Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I think the biggest killer to RP is discussion/insult contests about role playing. On the one hand you have the RP police trying to impose their will on how others do or don't it, and on the other you have the jerks belittling those who attempt it.
Politics and Religion are too often subjects of passion rather than reason, and as such grow passionate and unreasonable awfully quickly.
Being,
You and I have been around MMORPG's long enough to know this can be the case. Hopefully PFO can be large enough, and inclusive enough, to allow for all different play styles without anyone trying to tell others that their way of playing is wrong. Hopefully.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Often strengths are also weaknesses. It may be that the scope of the game will be so great that there is room to gravitate like-to-like. Other hand that very expanse presents a challenge to traverse. Until GW gets the settlement 'embassies' with their teleports into the NPC starter towns it will be challenging for people to even find their 'likes'. Competition for new blood will likely be fierce, possibly off-putting to some.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope that the proposed settlement embassy teleports are not implemented. Having recruits travel overland from their starter towns to their new homes creates some natural incentives to prefer one map area over another; some settlements will want to be closer to a particular starter that matches their alignment, others will want to be close to any starter town; yet others will prefer to be farther away from the map center.
With embassy teleports, that organic gradient of recruiting desirability disappears, leaving the map just a little bit less interesting as a result.
It's bad precedent for travel logistics and removes interesting choices from the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game environment will be quite large at EE and will grow larger. I don't think it will be good for the game for new players to have to travel weeks to get to new settlements, especially if the central settlements are interdicting characters attempting to transit their domains.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game environment will be quite large at EE and will grow larger. I don't think it will be good for the game for new players to have to travel weeks to get to new settlements, especially if the central settlements are interdicting characters attempting to transit their domains.
At 3 minutes per hex, "weeks" is a touch of hyperbole. Try "a couple of hours" even for the remotest areas of the full map- and the groups that choose to settle that far from the safeholds do so knowing that their recruits will have to travel, as I noted above.
You can't make interdiction of new players a general policy without tanking both your mechanical and social reputation fast and hard. Also, there are NPC protected roads which can be leveraged for a large portion of any such trip. Also, the settlement can run an escorted newby shuttle. Also, you'd probably get banned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Based on experience it takes significantly longer than three minutes to traverse a populated hex.
It takes quite awhile to move seven hexes, Guurzak. Yes, weeks was hyperbole, but it will seem like weeks for a new player to reach a settlement on the frontier.
More to the point, I would argue that it isn't in the best interests of the game to give old central settlements such a serious advantage over younger frontier settlements. Let new players make their choice of settlement according to their preferences rather than because one settlement has swallowed everything surrounding the NPC starter settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not to restart an old argument, but something seems obvious to me. The map will get much bigger. There will be a Lawful Good Settlement on the frontier at least as far from Fort Riverwatch as the farthest Settlement in Early Enrollment. It is nonsensical for that Settlement to be at a significant disadvantage in recruiting because of that distance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not to restart an old argument, but something seems obvious to me. The map will get much bigger. There will be a Lawful Good Settlement on the frontier at least as far from Fort Riverwatch as the farthest Settlement in Early Enrollment. It is nonsensical for that Settlement to be at a significant disadvantage in recruiting because of that distance.
That settlement chose its place already knowing where Riverwatch was planned to be. I don't have an opinion on whether that was a bad decision but I will say that there should be consequences to that decision.
Fast Travel will enable relatively speedy and automatic movement between the NPC towns and to other protected waypoints. Your newby can hop on a horse and go AFK for some soup, and when he gets back 2/3 of his trip will be done. I don't see settlement location as a "significant" disadvantage in recruiting; I see it as "interesting" but not at all unfair nor insurmountable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Guurzak has it right, with the caveat that they expand frontier NPC starter locations as the map expands. In general, I really dislike instant travel mechanics. It takes alot away from the game.... I could maybe see instant travel for NEW players between NPC starter towns... although even there you have the possability of newbie alts being used as pack mules to circumvent travel mechanics. I think that this is an area GW has to be really carefull with about unintended consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
> I could maybe see instant travel for NEW players between NPC starter towns... although even there you have the possability of newbie alts being used as pack mules to circumvent travel mechanics.
I think if newbies are allowed to choose their starting location, with an alignment match being suggested but not forced, you no longer need even that much instant travel.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That settlement chose its place already knowing where Riverwatch was planned to be.
