Goblin Squad Member
|
umm.. in what world is 2653 FAR LARGER than the 3637 PIONEERS? There were 8732 total backers...
That's OK.. it's getting silly so I bow out but look forward to your reply a month after EE. Like I said, maybe you will be right and all these people who bought EE are just waiting for it. I hope you are, but I doubt it.
I never compared them to the number of Pioneers. I've said fora very long time that I think most of the Pioneers never had any interest in playing the game, and only put in their hundred to get the large selection of PDFs that were offered. Those accounts will simply languish or eventually be sold to others when they suddenly realize they have a value. Neither of those cases construes.
What I am saying is that the number of people who can't play until OE is far larger than the number of people (combined) who are criticizing the game as being "far" from MVP, or who have abandoned it altogether because they feel that way.
So as soon as someone discusses real numbers instead of making extravagant, unsupported, statements about "the vast majority of the player base", all of a sudden the discussion is silly and you have to leave. Noted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regarding rep changes, I think the rep scale needs to be non-linear if it is going to be useful. 7500 rep should be reserved for people who almost never engage in dishonorable killing, maybe something like more than 60 hours of gameplay since the last dishonorable kill, longer if their rep was lower than 7500 to start.
This sounds right to me. A curve at both ends, so that you get fast rep rebuilding in the middle, but both low and high end are slower.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would REALLY like to know how to get in on the 'closed external testing' of the Mac client... ;-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Guys,
I know I might get reprimanded for defending the game, but still I feel I must. I cannot speak to the design or programing aspects, in a team you play your role to the best of your abilities. I can speak about the graphics. There are very cool things in the pipe I cannot talk about. Cool Stuff. Any who about the graphics. I have worked the past 10 years, this month being my anniversary in the game industry after studying game art for 4 years. I have worked on small to the biggest games to date, so I know what both sides of the spectrum are like. I have worked on psp, ps2, ps3, and now Ps4 games. Also the same generation xbox ones and pc. We are doing very exciting things graphics wise. I know what the tech was like in 04. trust me, i pushed for our company at the time to go into ps3 development in 06. This meant normal maps. This was in 06. For a small company I helped pioneer one of the first games that hit the ps3. note I said normal maps, true RGB maps that make the light calculate as its a higher resolution model. For a small company at the time I was like, damn we are so behind whats out there. what I would come to learn to realize is that small companies, can actually push the envelope in greater ways than a 200m game can because there is less politics and middle management. I wont mention names, but one of the biggest budget games an all time classic that came out in 08 I believe did not use this tech they were far behind the curve, it was a hundred million dollar game. in fact the small company i made the push at was ahead of them. Soooo on pathfinder online we are using the highest poly characters we can knowing there will be hundreds on screen. they use true normal maps. they also do all the color tinting stuff that is also somewhat recent. I don't know the exact date but every time I hear, game looks anything less than 08, I chuckle. Because what you are thinking of is fond memories of those games. But feel what you want. As I mentioned cool stuff is in the pipe, and we can hit "switches" in the future that will greatly improve the look of the game, but those will have to wait until their time comes, I want the best graphics of any game as an artist, but this is not a 200m game, but it will improve with every patch. Its going to be that underdog game that rises over time to offer things those other games couldn't, because of the power that small companies have. I apologize to Ryan if I overstepped my boundaries with this post, but character wise, I have worked on 300m games and I can say we are doing very, ambitious things for our size. I wont go into specifics cause I will be here all night. Have a good evening guys and please stay positive about the state of the game, we are doing our very best for you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I hope Ryan doesn't take you to the woodshed.
But this:
Its going to be that underdog game that rises over time...
That's what I've always felt about PFO. All these years waiting, and really contemplating what a "Slow & Steady" approach was likely to mean, have me convinced that failing to attract a massive audience at the launch of EE is actually "a feature not a bug".
