|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Been v busy.
But probably have a secret addiction to fifa on the iOS. Manage short games but strive for perfection each time!
There's some vs/multiplayer/coop type games I want to grab shortly eg towerfall, nidhogg, gang beasts etc. These sort of local party games are very rewarding if enough people are around. Hopefully for xmas!
What is your opinion of the game so far? Where will it go from here? [A thread dedicated to give each person their opinion]
Alpha is usually like this tbh. The only difference is you often hear the alpha/beta testers saying "I told the devs not to release and first fix xyz 6 months ago..." 6 months after release the community is complaining that the devs didn't finish the game!
I think the whining in mmorpgs is possibly the worst thing, albeit constructive criticism could be the best thing. I guess if we get the game through the next proverbial 6 months things will start to look much more interesting for the future if the settlement dynamics can start working and we see player groups really able to influence the game?
One idea I think for declaring war would be that part of the system be game code system based (let it be data-driven as intended) but combined with another type of authentication for a caius bellus, put a case to the "gods of Golarion" the Devs who assign a committee to qualitatively provide the conditions of the just war or even just the go ahead/greenlight.
Combining two different systems like this imho could be quite fun. If the Gods have their "inscrutable guidelines" (may include rolling a dice as well as written rules and voting between themselves Lol, Clash of the Titans and more - we the players don't get to know!).
This may seem a bit mad but it could also comprise an adminstrative body over the most momentus political act possible in PFO and be beyond gaming the system too? And of course "A Just War" is one shade of many types of war?
It just seems like the natural direction to go with? Why not make the PvE narrative and some parts of the PvP narrative an echo of the laughter ye gods!!
One of the big ideas of a sandbox is interaction eg political shenanigans of a large player-driven scale and/or autonomy of action eg cooking or fishing the piquant scene of the lone adventurer or small party, one of whom is strumming a note on a flute or stringed-instrument, another is brewing some filter-coffee on the small fire, another is appling a wetstone to a sword, another is butchering some game caught reading for the evening meal.
Must admit I posted what appeals to me: Concept of PFO design.
Perhaps too abstract.
Alternatively more gameplay-centric exposition:-
Ideally such a trailer would show the political emergence of the map and illustrate it with historic conflicts or trade treaty agreements between different groups:
This would provide a sort of soap-opera narrative to destruction (war and conflict) vs (construction (settlement expansion and more options for players to take on roles) as well as a history of this world and it's denizens.
The only catch is you need some live gameplay for this ie this is "in-game footage and in-game events". It's more compelling than this is random gameplay of nameless players_x. There's real characters who if you meet them or see them you know their hand in how things have come to be.
It would I think compensate for the lower polish ie the emphasis on PFO is this growth of interactions and reactions - less to do with shiny graphics and flashy combat moves.
Perhaps my idea is too strictly based on concept:-
Start with Map geographical -> Then add hexes displaying key information per Hex
Then show a Settlement Hex -> The building diversity in THAT "unique" settlement
Then show it's inhabitants -> Their skill training and division of labour and organization ideally their crests and colors...
...Then pan all the way back out of that fractal and speed-up into another part of the fractal with another group of players and then show the diversity of settlements and somehow how each group has changed things:-
You could have Groups here added these ideas and/or feedback improvement
All these added, this character added etc?
Or separate presentation using the World->Hex->Settlement->Building->Character->Skills and add the name(s) the peeps who added changed/improved different componenets of this at different scales each making a contributory difference?
Would be good to get GW team in there somewhere too ie 2-Way-Street = Crowdforging.
It's really good to hear more on the technical side. I remember when Unity was announced (Dec 2yrs ago?) I immediately feared this was a huge set-back due to not getting Big World and given most of the risk of this project is right at the beginning.
Business Model, Technical Architecture, Community Structure, Game Design all seem to interact and be based off each other.
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
It's additional to not exclusive to. And of course it purports to show that the devs care that the players care how hard they've been working. I think that's the gist of this ie communication and that is worthwhile.
Of course I'd expect GW to do the things you suggest (screencasts/vids/inside the devs world) etc etc.
I'd hope there would be a lot of lore dished out to begin with to get players "in the mood" also. Ie more on the river kingdoms and how the world of Golarion is supposed to work.
Ideally there'd be some tech info on the game too in the infograph. gives it more than "fluffy numbers" imo ie balances it.