Not really. They might have joined the game well after the "core" had already consolidated. Perhaps the map had even expanded significantly to the south and east, resulting in the only frontiers being further and further away from Fort Riverwatch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
> I could maybe see instant travel for NEW players between NPC starter towns... although even there you have the possability of newbie alts being used as pack mules to circumvent travel mechanics.
I think if newbies are allowed to choose their starting location, with an alignment match being suggested but not forced, you no longer need even that much instant travel.
Probably the case, especialy if there are NPC patroled roads connecting all the starter settlements. I just know that some players aren't really sure what direction they want to go with a character until after they start playing them.... but the road option should be RELATIVELY safe for such characters. Even if they lose everything non-threaded they should be able to recover from it without too much hassle. I think that is a much more important part of the new character experience... make sure that even if they get looted down to thier skivies, they can always recover to a point in the NPC starter towns where they can persue thier careers and start earning wealth again... the perverbial "rusty shortsword" that you can get from the village blacksmith for running an errand in town, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those settlements who chose to situate themselves near starting settlements will predictably prefer no portals, no fast travel. Those who located farther away will surely prefer equal accessibility. This trend in preferences won't be universal, but it seems probable.
So, if we admit that we will all have practical reasons to prefer one or the other, owning honest preference for an advantage, then lets try and move beyond that and consider the question for the good of the game.
Should game mechanics encourage settlement choice by immediate convenience or by merit as evaluated by each player?
If it will be better for the game that new characters must choose to seek shelter with the nearest, regardless of its characteristics, alignment, and the quality of its members then we should argue against portals and settlement embassies in starter towns.
But if we think it will be better for the game if players can choose their settlement based on their values, the social fit, the alignment and faction and other qualities of the respective communities then these one-way instant portals should be found desirable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those settlements who chose to situate themselves near starting settlements will predictably prefer no portals, no fast travel. Those who located farther away will surely prefer equal accessibility. This trend in preferences won't be universal, but it seems probable.
So, if we admit that we will all have practical reasons to prefer one or the other, owning honest preference for an advantage, then lets try and move beyond that and consider the question for the good of the game.
Should game mechanics encourage settlement choice by immediate convenience or by merit as evaluated by each player?
If it will be better for the game that new characters must choose to seek shelter with the nearest, regardless of its characteristics, alignment, and the quality of its members then we should argue against portals and settlement embassies in starter towns.
But if we think it will be better for the game if players can choose their settlement based on their values, the social fit, the alignment and faction and other qualities of the respective communities then these one-way instant portals should be found desirable.
Being, I don't think you are considering the only issues here. I'm in a settlement that is most likely to benefit from the instant travel but I'm against it, precisely for the good of the game.
- How can it be abused and used in ways not intended by the designers? I can easly, especialy under OE, see it misused by an endless string of newbie alts to get around some of the transport issues that settlements would normaly have to deal with.
- What sort of expectations is it setting up among new players about how PFO actualy plays and what sort of game it is. Are we teaching them to expect instant travel in the game? Are we teaching them that they easly can achieve thier desired goals simply by clicking a button? Are we teaching them that there is no danger or risk involved in the greater world beyond the NPC starter towns? Are we teaching them that settlements can simply expect Developer created mechanisms to negate the meaningfull choices that they made?
The new player experience is supposed to be a gradual introduction to the rest of the game, to get the player used to how the game plays. Instant teleportation is (I hope) a radical departure from the rest of the game. Rather then having to work somewhat and risk somewhat and rely on cooperation somewhat to get to the settlement they most desire.... they just click a button and it all falls into thier lap with no effort, regardless of where they are or where the settlement is on the map. That's very much the opposite of everything else about PFO plays. That's not meaningfull interaction, meaningfull play or meaningfull choice and it is NOT good for the game or the new player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being, I don't think you are considering the only issues here. I'm in a settlement that is most likely to benefit from the instant travel but I'm against it, precisely for the good of the game.
But you have always been exceptional, Mel.
- How can it be abused and used in ways not intended by the designers?
I think that is why we are discussing this. It should be looked at in the spirit you are, with our shared intent that it should be built, or not, for the good of the game.
I can easly, especialy under OE, see it misused by an endless string of newbie alts to get around some of the transport issues that settlements would normaly have to deal with.It could not be so abused if one-way, one use, and limited to what can be threaded.
