.

Goblin Squad Member

Cal B wrote:
More boring than being told if you get killed during an attack on your settlement you have to sit out of playing until the attack is over? Not exactly conducive to encouraging people to defend their settlements.

Zerg shuffles are really boring in my opinion too, even if it is a more active boring. But that is why I included something like a building that augments your respawns.

And nothing would prevent people from walking to the battle, which could be more interesting since your forces could dwindle as the battle goes on and the arrival of reinforcements would be more interesting. Instead of just increasing your Zerg amount.

The other benefit is that if you defeat the attacking force it's done, they don't just hang out and keep trying to wear you down. It should be a test of skill and tactics, not an endurance test of who can stay online and in battle the longest.

I would rather explore possible solutions or work arounds then just shutting down a mechanic that has other benefits unrelated to the fringe case.

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:
Cal B wrote:
More boring than being told if you get killed during an attack on your settlement you have to sit out of playing until the attack is over? Not exactly conducive to encouraging people to defend their settlements.

Zerg shuffles are really boring in my opinion too, even if it is a more active boring. But that is why I included something like a building that augments your respawns.

And nothing would prevent people from walking to the battle, which could be more interesting since your forces could dwindle as the battle goes on and the arrival of reinforcements would be more interesting. Instead of just increasing your Zerg amount.

The other benefit is that if you defeat the attacking force it's done, they don't just hang out and keep trying to wear you down. It should be a test of skill and tactics, not an endurance test of who can stay online and in battle the longest.

I would rather explore possible solutions or work arounds then just shutting down a mechanic that has other benefits unrelated to the fringe case.

I agree with this.

But at the same time infinate respawns at your own settlement will make defense damn easy not to mention taking the death train back to defend. Groups should be punished for overextending thier lines or rewarded for wiping out opposition in the field.

There are other games that trigger the respawn to deactivate at keeps (read settlements) oncethey are under assault. The trigger could be asjusted in many ways. Like only when seige weapons are dealing damage to walls or gates or structures. Also an NPC preist that could be assassinated by infiltrators would add a cool element for disguise and assassins. Even a magic based seige engine that projects a field that disrupts respawns in a hex sized area.

My point here is that unlimited respawns at home are bad but if the enemy has a way to shut them off I think the system would be viable.

Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:
... I included something like a building that augments your respawns.

FYI

Civilization reflects more of an emphasis on individuals within in a settlement. A high civilization DI reduces the delay between player respawns during warfare, improves the speed of actively repairing structures in combat, and makes skills more readily available for training. A high civilization benefits a settlement where heroic individuals rely on skill and personal power to combat invaders.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Duffy wrote:
... I included something like a building that augments your respawns.

FYI

Civilization reflects more of an emphasis on individuals within in a settlement. A high civilization DI reduces the delay between player respawns during warfare, improves the speed of actively repairing structures in combat, and makes skills more readily available for training. A high civilization benefits a settlement where heroic individuals rely on skill and personal power to combat invaders.

Thx Nihimon.

Where has Tork been. He seems to have been quiet for some time. :(

Goblin Squad Member

I seem to remember one of the assassin blog posts mentioning that an assassination could sever your ties to your local bind and force you to a more distant respawn, as well.

Goblin Squad Member

No fast travel would be great.
Mounts that double unmounted speed at best.

eh, how about no death teleports either, just a 'dimension door' effect where you can ressurect within a hex of your body should do fine.


Guurzak wrote:
There are massive downsides to recall spells in a pvp sandbox game, to wit, sieging and raiding overwhelmingly favor the defender when your entire population is just a recall away from home.

'Cause your "entire population" is gonna have access to some of the most powerful spells in the game. :P

For context, bards, while having Word of Recall at the lowest level, gain spells extremely slowly in the tabletop. The level is equivalent to fifth level for a wizard, and aside from that, bards don't get many slots—meaning, if they choose, say, Recall, that may be the only spell of that level they get for a while.