Rah! Rah! Keep up the good work, we love you :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good news about graphics then I guess. No biggie to me though either way. If pixel art can be popular then there's no reason a 'throwback to early MMO' graphics game couldn't be popular if the game's good.
On thing I noticed that was weird is I clipped through someone's face and I noticed the back of their mouth was textured. Has anyone else seen that? Anyone see teeth?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
I don't agree with the decision to not higher prioritize broken features, I think it is bad development policy.
I really don't understand this comment.
What "broken feature" are we not addressing in the blog? There's nothing in our open bug list that I would classify as a "broken feature" that isn't immediately scheduled to be addressed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow.. I don't care if you listen to the echo-chamber about the length of Dwarven character facial hair. Listen to the loud and clear feedback you are getting about the overall state of the game.
How can we not even have a core feature like player looting in? How can you launch with the horrendous combat mechanics currently in place? Ranged combat self-stuns the user.. seriously this is what we are launching with?
Dear Doomsayer,
If you recall, the stun to ranged attacks comes from the super easy kiting bowmen had against groups of mobs, and there were some other issues in the combat cycle that prompted the "rooting" when firing a bow. It worked, and was a temporary fix, and still is. Lots of these current features are temp fixes while the rest of the minutiae of combat are implemented and tweaked (there will be years of tweaking and fine tuning, and every game on the market is still doing so, including WoW, EVE and other long-lived games).
Remain calm about the state of the game. If you came onboard with a long-term expectation you should be fine. But if you are one of the "immediate gratification" players that plays to hear the "KaBoom" of hitting the next "level", this is probably not that game.
It's like building a house...if you have ever had a newly built home, it seems to take forever, but watching it go up is pretty cool. It stays cool until you have to start making payments. So when we have been making payments for a few months we will all get to judge whether things are going in the direction we previously anticipated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ E.G. thank you for the update, it is appreciated.
I think the issue is really that people don't understand about these development phases. You guys are working on the stepping stones to what the game will be, and a lot of people just don't get that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel like Destiny's Twin should be renamed to Destiny's Hero given the description of how it will work. It might stop someone from thinking of setting a crafting support character as the Destiny Twin character rather than their primary character and then being angry when they have to slightly gimp their primary character to create a refiner.
Agreed. My Destiny Twin will be the main playing character, while the non destiny character will be a crafter. The destiny twin will be the guy forever training, while it is possible that the other character will be switched several times and will see some alt sharing his XP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Esequil Garcia
Thanks for the input. This reconfirms for me that PFO tries hard to lay a solid foundation for the game. This will reap benefits long term.
But it means short term you might be further along if you would have cut corners / using existing ways that would have got you to something looking okay in the view of many players faster.
Good luck. I think that aiming for the long term is the right decision - but you will get criticised for a while longer that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little confused by the reputation change. The existing system was very harsh, in part because the buggy autotarget system made it so easy to accidentally (no sarcasm quotes) kill a party member. The new system seems to be at least as lax as the old system was restrictive. That seems especially odd because the improvements to autotargetting should make it harder to kill friends by accident. If the aim was to find a middle ground between 'thou shalt not kill' and 'murder fest', I think some more fine tuning will be needed.
Is this intended to be a temporary change? Is the penalty intended to rise again when the autotargetting system is fixed?
This shouldn't be hard to understand or cause confusion, it clarifies it to a certain extent.
PFO has been described as having PVP at its core. The PVE content that does exist has been described as intentionally minimal and as little more than "resource nodes that hit back".
The old Reputation System did not just have the auto targeting problem. It also had the problem of sending multiple mixed messages.
Firstly, it was so harsh that accidentally hitting a friendly 2 x times could cause dramatic Rep loss, and killing would most definitely cause even greater loss.
I will assume that this is fixed
Secondly, the amount of the Reputation loss was so severe that players would either not PVP at all or avoid Escalations in large groups (because of the risk of auto targeting).
Thirdly, those willing to PVP and take a hit, would avoid attacking groups and focus on just killing individuals. A group of even two would bring an attacking group to -7500 after one encounter.
