Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that one of my biggest fears when it comes to Pathfinder Online is the neglect I feel will be inevitable for PvE. I feel that people are in this mindset that a sandbox game has to focus on player interactions only? But player to player is only a small part. A game is a persistent world where you should be able to interact with non player characters and shape the world with them. However, I feel that people are starting to get in the mindset that environment isn't important in a sandbox game.
This would be soooo.... sad to see going down. Sure escalations are a part of the PvE but it is only a fraction of it. I think we need more out of PvE. Why not allow us to make persistent choices. Maybe we could supply the Bonedancer Ogres with weapons, but this wealth comes at a price. Maybe the Elf druid along with a slew of devout clerics of Erastil have been called to tend to the dying forest and start to bring animals and life back to it increasing their spawnrates. And those who disobey will be striked by the wrath of their god.
There is so much stuff they could bring into PvE that would be so new and fresh to the game and bring the next level to sandbox games in general. Has the environment been forgotten for a more static stagnant system only focus on player to player interactions? I don't know maybe it is just me who is starting to fear this?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe we could supply the Bonedancer Ogres with weapons...
Ideascale's right there with you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said the last time this came up:
One of the points that hasn't been made strongly enough in this thread is that *there will be significant PVE content in the game*. Monster escalations are going to be a constant threat to supply lines. NPC factions will have quests on which their applicants prove themselves. The Emerald Spire may be the largest dungeon ever deployed in an MMO.
Even settlements with the strongest of PVP focus will want to clear escalations for the artifacts they award. Settlements with a strong PVE focus will gain power as they reap the rewards of killing boss monsters and clearing dungeon sections.
The reason nobody is talking about this stuff is because *this is not the scary part*. MMO players know and understand what that game is like. We hope GW does a good job with this, but we're not worried about it and we don't need to talk about it. We talk about the PvP/SvS game because 1) so many developers have tried to make that game and failed, 2) that game is highly political and people talking to each other are how the political game is won or lost, and 3) we can play the political game *now*.
There's no point to talking about the PvE game yet, because there's no PvE game to play. That doesn't mean it won't exist, nor that it won't be possible to have an enjoyable and sustainable game career around it. If that's the game you want to play, you don't need to be discouraged; you just need to be patient.
Adding to that: Goblinworks' goal right now is to get a Minimum Viable Product out the door. That means a functioning economy, PVE that works, and PVP that works. All the nuances and wrinkles- including lots of PVE design we know about, like single-use dungeons which must be discovered and then despawn once emptied, like 3rd party PVE content purchased in the cash shop, like whatever cruelty they're going to visit on is in the Badlands hexes- all of that will come, but it's not part of Minimum Viable Product.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are a couple of scary issues with traditional MMO PvE.
If there are quests, are they just "Bring me 10 fire beetle eyes," and "Take this pie to Deputy John out in Misty Ticket"? People get bored with those real quick.
What happens when you complete all the quests you can find? You wait for the developers to add more. Even in a big AAA game, the developers can't write new quests faster than the players can complete them. GW is far, far too small to keep up.
There are ways to mitigate those issues. The developers can invite the players to write quests (which have to be reviewed before they go live). They can have short term quest lines, like holiday events in LOTRO and Guild Wars 2.
Player support for escalations is an exciting prospect to me. Hopefully, they can find ways to make it work. Having one settlement supplying an ogre tribe, while another settlement was trying to drive them away, could become much more dramatic and involved than only having the option to fight the ogres. With PCs on both sides, you could easily see a mix of PVE, combat PVP, and economic PVP.
I also hope the escalation system turns out to be robust enough to adapt to situations other than invasions by bad guys. I'd love to see a flood as an escalation, or a plague, or a forest fire. We'll have to wait and see how well things like that work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvE will not be ignored I think, it will be ingrained into the economy and requirements to control territory. In a true sandbox nothing is persistent but the idea of seeing some changes that ebb and flow based on player interaction with the PvE content would be cool. If it was done right it could lead to additional player interaction routes that aren't necessarily directly PvP. But those are very complex types of systems that I would not expect to see for awhile despite their potential.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed, Duffy. For MVP, I expect all of the escalations to be variations on "These guys are invading. Kill them/gather items from them until their leader comes to investigate, then kill the leader." As long as we have a commitment that this is only the first iteration of escalations, I'll be satisfied.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope no one gets the wrong impression that I am raging to just rage. I am only trying to share my concerns, even though it is the alpha stage. I feel it is never too early in production to have concerns and voice them. Hell, if I was making a game I would want people to voice their concerns, so that way these concerns could be addressed and maybe thought on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not a bad idea, Giorgo. I think there's been a whole lot of brainstorming about escalations over the last couple of years.