Also the hex map size ideally would include a total size of map comparison with RL that people can relate to?
What is your opinion of the game so far? Where will it go from here? [A thread dedicated to give each person their opinion]
Fail early ain't such a bad thing.
The major issue is:-
1. Things have to work correctly.
2. Things have to be fun to the players
Atm, the bugs and stuff sound like it does not work correctly. This is not adequate to charge for.
Next, it has to be fun for the players as well (being not just software application to use, but to use AND have fun using.
And here I think is one direction to increase this second problem solution:-
While it was built into the mechanics and planned for the future, the game's initial game-play was largely exploration, PvE and trade (mining.) Make those three things compelling in PFO Early Enrollement, and a large group of Golarion fans will take up residence just to explore and live in the world.
1/ Exploration: I envisage a large wilderness that I want to safari in. Now this is beyond safari, I want to roguelike my way around this world. One way to do this is for characters to have to SURVIVE in the outback. bring survival supplies and food etc if away from town and train to skill up in hunting etc. This to differentiate explorers from other types. This changes the psychological size of the map from the geographical size of the map.
2/ Idk about PvE I guess this is the nodes and resource acquisition where it should be dangerous either other players or surviving.
3/ Trade: It should be beasts of burden to carry stuff of size/weight significant distances from different settlements.
I think to me that is what I would enjoy as per those space games where you spend time exploring and a run back to settlement is a major achievement itself and all about logistics and organization. Effectively that is aping space-trading sims? This should be the early wilderness Frontier phase or part of the map of the game. The Development Settlment Cosmopolitan part should be later with thieves and other social roles active there.
T7V Avari wrote:
They're relaunching a ks soon on a modest goal. Probably worth a punt again imho: Great design concept. Of which I believe: PFO, SC, Shards that I've seen.
Neadenil Edam wrote:
Then and again, maybe don't imagine Italians at all, perhaps something closer to some of the Dravidian dances of Southern India... /wipes brow
I guess that may be true to try to make them look more alien? But atst in humans more white means more reading of emotions iirc I read somewhere (all a dangerous thing!)? So if I was building Elves I'd increase the whites, but just to be commenting on the design, not dictating. I suppose both would have a desired differentiation effect depending on which is deemed more necessary for them.
I've always pictured elves as more slender than humans, so the female elf hips and thighs being bigger than a humans causes me a bit of trouble.
I tend to conceptualize "elves" as more "expressive" than humans based on a variety of reasons and in particular their form -> function from being slender and communicating with many subtleties and greater emotional depth.
This takes the form of being more slender and longer limbed in connection to communicating a wider visual display via posture and poise of pose and gesture along with a more musical (Farsi?!) language to go with a more wider range of facial expressions and larger eyes proportionately (more whites (that bit whatever it's name is) in the eye) such a Natasha McElhone's wonderfully large and expressive eyes: Like deep, still pools. If you think of Italians they are highly gesticulating humans for example, but imagine Italians who are several hundred years old but maybe look a healthy 50 gesticulating and slender (some animals communicate via pose much more; dolphins use this a lot too to vary their grammar of clicks iirc).
You compare to dwarves who are at the other extreme!
Being is right. "He is being right" /Indian Accent. :-)
Exploration I don't anticipate being very good to begin with.
The world map for example is very gamey and not very inspiring atm.
I think in time we'll see eg more dynamic escalations, more node spawns, more dynamic day-night, seasons, weather cycles to mix things up etc. More skill-training eg survival, larger terrains and longer distances that involve "jump fatigue" etc.
So atm, it's probably more geared towards socialization ie settlements becoming really uber so influential players who effect other players to play more have more "pull" on the game = more cash for GW.
When the Bartle Test hits the GNS Theory... what happens? BOOM!
Yeah I was hoping the Map would be more interesting over time via Hex info being dynamic. I also hope more organic looking and less gameified looking at some stage.
But the real exploration bug I'd hope would be significant distances between settlement hexes and requiring beasts of burden to transport anything bulky and/or heavy.
I've not got into the game yet. Wait for EE and various other RL stuff to sort out, but I like the idea of Wilderness being dangerous and being a long journey to undertake eg crossing the Rockies with either Birchbark Canoe or Pack-animal back in the day sort of REAL exploration. :)
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Yup, they should have that covered with the Month 2 purchase option and just add another month per new crop.
