Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...it does force the good-aligned settlements into violent conflict with their neighbors...
I agree with some the responses preceding, that suggest violent conflict's not necessary. Another perfectly-acceptable route is to coordinate with your neighbours, select which towers each group will claim and hold, and then work out the schedule of open PVP windows so that you can decide what portion of all of you'll be defending what portion of all your holdings at what hours.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...it does force the good-aligned settlements into violent conflict with their neighbors...I agree with some the responses preceding, that suggest violent conflict's not necessary. Another perfectly-acceptable route is to coordinate with your neighbours, select which towers each group will claim and hold, and then work out the schedule of open PVP windows so that you can decide what portion of all of you'll be defending what portion of all your holdings at what hours.
Yes, if there turns out to be a way to do that and have me and my also good neighbours emerge fairly well developed, I'm fine with that. All I'm saying is that wether or not that is possible depends on the actual numbers. And what I'm afraid of, is that they might be set up such that acting acording to your good alignment is going to have serious disadvantages.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However. Morality is different in this game. Death isn't permanent, meaning that killing isn't really as much of an evil act. Good vs. good has been justified.
I strongly disagree. Killing is as much an evil act as it always was. There can of course be justifications for a good character to kill where necessary, but just because some ooc game mechanic allows for a respawn does not make the act any less evil per se.
You are looking at the issue through very CN-tinted glasses, where "anything goes" is the primary alignment characteristic. But that's not true for most good characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Respawning is not an OOC game mechanic. It is the Mark of Pharasma. This is something my CN character, Grickin, has embraced, as he understands that death has been rendered meaningless—no more than an inconvenience. As a druid of the endtimes, he intends to explore just what this means for everyone.
That said, CN is not the "anything goes" alignment. Grickin has his own twisted, occasionally modified code. He doesn't kill people for no reason, because pain is still a rather unkind thing to bestow upon another. He doesn't go after kids or anything messed up like that. And I'm thinking he'll have this kind of extreme distaste for necromancy.
Tink sounds like a fine gnome indeed. If it weren't for Golgotha's necromancy focus, he and Grickin would probably get along nicely.
Note that I do still see murder as an evil act, even with the Mark. But it's about as evil as punching a guy in the face: If you do it too much without a good reason, you're probably gonna be evil, but every now and then is no (permanent) harm, no foul.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[edit to insert quote]
Note that I do still see murder as an evil act, even with the Mark. But it's about as evil as punching a guy in the face: If you do it too much without a good reason, you're probably gonna be evil, but every now and then is no (permanent) harm, no foul.
Then the NPCs, who do not bear the mark of Pharasma are inconsequential to good? Killing people who don't regenerate upon death is also no more evil than punching them in the face?
I think we'd find that if you punched me in the face and some portion of everything I was carrying vanished, I would consider you quite evil. Less so than someone who randomly kills people, but perhaps not as much less as you'd like to pretend.
Then the NPCs, who do not bear the mark of Pharasma are inconsequential to good? Killing people who don't regenerate upon death is also no more evil than punching them in the face?
Never said anything about NPCs. Dunno where you got 'at from.
I think we'd find that if you punched me in the face and some portion of everything I was carrying vanished, I would consider you quite evil.
Heh. Hence my jokes that Grickin, who focuses on ninja looting (I have literally been failing to remember that term since I came up ith this concept a couple months ago), will be seen as more evil than any murderer.
Like I already stated, killing is still an evil act just for the fact that it still hurts like hell. But it's a lot more mild. Akin to, yeah, punching someone in the face.
Making you lose some stuff and get teleported away may be a bit jerky, but it in itself isn't evil. Just obnoxious. :P
By the way, my "w" key is broken. So if I accidentally leave a w or to out, that's why. :P
If a Chaotic Good guy ran around punching everybody who annoyed him in the face and then stealing their stuff, he'd likely slip to Chaotic Neutral sooner or later. But he's only gonna turn evil if he, say, punches a single person in the face repeatedly so as to cause brain damage. That ain't Grickin's scene, no sir.
I'm pretty rough on my keys. Up key was the first to go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a placeholder for the link in the blog.
Let the speculation begin!
I would just like to say thanks to Ryan for not making a post like this for the latest blog entry: Crowdforging Tool - Ideascale.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have a question for the community / devs about bind points. Can anyone set a bind (resurrection) point to any proto-settlement they want? After all there is no management structure yet in place for the proto-settlements yet, they are all just NPC settlement placeholders.
Maybe this is a noob question, but I've searched and can't find an answer.
Edit: To be clearer in the relevance to WoT, let me suggest a scenario where there are two competing companies of roughly the same size. In theory they could both bind to the same NPC settlement and fight for the next door tower. When any company member dies, they have the same distance to run back from their bind point as the other company. The winning company has no way to "displace" the aggressors from being on top of them during the entire WoT 4-5 month period unless the aggressors voluntarily unbind from that settlement and go elsewhere.
|
I have a question for the community / devs about bind points. Can anyone set a bind (resurrection) point to any proto-settlement they want? After all there is no management structure yet in place for the proto-settlements yet, they are all just NPC settlement placeholders.
Maybe this is a noob question, but I've searched and can't find an answer.
I don't think they've said anything about whether or not the NPC Proto-Settlements will have bind points, but I kinda assume so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well after getting some sleep I can think more coherently. Here are my observations – please correct me where I'm wrong.
At the day One in EE we will have some prefab settlements tuned to 2 roles out of 6 (Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Expert, Commoner).Well that increases to 2 roles out of 14. It has been explained that there is not a generic cleric training center, but rater a separate temple and training for each(9) god. If a settlement chooses to have a cleric training center, it has to decide which one god that will be. I know of only one settlement which has made that choice (for Desna). For the other settlements, clerics need to find out NOW, if they will be supported by their settlement or if they need to find another settlement for their training.