Bluddwolf wrote:
Yes, I know, PFO has 25% loss of unthreaded inventory / gear, but that does nit prevent this mode of fast travel if you are naked or you have 100% threaded gear.

It does still wear away the gear, though. ;P Dammit everyone else already said this.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if you're prevented from respawning in a place currently under siege, though. Kinda like how Guild Wars 2 works with its "Contested Checkpoints".

Incidentally, an idea I had—once GW is able to put some focus on graphics, wouldn't it be neat if we could see the Mark of Pharasma? And it could glow bright if we'd died recently. Maybe having a bright glow could even have some ingame consequence to make it more bothersome to kill you again, like higher rep penalties for attacking unprovoked (but not on SAD or the like).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Yoshua wrote:
Audoucet wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

I'm wondering how GW is going to prevent Death-Travel?

In Age of Conan the easiest form of fast travel was to throw yourself off a cliff, and then choose your respaawn location.

Yes, I know, PFO has 25% loss of unthreaded inventory / gear, but that does nit prevent this mode of fast travel if you are naked or you have 100% threaded gear.

Perhaps respawn location can be randomized?

Perhaps there will be no falling damage?

Perhaps suicide for fast travel could be labeled by GW as an exploit, and obvious uses of it could be reported. (Ie. all of a sudden 25 defenders show up at respawn point in a settlement you are sacking, but they were not killed in that battle.).

I'm sure there are other ideas for solutions.

-70% all characteristics against other players after death, for half an hour ?
Yeah, no, this ends up being a griefer groups dream come true. Penalize the people for being griefed and then camp spawn points for them to come back.

I don't see at all how it is griefing. The attackers have the disadvantage that they can't come back to the battlefield, after a fight. I don't see why the defenders should be able to.

And just like Bludd says, it is not griefing, to camp your enemies inside their town. It would be very very stupid, to say "Hey, let them regroup & reorganise, before we attack again !".

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Yoshua wrote:

For a minute but not enough to say 'yes'. I played SWG however and we had instant travel from planet to planet and instant travel from starport to settlements via shuttles and it didn't hurt the economy or the pvp at all.

*pre-nge player, for some reason, we all feel the need to explain this*

And I agree, a sandbox isn't like a theme park, it is much better. But instant travel doesn't kill anything sandbox related. All it does is add another game mechanic to work into the system.

I want a game as close to the pen and paper as possible, in the pen and paper there is teleportation, with the chance of major failure. I would like that here too.

Well, I don't think that you will have the same opinion, when Bluddwolf is able to come and go around your settlement on a five minutes notice.

I am very sorry, but it is very naive, to think that TT rules, meant for a five players group against NPCs, can be adapted for a PvP game with thousands of players.

A simple example : the price. In a saundbox, here how it will happen : little companies will have a hard time using 1000gp, for a little teleport. But for all the big companies, 1000gp will be absolutely nothing, and it will be used as a weapon of mass destruction.


Audocet wrote:
I don't see at all how it is griefing. The attackers have the disadvantage that they can't come back to the battlefield, after a fight. I don't see why the defenders should be able to.

One possible reason is that defenders should have a hefty advantage. They're fighting on their own turf.

Quote:
And just like Bludd says, it is not griefing, to camp your enemies inside their town. It would be very very stupid, to say "Hey, let them regroup & reorganise, before we attack again !".

I'll agree with this. In the Battle of Asakai in EVE Online, I understand a big chunk of the battle was actually fought between groups that had died and were struggling to return to the battle.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Completely 100% agree with the OP. In EVE there is PVE, crafting, and gathering all within pretty much any system in the game. While there are different variables you pretty much never have to leave your group's cluster or systems to experience a wide variety of gameplay.

PFO should shoot for a similar model, there should be factors that encourage players to go out and roam but unlike your general theme-park you should be able to fully experience most aspects of the game within a small geographic area controlled by your group.