Wow. "A whole lot" doesn't begin to cover it. A search for "escalation" on this message board produces 1,367 posts! Here's a sample from just a few days, back when escalations were newly-introduced by GW:
the latest video on Escalations talking about the different quests associated with them, and that they would be keyed off of Settlement alignment, so I believe there will be Evil quests at least with respect to Escalations.
Given that whole escalation idea, I'd like to see players able to take both sides in the escalation process - kind of an indirect war a la Cold War. There should of course be consequences too if these evil characters get caught helping the monsters out.
Actually, that would be a rather chaotic behavior, so it should be a requirement that the player have chaotic and evil leanings, and low reputation with the factions the target settlement has high reputation with.
If there are evil aligned Goblins opposing the good settlements, shouldn't there be... something... of good alignment doing the same versus evil aligned settlements?Good point. It would stand to reason that you would encounter the full spectrum of creatures of differing alignments in the world. But would you want an escalation of good humanoids in the next hex from a "good" settlement? It's not like you could just go wipe them out. But what if you wanted to expand into that hex?
So the game would have to select what gets placed where relative to what type of player populates a hex. I suppose the game could just take the alignment of any settlement in the hex and just go off of that. i have no idea how difficult programming this would be. <grin>
What is more the escalation system seems ideal for some other scenarios. You will recall I mentioned the potential problem of player-built structures that are abandoned. They did clutter the world badly in a few other MMOs, a problem answered in EQ2 with the single universal front door that led to each account's home.
My thought was that over time the building should fall into disrepair, then ruin, if the owner did not return in time.
In towns the property would revert to the settlement.
In rural sites, however, something altogether different might happen where the structure becomes a lair that would eventually populate with escelatory creatures.
Interesting idea, Mel. Even if you are grumpy.
I would start smaller though and ramp up.
Any time a settlement mobilizes for war local NPC baddies should increase their escalation rate in response to the perceived opportunity.
While the cat is away, the mice will play.
Is anyone else hoping that there will be a Hoarder trait for monsters, so they loot your husk and add it to the loot they give when killed? Or, as I said earlier, maybe just add a variable percentage number to the loot it drops based on how many people it's killed. They could also maybe get a little stronger with each kill, to represent them actually being a harder foe (since they're going around killing people)... Actually, that would fit thematically well with the escalation that'll occur with hexes. Combining the two could have some interesting effects.
@Vendis Fantastic idea regarding growth in strength. As this could actually be an escalation and not merely use the mechanics of such it would already have organic growth.
What I think would add to the amazing is if it were a more random worldwide kind of event that could coexist with or in fact co-op an escalation in progress. Possibly to the same goal of taking over the hex, or more Smaug-like in establishing a horde with little regard for the inhabitants of the hex but growing no less powerful over time.
Whether they are horders or destroyers could be determined by the monster type. Dragon hordes, storm giant destroys.
I'm afraid compiling all the escalation ideas we've proposed over the last 20 months or so is a job for a more dedicated scribe than myself!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's another snapshot, from around the middle of the pool of posts, sorted by age:
Make the camp escalations on par with regular monster escalations and maybe those who search for escalations to put down can be enticed to guard your camp with you. The guards need to want to be there because they will make more than just doing an escalation.
An interesting possibility would be if excessive harvesting had the chance to cause an escalation cycle. Woodland fey along with local npc druids rangers and barbarians begin to attack PCs trying to harvest resources in the area.
The escalation starts with an increase in rats. As the number of rats increase characters start getting ill (and NPCs vanish with illness?). Goblins are planting specially enchanted rat food around the town at night to make the rats more dangerous. Acting on the orders of ogre mages or necromancers somewhere outside the town. Left uncured the illness turns those it kills into zombies. Skeletons exposed to the rats rise from the ground and forgotten subterranean catacombs. Tourism revenues go down 20% due to visitors being eaten by the undead*. Inside the catacombs there's evidence it's really a mid-level wight manipulating it all. The rats' entrails are the only way to craft talismans that negate the affects (debuffs) of the illness and lead back and allow entry to the wight's magically obfuscated center of operations.
That's a kill 10 rats I can get behind.
