Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

AvenaOats's page

Goblin Squad Member. 3,035 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 3,035 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Kadere wrote:
Much like EVE, the vast majority of the fun in PFO is to be found in the metagame, no login required.

This is my problem with what/where PFO is at.

I come back to my most recent insight of SCALE and service to story. The meta- seems to converge with this position. If the PFO graphical representation was on the EPIC scale then the land would look like a vast complex world already and our tiny characters would take a long time to hike all over it exploring it's mysterious character and dangerous expeditions into the vast wilderness. The devs could speed up the development of the settlement building functions as well and the scale would impress more too eg Skylines.

And the meta- would complement on top of this.

Another good talk:- g_About_People_Designing_Games_for_Social_Simulation.php

I think it can be actual MMO-SS-RP genre this way for PFO.

The graphics are imho are not going to be popular: They're legacy of early 00's MMOs even if they still look ok they'll compete with newer games and VR and single player games or Chivalry type games where 1st person swinging the sword sim is more visceral. I've developed my interest in PFO into the idea of the political structures creating a cooperative in-game. This is my objective in the game when I start. Atm, however there's no point in starting: Both the game play and the state of development of the systems to support players telling their meta- stories.

TL;DR: I am much less interested in the 3d tab-target experience of user-controlled avatar interaction - than I am in the business of developing a social game SUB-system that integrates some of the great Pathfinder lore in a specific area to actually represent and realize it with the highest fidelity in any video-game so far, simply using human processing power not computer coding O/H

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the engine change is the answer for "better graphics". I'd suggest a re-design of the SCALE of representation of everything to fit:-

1. Perspective
2. Faster Development
3. Leaner/Cheaper Graphical development
4. Unity of Aesthetic of Design + Art

I explained this previously:

There's a game called Fallen London and it has strong story-telling, it does not need stunning cutting edge Engine.

I think a lot of PFO would work just fine with the above SCALE change and be more conducive to creating a simulated fantasy world.

The vids of running, combat look like gameplay from 10 years ago and I think it's the EQ/WOW perspective that is always going to be compared to single player games or other non-truly-massively mo games.

If you remember EVE combat turns into dots.

I think it's the story + social + (massive) scale that could make PFO.

I just worry that the perspective choice of WOW/EQ is too much baggage from old systems to serve the above?

You saw great stories in FTL for example and the characters were tiny yet characterful by the end of the story!

Ooh, here's another one on story and change: Upsilon Circuit = a dungeon-crawl live feed with audience "interaction" and x1 chance only per person (ever) with only x8 characters playing during the daily 3hr live feed per day or something like that:

This focus on sharing story I think is how to think about PFO -> rest eg graphics

Goblin Squad Member

Arcwin wrote:

Certainly the vast size of the world was one of the things I loved in EQ, back at the beginning. Making a journey from one side of a continent to the other or across an ocean was a serious undertaking... when you would sail for 40 minutes of RL time, then run for another hour and a half to get where you were going, it did add a sense of the majestic to the game, of being in a World, not just a game. I'd like to see that again.

They ruined it in EQ by giving too many classes fast-running powers, and adding too many short-cut teleports and portals.

I strongly agree; in the sense that the player is made to feel small; this is the attraction of the cinema's large screen when you are immersed (sorry it's quick description word to use to convey straightforward experience) in the story.

And commercially, computer games we're seeing this attractive quality in "No Man's Sky" and "Outer Wilds". I think Crowfall has the pitch/premise draw of destructable worlds renewing this sense of fresh worlds to explore to add.

It's imho very important that PFO captures this quality. I think this is the part of game along with the systems; ie the beauty and grandeur of the Golarion Fantasy World and it's teeming denizens that appeals. The dungeons for parties could equally at this dwarf fortress scale (better graphics by far!) again could cater very strongly to players and quickly... so you have the small intense experience and the sweeping epic in the game. Idk if interiors could work better as well eg Inns and Pubs and other buildings.

Goblin Squad Member

aussiedwarf wrote:

Yes, the graphics are poor. Changing to a different engine is not going to change that. What would make it better is spending a lot of time working on better animations, higher detail models, better effects, reflections, shadows, lighting. Now UE 4 will do this better, but Unity can look reasonable too. The issue is that graphics are not the priority as Goblinworks does now have the people power to do this.

You can use Cryengine in and you will get the same result as you need a very large team to make a beautiful realistic looking game. When it comes to it, looks help to sell a game, but it is very possible to have av average or worse looking game but still be hugely popular. See games such as minecraft, dwarf fortress as examples of this.