Fourth, all of this would just lead to binge killing. Expend your experience points on Thursday. Go on a killing spree on Friday. Stick to the wilderness on the weekend, grind mobs for achievements, loot, and recover Reputation while they did that .
Finally, it puts PVP mostly in the hands of the most experienced characters. If your next feat costs 10,000 xp (100 hours) and Reputation recovery from -7500 takes less than that, you might as well go kill freely.
I came up with an analogy for what Ryan was originally saying about the Reputation System: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qh4w&page=5?Naked-Newbacolypse-Your-Doom-A pproaches#229
Since we are using Nascar as an analogy, your reputation system is like going to a Nascar race and handing out speeding tickets.The alignment system has been deeply flawed once you're over 10 years old and you can role play a more complex character.When you say that you sound like the guy who goes to a NASCAR event and tells everyone around him that the race sucks because the drivers only make left turns.
The new proposed numbers seem to have taken the traffic cop off the race track, and put him in his proper place in the school zone.
I would add that it would be perfectly acceptable and maybe likely that GW doubles or even triples the Reputation loss in the Starter Towns of (Thorn Keep, Fort Inevitable, and River Watch). This will give the new players additional protection from the robbing / killing of players like the UnNamed Company as filled its ranks with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I'm not primarly a PvP, but I really want it as a major part of PFO, because it gives some consequences to being unattentive, creates a hostile environment to play against, and breaks up predicability of the world.
I see SAD or something similar is important, or a Yeild function (combat is canceled, the Yielder can be looted, but stuff dont loose durability, and looter do not get the full reputation loss of killing).
I can se a lot of different mechanics and parameters entering the reputation loss/recovery equation, but I see as its core two things.
1) recovery should be slooooow, to have real consequences and a sting, i talking about weeks here.
2) The effects of low reputation should not exclude from gaming, it should just make things different. Like not be able to ressurect anywhere but in Monster Hexes/Rotters Hole/Whatever. Allowing Settlement Managers to set the limit the Reputation limit for training (and I think clerics need a religion system demanding a certain moral code of the trainee depending on temple dedicatin).
3) I havent grokked the flag system but I assume there is a wealth of possibilites there. Especially concering viable targets, feuds and intersettlement warfare. It is VERY important that things like WoT works, and after that period some other system working in the similar vein (spawned from the results of WoT?) exists.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's a thought on the reputation system:
Keep the rep loss for a kill light, but add an additional rep loss for looting the husk.
For example: -100 rep for each item you take off someone else's husk.
That way, killing a trespasser but not looting them doesn't cost too much rep, and the rep loss for killing and looting someone will be proportional to how much stuff they have that is valuable to you.
Their stack of starmetal might be worth -100 rep to take, their peasant rags and an apple might not.
One drawback might be that people would get in the habit of killing someone just for the chance to browse through their inventory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's a thought on the reputation system:
Keep the rep loss for a kill light, but add an additional rep loss for looting the husk.
For example: -100 rep for each item you take off someone else's husk.
That way, killing a trespasser but not looting them doesn't cost too much rep, and the rep loss for killing and looting someone will be proportional to how much stuff they have that is valuable to you.
Their stack of starmetal might be worth -100 rep to take, their peasant rags and an apple might not.One drawback might be that people would get in the habit of killing someone just for the chance to browse through their inventory.
If you limit gear and inventory loss, what is the player economy replenishing?
Why are you looking for more ways for the Reputation System to prevent players from playing the core (PvP) of the game?
The short coming of Ryan's vision is that his view of PvP had (notice I said, "had") been too focused on punishment for PvP and not enough on the natural risks and rewards that should go with it.
Now when we log in, the game will FINALLY have a sense of adventure and danger.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you limit gear and inventory loss, what is the player economy replenishing?
Huh? If I kill you and don't loot anything, 25% of your gear is lost from the game.