AND NONE OF THEM DROPPED GOLD!!!
*- The settlement's DI might be dropping due to prevalence of illness. How's that for a plot twist? Maybe an NPC settlement to stay fair to players.
What if regional suppression of some factions will reduce infusion of cetain goods into the game? You've made hellknights scarce - no baatorian steel to loot, because hellknight escalations are stopped for a month or two.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to cap off the set, a snapshot of fairly recent ideas:
We just need more Evil things in the game that don't relate to griefing and everything would be cool... A few things off the top of my head...
•Lures: Placing an Evil Totem or other lure that draws an escalation cycle into a certain hex.
I'll remind you guys, as well, that the druids don't need visible marks of changing landscape. We hear the cries of the forest in our bones and all that bs.
You don't need proof to start a feud, you don't need a balanced way of mitigating repercussions. Druids don't care about that. What we DO need is a way to get nature to fight for us (yes, I'm bringing up controlling escalation cycles again, and yes I know it is planned but not priority and might never happen).
I think it would be neat to have special 'rare' escalations generate in only very rare situations.
For example, lets say you have a kobold excalation randomly generate beside or close a black dragon monster hex (assuming one was to exist of course). It would neat if these kobolds were to escalate into variant versions like black-scaled kobold for example with a unique variant kobold ability.
Sure, this would have to be a feature developed much later in the program but it should be 'low hanging fruit' for the most part and add more variety and interest.
This feature would encourage players an incentive to manipulate nearby hexes to trigger this rare escalation encouraging conflict in the areas surrounding the escalation as well.
Rare escalations that only trigger when generated beside other specific escalations would be cool too!
To me, what I envisioned as the Escalation Cycle, is a virus that spreads, like clock work, every so many hours.
For instance, lets say Monster Hexes consistently respawn small levels of monsters, but the beginning of an escalation they increase quite heavily. I see, especially from the video, that Home Hexes are a constant 1-7 on the escalation cycle, but don't spread.
I know they haven't mention anything like an actual scale, but I envision that the more contiguous Hexes directly around a Monster or Infected Hex increases its escalation ranking. I see Monster Hexes as a virus that replicates every 42 hours, and after ever replication the time for it to replicate decreases 6 hours. This will have an artificial barrier of the max of 10-30 based on how badass the monsters are. Spreads like 1 into 2, 2 into 4, 4 into 8, 8 into 16, 16 into 32 hitting the appropriate barrier as it grows. So, 42 hours into 1, 36 hours into 2, 30 hours into 4, 24 hours into 8, 18 hours into 16, and 12 hours into 32. After it hits max, what ever time from it stops at is the time in which it refreshes. Then Badland, IMO, would just count as 2 infected hexes, artificially increasing how fast the spawn rate is, by decreases the time in all adjacent hexes by 6 hours.
The above really fits with what they were talking about a Holistic approach, you have to treat multiple parts at once, because next time it spawns it could max out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's been a long time since I last looked at the game in this perspective, so thank you for reminding me of it OP. There is indeed much "validity" to your point of view, your periscope (at this point in time!). :)
Try to dig back through memory some of the ideas, but it will only be a rough pile of ideas for you to inspect for nuggets of value (!):-
1. Concept: PvE = Faucet to the Economy ; PvP = Sink to the Economy
This is a major conceptual adjustment to themepark mmorpgs. It's of paramount importance for PFO to develop an economy "the beating heart of the game" that drives human motivation and leads to as per the features of the game on the website:-
A. Agency
B. Persistence
C. Emergence (some call this consequence but it's over-abused by mmorpg marketing of games) real Emergence is much easier to point out if what they say is what actually is in the game.
2. Time: PvE costs buckets of money. Want proof:-
Themeparks cost 250m$+.
Hence PFO will work under a different basis of building systems that integrate: The collective of these adds complexity from which emergence derives. As the game grows the devs can add more of these things and more on a bigger scale and better quality and deeper (as per Ryan) "fractal" nature for eg:
3. Example: Dungeons:-
This is major PvE "sheeeeet!"
Let's take 2 types:-
A. Emerald Spire - whopper really highly crafted by great designers. Cost = buckets and long dev to fully develp all those levels.
B. Wormhole Dungeons - These "pop" are procedural, require specialist adventurers and dungeoneering spelunkers. Devs could integrate into economy. Best of these wormhole dungeons could pop in most developed Hexes = draws PvE'ers...