Changing from Unity to Unreal simply cannot be done through a conversion script/software. The way that the code talks to the engine is just way too different. The way they have the be structured is also completely different too. Converting C# to c++ may work for small projects where you have access to all the source code but will not work to convert the code from one engine to another.

This was good reading. My thoughts and I'm going to have to hijack this thread with this suggestion which requires some c&p:-

1. SCALE of Aesthetics/Graphics and unity with systems/mechanics

Here's what is troubling me with MMOs: They all go for the WOW/EQ look of the 3D model with over-the-shoulder-camera. It seems to me with PFO, it is an MMO on the EPIC Scale. This reminds me of the Games Workshop game called Epic with tiny troops and gigantic Titans. It also reminds me of two other things. First, Tolkien writes as much about the land of Middle Earth being alive and a character as the story itself. Secondly it reminds me of the successful simulation at various levels Dward Fortress. The scale is amenable to complexity.

I think PFO's current big challenge is the format of the scale of all the models. If they were smaller, the land larger and more "sweeping" we would gain that sense of THe Game Of Trones sweep of Armies in Battle (ie more RTS) as well as our little characters being small but perhaps nonetheless still mighty interesting denizens populating the enormous world. Making a journey would be EPIC, Dragons in size on the screen would be EPIC as would enormous castles and valleys and armies.

To turn the coin over: The combat and graphics using the EQ/WOW aesthetic I think is going to doom PFO: As aussiedwarf points out: More and more work needed on graphics to even start running let alone out-run the competition while PFO is learning atm how to walk. The aesthetic imho is not in unity with the premise The Kingmaker of PFO.

2. MVP and Core Game Loop and getting fun/addiction to players on release

But I think PFO's PREMISE if it is pulled off is to add layers of consequences at lots of scales as I said above: Player PvP and economic and diplomatic and providing the in-game experience niche that new players might want as competition to grow etc eg giving adventure to parties, running services to others (ie peaceful players) and giving blood and glory to yet others.

I just think this might be more do-able with a smaller scale of the characters and hence a larger scale/feeling of the world and quicker dev time in producing the necessary visuals and networking for the actual underlying game systems? This larger world / slower game time seems to be where EVE gets it's Truly Massive Game Feel right - in space.

This focus on the systems and hence direct fun of the players and faster I think is probably an upgrade on Ryan's own MVP development plan for launching an mmorpg aka the Eve way of doing it. Eve had space, we have to deal with the land and that is huge task as well as the avatar human avatars it's many-fold task: Too ambitious I am thinking. Go simpler.

I fear atm only extremely passionate and hardcore players want in, and more casual players are not impressed enough. I look at the vids and feel as if I cannot even begin to start my own "do-dar-ing" fun on playing and immediate feeling of being a part of another world and community with a concentric ripple of interactions from my character to other characters to settlements.

3. Early Focus of PFO

I think the combat in mmorpgs that do PvP is not that great and perhaps a lot of the potential market end up thinking that too? So PvP to mostly PvP is although more exciting than PvE (imo) because it's more varied and feels like it makes a difference eg vendettas and chivalry et al. is still limited.

There's a game in dev atm by Søren Johnson who did work on Civ and it's called Offworld Trading Company. It's about market warfare on mars in a Civ style presentation

I feel the combat is taking too much dev resource as well as the graphics and this is diluting the focus it's impairing the game imho. Even if the devs spend tons like ArenaNet the combat will still be "mmorpg-quality". Look at the above game's focus getting to the market fun very quickly and beautifully.

4. Monetization Success

I don't see any other mmorpg with this and people would take to it like ducks to water. I know Ryan went with the EQ/WOW style according to Market Research reasons when we had the old conversation about it in the Paizo forums, but it always struck me as "not quite right" (I was angling the isometric at the time) but it need not as per above. People would immediately grasp the scale of the game here and setting itself apart - hence. Those visual in besiege imo are "gorgeous" for example. You can fit characters into unit formations and introduce this more immediately. You can introduce food for travel taking a long time between hexes at this smaller scale with a larger world that can be created more rapidly - when needed (density vs activity). I guess modifying the landscape (Seasons) would be easier too (that was a feather in Crowfall's cap).

I was quickly googling Clash Of Clans success: It is astonishingly successful and the graphics are serviceable for it's core game-loop. You could get people into PFO and paying with the above I believe. This is no criticism of the good work of the artists and the coders for combat above, it's simply that PFO has great designs and these need to technologically delivered to a development time-scale that also aligns with the paying players uptake as well as opening it's own niche in the market and thereby by-passing the opposition such as Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, Albion Online, Shards Online, EQN and perhaps Rust, Life Is Feudal.