If I kill you and loot everything in your husk, 25% of your gear is lost from the game.Why are you looking for more ways for the Reputation System to prevent players from playing the core (PvP) of the game?
First of all, 500 rep loss for a kill, plus enabling the bandit to choose how much rep to spend on looting is a lot less punishing of PVP than 2,500 to 5,000 rep loss for a kill that we've been dealing with.
Contrary to your knee-jerk reaction, I was trying to suggest an alternative rep loss avenue in order to keep the rep loss from the actual murder as low as possible.
Secondly, the core PVP of the game is territorial warfare over objectives, not killing and looting people in the wilderness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Secondly, the core PVP of the game is territorial warfare over objectives, not killing and looting people in the wilderness.
That is just one objective, and one that not everyone shares. This is supposed to be a sandbox, with almost unlimited ways of playing our characters.
Limitations, gates, restrictions, requirements, of these there are plenty of examples. Where is the freedom of play that is the hallmark of a true sandbox MMO?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The new rep loss seems to be an inconsequential hit and will not deter anyone ... approximately a 650 hit against a max rep character? So .. can kill 10+ before going negative if start at max rep? Then just hang out in some nondescript location for a day and repeat?
And this is just for one character taking a hit? So .. get a group of 6 together and got get 60+ kills on an evening, wait a day as a group and repeat. Create a couple of alts on the account, take out 120+ in an evening.
I am aware that PVP is central but in reading the posts from advocates of PVP the central message seems to essentially be "we want to kill or threaten to kill anyone at anytime and suffer very very little for our actions because the rep loss is so insignificant it won't really affect our gameplay" .. whereas before the issue was that the rep loss was a severe deterrent and that was a choice that advocates didn't like ... that is what I take away from quite a few of the comments ..
So .. I'm ok with that approach but there needs to be a way for a player that prefers to be a non-combatant to retaliate without without being forced build a character designed for killing others as well. Add in the very very short flag that was proposed elsewhere and even retaliation (if you could effectively defend yourself) becomes an issue.
Now .. if you want to tweak the rep system so that the attacker's rep has an effect on the rep loss as well .. e.g. the worse the rep of the attacker, the greater the rep loss, that could be a balancing factor that would work so that the penalty goes up with each kill ..
e.g. just playing with numbers ((((Target 's Reputation - Attacker's Reputation)+15000)/1000) *5)^1.5 .. initial hit for both Target and Attacker at 7500 is the same, but with each attack it will get more severe for the attacker. If target/attacker have the same rep, then initial loss always the same.
Running those numbers against a max rep target, blog's formula requires 14 kills for negative rep and 25 kills for -7500 rep ... revised formula that considers rep of attacker and target, 11 kills to negative rep and 16 kills to reach -7500 ...
Personally, I'd prefer a more severe effect (forcing a greater choice on the attacker) since can still game this easily, and changing the exponent from 1.5 to 1.6 almost halves the number before negative rep ...
I'm taking Ryan at his word that this won't be a murdersim ever and that there are consequences to random killing. Just don't see how the new rep calculation deters anything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the freedom of play that is the hallmark of a true sandbox MMO?
Player A wants to enjoy the sandbox by killing and looting everyone he sees.
Player B wants to enjoy the sandbox by exploring and gathering while unattached to any social structure.
As a game designer, how would you balance the competing desires of these players?
{stuff}
Huzzah! Somebody get this man a raise!
Seriously, though, thank you for standing up for yourself and the rest of the Art Team in such a clarifying way. I'm sure your post will be bookmarked and spammed by a certain Elf Wizard whenever players decide to start comparing PFO to $50M+ budget game X and griping about how PFO "looks like the 1990's/early 2000's."
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Player A wants to enjoy the sandbox by killing and looting everyone he sees.
Player B wants to enjoy the sandbox by exploring and gathering while unattached to any social structure.
As a game designer, how would you balance the competing desires of these players?
By making it a risk vs reward situation, maybe ?