I think you can see how PvE has to evolve at the pace of the game and as a part of the whole.
You can also see how high quality PvE has been the preserve of Themeparks and how expensive it is but how low in longevity it can end up being.
Maybe this helps understand how things develop over time.
Given enough time PvE could be some great specialization opportunities for characters in PFO... given enough time and using Pathfinder's rich lore and strong designers (Eg Emerald Spire).
There is so much stuff they could bring into PvE that would be so new and fresh to the game and bring the next level to sandbox games in general. Has the environment been forgotten for a more static stagnant system only focus on player to player interactions? I don't know maybe it is just me who is starting to fear this?
Now, going to be honest: The design of PFO is for the reverse of this to occur, as per the above reason, and following what you suggest would be the reverse of that; as proven by many previous mmorpgs.
What you want for complexity out of PvE is only seemingly possibly with Dwarf Fortress simulation complexity or MUDs that only use text (as opposed to ascii graphics). That is the honest appraisal of the current technology I think.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What you want for complexity out of PvE is only seemingly possibly with Dwarf Fortress simulation complexity or MUDs that only use text (as opposed to ascii graphics). That is the honest appraisal of the current technology I think.
True, you can't get super super super fancy but what I am trying to get a crossed is I feel like escalations are a bit like FATES in ffxiv or events in GW2. Yes, it is alpha and there is really not much implemented, and a whole list of stuff that needs to be implemented.
I was only wanting to bring my concern to attention and maybe have a brainstorming session for the future of PvE in game. But I see by Karlbobs post that people already have starting to take into consideration how to make escalations and monsters, in general, more immersed into the environment with interesting combinations.
note*- by PvE I mean the interactions of players and non-player characters, not really static situations like dungeons, but more on the lines of escalations, monster hexes, etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What you want for complexity out of PvE is only seemingly possibly with Dwarf Fortress simulation complexity or MUDs that only use text (as opposed to ascii graphics). That is the honest appraisal of the current technology I think.True, you can't get super super super fancy but what I am trying to get a crossed is I feel like escalations are a bit like FATES in ffxiv or events in GW2. Yes, it is alpha and there is really not much implemented, and a whole list of stuff that needs to be implemented.
I was only wanting to bring my concern to attention and maybe have a brainstorming session for the future of PvE in game. But I see by Karlbobs post that people already have starting to take into consideration how to make escalations and monsters, in general, more immersed into the environment with interesting combinations.
note*- by PvE I mean the interactions of players and non-player characters, not really static situations like dungeons, but more on the lines of escalations, monster hexes, etc...
Here's some links to the PvE Blogs I can remember if that is of use (in case it is):-
Adventure in the River Kingdoms => PvE Overview
Where the Wild Things Are => Dungeons & Mobs
Over the Hill and Far Away => Map Hex Types
When the Demon is at Your Door => Escalation Cycles
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for posting these! The top two definitely ease my concern on PvE. For some reason I don't really remember these.... I do like the idea of randomly spawned and removed dungeons, adds mystery and adventuring. Also, good to see that hexes will change over time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that some plans may have changed quite a bit since early 2012.
Those first two blogs included some things that would be very hard to integrate into the more recent discussions, like taking over a ruined tower and refurbishing it. That would give the discoverers of the tower a big advantage against other settlements, who have to build their towers from the ground up.
Wandering monsters are an appealing idea to me, but so far we've seen no sign of them. All of the monsters I've seen people encounter in Alpha were standing around waiting to be attacked. I don't know if that's just because this is Alpha, or if the idea of true wandering monsters has been scrapped. I'd love to see the kind of wandering menaces that EQ1 had, single creatures much tougher than the surrounding static spawns, but I'm not confident that they'll exist.
Maybe this week's Gobbocast will shed some light on GW's 2014 plans for PVE. A new PVE dev blog would help, too. I just can't advise counting on anything from a January or April 2012 dev blog to be in the MVP version of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm glad they were useful; at least to peel back the eventual scope of PvE plans that PFO is envisaged to one day climb towards.
Wandering Monsters I thought meant static/trash mobs who are in the way of you harvesting?
That said what you are saying is 1-off uber-monsters such as a dragon attacking a settlement randomly etc. Now that would be a feast.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are several different things that could be called wandering monsters. From the context of the blog, I think they did mean monsters that would spawn near a large scale gathering operation and attack it.
A dragon that attacks settlements is another kind of wandering monster, bordering on a one-creature escalation.