All those use the big avatar thing. EVE shows the simplicity is beautiful approach as does other games that could evolve such as Patrician IV, Besieged and so on.

With this aesthetic and scale the game could come alive: LESS IS MORE.


TL;DR: Coming back to this thread: The Engine is not the problem: The Scale of the Aesthetic to match PFO's design to create unity is the problem imho.

I never got my head around the graphical choice when it was discussed but did not know better, but believe now I have found an answer that matches, unfortunately the suggestion is late.

But if the above sounds like balderdash:

Clash of Clans Revenue:

Game monetization design: Analysis of Clash of Clans on_design_Analysis_of_Clash_of_Clans.php

If you merge the above sim games eg Dwarf Fortress aesthetic with using the processing-power of many people's brains to drive the simulation... I think it would be huge. And PFO a world is born and believed (immersed).

Goblin Squad Member

@Gol, I'm always careful with the English language you (s.) and you (pl.) the auldie "one" sounds off even though it's right and feels weird to use. But the you (s.) is personal secondary perspective etc and is easily misunderstood. At least "one" keeps it impersonal even if old-fashioned sounding. "One does not simply walk into Mordor..."

It's a good list. And even if KS has had some big issues goes to show compare that list to a few years back and people would rip your hand off...

The red-hot leader is oc Star Citizen. Expect it will be epoch-defining. The dark horse imho is PFO. Both shards and crowfall get a lot right and I'd guess depend how much they become modding communities.

PFO needs longer than all the others to get there, but it could be much more Game Of Thrones than all of the others.

Crowfall has a really strong pitch showing the game with voxels already.

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:

I need to know: what is so good on having something run on Linux? Do you have better performance of the game? Less crashes?

Or is it more that people like to dabble with Linux and are just happy that they also can run a few games on it?

I must say that I have very, very few problems with my Win 7 installation and I play many games, alpha's, beta's and so forth. So I feel I could not really get a more stable platform then I am currently using.

What is the attraction of Linux?

(this thread was just a heads up, so now we can take it anywhere).

Well my computer is a bit old now, and I'm tight for cash. I had vista which bleugh! and was intending to play PFO on that but I wanted to use Linux and dual-boot, but then my wifi and new graphics card messed around so killed Vista and installed ubuntu and both work fine. The graphics card uses an open-source driver and plays games fine so far. The computer boots and and runs so much faster.

Maybe taking the time to learn the operating system is part of it instead of with windows just being a user?

There's less games which is the downside but it was free and opens the door to a whole ton of distros too. It's quite interesting getting to grips with the terminal and reverting back to text and away from GUI. It just seems a bit more straightforward to start with less junk and then tailor and tinker things to what you want.

Probably passing on impressions is the biggest suggestion I can convey: Having spent so much time using windows then realizing there's this wide ecosystem out there it's kinda whoa! should have tried this sooner. Living in a small pond, it's time for this frog to stretch those legs!

I know Win7 has a lot good going for it. But it's more the direction Windows goes and you start thinking "what the f are they doing now?" I think with Linux this happens to and then a new distro is created. I have a lot to learn tbh.

But it would be very good to play PFO on though if not soon then a dual-boot with Win7 is probably the way to go.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks made the "leap" to Linux and loving it. Interesting post there on that.

Goblin Squad Member

Looks alright. But I think Shards Online has more potential with the whole shard concept interlinking and player hosting/scripting if it gets to it in time. Both aesthetically imo are very pleasing to the eye.

Worth a look.

Tbh the only other mmo I'm aware of that has a real "out there" factor that PFO's design has (even if it's still currently being implemented) is Star Citizen. THere's now crow but it's ways off.

I don't know if any have followed the fallout with EQ. Goes to show even very strong concepts can simply not work out. But I think the game of thrones mesh with PFO / Golarion has real potential.

The dynamic that seems so tough is the balance between players who wan ta quiet village life or a front-line warzone life and the mix between the two with some control on when and with whom.

I feel like my investment in PFO can pay off hugely it just needs a bit more growth in complexity to hit tipping point. Too many games out there where time invested is lost with the reduction in the playering population's interest such as single player or mplayer etc. Population pool is the key.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can't say what enough what a great job Duffy's map is.

This comes to why I sunk $100 into PFO: Emergent story in games via player interaction and agency and orders of complexity (eg management).