- What sort of expectations is it setting up among new players about how PFO actualy plays and what sort of game it is. Are we teaching them to expect instant travel in the game? Are we teaching them that they easly can achieve thier desired goals simply by clicking a button? Are we teaching them that there is no danger or risk involved in the greater world beyond the NPC starter towns? Are we teaching them that settlements can...
Are we teaching them that the game is oppressive, that they are at the mercy of the nearest powers, that the game is already stacked against them and that their preferences regarding who they prefer as neighbors is fraught with organized, intentional peril before they can even reach safe haven with people who are like them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The game environment will be quite large at EE and will grow larger. I don't think it will be good for the game for new players to have to travel weeks to get to new settlements, especially if the central settlements are interdicting characters attempting to transit their domains.
Perhaps they will offer other starter settlements as the map enlarges. Or, mayhap they will at some point offer the new player a choice of any existing settlement (or even a random wilderness hex for the truly adventurous), rather than a starter town.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, if we admit that we will all have practical reasons to prefer one or the other, owning honest preference for an advantage, then lets try and move beyond that and consider the question for the good of the game.
It's impossible to argue from behind a true veil of ignorance in this case, but I invariably and vigorously strive to root out self-interest when arguing for the good of the game, except to the extent that what is good for the game is also good for me. On the very rare occasion when I might argue from a position of settlement-interest, I will explicitly acknowledge that.
Should game mechanics encourage settlement choice by immediate convenience or by merit as evaluated by each player?
When you claim the right to define the question, you exert undue influence over its answer. The specific answer to your question is obvious; however, it's not the only question to be asked. Here's a different question:
Should different settlement locations have a variety of advantages and disadvantages, with some sites being more desirable than others depending on how players weight the importance of different kinds of advantage, or should choice of a building site be trivial and arbitrary?
Or here's another one:
Should new players be taught that travel and logistics in PFO will be challenges to play through rather than inconveniences to be coded away?
The answers to those questions are just as obvious, but lead to an opposite policy choice from yours.
Narrowing any policy decision down to a single question of principle is oversimplification and will inevitably lead to error; all interesting choices require weighing the merits and importance of many different principles in tension with each other.
I can see the value of getting new players to their chosen settlements quickly and conveniently. I probably would not oppose a proposal to allow players to start their characters in a chosen player settlement if processes for offline settlement application and approval could be built. But convenience is not the only principle at play here, and attempting to limit the scope of the conversation to a single issue is unfair to the complexity of the topic.
|
I said my objections pro teletransportation on the old topic. I´m in favor of teletransportations if:
a) do not circumvent caravan system (goods transportation, PvP, etc..), so no for used for transportation (maybe naked teleport hahaha that's naughty - you can always buy new equipment in the new location, or sent it by caravan);
b) big cost (reagent?).
c) big cooldown (in hours).
d) not usable in combat.
e) Could have 4 progressive of highest level spells (7 teleport self, 8 greater teleport self, 8 teleport mass, 9 greater teleport mass)
f) need to know the place to go, maybe even with a % of failure and teleport them to anywhere of the map (this could be extremely fun)
I´m in favor too of some kind of "fast travel" or at least an "AFK travel". A way to travel to some place throu safed area to safed area, but you can be afk while doing, like a wagon, or horses to rent (better if rentable from others players). Travel outside of safe zones could be nice too(well NPC controled zones) but then it could be risk to be caught in AFK-PvP in an ambush.
About position of Settlements. While is unfair to weight a settlement utility for its distance from starter areas. All of us had the change to choose our place in land rush (well disput it). I guess all the feats and flaws of all the positions were discussed internaly to decided where to land. It's not nonsensical the flaws of the places where the settlements went, should be well known.
I guess if well implemented all this kind of travels could add a nice way to expand our list to options in game for travaleing, exploring, PvPing and commercing in game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a couple of different threads going on right now about some of the "problems" different Settlements will face.
For my own part, when making my own choice about which Settlement location I would recommend for Phaeros in the Land Rush, I made the judgment call that the problem of recruiting would not be a long-term problem for every Settlement that was distant from a particular NPC Settlement because that seemed like the kind of problem Goblinworks would not allow to be a real problem. I'm extremely pleased to hear they've been talking about ways to ensure it's not a real, ongoing problem. But I accept that I made that judgment call, and I might have been wrong.
On the other side, I believed that being close to an NPC Settlement would likely lead to large numbers of unaffiliated newbies harvesting in "our" territory. I made the judgment call that this was not the kind of "problem" Goblinworks would go out of its way to solve. And again, I'm willing to accept the possibility that I might have been wrong.