EQ1 had something in between. They were pretty big/powerful creatures, but not tough enough to attack a settlement's worth of PCs at once. They followed twisting paths around their zones. Gatherers (and others) always had to keep one eye peeled for something big coming around the corner unexpectedly.
One more kind of wandering monster encounter is a scouting party/war band. This is a group of enemies like we've seen in Alpha, but mobile rather than static. They might have a home camp, or lair, but they patrol the area around it, instead of standing still. Fighting one group of AI-controlled enemies may not be so exciting, but having a group of their buddies stumble into a fight in progress and jump in can raise your pulse rate.
This week's Gobbocast is definitely one I plan to watch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something I've thought we've needed for awhile is random encounters.
By that I mean you're wandering down the road when you get jumped by NPCs just like in the adventure paths.
I would make the strength of the random encounters largely dependent on the strength of the players involved so a lone level 1 might get a goblin scout but a party of level 20s might get an orgre chieftian, shaman, and a bunch of warriors. Something befitting their skill level.
There is one major reason for this. Hiring player guards is going to get very expensive if your guards end up doing nothing. It's boring for the guards and useless to you in most cases.
If there is a guarantee of level appropriate PvE those costs fall a lot because the guards are sure to get some action and some loot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just don't know any more. Once upon a time, I thought PC guards would be protecting caravans from PVE and PVP attacks. Then for a while I thought guards would be primarily protecting against SAD-ing PC bandits, and low-rep PC raiders. With SAD seemingly way down the road, and severe penalties for nonconsensual PVP against high-rep characters being discussed, I'm thinking that we'll be protecting caravans mostly from feuding companies or war-declared settlements. That sounds more like a job for company/settlement members of the merchants than freelance guards (depending on how kill rights transfer between party members).
Now I'm really looking forward to this week's Gobbocast.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know in Freelancer I rarely guarded our traders. I instead taught them how to fend for themselves. Every once in awhile if we got a caravan of like 3-5 trade ships going we would have 1-2 people fly cover. I'm not going to describe the exact methods we used because they are applicable here and I'd prefer not to have all my tactics known too publicly but what those 1-2 pilots did was not generally what you would envision caravan guards doing.
In short what I'm saying is you shouldn't expect company/settlement members to waste too much time guarding you unless they are getting some compensation/action.
People are full of grand promises of how far they will go to help their fellows right now but while every successful group in the game will be well organized and look out for eachother I think people are going to find the most successful groups will be the ones who are both organized AND realize that strategy and efficiency trump the magical powers of friendship.
Right now having many guards just isn't an effective use of manpower even for company mates unless the shipments are absolutely huge and bring in massive profits. The more action/profits you have the environment inject into the deal for the guards, the less traders are going to need to pay them to convince them to come along.
I'd love to see the kind of wandering menaces that EQ1 had, single creatures much tougher than the surrounding static spawns, but I'm not confident that they'll exist.
That said what you are saying is 1-off uber-monsters such as a dragon attacking a settlement randomly etc. Now that would be a feast.
A dragon that attacks settlements is another kind of wandering monster, bordering on a one-creature escalation.
EQ1 had something in between. They were pretty big/powerful creatures, but not tough enough to attack a settlement's worth of PCs at once. They followed twisting paths around their zones. Gatherers (and others) always had to keep one eye peeled for something big coming around the corner unexpectedly.
One more kind of wandering monster encounter is a scouting party/war band. This is a group of enemies like we've seen in Alpha, but mobile rather than static. They might have a home camp, or lair, but they patrol the area around it, instead of standing still. Fighting one group of AI-controlled enemies may not be so exciting, but having a group of their buddies stumble into a fight in progress and jump in can raise your pulse rate.
Something I've thought we've needed for awhile is random encounters.
By that I mean you're wandering down the road when you get jumped by NPCs just like in the adventure paths.
I would make the strength of the random encounters largely dependent on the strength of the players involved so a lone level 1 might get a goblin scout but a party of level 20s might get an orgre chieftian, shaman, and a bunch of warriors. Something befitting their skill level.
There is one major reason for this. Hiring player guards is going to get very expensive if your guards end up doing nothing. It's boring for the guards and useless to you in most cases.
If there is a guarantee of level appropriate PvE those costs fall a lot because the guards are sure to get some action and some loot.