It's interesting seeing others ponder this question such as this blog:-

The solutions
1. Fixed story: in a game like Half-Life 2, the player has no influence on the story at all. You either do what the characters tell you to and it works out the way the writer wrote it, or you die or stop. I pick Half-Life 2 because it makes this work: I loved the game and cared about the story. It doesn’t feel ideal, though. The story doesn’t add anything to the action or vice versa, it was an extraordinary amount of work to create, and the story gets less interesting each time you replay it.
2. Chooseable story: in a game like Mass Effect, all of the story is pre-written, but you often make big decisions about how it plays out. By the end of the series, there are a huge number of possible eventualities for the characters and races that come about convincingly from your decisions. But you’re still only choosing from a discrete number of eventualities that have all been catered for by the writers, which means a lot of work for them and limited possibilities for you.
3. Generate minimal story: in Spelunky, you’re an adventurer delving into some caves. Everything else is generated by the game’s systems, which are universally consistent and create new experiences every time. The trade-off is that what it generates is rather vague in story terms.
You might do something mechanically interesting to save a damsel, but she’s just ‘a damsel’, a mindless placeholder for a person with no character or uniqueness. It does a great job of making you care about these elements for mechanical reasons, but the stories it generates read more like (good, complex) action scenes than anything with plot or character.
4. Generate rich story: a game like Galactic Civilizations 2 puts you in charge of a civilisation and gives you a lot of choice in how you deal with others: war, peace, trade, non-military rivalry, secret deals to screw over other civs, etc. From what I understand Crusader Kings 2 is even richer, letting you hatch assassination plots against particular members of particular royal families to shift the balance of power the way you want.
These games generate high-level story – ‘plot’ – through their mechanics, and express it through pre-written dialogues that may crop up multiple times. That means they might not be entirely convincing – every few turns, the Drengin in GalCiv2 threaten me with the same line of dialogue about demanding tribute. But there are at least named characters saying specific things, and in GalCiv they have a lot of personality.
These games are probably the closest we’ve got to merging interaction and story in a way where both really add something to each other. But they all tend to be about managing a civilisation, which is just one very particular kind of story.

It's interesting that he does not look at "multi-players interacting to create emergence" at 5.

But it's a tall order to achieve.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks for the update and vision @GW team.

Happy New Year @all players too.

I've been very busy over the festive period, as I'm sure a lot of people have and a bit out of pocket too! Still it was a great festive time.

Well, I've also been studying a great deal as well as work and finally got a new graphics card. However I still need more memory and other major tweaks to my PC to finally get PFO/MMO to run let alone other games. That in addition to not feeling I'm missing much by delaying hopping into the game right now given all the above (very time-poor) as well as the game launching and all that usually entails in performance and features.

There's still my personal vision as well that I feel more strongly about and hence feel it's way's away yet with the devs working full-steam on the basics also.

I enjoyed Game of Thrones series over the festive period and it would be great to see PFO sigils and banners adorning the various settlements before long. Sometimes good presentation really does sell!

Well, wishing everyone G'luck in 2015. Big events this year.

Goblin Squad Member

I'd enjoy it if Frontier Hexes ie the edge of the map hexes were so dangerous from a PvE pov, only solo explorers stand a chance of surviving out back; groups making a ruckus that leads to being preyed upon.

Then you'd have your solo-explorer's niche. :-)

Goblin Squad Member

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!

Goblin Squad Member

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!!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps my idea is too strictly based on concept:-

* World
* Settlement
* Character

Fractal presentation:-

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.

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:

In my opinion, an infographic isn't appropriate for this kind of thing. It's more appropriate for promoting fitness and health gimics.

The vast majority of people who may or may not play this game, IMHO, are going to look for screencasts and videos. People want to see what the game looks like, and what you can do in it.

Posting quantities of things made only tells me that the design staff made a bunch of things, but not really what you can do with those things.

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.


To suggest:-

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?

Goblin Squad Member

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:-

Gotta quote:

Dogan. wrote:
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.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Avari wrote:
Audoucet wrote:

About the economy, my NWN servers, the one I made I mean, had a good economy, because I created a new money, without using gold coins, and giving it an actual weight.

Anyway, I am very interested in Shards Online yes, even though after PFO, I will never spend again more than 100$ in promises.

I'm a bit of an economy buff and alternative currency fan so stuff like that makes me twinkle.

As for Shards, it looks even more bare than PFO at this point to actually play. All of the interesting stuff is back end, not systems the players will use. So while I am keeping an eye on it, I am going to wait until enough spiffy mods are available (steampunk ftw) and I think that's really the point to all of these games. NWN didn't get great until about 3 years of players mods were in. EvE by all accounts wasn't great until 3 years in. Shards will probably not be great for another 3 years and neither will PFO.

