|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Lee Hammock wrote:
As we get closer to Alpha and Early Enrollment we're narrowing our focus on game design topics towards the systems that will be ready as each of those phases begins.
Lee Hammock wrote:
Also the best chance for you to get a question answered is to have several questions around a central theme.
Recap for best results.
The fact that it can change so easily somewhat forces you to travel in groups with mixed damage types and mixed defenses you attack. That way you don't run into an opponent you just happen to stack up very poorly against. Not sure if this is intentional or not by the devs, but it very much fits Ryan's "maximize human interaction" mantra.
Accessing an opponent's "level of threat" could be important before (or premeditating before) making the decision to run-away sooner than later, if need be. So noticing a particular atire or equipment and the quality of it will be partly or mainly responsible before actual combat numbers flash up?!
I really like the sound of uncertainty and how that could influence player to form groups. Thanks for the current interpretation.
I have a concern about early access game time. Is Goblinworks really making you pay for time in early enrollment? They've said that it will be fairly featureless at first and that the major goal is crowd-sourced development. $15/month for playing in an empty sandbox to help the developer is a bit steep.
If ever I've seen the perfect 'handle' + avatar.
I believe you can decide to delay spending your time and wait and choose when to join; when more features come online. There's two ways of looking at it:
1. Early: Small sociable community, invest in your characters, participate in crowdforging development direction of PFO, sandbox make your own content.
One of the things to consider for EE is that there is only subs to limit player numbers, select players and also the MTX option takes a lot of extra work that depends on a more established game. Finally EE will involve bug fixes, rollbacks and the odd randomness. But you do get the reward of playing the game early with a founder population (I personally think this final point is the most valuable aspect). But to discuss the reason for a sub for EE: Goblinworks blogs:
Begin the Beguine wrote:
While the whole game is a balancing act of juggling goblin balls,
Quality. Saving that.
At least 50% of the game/fun in the last 10% of "development" when play-testing, it seems. *gulp*
Thanks for the vlog Stephen and Lee. Different presentations always good in my book. The influence and reference to TT definitely inspires the promise of tactical combat that already exists in the TT, so I hope you guys are finding success with this approach, it seems to resonate with the players of the TT (TT games in general) here already, which is perhaps the most important group of players for PFO??
I find it hard to see the price for
- Pathfinder Online Add-On: Regional Trait Pack
Under: Step Two: Pick Your Add-Ons! ? Could be me or could be the formatting of aligning the prices or they could be missing. They're not displayed when you click on them individually either (range of sizes and regions is listed however, respectively).
Ideally 3) is indeed safe unless during a time of war with the enemy setting up a siege camp outside the settlement walls!
In stories a device used is alternation between relaxation and tension. What plot diagrams term peaks and troughs. What you're describing is the need for the troughs to be fairly regular and recognizable eg your player-run settlment and it's security-patrolled territorial perimeter.
I think players can use that part of the game to do useful things, to harvest "success" so they are in credit for their game session before venturing out for tweaking their risk-reward to more risk and more reward knowing they're padded with success (eg social, production, grapevine intel, maintenance etc). Then you're trying to profit and do some more tense activities eg squaring off with hostiles (that thrilling adventure stuff with a hint of danger) and the pay-off (gains/goods + euphoria on risky success) vs losses dampening of your endocrine system on defeat.
I know this outcome happens in actual sports: They've tested testosterone levels on winning vs losing for example and besides I've experienced both in real life, in teams. "Pumped" feeling vs "Deflated". That's kind of conjecture unless people have hooked up players and tested them! But fairly sure the collapse on warhammer servers of destros vs order was a symptom of this when one team steamrolled another in RvR constantly. The stress hormone often mentioned is cortisal especially nasty for unexpected ganking and powerlessness. Whereas stress in a combat can be in small dose quite invigorating (adrenaline) leading to that euphoria if you escape from the jaws of defeat and/or haul a big catch. There's a whole gawd-darn coctail of these things but those are the highlight ones why PvP is so polarizing flying to sublime heights of gameplay as well as falling to crude lows.
It is possible that PFO requires you to have a 4th state of mind, which is always being on your guard no matter what you do but not sure if I could play a game like that for long. But maybe I can if the game is fun enough!
Out and about a low level vigilence is good for the dangerous world atmosphere you want for adventure in these fantasy world and demands higher concentration (higher focus invested by the player) but not without a safe place to chill out and not requiring being on edge too long for too high-tension because that is unsustainable and enervating: Therefore counter-productive to promoting a fun game experience per session over the long-run.