But I would hazard guessing the Month 1 and others who bought into EE since Kickstarter are potentially some of GW most lucrative players if they decide to hang about from month 1? A lot of these are players who "bought into the idea/vision". I'd guess they have patience/tolerance but even that has limits!
Reminds me of Mr. Bean's attempts to "restore a minor smudge"
To square things up more tidily:
One of the major reasons for MVP is to reach cash-flow sooner and therefore reduce dev risk.
But that does mean MVP (and day one First Impressions Count (press etc and players) needs to be worthwile players spending their XP as a by-product of being entertained.
Fail those and the MVP concept fails. I think the eg of LiF is actually quite helpful. Get an MVP that plays and looks fun and you can score >100,000 purchases iirc; albeit PFO's only looking for 10,000 in the 1st 90 days more or less.
And of course let's look on th flip-side/inverse: It will be blue murder field day for the gaming press if they see a chance to write attention-grabbing headlines:-
"PFO GW Devs charge a pint of blood, a steak of panda for players to play unplayable buggy spaghetti code of a road-kill "game"!!!"
An MVP small and successful launch ain't gonna get a great deal of press in comparison.
I think we can make an exception however for EE day 1, Nihimon?
It GW are able to provide a MVP and "1st impressions" that allows players to eg:-
* Form up and organize in their groups
Then you're going to start with the basic system that says there's a game here that's basic but fun and is going to grow. No doubt there WILL BE server crashes and other bugs during the above, but the above done so that players game time is harvesting PRODUCTIVELY (ie goals and fun and social) irrespective of various issues, then we're off to a flier.
I think under those conditions bugs and set-backs will have a lot more players' good will on credit to see them navigate those rocky shores when more bugs and additions occur later?
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
I think if PFO is based around tab-target then it's never going to look really exciting combat. Hence it has to appeal via really stylized animations that give the impression of an RPG action being executed to gratify the tactical "dance of combat" going on and the fun appearing to be the interesting decisions and skill choices the character can choose from and choose to use to react intelligently with.
If the combat animations don't even sync then it's just not going to look very fun in this area of the game? In fact you'll get "student project" thrown around at it instead of "Role-Player's will like this".
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
A hold would reduce the chances they'd break the Mike.
And the Mark? Say them both quick enough and it sounds like Marmite. "Don't Break the Marmite".
We have set an internal objective of being able to handle 2,000 simultaneous connections, and 100 characters active in a single Hex as our minimum threshold for server performance. This reflects our expected peak concurrent activity for the first 10,000 players in game - roughly what we anticipate during the first 90 days of Early Enrollment activity. Currently the server does not reliably meet that benchmark.
Like the numbers. Awesome task!
You're right that devs/players don't seem to learn how to learn from the competition and thus create a product that has a competitive edge in the next wave of releases...
... but I believe Ryan has described the vision built off that learning for PFO and think if it can get some fundamentals in place that make it a passably enjoyable game even in a primitive state to the above, it can grow lucratively.
So you see I think the whole GW Blog (>90 of them) for example is a part of that. What remains is the success of the system that is being used to convert vision into a positive cycle. This is the MVP concept. And where Ryan seems accurate is in the virtual economic market driving the game's growth + Avatars. The problem seems that with Avatars comes a higher threshold of quality of the avatar and the environments....
Which atm that does not appear to be working to a high enough level, let alone the economy - and that's the subject of this thread. I think LiF throws it into stark relief being on Steam in early access state and being popular albeit with different problems and approaches?
I do wonder how much of the reason is due to BigWorld vs Unity ie the networking work required would appear to be the major technical challenge to PFO to scale with a few 00's of players combating and congregating and that obviously feeding the economy and scaling the whole gawd-dang shebang!
Just one final word.
There's been some really interesting player initiatives in PFO already to mention:-
* The Nihimonicon
So anyway, just to say thanks to all for these. And may my own initiative strive to such heights also or fall off a high cliff in the attempt!
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
Yeah, from the sidelines, this is my impression. I would love to wax lyrical about PFO; not hype but describe the full vision of PFO (which is really where it seems a lot different to other mmos to me), but atm it's not possible from the reports of alpha I have heard.
And here's the bit that's missing: When the vision has a disconnect with people that's where "the creative tension" should be able to pop in and suggest how it's going to come good and "show people a new way of enjoying mmorpgs". Eg some of the pvp concepts with roles and social measures really come good on that.