SAD is meant to be an incentive for both hostiles parties, to find a compromise, which is not losing reputation for the aggressor, and not losing the entire inventory for the defender. It just needs some adjustments, to make it a real, meaningful interaction, sometimes you will succeed by bluffing, something your bluff will fail, and sometime you will choose to give up.
Simple example, I cross Bludd's path, and he SAD me, but he knows that I freaking hate craft & that kind of things. I refuse the SAD. He can punish my decision by killing me, but will it be worth it ? Risks vs Rewards.
He doesn't want to just kill everything he says to loot it, he just wants a meaningful way to live of banditry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am aware that PVP is central but in reading the posts from advocates of PVP the central message seems to essentially be "we want to kill or threaten to kill anyone at anytime and suffer very very little for our actions because the rep loss is so insignificant it won't really affect our gameplay" .. whereas before the issue was that the rep loss was a severe deterrent and that was a choice that advocates didn't like ... that is what I take away from quite a few of the comments ..
So .. I'm ok with that approach but there needs to be a way for a player that prefers to be a non-combatant to retaliate without without being forced build a character designed for killing others as well. Add in the very very short flag that was proposed elsewhere and even retaliation (if you could effectively defend yourself) becomes an issue.
I think that one way they probably need tweak the system to allow legitimate retaliations is to increase the duration of the combat flags like attacker and criminal.
I think it takes only 1 1/2 minutes to run across a hex. Yet a player can attack a non-hostile character and the attack is forgiven in what, 60 seconds? There's no time there for immediate retaliation; even in hot pursuit the attacker flag will expire before the chase makes it across a hex. 5-10 minutes might be a more appropriate time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where is the freedom of play that is the hallmark of a true sandbox MMO?Player A wants to enjoy the sandbox by killing and looting everyone he sees.
Player B wants to enjoy the sandbox by exploring and gathering while unattached to any social structure.
As a game designer, how would you balance the competing desires of these players?
By doing what every other Open World PVP, Sandbox MMO does. There is risk vs. reward in every interaction.
I as a bandit, am at just as much risk to get jumped by a group of Crusaders aren't I?
So, what will I do?
I will travel in a group when possible.
I will evade pursuit when needed.
I will fight when I'm cornered?
I will win some and lose some.
There is no risk I ask others to take on, that I do not take on myself.
I have to admit, I have no experience with the TT mindset from over the last 25 - 30 years. My own experience with D&D / AD&D was over 9 years, and was pretty much what might be considered "hardcore rules".
This is a serious question:
Is TT in general, absent of more than low risk but still has great reward?
Theme Park MMOs are notorious for their No Risk vs High Rewards, which is why players are so willing to repeatedly run through the same dungeons... over and over and over again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2) The effects of low reputation should not exclude from gaming, it should just make things different. Like not be able to ressurect anywhere but in Monster Hexes/Rotters Hole/Whatever.
This removes meaningful choice by allowing lo rep characters to try to sneak into a settlement with low rep and not get trapped if they get caught and killed. There's also a potential corner case where low rep characters maybe be able to game the system and use it as a teleport shortcut. The fewer hexes that you designate as "low rep rrez points", the more useful the shortcut becomes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that one way they probably need tweak the system to allow legitimate retaliations is to increase the duration of the combat flags like attacker and criminal.
I think it takes only 1 1/2 minutes to run across a hex. Yet a player can attack a non-hostile character and the attack is forgiven in what, 60 seconds? There's no time there for immediate retaliation; even in hot pursuit the attacker flag will expire before the chase makes it across a hex. 5-10 minutes might be a more appropriate time.
I would like to see a system of Kill Rights that gives the victim a chance to exact reputation free revenge and or pass that Kill Right onto a Bounty Hunter or Assassin.
The Kill Right would have no time limit, but would end once the holder of the "contract" did in fact kill the original attacker.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By doing what every other Open World PVP, Sandbox MMO does. There is risk vs. reward in every interaction.