@Marlagram: Keep it simple is the best approach. You will never convince those people against PvP in mmorpg comments: They're not early adopters, but you can get their attention on that change in the core gameloop.
@Lifedragn: It sounds well-thought out which means it's got more chance of being true and interesting. Some players will like the fact there's a core game-loop of players doing what they like as well as taking the "alternative decision" of pvp if that is what they want in games (interesting decisions).
There's links to the blog and the crowdforging and crowdfunding finally for players to act on if following the above they see something they want a part of.
Thanks Nihimon, but in all honestly, blind chance!
I really like the description of the core loop both as an alternative to quest-loops and as an actual concept of what gameplay will be like in EE.
Here's that loop description:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Lead-in: One for the art and graphics team: I was most of all impressed by the larger scale showcased in the latest WIP video, notably the castle/keep, the multi-storied buildings and the height map in the background shows some promising topography. However the trees currently look like a young growth forest:-
Q: Will forests appear suitably large with large trees in proportion to avatars with continued work and development?
MVP and EO blog is a good refresher as to what is soon to come, and I recommend it as it is applicable to Lee's question above.
Tsh! There's some really good questions, but a quick reminder, the devs are likely answering ALPHA + EARLY ENROLLMENT feature set questions for the MPV: See Giorgo's link to the relevant blog post and forum discussion, for questions have a good chance of being countenanced by the devs.
Scouting back over: "Time is the Fire in which We Burn" and, "Over the Hill and Far Away",
Before anyone panics, the total size of the game is not changing; if anything it may get bigger, since there are now a lot more hexes. Currently our hex-size experiments are falling into the range of 400 to 1000 meters across per new, smaller hex.
Will distance still be a meaningful economic measure in EE with a smaller map? Have you tested the above hex sizes for travel times?
In fact, we expect that characters will use a variety of mounts to move about the game world, many of which will move faster than a walking character. The variables involved are complex enough that trying to describe them in this context is not going to add much value. Even on a fast mount, the time required to move from point to point within the game world will still be fairly significant.
Of course, you won't always move at the fastest possible rate. Tracking, searching, and other such activities will slow you down. And while some conveyances will allow you to move a lot of stuff at one time, the draft animals that pull them generally move at less than walking speed. Terrain conditions will also affect your speed—slogging through a muddy marsh is going to take longer than traversing a good road.
What other types of movement speed/method will be possible in EE?
This has been a topic of much interest on the messageboards, and this is a good place to address it.
Fast travel is a mechanism that allows a character to move from place to place in the game world faster than it would take to walk. Typically, fast travel in MMOs is "hands free," meaning players don't have to interact with the game while their character is traveling.
Will Fast Travel be one of them?
Rationale for questions: Distance and the size of the map imparts both economic significance (as well as risk factors) and worldly immersion in a large outlandish world (large and impressive) I think is aided by impressively large game worlds.
Tbh we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
@Nevy: I guess the idea is that consumables might be more attractive the MTX floating/migration crowd who are dislocated from a major player group affiliation and want to some quick consumables (eg oiling swords and whatnot) to carry on having a bash below the sub fee line and paying a small mark-up on what would be available in player-run settlements, accessible to members.
We need to avoid painting all players with the same brush with the same needs and circumstances if there's a constant high turn-over of trialling players around NPC starter areas that might feed the player-driven part of the game or otherwise, that informs the business model and pricing and game design. Maybe it should be called "variegated pricing".
Being greedy I embedded the latter in the former. Rumbled.
I've only ever touched app cash-shops and they've invariably been terrible on mobile giving F2P not a bad name but a toxic name. Since then I've lost a tiny amount of cash experimenting with them and that led to my conclusion that buying stuff in a game is not as fun as doing stuff in a game.
Buying new units for a TBC combat makes sense where they are all balanced ala LoL, however. Those devs can have my cash if I want more units and options. :)
Thanks Nihimon, it looks like I "jumped the boat" a bit too soon when noticing Pathfinder Online will include a cash shop - I was just quite surprised. It seems like Goblinworks has given this a lot of thought and though a part of me still remains wary my outlook has gained a sense of optimism. I apologize if I came off like a jerk in my replies but poorly implemented cash shops have completely ruined my game experiences in the past; I'm jaded.
No not a jerk. just a bit 'knave-y'. ;) Which cash shops are in your Top 5 bad practices of interest?