Once this is added there is no need for fast travel. Sure some people may want to make epic journeys to Mosswater or The Emerald Spire but having every journey be insignificant is actually a bad thing in my opinion. Traveling one, two, or even three hours to experience some unique area of the game has a lot of appeal. Fast traveling 15 minutes to get anywhere just makes the world feel small.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the early days of Ultima Online getting from Moonglow to Skara was a big deal. It took a good while to cross the land (not hours, but 15 minutes without a mount) so you had to plan ahead. Once runestones were introduced you could port anywhere you had been and marked a runestone, and the world was greatly diminished. All those that shout for unlimited ports to anywhere at anytime for a cheap price have been spoiled rotten by games that allow such, and those games have serious problems with massive insta-travel. fights are manned by hundreds almost instantly, there is no consequence to committing to travel to a faraway land, because you can return in a moment's notice. The world becomes very tiny, and all the developers work of creating a detailed world is for naught.

If implemented at all keep it extremely limited (have a countdown for creating a portal that lasts a week or more, and its uses should be quite limited. Groups should not be able to teleport anywhere. I do like the ability to expend stamina to "hustle", and that would be a perfect use for a group trying to get their chopped timber, or mined or, or dungeon look back to a safe area. Horses might come later, but if they are only ever used as wagon power or a carriage ride between NPC settlements I would have no problem with that.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

I'm wondering how GW is going to prevent Death-Travel?

In Age of Conan the easiest form of fast travel was to throw yourself off a cliff, and then choose your respaawn location.

Hence why I mentioned that if we have Teleport, it would be similarly restricted to what you can carry with you on a respawn. If we already have the suicide railroad (to use the term from the Riverworld novels), people will use that to get places, so blanket saying no teleport, even teleport that looks a lot like respawning, will just encourage people to suicide.

But we're not set yet on how much choice you'll have on respawn location, so a suicide railroad to a distant bind point may not be possible anyway, changing the math on the power of teleport.

I think the best way is this. You get a single respawn point. When you die you return to that respawn point minus all unthreaded gear. So you can't just jump all over the map using respawns, you always get drug back to your last respawn point which you have to physically go to to set.

Make the initial form of teleportation a teleport to home minus gear just like if you had died.

Later on you can train up something like EVE jump clones that allow you to teleport to another location minus gear and has a huge cooldown timer such as 24 hours on it.

The only other types of teleportation I'd like to see is short range teleports such as opening a gate from one side of a battlefield to another. Or teleporting to withing melee range of your target.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Hardin Steele wrote:
I do like the ability to expend stamina to "hustle", and that would be a perfect use for a group trying to get their chopped timber, or mined or, or dungeon look back to a safe area.

I assume you mean Power, not Stamina? Stamina refreshes every 6 seconds, so unless hustling gives you a lasting debuff to Stamina it's something you'll always be doing outside of combat.

Goblin Squad Member

Yoshua wrote:
I want a game as close to the pen and paper as possible, in the pen and paper there is teleportation, with the chance of major failure. I would like that here too.

I want it close to TT Pathfinder too. And I can't say about the games you play. But the games I have played in major teleportation spells are not common. Merchants rarely if ever had access to them and most wizards that were able to cast them either only used it for themselves or for their 'party'. Governments usually didn't use them either unless they had some type of "Gate" system.


Something like the Dimension Door "displacement disorientation" might be good to implement for all teleportation. Want to skip a ten minute travel time? You have to deal with a twenty minute debuff that either makes you worse in a fight or just move more slowly.

And there'd still be limits on what you can carry, of course. So, if you want to pull off really gamechanging teleportation, you'll be out of luck.

Goblinworks Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The standard 100% movement speed is effectively a hustle or jog. You can maintain a hustle all day; it's the standard movement. You can halve your speed to walk (and not provoke opportunity in combat); this doesn't cost anything other than the speed penalty. You can 1.5x your speed to sprint/run; this applies Fatigue (i.e., Stamina damage), so you can only do it for so long (we're talking about changing it to just cost more stamina than you regenerate rather than fatigue, because fatigue heals VERY slowly and it turned out that it isn't particularly fun to wait to get rid of).