I as a bandit, am at just as much risk to get jumped by a group of Crusaders aren't I?
At issue, Budd, is the perception (whether right or wrong) that the bandit is never forced to risk anything meaningful while the non-bandit always is.
The bandit's primary risk is death, since they will go to "work" in the morning planning to have nothing they can lose if killed but some durability.
The character that wants to build something via their own productivity is (when "working") forced to always carry things that have value that they risk losing, whether it's harvesting components or finished goods.
One "side" has no choice but to risk things that will be a real loss in terms of their advancement, while the other side can generally risk nothing meaningful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm totally with Bludd and Audo here, with a predator pressure we will have a much more interesting evolution of the game.
The rep loss and consequences must of course be fine tuned, but remember all, no death is perma death.
There is two aspects of the reason for a rep system and those two needs to be separated, the first one is for a RPG/consequences of killing reason that I have outlined my thoughts above.
Secondarly is to stop murdersim tendecies, and that is a tottaly different cookie. It is difficult to solve that with the reputation system IMO, but perhaps with the level of todays reploss it would be suitable to have a gradual cooldown (say 15 minutes) of each kill and during that time there is a increased rep loss on additional kills. With a lenghty recovery period it would ruin the fun for massmurderers without putting to much constraint on healthy banditery.
And as I said before a drop in reputation should not exclude from playing, but put severe constraint on alternatives, much as a dedicated crafter possibly can go out and enjoy a undead hunting party.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see a system of Kill Rights that gives the victim a chance to exact reputation free revenge and or pass that Kill Right onto a Bounty Hunter or Assassin.
I'd like to see a system of husk "gushers," where a flagged individual that dies has a small, but not tiny, risk of their husk including all their threaded items.
Edit: Ideascale: Husk Gushers
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is TT in general, absent of more than low risk but still has great reward?
Generally, yes.
The trend in D&D over the last 10 or so years, and one that Pathfinder has continued, is that the expectation is that the game is "rigged" so the players generally win, barring obviously stupid decisions.A "loss" or extreme risk for the players is considered by the majority of GMs as a failure of the adventure design.
The enjoyment comes from telling the story cooperatively. The "adversarial" style of GMing, where the GM actively tries to defeat or punish the PCs, is not well supported by the current editions of D&D or Pathfinder.
Going back to the question of freedom of play in a sandbox: The risk that you might get in a lot of fights when you're playing the game because you enjoy fighting isn't a real restriction. The PVP players' only "risk" is more PVP.
The gatherer / explorer faces the risk that they will assuredly be forced to participate in content they don't enjoy (pvp) in order to have access to the parts they do enjoy.
The same logic that says a PVP enthusiast should be able to attack a peaceful gatherer, would suggest that the gatherer should be able to press a button that forces the PVP enthusiast to spend 15 minutes harvesting ore before they can engage in combat again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to admit, I have no experience with the TT mindset from over the last 25 - 30 years. My own experience with D&D / AD&D was over 9 years, and was pretty much what might be considered "hardcore rules".
This is a serious question:
Is TT in general, absent of more than low risk but still has great reward?
Theme Park MMOs are notorious for their No Risk vs High Rewards, which is why players are so willing to repeatedly run through the same dungeons... over and over and over again.
Every table is different, but speaking for our game group it has always been "high risk with no guarantee of any reward." That merchant's wagon might be full empty cardboard boxes (from the box manufactory!). That merchant might be retired high-level fighter who can still smoke a bandit or two. Heck, his wagon might be a Trojan horse filled with vigilantes bent on thinning the local bandit population.
And if you die? Hand the DM your character sheet and get to rolling a new one, unless you've got an arrangement with a high-level cleric and the coin to pay for that pretty diamond required for the raise dead spell. Which you probably don't, because you're a bandit.
The point is, you do your homework, you pick your target carefully, you plan your attack meticulously and you then you plan your contingencies even more meticulously if you care at all for your character.