Skymetal = meteorite-origin in suitable language: I like that name.
Maybe because Golarion is a metaphysical world as well as a physical one with deities, as per the Romans and Greeks, "Goddess of Wisdom (and learning?) Athena points equivalent to skill-training in PFO if I understand PLEX-equivalent/skill-training time correctly?
Alternatively "Pathfinder" : Choose which path --> Pathfinder points?
Xeen's got a point about cash shop precedent from benign to malignant.
But it seems F2P or more accurately MTX (cos it's Free To Try) is more conducive to pricing for mmorpgs.
I sort of think if community then membership fee but realized there's a huge space below that to price curve upwards to membership.
@Nevy: Proly need to read up Kickstarter Community Tread: Subscriptions and Microtransactions
Keep opening this thread, hoping to find someone discussing Bartle
Possibly his ideas somewhat intersect with: Koster's: The Ready Player One MMO was Metaplace
The idea of a persistent identity across worlds but different avatar incarnation is interesting.
Curious how successful EQ-Landmark will be if they use Landmark as the generic tool/system for for EQN and another IP (zombie?) Smed mentioned was also in the works. So looks like that with their SOE sub across mmorpgs (apart from the 4 recently axed) are angling in that direction.
It contrasts with PFO's approach. Yet PFO seems to be doing some of the things Bartle would be a proponent of I guess. I think PFO has the chance to grow depth.
In some fantasy IP's the local currency has an official name, but a local slang name is often invoked according to the "Imperial System" of denominations eg Shillings, Tuppence - so translating that you'd get an equivalent of Goblins, Crowns (as per the symbol on the type of coin) a bit like how Pub signs were intended to be recognizable pictures for the name of the Pub, for a largely illiterate population.
Ok, I had a little ponder (Tuffon brought this up elsewhere too).
Came to the natural conclusion the best result for languages in game is when a game itself spawns it's own language as part of the game's culture.
For example, EVE has dozens of such of it's own vocabulary: "Podding, Isk'er, Ratting".
I think PFO has already begun this process with "Goblinballs". It's really sunk into the local lingo here on the forums delightfully so for us amateur linguists. A good sign.
So yup, that's my conclusion tbh. Different speakers of languages will likely gravitate towards each other as well (French, Greek etc).
The alternative is that Settlement's themselves have a Language Index, that requires members to skill-train the Official Language as a group-membership investment with some sort of benefit to sharing Official Language vs not for members? So put it at the Settlement level. Over time a Settlment develop's it's own dialect of an official language meaning divergence and differentiation and boon to "inclusiveness" of some suitable measure of some sort but of course fewer of the game's population know the dialect as a skill-trained, hence recruitment adds that burden.
Hello Tolath and a warm welcome to the forums with good questions like that.
You may find the "Nihimonicon" useful (as we call it) for unofficial faqs, links, quotes and guild links etc.
I think your character can buy a ton of skill-training time in advance but can only be skill-training one thing at a time: So rate is always constant for all characters for all skills all the real time. The character would then need to fulfill achievements and the like as well as the time-ticker for skill-training being activated.
@Avenaoats Without buying XP, either through a sub or a MTX, your character will not skill up. At least that is what I understand. So no matter what or when or how, if you want your character to progress, you will need to spend dollars(or ingame gold, which means having a character that can earn that). I do not see much real use for a character that will never buy xp. I probably misunderstood your post though so disregard if I did.
Tbh I was getting carried away on a wave of transitions of MTX players from tutorial upwards. Just a thought experiment.
Pretty much, to progress as you describe. But to transition players via pricing options and what value per option, the wider access to social and economic options have value and pricing them even just a tiny bit higher MTX even if not intended to generate profit in theory could symbolize paying for wider access to the game (interactions such as major groups or trading options). Could even be some custom of the River Lands that wastrels convert into "show a scrap of paper with a ink seal on it" suggesting they come to the RiverK's with a "note of recommendation" that is required etc etc. :)
On a related note, you want players to pay and play for their entertainment not pay to not play! Leveling devalues WoW. ~ by Simon Ludgate
@Avena. Little to no initial economy in my belief. Part of this EE and the slow build is so that we have time to build and establish the economy, to determine prices, goods, and market values.
That's all true, but a sort of simulated basic economy is the initial plan described:
PvE (in) = mobs, chests, nodes [coin, materials]
If they have details, that is a substantial picture of what EE will look like I guess and what sort of pathfindery skills and materials we'll be experiencing.