I absolutely LOVE these ideas and would really like to see stuff like this done with the PvE system in game. I hate that PvE is generally just something waiting to act as a target or loot pinata. I really want to see more of it pose a real threat to a community so that PvE can be an aspect of defending a community, not just farming mindlessly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess we'll see what happens.
The developers have dropped hints that settlements who ignore nearby escalations will regret it, but I've never heard what might be so regrettable. Will it just be significantly increased PVE danger for their gatherers? Will node yields crash at a particular escalation stage? Will a neglected escalation eventually grow large enough to attack a PC settlement?
Right now, there are some people saying that they see escalations as a pointless grind, and some people saying that no AI-controlled enemy could ever pose a threat as serious as PVP. If those opinions lead their settlements to ignore the local escalations, then we might find out soon enough what GW sees as so regrettable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A neglected escalation might spread to adjacent hexes as well. My guess is that escalations and NPC common folk won't mix well, and as escalations spread into PoI hexes that might affect the output from PoI and Outposts, maybe even affect the DI from holding the hex, reduced output from nodes - especially gushers (if harvesting kits imply some number of common folk laborers)... There's plenty of bad things that could happen if an escalation spreads into claimed territory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I'm really wondering is whether any of the consequences will affect systems that will be in place before and during the War of Towers. Without POIs, Outposts, gushers, DI, etc., ignoring escalations to laser focus on PVP might pay off (at least until those things get added).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The developers have dropped hints that settlements who ignore nearby escalations will regret it, but I've never heard what might be so regrettable.
There have been suggestions from (I think) Ryan, that escalations that are allowed to drift into your controlled hexes will cause "damage" that will add to your upkeep costs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The developers have dropped hints that settlements who ignore nearby escalations will regret it, but I've never heard what might be so regrettable.There have been suggestions from (I think) Ryan, that escalations that are allowed to drift into your controlled hexes will cause "damage" that will add to your upkeep costs.
That sounds ominous after the War of Towers, but I'm not sure we'll have upkeep costs during WoT.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KarlBob - I think you've found an interesting point; escalations might be of secondary importance during the WoT. I have a mental picture of an escalation spreading to a tower hex, and the various sides competing for the tower having to work around the mobs.
edit to add: A serious impact during WoT could be that if the escalation spreads into a tower hex, the owner loses the tower and the accruing benefit of that tower until the escalation is removed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe the Elf druid along with a slew of devout clerics of Erastil have been called to tend to the dying forest and start to bring animals and life back to it increasing their spawnrates. And those who disobey will be striked by the wrath of their god.
There is so much stuff they could bring into PvE that would be so new and fresh to the game and bring the next level to sandbox games in general. Has the environment been forgotten for a more static stagnant system only focus on player to player interactions? I don't know maybe it is just me who is starting to fear this?Now, going to be honest: The design of PFO is for the reverse of this to occur, as per the above reason, and following what you suggest would be the reverse of that; as proven by many previous mmorpgs.
What you want for complexity out of PvE is only seemingly possibly with Dwarf Fortress simulation complexity or MUDs that only use text (as opposed to ascii graphics). That is the honest appraisal of the current technology I think.
I thought of something this evening: That level of story complexity might not be possible for Goblinworks to program into the game. On the other hand, one of the big selling points of a sandbox design is that it puts more of the storytelling power in the hands of the players.
We've been told that excessive harvesting can deplete a hex of its resources, and it will take a while for those resources to recover. A company could definitely become known for strip mining and clear cutting hexes. Instead of making enemies among NPC elves and dryads, that company might find itself in a feud with BrotherZael and his PC company of druids, rangers and friends.
I'll admit that this is a diversion from this thread's focus on PVE, but it is in line with the idea of complex stories. These stories just happen to be motivated and acted out by players, not scripted by Goblinworks.
Is there any info yet on how much downtime there is between a "beaten" escalation and the start of the next?I don't recall any clues about that being dropped lately.
The long-run goal is to make the timing and placement of escalations dynamic, based on the the state of the world and the actions of players. That said, we'll want to leave a minimum gap between escalations to let players enjoy the fruits of their labors, perhaps a day or so. Whether there's a maximum gap before some other escalation is guaranteed to start in each monster hex is up for debate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The long-run goal is to make the timing and placement of escalations dynamic, based on the the state of the world and the actions of players. That said, we'll want to leave a minimum gap between escalations to let players enjoy the fruits of their labors, perhaps a day or so. Whether there's a maximum gap before some other escalation is guaranteed to start in each monster hex is up for debate.Is there any info yet on how much downtime there is between a "beaten" escalation and the start of the next?I don't recall any clues about that being dropped lately.