But atm, it's not possible to talk it up if the basics which the above build on are in "no fit state". Without that sort of impression, the vision is more discouragement than creative tension.
So if that is the case, how does the current state fit within the larger system that leads it closer to the more final vision? Again that's something that feels like it's "Not going to happen" when the basics are scrappy.
Ie the basic MVP needs to be a system that itself works then you think the vision is being translated into the mmorpg systems that are added gradually during EE, what new cool feature is next?!
That to me is what sounds like it's missing and where LiF has it right for a MVP to back up that pov.
I personally hope the blend of PvE + PvP (faucets + sinks) and the intermingling of them works well.
But to separate PvE for dissection and use PFO's "vocabulary":-
A. Dungeons such as:-
i. Torchbearer pressure
Eg nav and map of huge world and logistics.
Great topic Lord Deacon.
If I remember the discussions concerning how Anet was going to work on the Ranger's Pet System in their game for GW2, the break-down of the conundrum was:-
1. Ranger needs to be viable without Pet
Pet depends on AI. This leads to:-
1. Ranger without Pet is under-powered
IE the balance is incredibly challenging.
One solution is as per Druid Wild-Shape the player avatar just turns into an actual "pet" and hence it's a version that can then be balanced in combat. I think this will be easier in combat.
For Rangers, I guess in pathfinder TT the pet is part of the combat engine of the class.
I'd suggest two routes therefore:-
1. Combat Pets
1. Combat Pets:-
A. They can switch the player to being AI and the Pet being the player being directly controlled and vica-versa to help "balance" the AI during combat via context?
B. The Pet is the usual AI companion with all the conundrums that entails and requirements from players to make their own macro-commands. This is very challenging.
C. Another player can take the option to assume being the pet and play with the Ranger if the ranger can get a friend to agree to this?
Personally C. really appeals as co-op role to choose "meaningful human interaction".
2. Role-based Pets:-
Here combat is de-emphasized and pets are trained to perform functions such as horses for riding, oxen for bearing vehicles, dragons for settlement wars and so on. Here the Pet is function of some task.
Ok, there's little point in writing more as we're not really talking about the same things. In fact it's counter-product for my entire approach to continue this conversation so I'll write this and drop this thread from now on. The work is moving to the blueprint and those who it's intended for.
T7V Avari wrote:
My issue with it is pretty much just being sick and tired of Vampire and Werewolf fans trying to ram them in everywhere.
There's nothing I can do here, this is normal that others have their own preferences as well as aversions and of course believe some things have been "thrashed to death", of course.
I've never been a werewolf fan and would normally play a LG persona to reflect myself, for example. Werewolves however fulfil the market criteria and that very much is something the project is angling at intentionally and very seriously.
T7V Avari wrote:
Golarion really isn't one of them. As a matter of fact, the advanced races Pathfinder source book tells you specifically which are the marginal races we should be thinking about.
As I said above, our project picks any race, any alignment, any etc... . Secondly to me Golarion is a big sandbox: And again this is precisely what this project is attempting to work with. Werewolves just happen to fit a number of connected and necessary conditions.
T7V Avari wrote:
There is a furry race, they are the fox like Kitsune. There is a half vampire race, they are the dhampir. Both races are balanced against the other races and do not behave in these "impervious during the moonlight" or "absurd stat increase during monnlight" ways.
Both of those sound interesting but I know little of them. But again this project is not dealing in any of the assumptions above such as the mechanical one you offer nor is it working with specific races once again.
T7V Avari wrote:
Looking for these types of "special treatment" game play systems instead of going with the Pathfinder appropriate balanced races reeks of well, special treatment syndrome, I guess.
I think there's nothing wrong with "special treatment" especially when we'll be treating ourselves: That's the whole point of these secondary worlds to paint a vision into life. Neither are will we be assuming GW would deliver such "favors" too.
T7V Avari wrote:
The entire thread is full of really "special and cool" stuff that would cause 90% of the population to go werewolf.
It sounds like that on the outside I suppose. In actuality it's a hardship. The population question is also carefully worked out but I'm not revealing that before it's time - which is probably activity in the game world and seeing how things pan out before moving here.
T7V Avari wrote:
The only werewolf rules I'd like to see would be where being a werewolf SUCKS. It's a curse the PC would want to get rid of as soon as possible. Like heinous flag + crappy alpha dog stats.