Although it's not part of an ongoing discussion, I'll also add that I considered, and highly valued, the fact that the layout of the map gave TEO and T7V easy access to control the only choke points leading into a fairly large area of the map in the southeast. I recognized then that this would only last until the map expanded. While I hope the map doesn't expand too quickly because I want us to have time to capitalize on that advantage, I also accept the fact that the map might expand almost immediately after Early Enrollment begins.
We all made our own assessments and our own judgment calls. How the devs eventually decide to play things out was and still is, to an extent, unknown. In various degrees, we will each be proven right or wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only teleportation system I'm favoring at the moment is upon new player self-assignment. Only that one time per character, and in a way that prevents a limitless train of newb alts carrying massive payloads.
Yes each settlement location should have individual advantages and disadvantages, but those should be secondary considerations compared with who the people are in each settlement and what they stand for.
The only other mention of teleportation I've heard of from GW was the possibility that they might expand into other areas of Golarion and use portals to let players get there.
Fast travel... might solve for the problem I think I see. Depends on how that is fleshed out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only other mention of teleportation I've heard of from GW was the possibility that they might expand into other areas of Golarion and use portals to let players get there.
A couple of months ago, Stephen gave us this gem:
Yeah. We're going to be very careful with Teleportation, and it will be highly restricted if and when it gets in. Safely getting valuable goods across the map is also a major concern, on top of instant deploy of strike teams. If nothing else, it will probably heavily restrict how much gear you can travel with, probably very similar to resurrecting at a shrine (i.e., you may show up with only threaded gear).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I rather like the way EVE handles this (with slight tweaks for PFO terminology): When you choose a settlement, you can pay to set your re-spawn point to that settlement. Then you can suicide teleport there immediately, or start traveling toward your new home. If you get killed on the trip, you wake up in your new home. EVE has no threads, so whether you suicide or get killed along the way, everything you were carrying drops or gets destroyed.
With some modifications for threaded goods, I think this could be a good model for PFO. (In EVE, you can actually use this method to travel almost any time. In PFO, it might be better to limit suicide 'porting to one use only, when you first select a player settlement.) I like the system because it encourages new players to make a bold leap into the game, trekking across the map to their new home. At the same time, though, if they die along the way, they don't have to start the whole migration over again from the starter area.
Edit: Making the trip from my starting area to EVE University was pretty exciting. A few months later, traveling to my new home (in the Griffin portion of the Fountain region) was positively nerve wracking. It was a great exercise in "safe danger". I didn't want to die, but I knew that if I did, I'd still arrive at my destination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I should like to think that the Guide Program could help with the issue of introducing new players to prospective settlements without bias - based solely on the new player's stated goals and interests.
When I ran a community center in Ultima Online, one of the center's features was a book containing descriptions of all the prominent guilds in the area so that new players could be better educated about their choices. The only missing element is the means by which new players could be transported to the settlement, but I have a couple ideas in mind, and others in the works.
Actually I think the biggest killer to RP is discussion/insult contests about role playing. On the one hand you have the RP police trying to impose their will on how others do or don't it,
Ugh. Tell me about it. Back in Runescape roleplays, the bane of my existence were roleplaying snobs who refused to call the setting "Runescape" and only called it "Gielinor". Never mind that both are real, canon names for the world!
I know any grumbles about RS communities are auto-"what'd you expect" moments, but geez, those snobs annoyed me.
Also, "private roleplays". If you wanna RP ingame, acknowledge other people who try to play with you. If you want to roleplay and avoid "randoms", roleplay on the forums.
Yeesh. I hate my new keyboard.
So, how'd my thread turn into a rehash of, like, seven different ongoing debates?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, how'd my thread turn into a rehash of, like, seven different ongoing debates?
EE still hasn't opened yet, but everyone is back on the boards because it's getting so very close. There are thread necromancers calling back the oldest corpse threads on this board. Right now, I think Caldeathe is right: Rehashes are inevitable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whenever I think of roleplaying in an MMO, I am reminded of this.
That's fairly funny; tbh some of the skill of these RP'ers is impressive so I can relate to that outcome!
This said, I believe the concept of RP can evolve beyond "Olde English" words and work more with actions. Working on this atm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, "private roleplays". If you wanna RP ingame, acknowledge other people who try to play with you.