We may tweak the relative speeds of walking or running. We may have roads either increase your total speed or just decrease the cost of sprinting so you can do it longer (thus increasing your overall long distance travel speed average without increasing your maximum top speed). Mounts may or may not be faster in general than sprinting, and able to do it all the time, or may have a somewhat higher speed than normal players but slower than player sprint, but have their own ability to sprint.

Goblin Squad Member

Nightdrifter wrote:
Hardin Steele wrote:
I do like the ability to expend stamina to "hustle", and that would be a perfect use for a group trying to get their chopped timber, or mined or, or dungeon look back to a safe area.
I assume you mean Power, not Stamina? Stamina refreshes every 6 seconds, so unless hustling gives you a lasting debuff to Stamina it's something you'll always be doing outside of combat.

I don't care what they call it. Hustle is about as fast as any of use need to go. There might be a rare sprint, but it should be very short and exhausting.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

The standard 100% movement speed is effectively a hustle or jog. You can maintain a hustle all day; it's the standard movement. You can halve your speed to walk (and not provoke opportunity in combat); this doesn't cost anything other than the speed penalty. You can 1.5x your speed to sprint/run; this applies Fatigue (i.e., Stamina damage), so you can only do it for so long (we're talking about changing it to just cost more stamina than you regenerate rather than fatigue, because fatigue heals VERY slowly and it turned out that it isn't particularly fun to wait to get rid of).

We may tweak the relative speeds of walking or running. We may have roads either increase your total speed or just decrease the cost of sprinting so you can do it longer (thus increasing your overall long distance travel speed average without increasing your maximum top speed). Mounts may or may not be faster in general than sprinting, and able to do it all the time, or may have a somewhat higher speed than normal players but slower than player sprint, but have their own ability to sprint.

Does Fatigue mean your maximum stamina is reduced?

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
The standard 100% movement speed is effectively a hustle or jog. You can maintain a hustle all day; it's the standard movement. You can halve your speed to walk (and not provoke opportunity in combat); this doesn't cost anything other than the speed penalty. You can 1.5x your speed to sprint/run; this applies Fatigue (i.e., Stamina damage), so you can only do it for so long (we're talking about changing it to just cost more stamina than you regenerate rather than fatigue, because fatigue heals VERY slowly and it turned out that it isn't particularly fun to wait to get rid of).

I'd look at Pre-CU SWG's HAM system. It's the best health/stamina system I've experienced so far.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
I'd look at Pre-CU SWG's HAM system. It's the best health/stamina system I've experienced so far.

Early SWG was an amazing experience, and I can only support suggestions to use it for reference. It worked wonders with the hybrid sandbox/themepark model.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping the "Tower Game" has effectively taken the idea of fast travel off the board for some time now.

Goblin Squad Member

Oh dear heavens, if they have Battle Fatigue like in SWG, I'm rolling a bard. *no* questions, no regrets.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I'm hoping the "Tower Game" has effectively taken the idea of fast travel off the board for some time now.

Same but replace some time with permanently. As the map gets larger they should implement ways to breed faster mounts. That's all there ever need be.

Stephen Cheney wrote:
We may tweak the relative speeds of walking or running. We may have roads either increase your total speed or just decrease the cost of sprinting so you can do it longer (thus increasing your overall long distance travel speed average without increasing your maximum top speed). Mounts may or may not be faster in general than sprinting, and able to do it all the time, or may have a somewhat higher speed than normal players but slower than player sprint, but have their own ability to sprint.

I fully support the ideas I bolded.

Goblin Squad Member

I thought the Rune Books in Ultima Online were very well thought out. You had to have a mage mark a rune that was dropped on the ground. That rune became marked only to that spot. The marked runes could be dropped into a book for easy access allowing a person with adequate skill to Recall themselves to that location or anywhere else they had a marked rune.

Mages with a high enough skill could open a gate to a marked location allowing unlimited people to transport to a new location.