The temporary loss of some reputation and the chance of losing a little gear is no risk at all in my book, so it doesn't really interest me. Anybody who wants to come gank me is welcome to. I'm just going to walk around in peasant rags and not fight back, because who cares?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see a system of Kill Rights that gives the victim a chance to exact reputation free revenge and or pass that Kill Right onto a Bounty Hunter or Assassin.I'd like to see a system of husk "gushers," where a flagged individual that dies has a small, but not tiny, risk of their husk including all their threaded items.
Edit: Ideascale: Husk Gushers
At first I was sceptic, but after thinking for a little while I like it, although the risk should be very small indeed in the beginning of a reputaion loss, and just below small in the very bottom of reputation. A non linear function should be suitable, perhaps of third order with a really large divisor as parameter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...a small, but not tiny, risk of their husk including all their threaded items.Under what circumstances would any ever venture out in other than Tier 1 +0 gear if the alternative risk was to lose gear they intend not to lose?
By going out in gang and bully lone wanderers, like IRL.
Robbery shouldn't be a safe activity for a loner either...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The trend in D&D over the last 10 or so years, and one that Pathfinder has continued, is that the expectation is that the game is "rigged" so the players generally win, barring obviously stupid decisions.A "loss" or extreme risk for the players is considered by the majority of GMs as a failure of the adventure design.
We just call those "Gygax Modules". Seriously, though, you're right that the DM always has at his or her discretion the power to tweak outcomes to the players' benefit or detriment. This prevents good play from being unduly punished by a few unlucky rolls, and conversely ensures that boneheaded play is dealt with in a manner commensurate to the level of boneheadedness. In neither case should this tweaking ever be revealed or admitted to the players.
Obviously, this is something that can't be simulated in a video game setting. Maybe in fifty years when AIs are sufficiently sophisticated, but not now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...a small, but not tiny, risk of their husk including all their threaded items.Under what circumstances would anyone ever venture out in other than Tier 1 +0 gear if the alternative risk was to lose gear they intend not to lose?
That's a choice they get to make. If they aren't planning to get flagged for killing other players, there's virtually no chance of it applying to them. This is something that can only happen when you have an attacker flag. It injects a little real risk into the bandit lifestyle.
We already have a 100% risk of losing our gear after 20 deaths. This just increases that so that maybe it happens after 15 or 10 deaths on average if you have the aggressor/attacker flag on a regular basis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Obviously, this is something that can't be simulated in a video game setting. Maybe in fifty years when AIs are sufficiently sophisticated, but not now.
I don't think that's a valid claim. If the characters had a 50/50 chance of dying every time they attacked something, I think a game wouldn't do very well. The game is already rigged so that if you're careful there's very little chance of "losing."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even though I enjoy PvP, and have been an advocate I think the regeneration rate is high, and the penalty doesn't take into account newbies, as far as they have said.
Suggestions for change:
Dial back the regeneration rate to 50/hour. Then have 5/hour regen, that goes up by 5 for every four hours you haven't committed a crime, maxing out at 100 in 76 hours of game time. This cuts the current rate in half, but starts out lower, and is slower to reach max.
(It should take you awhile to recover from killing someone, currently it takes you 3 hours going towards 1, while it should be taking you 12 hours going towards 4)
Second, regeneration should only occur during online hours in which you are playing. Anyone that has been idling/running in a single spot for more than 20 minutes should be booted off the server.
Third, any hex considered a protected hex (trade routes, cities, surrounding areas) should have increased reputation loss. Anyone in the negatives you don't take a extra rep hit, but anyone in the positive add 500 base to how much rep hit you take.
Taking 600-1100 rep hit per kill in the "protected hexes" will significantly deter most people from actually killing there, or doing it very sparsely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The game is already rigged so that if you're careful there's very little chance of "losing."