All in good time and all part of a piece. The player-base itself can provide these sorts of "negatives" ideas is actually my own preference. Again we're still talking about different things hence this is my polite response to you for providing some useful (and good fun) inputs. :)
@Sadurian: Part of the idea is fun gameplay as well as broadcasting specific appeal (furries) and most important of all demonstrating what is possible when players collaborate to solve problems - something that could separate PFO entirely. +1.
I hope to invite interested people who are sincere and use this as a basis to serve the player community. This is the idea behind the Cooperative.
>"I'm just in the boat that this is not something I want to see for PFO, ever."
Without an explanation for to form a basis for reasoning, I can only assume this sentiment is a product of the aberration of discussing something such as this when the actual game has not even left alpha? I'm well aware of that impact and probably need to let this thread fall back down, but in fact discussing here has been useful, inputting some of the ideas raised and objections to feed into the blueprint and stimulating looking things up. :)
The alternative is that you have a conception of PFO where werewolves don't fit or work in the lore? Yet I can't puzzle how this would be concluded, as I've provided plenty of reference material above that PFO is a big sandbox involving galactic travelling, alternative genres et al eg Ustalav not so far from The River Kingdoms. Again one of the ideas of PFO is crowdforging, and that means different players will want to emphasize different things. And again the plan here is to factor that in; such as your response. The only bit I find puzzling is the use of the word "ever". Never say never.
When you say, other races take precedence, I don't disagree, because WW concept is not a race and won't be implemented at all like one. This provides a different path and hence different approach.
But also, I find the position odd, because we're talking about a game with the potential to raise 20-80k players in the next few years and of that large number a fraction want to develop a WW feature to the game. I would hope of those numbers if PFO is successful that other fractions of the player base want to specify their support for other things and hence I think your objection is based around the unusual visibility of this thread more than anything else?
Perhaps you wish to express a challenge to the concept or indirectly suggest it's not going to work or that it would take such a long time to make it work and factor in popularity and dev consent to work that it's never going to work? I realize these are challenges, and think there's a way to slip around around them - that's why I've put the energy into this. I want to take the principles discussed in the PFO design blogs and make it happen via the player-base. The WW keystone around which this is built is just the vehicle: Again something people seem not to realize a symbol is insubstantial or mistake an attempt to bring other ideas from other IP's into PFO as their pet favorite? Again that's just secondary: I have no particular favoritism of werewolves: They have the virtue of imo working in a way that introduces "meaningful human interactions," that appears to be more do-able via player collaboration and motivation that relies much less on dev-driven considerations ie demand-supply in providing content. To cut down the verbiage (!) I think players can have a real go here.
Anyway I will drop it at this point. My focus is on those who see this idea as another option that one of the players of this game has taken the time to try to provide some sort of starting basis to and see where "the adventure" takes us; not on those who have other "adventures" in mind.
@Andius the Afflicted
>"For me, PFO has dropped from my list of serious into titles like Wurm, Darkfall, Mortal, Xsyon etc. that contain many ideas both good and bad to learn from but will never be going anywhere significant"
That would appear true atm. But PFO I think is unique in the design intention to scale up. It's probably why it does look so crude and work so crude atm, given that ambition on how the design has to spread so thin in these early days, whereas for example LiF has the luxury of producing quality with 64 (?) peeps per instance and then work on quality systems for that ie polished graphics, cool formation stuff, nice detailed crafting stations and a feeling of high interaction with the world and freedom to develop towns that look really evocative.
If PFO manages to get through Year 1, then I think it's scale could start looking awesome. That's my belief in where it's going.
Coming back to WW, FP perspective as a slavering beast would be immersive, but I think even with the over-the-shoulder camera and a pack of were-wolves can still achieve a lot of immersion as a hunting pack at night. :)
I can see implementing dungeons opening a huge new type of gameplay; and attracting a dungeoneering sort of player. So does not surprise me that it would be at least Year 1 out what with everything else. I like the idea going into a dungeon is as much a Survival Trip (navigate, rations, skill in unlocking traps and making 50-50 decisions in the blink of an eye for the party, as well as Combat of course.
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
I have doubts this game will last to see the release of druids so probably. I still think it's an interesting exersize to discuss how werewolves could be implemented in this or any other MMO.