I think PFO is only going to be subscription-based for Early Enrollment:
Because the game design will be evolving during Early Access Beta, we don't feel it is appropriate to monetize through micro-transactions. We will require anyone participating in Beta to be a subscriber. After Release, we plan to roll out a hybrid microtransaction/subscription model. It will be easier to tune that model and make sure it works for all players then.
This is good for a combination of reasons. It means we don't have to worry straight away about the F2P wave.
I suspect, by the time F2P is ready or more accurately "MTX" (Micro-Transactions pricing alongside a "sub + benefits" option), Goblinworks will have been able to work it into the game appropriately and selectively; tutorial option before the NPC starter towns will have more theme-park content, the NPE (New Player Experience) will be more fleshed out to feed into the theme-park content nice and dandy if some players want to test/taste the game via MTX.
By then player-run settlements will be as content rich and more dynamic for player then wanting to experience more of the game - which will require a social transition/commitment. And players will be forming their own methods of recruitment in NPC towns to integrate already there for again by-passing for players straight into the thick of it.
So it's all about successive transitions that allow players flexibility and which blurs the world from tutorial, new player experience, themepark friendly islands and the deep blue sea beyond - where the sharks and krakens lurk (lol).
Speculative Option for MTX differentiation:
Perhaps a month or so after joining a CC or settlement a different form of MTX pops up that due to the above status, excludes the former MTX-newb option and requires a "access-to-trade" MTX or "access-to-membership-MTX" where the influence of the MTX player on the game economy and on other players increases requires a larger minimum MTX commitment per pop?
ie keeping player's time feeding some value into the economy, settlement and/or member player's combined resources, as well as the presence of that player providing value to others by interactions? Possibly Goblinballs will be a nice sweetener provided by settlements for such transition players to join their settlements to pay the first few transition payments to a larger mimimum MTX category?! Atm MTX provides access to skill-training. But you could form categories for group-membership on a more permanent basis and economic rights and even settlement skill-training buildings access over a certain level. It could be lumped together as per "slaves earning citizenship" via service but as paying the higher level as Citizenship access option?
I've said it before and/or elsewhere, but I'd much prefere the representation of Mounts to be such as the use of cars and horses as used historically and in modern times:
1) Mainly used to make long journeys
This is all describing transport mounts. Later there could be other varieties such as hauling, Cavalry etc.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Tbh, I read it the same way, Nihimon but figured you meant some other connection.
There was another story previously about spooks infiltrating mmos/online games communities additionally - I think more in connection towards hacktivist communities however anonymous etc.
Cialdini is mentioned: Worth a flick-through before going out to do some shopping.
Might as well profit from such information, personally.
I suspect the spooks are far from the only ones doing this... "Every body does it in America!" to quote Jamie-Lee Curtis in the film, "A Fish Called Wanda". :D What I mean, commercially, various forums for various groups, particular news and media (?) etc. Probably a bit more organized coming from a well-funded and staffed outfit however. Then there's just a helluva lot of irrationality out there, to mix in.
Brass in Pocket wrote:
This was blog written on Wednesday, February 5, 2014. So not far off.
What skills should I train if I intend for my character to train Druid skills or other skills not available immediately but want to start day 1 no matter, what: Just choose what is fun or skill-train one of the four starter roles that is mapped already onto other roles, if that is the case? And what non-combat skills will be trainable in EE?
Edit: limit to game design questions.
One of the ideas that was brought up a while ago now was this for the transition between themepark and sandbox, players:
You will die - a lot.
I wonder if there is a way to "inoculate" players for this experience in way that makes it rub off as positive/working as intended?
Could a clever gimmick such as starting the game (once and only) as a Goblin with the mission to go find and attack and be killed by players with suitably cute/amusing goblin deceased routine?
If nothing else it's a talking point (& perspective shift).
1: How will this work if 50 people have to all do it in series or in parallel?
A: Works as part of the introduction program, all low power and cannon fodder and provide "content for players". Fun, and if in parallel then a minor horde of new Goblins sends out a positive message to the game of these crazy creatures which could take down a single player!
2: How would a smart player who wanted to abuse this rule exploit it to cause someone else pain?
A: As above if enough Goblins then could take down a player but short-duration and chaotic mobs seems like it would be limited and positive net?
3: What kind of behavior would naturally emerge in a world where your rule was implemented - what's the effect of your cause?
A: Intended result: New players experience PvP in a fun way that perhaps sets expectations for being attacked and attacking as well as memorable experience in PFO first time.