You don't even need to be careful--you're not going to lose anything meaningful, certainly not anything that can't be replaced. Some may view this as a positive, but I see it as a negative.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thirdly, those willing to PVP and take a hit, would avoid attacking groups and focus on just killing individuals. A group of even two would bring an attacking group to -7500 after one encounter.
This is really important. It's easy to view the new Reputation calculation as too lax, and I'll admit I was leaning in that direction myself, but on further reflection I think it's a really good starting point.
I think we can all agree that losing several thousand Reputation for killing a group of Players is probably right. But there's probably an intuitive sense that being able to repeatedly kill solo gatherers is too easy, and doesn't have enough of a Reputation Cost. I would argue that begs the question, and in reality there shouldn't be solo gatherers in areas where bandits are active. It really needs to be dangerous to be alone far from home, and I think this new Reputation calculation achieves that goal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why can't there be something like a "kill count" like Ultima Online? If you kill more than 5 innocents for a certain period of time you are "red" until you go below 5 kills again. Each kill of an innocent had an 8 hour duration.
There is. It's the Murderer Flag, and it lasts for 24 hours if you kill 10 Players within a certain timeframe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It really needs to be dangerous to be alone far from home, and I think this new Reputation calculation achieves that goal.
Far from home is 1/2 a hex away from friendlies. Any attacker will shed the attacker flag before pursuit catches him and the responders have to then take Rep losses themselves.
(edit: Ninjaed)
There's at least three ways that they can adjust risk and rewards for killing non-hostile players. They can adjust the Rep penalty itself; they can adjust the recovery rate for Rep; and they can adjust the length of flags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thirdly, those willing to PVP and take a hit, would avoid attacking groups and focus on just killing individuals. A group of even two would bring an attacking group to -7500 after one encounter.This is really important. It's easy to view the new Reputation calculation as too lax, and I'll admit I was leaning in that direction myself, but on further reflection I think it's a really good starting point.
I think we can all agree that losing several thousand Reputation for killing a group of Players is probably right. But there's probably an intuitive sense that being able to repeatedly kill solo gatherers is too easy, and doesn't have enough of a Reputation Cost. I would argue that begs the question, and in reality there shouldn't be solo gatherers in areas where bandits are active. It really needs to be dangerous to be alone far from home, and I think this new Reputation calculation achieves that goal.
As a personal opinion, I can get on board with this view. I like a sense of danger. I like a sense of banking or safely delivering something when it is possibly risky.
How long until loss of rep is linked to numbers in that way? Why would bandits run in groups that share rep hits? Why would anyone?
Esit: I am being dense in the paragraph above, except in the matter of wondering when that feature will be implemented.
In the matter of it being more risky to solo PVE or gather, I am on board also. For that to be realistic, there kinda needs to be a population. They have said that they will monitor this. Let's hope they monitor closely and act swiftly if needed. A percieved murder sim situation will drive people away faster than most game companies usually react, if they even do.
The recovery is too fast and I will not back from my position on that. Coupled with low penalties (per action), it is looking like a very bad move.
We do need to remember that these things are designed with a healthy pop of gamers in mind. They will work best in that time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How long until loss of rep is linked to numbers in that way? Why would bandits run in groups that share rep hits? Why would anyone?
I don't understand the question.
When I talked about "groups" of Players, it was not meant to suggest that the fact that one side or the other was in a Party should have any impact whatsoever on the Reputation Loss.
If 2 Bandits gang up on a solo Gatherer, they'll each lose about 650 Reputation. If 8 Bandits attack a Merchant traveling with 4 Guards (and the Guards never attack any Bandit until the Bandit's already red to them, and every Bandit hits every Guard and the Merchant), then each Bandit will lose about 3,250 Reputation (even though, practically speaking, that's a fairly unlikely scenario). That amount of Reputation Loss seems appropriate to me.
My main point was that analyzing the Reputation Loss calculation in terms of how many solo Gatherers a Bandit can kill without suffering real consequences is, in my opinion, the wrong way to analyze the situation.
The Reputation Recovery calculation is another matter entirely.