I didn't spot this. Yeah it's not merely "idle chat"; I considered that this project risks the possibility of not reaching fruition before PFO were to fail to survive in the harsh mmorpg market. But as said, this idea comes "from nothing". It's source is the players of the game and the collective contribution to enhancing the game: It's fun and it's external appeal.
The thing that attracts me to the game is the game design and it's inclusion of player-driven gameplay. I believe if we can harness players into a suitable structure we can actually achieve some really rewarding game play systems into the game. This expands into discussing how to implement werewolves into mmorpgs. Of related interest another example:-
1. Anticipation of a new option/choice
I think you can learn a great deal about implementing werewolves and the approach taken here by Turbine for LOTR. Some lessons for example: Do it on the lean side; other lessons to expand more on the Role and not worry so much on the combat balance or skill-progression systems... for werewolves that is.
But yeah, coming back to the original intention: It's all about developing a player-centric model of a role in PFO that gets me excited about this initiative of which werewolves are expression of; hence our keystone.
In some of the literature this concept indeed comes up and it's very nice twist to countenance:-
(1) A Necromancer’s Grimoire: Märchen der Dæmonwulf by Alex Riggs, Joshua Zaback, Justin Holloway
(2) Complete Guide to Werewolves (OGL) PDF by Goodman Games
(3) Bite Me! Playing Lycanthropes (OGL 3.75) by Robert H Hudson Jr. with Jeff Erwin and Rich Howard
(4) Curse of the Moon (d20) by Sean K. Reynolds
And adds diversity. One of the reasons I've gone with the other way around as standard apart from "the norm" is that we'll operate 3 nights per month as per the full moon. This has a number of advantages but also practical in using the shape-change as imperative (ie not elective) in keeping with werewolf core concept; but also out of practicality: Our players will have their primary identity as functional group members who "take a holiday" for a few nights each month. That said if the concept of working the other way around is investigated we'd definitely work with it "somehow". It depends on the player if they wish (and can) spend most of their time in "wolf-form" for example then we'd develop cooperative rules for that outside the definitive 3 nights/month window.
Really this sort of diversity if we can add and realize is what such RPG games gain their magic from imo. :)
Besides, we need various functions to be funneled through people who have the ability and experience. For example, RP experienced players can help here (I have RP'd but am not very experienced) and develop the systems we plan on using (more in the Blueprint); those with a solid understanding of the skill-training system of PFO can also help there and so on.
I must admit I really like the concepts mentioned so far (Andius, Sadurian). I have a concept that I hope brings out a smile of appreciation when heard, too. :)
@T7V Avari: I like your forthrightness and fresh way of discussing so there's no problem in suggesting the time put in here is wasted and likewise others should be careful that they are not being roped into false hopes. The concept here is not a race however, which I think neatly side-steps your priority list (which seems a fair list to point out: "Oi, join the que along with the rest of us, buddy!").
What it is, is an idea that attempts to connect other concepts that are floating about and see if "from nothing" something can be created gradually over time and steadily increase. The point of "inception" will hopefully be fuzzy. :)
I've finally just finished the last section of the "Blueprint" document which I'll send to the peeps who expressed interest, soon enough. It needs tidying up in Grammar, verbosity, clarity of thinking; as well as shorter presentation on a website in sections would make it more readable with hyperlinks etc (clash between being research "building a case" vs "practical: How do we do this?". But what is already written is more a structure and if people decide there's something in it, then they can hopefully add their input to help develop it... for example:-
@Andius the Afflicted:
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
See this is one of the essential dualities:-
So effectively this is a Werewolf Story. It also requires a degree of "fascist control" because we're necessarily starting from RP roots.
However the duality is here from the Paizo/D20/OGL/Pathfinder Literature Review, that the best method in character concept creation is:-
Märchen der Dæmonwulf wrote:
"Make Your Own Character via an assortment of tools for players to choose from".
So we need to basic plan that ensures consistency but atst diversity of choice as above: I'd not be averse to any of those developments along that path for a particular pack's story and history. In fact it would be excellent. What will likely dictate it however is Time and Techniques (explained more in the Blueprint). So I really like Andius' suggestion: It has a strong vision; some of it will be possible sooner (bestial submission) and other parts much later (hybrid + weapon wielding) if at all.