Mages with the ability to gate were pretty rare and could make a lot of gold transporting people around because it was a RARE ability.

I would love to see some form of gate travel used in PFO, but it would need to be extremely controlled.

Gates taking 30 seconds to open with the destination gate being visible the entire 30 seconds allowing players on the other side to prepare if needed.

Gates would only allow one or two unencumbered players through with a huge cooldown of 10-30 minutes.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really wouldn't mind parts of the game being 12 hours of travel away. I think it adds an element of immersion and makes travel more meaningful.

Goblin Squad Member

One thing that has been stated in the past is GW does not intend to focus much effort on rare abilities because they don't want to put a great amount of development time into abilities that will only be used by a few.

Goblin Squad Member

Any ability to project military force more quickly than the 'normal' movement speed will lead to rapid political consolidation. While travel times can't be too long or trade will falter, I much prefer the idea of localized politics and economies rather than global ones.

I love the idea of major roads providing the greatest movement speeds. I also like the idea of different terrain types impacting movement speeds differently. This mechanic opens up skill & spell possibilities to mitigate it, as well, eg. Woodland Stride.

Also, a suggestion for improving the stamina system:

  • Walking is 1x speed, regains stamina normally
  • Hustling is 1.5x speed, consumes stamina at the same rate as stamina regens.
  • Running is 2x speed, consumes stamina at a much higher rate.

I think this would open up a lot more potential tactical and strategic options in both combat and overland movement. It would also provide several options for augments via skills, both in reducing stamina costs and boosting stamina regen rates.

Goblin Squad Member

re: teleport/word of recall and sieges.

[spontaneous random idea]
How about implementing a 'dimensional barrier' type spell? (which should be considered an act of war to cast). When you besiege a settlement your mages cast a spell preventing teleportation into (and out of) the area. Defenders cannot port their foreign legion home until they manage to kill the casting mages or dispel the spell. Not sure if it should affect respawn, but it would take care of 'insta-defenders' part of the teleportation problem.

Goblin Squad Member

Agreed, Randomwalker- to whatever extent teleportation is in the game, anti-porting measures should also be in the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Having experience in MMO gaming as many of us have here, i would have to say no to fast traveling, by that i mean that any kind of long range teleporting, flying and very fast ground travel will inevitanly destroy the ground content of the game. Ill use world of warcraft as an example here and go trough a bit of the timeline in it and blizzards decisions.

First in the release of world of warcraft there were fairly fast ground travel and flying nodes avaiable.

The ground travel were either limited to foot travel at 100% speed, ground mount at 160% and fast groundmount at 200%. Now, as time progressed in the original game the sense of distance and content on the ground was that it was not safe anyway, most monsters would catch up to you, or you would risk being knocked of your horse. This is fine, if you wanted faster travel you had the ability to take shortcuts with some risk. the fast ground mount lessened those risks significantly and for me, that speed of 200% was way over the top. This was mitigaded somewhat by an exetremely high price. In the end, everyone got them wich in turn lessened the interaction with the world.

The flying nodes was over the top from the beginning in my own view, but i can see the lure of safe and instant travel to predetermed nodes, This system has both good and bad points, the good point is that a defending force will have an easier time to mobilize a defence, or a raiding party will have the ability to pounce on a settlement. However, It also enables offencive groups to "camp" the nodes, and it trivializes the sense of size and distance in the world.

At the first expansion the flying mount was introduced, in the same sence that there were slow and fast ground mounts, slow and fast flying mount had the same implementation. The developers thought that they could design content for flying only, but in the end, all it really did was to remove the travel and interaction with the rest of the world.

Blizzard has seemed to realized the grave error of implementing fast and safe travel now 8 years later and working to remove some of it, but the damage has been done already. The situation got out of hand and the end result was that no one left the towns, the game outside of towns is largely empty nowadays.

There is of course more things that aided the degradation of that game, instant teleport travel, direct teleport to dungeons and so on.