1: Should result in a system, not a one-time action. Remember that we need things characters can do thousands of times, and by tens of thousands of characters in parallel.
Yup scales up for intro as a mini-quest (turned into a Goblin as part of intro).
2: Should create meaningful human interaction. Something you do that nobody else ever knows about isn't helpful.
Players know some Goblins are new players learning the pvp ropes. Win/loss on either side should be positive.
3: Should involve group action. An easy way to ensure #2, and leads to interesting potential connections to large game systems like economy, warfare or hex development.
Could be gangs of newbies let loose as Goblins?
4: Should be classifiable as exploration, development, domination or adventure content.
Introduction -> exploration of the game world, pvp system and more.
5: The wider the set of characters that can use the idea the broader support for that idea will be. You're asking people to make either/or tradeoffs, so you need to consider who would vote for a feature for you that meant some feature for them would not happen.
Open to vote: If it's too gimmicky not appropriate for intro then another better pvp intro could be thought up.
Apologies if that sounds like my fav hobby-horse again, I'm being entirely sincere it was a thought that might have "pulling-power" and help solve a concern/problem for new players.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Question for GW: What subjects are there for us to talk about that coincide with what you're focusing on but might change between now and Q3?
Probably a lead from GW as above and forums possibly. If we are still brainstorming then to focus that:
On Crowdforging I dug up a few posts that Ryan's indicated structure/criteria we could make use of (and file away somewhere: (Nihimonicon):
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
1. Trajectory of progress by the art team from the kickstarter demo to the Q3 video to this the Q4 video is orders of improvement and detail: It's great. I've banged on a bit about the UI but it seems to grow on me so far.
It's all stirling work.
Good eg of what Bartle talks about. :)
I think a good counter that pays back in the long term is good community.
It's a common enough question on mmorpg forums, where to find the best community. I'm surprised Bartle did not mention it in fact: The social value of the mmorpg: I suppose indirectly by mentioning Griefers. But the opposite is true: By how social the game is it's better for retention.
That's a great idea Urman. Definitely. I hope we do see some named characters with great lore that Paizo can muster for lower-level NPC's is fine - bonus if some names are randomly generated.
It would be sensational to see an iconic make confetti of some army in a battle one day in the life of the River Kingdoms... The day a legend walked into town, the chroniclers will get their quills busy with.
That was a big tangent. Depth as per Bartle, I think if EE can attract sufficient players, then the feedback + adding systems could be a good way to achieve this: I suspect the depth takes time to develop is maybe why we don't see it (bar eve) in most 3d mmorpgs?
Exactly, the best A-lister characters, to do them justice to their own laws of their lore (!), need to be used sparingly and at point of most impact imho. But they're used because they're popular in roles unsuitable: I'd want them to appear only if they effect change to the story significantly or to the player significantly.
I'm saying if PFO has some Notables the only way I can see them being used in a way that does them justice is if a Dev drives one and is part of some big war for a period of time as an aid to some cause. But there's the danger the whole "world" would be "wow!" and charge in to see... because I think then such a character would be "one of a kind" experience worth of being a part of the story.
End result: Otherwise they're always going to be a disappointment: A bit like how people usually remark about meeting a famous actor in real-life: "I thought they'd be taller." ;)
The common trope in movies is saving the world/universe: You're never going to top that if you want to do a sequel for a super-hero movie: They really need to do: "A life in the day of..." Dredd did that quite well actually.
Each to their own. I'd feel more comfortable with enemy info at bottom of screen with my skill-bar. I can easily flick my eyes between the center and bottom of the screen fairly easily.
I just think the UI hovering the middle spoils the view of the drama. Not going to argue which works more functionally for combat middle or other: I don't know yet.
1. Use A-listers to liberally populate the world.2. Make players feel like gods
All for a narrative that is an excuse to run the core game of quests etc.
Unfortunately if you give players the freedom to write their story, then you can't have A-listers who's story you can't change. I think they're incompatible?
You know if PFO have some Notable NPC's, then get a dev to run the NPC in character to drive some sort of change to the map. You get the problem mentioned before such as crowds swarming to see such an uber being bringing down the server was a problem highlighted!!
It kills the image of the character and makes the developers look like they don't respect their IP, or the characters we players care about.
I think players would like options to be ordinary adventurers who the player can write their own story on eg become a farmer, pirate, lord, second-hand item repairer/seller etc - not "The One" just like everyone else.