1. The pack structure is already envisioned and hence what you said resonates both IC and OOC group make-ups (lol these double-meanings, eg I read werewolf trainers as werewolf "sneakers" and monthly troubles..).
2. Yeah it's any race, alignment, player-group. It's a meta-group of some sort albeit if the need arises a CC if we are allowed 3 CC's as an "AND" option.
3. Yes again, when we have our "event nights" (RP to begin with then more..) one of the code rules is "apolitical" motivation and interaction. :)
Anyway, it feels strange to be talking about a topic in this thread without sharing the ideas; so I hope that this will happen fairly soon.
It's an attempt to solve a problem. It may fail as with any attempt, but to see it through and see how far we can get; to find the right path for our paws to pad forwards along!
Encourage players to use the Pathfinder lore to enhance RP. And for the sake of the Gods, please promote RP!! PvE, PvP, a real player economy and the rest means little if the game fails to be immersive regarding RP.
Thanks for talking about this. I'm just working on this subject in my Blueprint Document for the player group I intend to formulate and "release" into PFO.
The main motivation in-game will be around the beating heart of PFO, the economic engine. It will do this via motivation concerning inputs of player time and player acquisition of wealth to then spend on progress (power) atst as the 3rd dimension that is where PFO's design could shine brightest, social progression.
With RP the motivation of experience and immersion is promoted. Often in mmorpgs this will be side-lined or limited. I think the solution is to create a "path of integration" via creative stages. I take a lot of heart from how popular Star Citizen's spaceships are and how in time PFO may be able to rustle up something similar for "ROLES" as equivalent to spaceships being sold, once a big enough population is achieved. Integrating RP with Roles I believe is the solution.
I'll send you the Blueprint too if you wish to join the Player Cooperative: The Shadow of the Beast (a lycanthrope initiative)
Right off the internet and back to work(s)!
Is Goblinworks willing to get to a better stage in another month, then not charge for the next month when into EE? Then start charging 1 month or 2 in?
That way: 1 month to get the game into playable state. Another month to get players playing and advancing but not paying. Then with those 2 months, should be about right to start charging if things go well?
Theoretical suggestion because I can't make a judgement without seeing the game or playing it.
I did think the email invite timeline looked promising however for providing some interesting gameplay when settlements start claiming and clashing over land.
Raph Koster wrote:
Out of interest:
The concept is good as you can tell. But the implementation is obviously combat only. Again the animation is good concerning running on all fours more as a wolf-hybrid BEAST. I prefer this visual representation and slant towards more "inner beast" and less humanoid-form that is seen in the picture at mmorpg.com. The behavior needs to then match it.
The Keystone of the Cooperative is the Werewolf concept which is built around THE ROLE being the focus and source to derive everything else from, not the combat machine, though as a perfect fit for PvP gameplay that will also be important for gameplay.
The way ESO has developed their Werewolf shows there's a market for them but it also highlights the limitations of their design practice and philosophy.
I want to see PFO hold the best Werewolves in all fantasy mmorpgs. Second I want this model to be a template for future player initiatives.
I played an mmo where it was released with the core gameloop and a small world in tact and it was fun. It only had a few levels and enough items but it worked. Over time it gradually expanded which was really nice.
I think that's the litmus test: That the core game loop actually works as a game and then stuff is built around it over time.
I watched Andius' video on youtube with melee and that was taken a few weeks ago, and the animations were still out of phase with the combat resolution per "round". The grass also had that sea-floor syncronized sway which again just did not feel like it was finished either.
If PFO achieves that status I'll be happy to play, but not before to be honest. I also think it's important for players to be able to coordinate around their settlements as a major gameplay driver: IE talking and coordinating with their community as "gameplay" with "goals" for the group emerging.
Hauling by beasts of burden too would be a major game system to get in as valuable/vulnerable targets but the major way for bulk materials to be transported "long-distance".
@Kelpie, oh aye, I agree with you about stepping up communication, definitely. I'm a bit disappointed with the Goblin Squad status and receiving all the new info first and so on over the last 12 months for example. I don't really feel there's been any major use of that with inside the dev's engine room type off-the-wall stuff.
But saying that, I don't expect much communication at this point in time before launch where the devs are in the trenches (probably with trenchfoot by now!). I bet the tech issues of a single shard world and pulling all the pieces together is likely 90% of any reason for lite communication?