The community changed pretty fast, you cannot take back something you have introduced, not without alot of pain and whine, now the WoW community is one of the most toxic there is in the gaming industry. Not neccecarily cause of the implementation of "quality of life" but it does appealto that special kind of person who wants it easy, and the wow community is now repleat with those people.

And a final closing word.

"When you try to appeal to all people, you will appeal to no one."

Please learn from other peoples mistakes so that you don´t commit them yourself.

YT /jean pacchiana


I don't understand this prejudice about mage's teleport. I think it's balanced by itself.

The Teleport spell is a 5th circle. So you need to be really high level to access it (about 1 year plus of gaming I think - here I cast: Great Nihimon Knowledge database to correct me). And to use it safely, you will need to known well the place you want to go. And mages usually aren't very tough, so they can't carry much to make them game breaking.

The Greater Teleport is a 7th circle spell, again, you will need tons of resources to access it, to allow a few materials and companions to go somewhere with you. I don't see it as a game breaker as well.

Teleportation Circle is on the 9th circle tier. The most powerful stuff a mage can get (2+ years of game?). It should be a great deal in a war, and that's why it is extremely expensive to get and use. And it's even possible to counter some of it by using anchor spell (don't recall the precise name).

So, when I see people arguing this is a game breaker. I imagine a lvl 20 crafter making tons of +5 vorpal swords getting extremely rich. I imagine lvl 20 virtually invisible stealthy (can't use see invisibility against it) rogues one-shot lvl 20 mages with said swords. I imagine lvl 20 engineers riding siege machines ravaging mage towers by distance. And mages won't even be able to teleport to the hills. No... They will have to run like everyone else.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Brutus Bellator wrote:

I don't understand this prejudice about mage's teleport. I think it's balanced by itself.

The Teleport spell is a 5th circle. So you need to be really high level to access it (about 1 year plus of gaming I think - here I cast: Great Nihimon Knowledge database to correct me). And to use it safely, you will need to known well the place you want to go. And mages usually aren't very tough, so they can't carry much to make them game breaking.

The Greater Teleport is a 7th circle spell, again, you will need tons of resources to access it, to allow a few materials and companions to go somewhere with you. I don't see it as a game breaker as well.

Teleportation Circle is on the 9th circle tier. The most powerful stuff a mage can get (2+ years of game?). It should be a great deal in a war, and that's why it is extremely expensive to get and use. And it's even possible to counter some of it by using anchor spell (don't recall the precise name).

So, when I see people arguing this is a game breaker. I imagine a lvl 20 crafter making tons of +5 vorpal swords getting extremely rich. I imagine lvl 20 virtually invisible stealthy (can't use see invisibility against it) rogues one-shot lvl 20 mages with said swords. I imagine lvl 20 engineers riding siege machines ravaging mage towers by distance. And mages won't even be able to teleport to the hills. No... They will have to run like everyone else.

Well what you are saying is that we will be ok for two years, that's all.

What you're imagining is based on your TT experience, which can't be a good comparison.


Audoucet wrote:

Well what you are saying is that we will be ok for two years, that's all.

What you're imagining is based on your TT experience, which can't be a good comparison.

Not entirely. I've played some PvP games where there were mechanics to open portals to the core of the enemies base, so your fleet could attack faster. It was fun and required loads of coordination to make it worth, because the defending party could foresee and prepare to defend.

Banning a mage's trademark is a slack solution to logistic problem IMHO. I think that it should be one more option to warfare strategic. Its expensive to teleport stuff around safely. As it is to stealthily travel with loads of cargo from one point to another. Or to travel safely with loads of security. Or to contract mercenaries. And so on.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Brutus, the difference between your scenarios is that there is potential for Meaningful Human Interaction while you are traveling overland, with or without guards and mercenaries, but no such potential in a wormhole.

Making teleports available means that valuable cargo will never travel overland. Making teleports expensive just raises the minimum threshold for "valuable cargo".

51 to 100 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Political complexity vs map size: don't implement fast travel All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.