It is not even clear how support for clerics will work. If cleric of a god is trained at a settlement, which gods are supported?Clerics seem really %*&)ed by this.
Beta will only allow clerics of 9 deities?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beta will only allow clerics of 9 deities?I believe at the start they will have one god per alignment, with plans to add more over time. My information is rather old though, so I hope someone will correct me if I'm misleading you.
You're correct as far as I know:
I think Sarenrae was the only one we subbed in. The starting list is:
LG: Iomedae; NG: Sarenrae; CG: Desna;
LN: Abadar; N: Gozreh; CN: Gorum;
LE: Asmodeus; NE: Norgorber; CE: LamashtuIt seems likely to me that the next set of gods we'd include would be another one from each alignment, so every alignment has two options. That will likely mean crowdforging to decide between gods on some of the alignments that still have more than one major* deity left.
*possibly including in the choices minor deities that are really important locally, like Hanspur and Gyronna
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Beta will only allow clerics of 9 deities?I believe at the start they will have one god per alignment, with plans to add more over time. My information is rather old though, so I hope someone will correct me if I'm misleading you.You're correct as far as I know:
I think Sarenrae was the only one we subbed in. The starting list is:
LG: Iomedae; NG: Sarenrae; CG: Desna;
LN: Abadar; N: Gozreh; CN: Gorum;
LE: Asmodeus; NE: Norgorber; CE: LamashtuIt seems likely to me that the next set of gods we'd include would be another one from each alignment, so every alignment has two options. That will likely mean crowdforging to decide between gods on some of the alignments that still have more than one major* deity left.
*possibly including in the choices minor deities that are really important locally, like Hanspur and Gyronna
What does this mean mechanically to someone who want to start beta as a cleric of Milani or Cayden?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This training systems seems horrible.
For one, you're limiting player choice which is always a bad idea in an MMO.
Secondly, isn't fighter/cleric going to be better than any other combo?
Third, you want players joining settlements because they want to be social with those people. Because they have similar play styles or goals or they just think they're cool dudes.
You've now made "what classes do you train" the deciding factor in joining a settlement.
I can't even fathom how you thought this would be a good idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This training systems seems horrible.
For one, you're limiting player choice which is always a bad idea in an MMO.
Secondly, isn't fighter/cleric going to be better than any other combo?
Third, you want players joining settlements because they want to be social with those people. Because they have similar play styles or goals or they just think they're cool dudes.
You've now made "what classes do you train" the deciding factor in joining a settlement.
I can't even fathom how you thought this would be a good idea.
It is the natural progression of what GW is trying to make us care about.
Player: I want to solo
GW: You can not solo, you will die
Players: We want to form a guild
GW: You will be weak if you just stay as a "guild", you have to join a settlement.
Players: We want to form a settlement with our friends we play with.
GW: That is fine, as long as you are all within one step of the settlement alignment.
Settlement: We want to train skills that match our population's needs.
GW: You cab only train two, you have to find another settlement to allow your people to train the other two.
Settlement: No other settlement is near us, that has the same alignment.
GW: One of you has to change in order to form a kingdom
Kingdom: We are still having trouble getting all that we need, even as two or more settlements.
GW: You need to join a mega alliance in order to even come close to self sufficiency.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Similar playstyles and goals lead to development of doctrine, which is enforced by the city planner's selection of training support structures.
"what classes do you train" is not a deciding factor in joining a settlement. "What kinds of playstyles can I enjoy as part of your community" is the deciding factor, as it should be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Similar playstyles and goals lead to development of doctrine, which is enforced by the city planner's selection of training support structures.
"what classes do you train" is not a deciding factor in joining a settlement. "What kinds of playstyles can I enjoy as part of your community" is the deciding factor, as it should be.
But the argument is being made, although indirectly, that play style cuts across multiple class / skill types.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...you're limiting player choice which is always a bad idea in an MMO.
PFO, at its heart, is about causing people to make what Goblinworks wants to be "interesting choices". I'm not sure I see how player choice is being limited.
One Settlement offers training for Fighters and Clerics, their friend next door offers Mages and Rogues, and another nearby friend offers Crafting. All players will be able to train what they want, whenever they choose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You will be limping along if your favored role is a rogue and the settlement of people you have chosen only supports (doesn't train) that role. You also have to be within one step in alignment as well. It's a very restrictive system. I understand they are driving for interaction but the need to find a settlement to train you to begin with drives interaction. You'll have to convince the settlement you are worth training. If I want to be a rogue in Ozem's Vigil I will be limited in how far I can advance. If I want to be as advanced as possible I have to fall into the roles the settlement specializes in or chose another settlement.
The tower defense stuff should prove diverting for a time but months on end will require some discipline. Bring on the PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't worry, Merkaile, Elkhaven will happily train your rogue. Or maybe Tavernhold.
But his point is that while he may find training in another settlement, his skills will be reduced since his chosen settlement, Ozem's Vigil, at best only provides support structures for rogues.
Many people are not interested in the "meaningful choice" of "should I leave my friends?" or "should I have sub-par skills?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm missing something. I believe Ozem's Vigil will be able to support Rogue skills, because everyone can support everything--even during the Tower War--just not train everything.
The Tower War will last only a relatively short time, during which players will be able to earn only some limited amount of the maximum in any skill(s), and then training and support buildings will be built separately, after the Great Catastrophe. We're told it'll be cheaper for Settlements to support a given skill level than it'll be to train that level, so perhaps nothing will bar Ozem's Vigil from supporting whatever level of skill their highest-skilled Rogue requires.