That said the devs still Q&A on these forums so it's not nothing either and their head count is deliberately kept as low as possible. Nice things to have etc. Didn't Ryan say he's like wearing a black hat, a green base-ball cap, a jesters crown and a moose's antlers, already?! :D
I couldn't resist posting a very mild update and proffer excuses for delays (working on 4 low-paid jobs atm, doing 2 online study courses and not making much progress on any of them (!) atst as hopping about in accommodation, so I hope despite my wittering writing style my excuses are at least solid).
This project is still slinking around in the shadows... I've managed to finally get back to work on the Cooperative's Blueprint document which when finished I'll be sharing with other members of the Cooperative who I've also selected as Board of Directors members given their founding interest (which I'm hoping will prevail during these early, incipient days when PFO is still more promise than successful premise). I hope their input can then take the vision into blueprint and thence final form as the process of devolving into the community, the cooperative, takes it's first steps.
Given a rise in debate on the merits of PFO compared to other games as the implementation of the tech is still reportedly fairly raw, it's worth noting there really is a market for this game as evidenced by the periodic repetition of such threads of discussion on mmorpgs variously around the internet such as this one:-
Are there any games/communities around that actually cater to RPG style gameplay these days or should I just give up on MMO's?
The way I've conceptualized the merit of PFO's design (tech's another question) as previously in these threads:-
I think the idea here as per the above Fractal exposition is post-hoc emergence will be the full reward of the game spread over a longer timescale of gratification than for example visceral combat. Yet the moment to moment phases of fun are important to addressing the simple question of any game: "Is it any fun?"
Here, this is my personal attempt to address this question via as per the FAQ the concept of "Playing A Role" that Ryan's mentioned before along the lines of a more player-driven gameplay source:-
I think this can be where PFO shines compared to other games. Again positive indications come from for ESO who not only use the Vampire/Werewolf Templates but have recently added the "Enforcer/Outlaw" Roles for players.
You'll notice PFO is taking this idea forwards a great deal more and again this provides some confidence in the direction GW wishes to take PFO.
This is not idle academic "on paper" discussion either, to make the case for this concept that it fits within the above idea of player roles, here is an idea which is about "playing a role" about the player community crowdforging this role, providing the role designed and eventually implemented in far superior form and fidelity than can be managed in any other mmorpg. Perhaps it's been overlooked that one of the main reasons this has not happened before is due to the pre-eminence of the demand-supply relationship in dictating a game's design and development.
This Cooperative Player Group will not be functioning on that basis but using a different paradigm to pursue growth and achievement of our goals and ultimately satisfaction in the total PFO Community over the feature we're attempting to create here.
Let's just cast our minds into the distant future; a future where the Cooperative player initiative group (The Shadow of the Beast) has been successful and the results:-
For 3 Nights per month, during the full moon, additional content in faithful flavor and lore and imagination of Pathfinder is added to the game for the entire playerbase to enjoy. This content consists of the most sophisticated AI in any mmorpg ever implemented, supported by a system that is player-created, player-funded and makes Goblinworks more money as well as an advertisement of the virtues of their crowdforging development process and player-driven gameplay
Hehe, that's sure crossing the divide (in more dimensions than one)!
Enough of the old dry dusty discussion, here's some (purdy pictures) visualizations I was looking at.
The Bones/Reaper Miniature that seems associated with Paizo games and it's a very decent artistic representation of Werewolf I'm happy to see:-
And wondering what our Werewolf will look like as per "seeing is believing" I dug around in the Unity Asset store and found what is rudimentary possible with pricing (albeit this is not discussion implementation from this source merely what could be done as an MVP Werewolf visual form post Druidic Wildshape):-
Unity Werewolf Hybrid Showcase (unity webplayer player manipulation demo)
Unity Wolf Showcase (unity webplayer player manipulation demo)
To finally finish with a flourish, I've put a bit of thought into this and how all the components add together. I think they all combine and fall into place like some sort of deductive formulae funnily enough. Or might have just gone barking mad...
T7V Avari wrote:
Anybody else find it odd Golarion only has one moon. What kind of fantasy planet only has one moon? Who made that choice?
It's phases coincide with our own Earth's out of interest:-
James Jacobs wrote:
Yup; the moon above Golarion has the same phases and timing and all that as Earth's. Which is partially why Golarion's calendar matches the standard on Earth.
You'all can have The River Kingdoms... I've set my sights much higher. ;)