Exactly. I don't care for scripted or private RP. Even if there is a core activity/person/item/conflict that got the RP going, I've never seen any problem with it growing naturally from that point. As the RP touches people beyond that initial impetus, their spontaneous involvement, at least for me, adds to the genuineness of the ongoing interaction. After all, our characters live in a world, just like ours, where unpredictable things happen and people we've never met can interject themselves into our lives and change the course of even the best planned event. To roll with it, however your character would naturally react based on their established personality, is to reinforce how "real" seeming your character is - to oppose it and try to control the situation as a player, rather than your character, is for me, far more immersion breaking.
Now that I'm in alpha, I'm bumping this.
I wonder what percentage of people we can count on to be role playing... or at least 'playing the game as intended.' Not meta-gaming... any ideas?
I am sure some people will be out to get as many pks as they can or as many monies by any means, but hopefully it will be less than half. That would be ideal.
Alpha's a little bit of a different deal. We're more focused on testing systems and talking about bugs than we are immersing ourselves in Golarion.
yeaimean, two different thoughts. The experience of alpha is leading me to wonder about the future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If my experience in Everquest 1 and 2, Dark Age of Camelot, WoW (briefly), Star Wars Galaxies, Lord of the Rings Online, Guild Wars 2 and EVE Online is anything to go by, then many people will not role play at all, and many people will mix in-character chat with out-of-character chat. Coordinating a party in combat, for example, would be kind of difficult without stepping out of character. Some people do stay in character as much as possible, but in most of the MMOs I've played, they were in the minority.
I hope that in PFO, the role players and the video game players will treat each other with respect. (That hasn't always been the case in other games.) As long as most people can do that, I think things will be fine for both sides.
Edit: I'm not sure how closely you intended to tie 'role playing', 'not meta-gaming', and 'playing the game as intended' to reach other. To me, those seem to be pretty separate things. If by 'meta gaming' you mean 'optimizing your training to specialize your character for certain activities', then I think you could pretty easily do all three at once. If you mean 'discussing game activities from an out-of-character perspective', then you could alternate that with rule playing, and still be playing as intended.
If my experience in Everquest 1 and 2, Dark Age of Camelot, WoW (briefly), Star Wars Galaxies, Lord of the Rings Online, Guild Wars 2 and EVE Online is anything to go by, then many people will not role play at all, and many people will mix in-character chat with out-of-character chat. Coordinating a party in combat, for example, would be kind of difficult without stepping out of character. Some people do stay in character as much as possible, but in most of the MMOs I've played, they were in the minority.
I hope that in PFO, the role players and the video game players will treat each other with respect. (That hasn't always been the case in other games.) As long as most people can do that, I think things will be fine for both sides.
Edit: I'm not sure how closely you intended to tie 'role playing', 'not meta-gaming', and 'playing the game as intended' to reach other. To me, those seem to be pretty separate things. If by 'meta gaming' you mean 'optimizing your training to specialize your character for certain activities', then I think you could pretty easily do all three at once. If you mean 'discussing game activities from an out-of-character perspective', then you could alternate that with rule playing, and still be playing as intended.
Well, when meta gets bad it's that or nothing. It's like "I am Josh, the Paladin swordsman." "Nice to meet you, Josh, I am Bob. I also am a Paladin who wields a sword. Meet my wife, Martha, she is..."
To me meta gaming is using outside knowledge to succeed in game. While that is natural, it can become so scientific that you end up playing "chess" and everything is a piece opposed to a character.
Role playing, to me, is conceptualizing your character as a living thing. If you experience the game after doing that, I believe what you will be doing is close enough to RP to work. If you roll 420nubstomper then maybe not.
I have a broad definition, really. Still, surprisingly, the majority of players are not going to fit into that and go into a game to just kill people or troll.
Because, think about it... at a certain point, roleplay aligns with the game world. If your home is being attacked, you defend it because that's what is happening. You are tied to it. The longer the world goes on without devolving to total chaos, the more likely that the majority of people will be playing it similarly to a community or world. Hence, role playing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There will always be a bit of each due to the necessity to adapt your character concept to game mechanics. To me, the relevant question is, what takes precedence, when the two conflict?
IE, I play a dwarven cleric of Torag with a nice big hammer as a weapon. Now, in game, I happen to loot a bow and find that bows are seriously op.
As a role player, I stick with my hammer.
As a non role player, playing the game as intended, I take up the better weapon.
As a meta-gamer, I look through the internet to find which bow has the best stats and go look for that one.