Thank you, Mr Settles.
That was exactly my angle. Just a concern that escalations might be so very time consuming that they fall on a dedicated few and burnout ensues.
I know that you will be monitoring and tweaking, so I am not too worried. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
edit to add: A serious impact during WoT could be that if the escalation spreads into a tower hex, the owner loses the tower and the accruing benefit of that tower until the escalation is removed.
Excellent suggestion. We're looking into something along these lines.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there needs to be a decent emphasis on PVE content to stop a sole focus on antisocial PVP behaviour. Justice systems won't cut it alone.
To me though, PVE content isn't themepark. I like, say, Crushbone in EQ1 where the Orcs live. That is where they live and you don't need a "kill x orcs" quest to make that satisfying. Just make it an interesting place to go.
If you want tear down/build up escalations to drive some environment like Crushbone (e.g. let an escalation develop until they have a large defensive structure), I am ok with that. But I do like knowing that today I can hang out in xxx. I spent weeks in various spots in EQ1 and it didn't feel like a themepark because they didn't overlay the "kill x" mechanic on top. Just hang out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The long-run goal is to make the timing and placement of escalations dynamic, based on the the state of the world and the actions of players. That said, we'll want to leave a minimum gap between escalations to let players enjoy the fruits of their labors, perhaps a day or so. Whether there's a maximum gap before some other escalation is guaranteed to start in each monster hex is up for debate.Is there any info yet on how much downtime there is between a "beaten" escalation and the start of the next?I don't recall any clues about that being dropped lately.
Balance is definately key here. I hope it is more then a day, most times. If a Settlement has to deal with escalations several times a week, this could become an annoying obligatory grind. You can not let them go since your settlement would run a risk, so the first thing Settlement members have to do when they log in, is "clean up the escalation" before they can go do something else.
Having said this, I could see PvE focussed Settlements actually preferring this and use the many escalations for loot/resources and regular PvE. So if this could be tweaked per Hex then you could cater to different types of settlements. :)
In any case, escalations are an exiting feature that could be expanded on a lot!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could really do alot with making PvE more dynamic. Keying off player behavior can really help....
Have an area that is getting developed and has alot of economic activity. You start drawing in intelligent monsters interested in wealth and looting.
Have a spot where a major battle took place and there were lots of deaths... carrion eaters get attracted to the area.
Have a settlement where people are practicing lots of dark arts and forbidden magic... supernatural creatures become attracted to the area.
A settlement that was once thriving and now it's economic rating have really plumeted.... scavangers and creatures that enjoy refuse start showing up (goblins, carrion crawlers, etc)
You can even do non-combat PvE stuff that would keep people interested in doing things. Blizzards and Storms that hinder travel in hex's... plagues that threaten the population (prime for clerics and healers) and commoners that need healing.... ..over-production of a hex that throws the local ecology out of whack leading to insect plagues and vermin infestations that lead to crop failures and famine if not dealt with.
There are so many creative PvE things that could be done if one really wanted to invest the resources in doing it. PvE can be very dynamic with the right systems in place. The reason Themepark games don't do it is not because they can't...but because they don't won't dynamic at all, not PvP and not PvE, they want to give players a tightly controled, canned experience... that is a concious choice on thier part.
I still think that the world needs to be populated with enemies or maybe neutrals. Maybe even have interaction between everything. Have roaming enemies, roaming good guys... imagine roaming heroes that tried to fight criminals.
Have crazy enemies in caves that drop good loot, dragons, etc, people will always fight them even if no quest.
Have animals, which will need to be farmed... also that may attack you while you are doing stuff like gathering or mining certain resources.
That is pve.
The last idea that I have for sandbox PVE (which I have said before) is to take an idea from themeparks and have events. Serious events. I really think having NPC action that doesn't overwhelm the game, that players can choose how to side on... or even be obligated (based on their race/class/alignment) to give aide.
I mean, having npc entities that interact as well does not go against the sandbox TO ME, and I think that makes the game PVE. So certain hostiles like dwarves but not elves... and they decide to only let them mine on their land. Little things like that... will develop PVE *IF* it is done creatively.
Quests... esp gather quests are not good. You go farm 8 eyes cuz you wanna make a staff not because Shermal tells you to. Unless you are working for him... heh.