The big difference to me and where I think Mr. Steve Jobs of MMO game marketing Ryan Dancey (hardee har har) is going to win the battle is what we do waiting for the game to be great. PFO has already seen alliances made and crumble, rivalries have been made and played out, backstabbing, friends made etc etc. AND THE GAME HASN'T STARTED.

Why is that? Crowdforging. Plain and simple, the empowerment of the player base, however material that empowerment actually is. Throw in a couple gasoline canisters like the Land Rush and you have a game before the game. On the first day of EE there will be a mad rush to touch home base and start gearing up, not to be the first to do it, because there is already something on the line, player pride, which is more important than character husks.

I mean honestly, what the heck are you still doing hanging around Audocet? This is a message board for game that isn't even live and you hate it. The reason is because your emotional investment over the last 2 years far outweighs the economic one you keep crying about....

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Neadenil Edam wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:

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 ...

Sounds like the Voltari out of twilight :P

Then and again, maybe don't imagine Italians at all, perhaps something closer to some of the Dravidian dances of Southern India... /wipes brow

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:

Actually, I suspect that elf eyes are built differently than human eyes. A lot of the elves in Pathfinder art appear to have no visible sclera (the white part). Their eyes look like giant irises, sometimes with discernable pupils, sometimes without.

Relevant thread (unfortunately, with no Paizo input).

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Boojumbunn wrote:
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!

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Yep. And I can either say that I was wise enough to accurately predict the outcome, or that time is chaotic enough that not even the wisest could predict.

Do not go to the Elves for advice, for they shall say no and yes. ~ JRR Tolkien, LOTRs.

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Goblin Squad Member

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. :)

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:
...PFO's only looking for 10,000 in the 1st 90 days more or less.
Remember also that Goblinworks has to avoid a problem few shops have ever worried about in the gaming industry: too much demand. They don't want everyone and her cousin coming to the game immediately, or they'll upset folks by turning them away; they need small, slow--and, I'm sure they hope, consistent--growth, not a flood.

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"

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:

I don't understand the expectation that Early Enrollment should be as stable as a fully released, big-budget MMO with a large staff.

PFO is being built on a budget by a very small team. Early Enrollment is when they're going to be developing - and we're going to be testing - all the features they've been telling us about for the last three years.

I don't think it's a good idea to set the expectation that every new content release in Early Enrollment will be free of bugs.

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
* Do productive things for their groups
* Explore and meet new friends and enemies
* Combat fairly enjoyably
* Update their chars satisfyingly before logging out
* Seeing some sort of change to the world from their collective actions

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?

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

I think there are other issues that take priority over working animations but they are much more than visual fluff. Seeing and hearing your character execute their abilities is very important in timing your attacks. Thinking your ability failed to execute because nothing is happening can really throw off your game.

I would certainly prioritize it above say... throwing in another poorly implemented piece of non-MVP content like grenades.

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".

Goblin Squad Member

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!

Goblin Squad Member

psyphey wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:

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.

A funny thing - in an "epic" game, that catches people with more complicated forms of "fun", very few actually understand what exactly was so good about that game. When they try to describe it, they start listing particular details, thus missing the point. Imho, advertising with a "vision" is pointless - in the best case one would find some eye candy in between your words. The vision should appear *after* one started playing - once the gameplay reached the state when it can keep players in. For those, who can actually be caught by the concept itself, "talking up" is usually not needed.

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!

Goblin Squad Member

Just one final word.

There's been some really interesting player initiatives in PFO already to mention:-

* The Nihimonicon
* Nightdrifter's combat maths
* Harad Navar/Duffy Maps and political maps
* The Gobbo Cast team's podcasts
* Various alpha streamers
* I'm sure there's a good few more provided various resources I forget atm.

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!

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
A "sci-fi" version of WoW can't exist because WoW was a service, not a gaming, innovator.

If your intent is to produce EVE with a few unique gimmick features in a new setting then neither are you.

Your Pathfinder setting is going to hold you up any more than the Star Wars setting held up The Old Republic and SWG.

I'm telling you, I talked to upper leadership of a settlement outside the NC last night and they brought up the subject of how they are losing faith in this title and can't get people interested. They brought up how they've been looking at LiF if this game doesn't pan out.

These game needs to focus on it's core content and do it well before you start saying "EE has been released." You can't afford to ask people to pay for the product you're about to put out. There is a world of difference between a content light EE and a poorly functioning EE and nobody but your most diehard fanboys will forgive you the later.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

This map is one of PFO's current biggest assets, imo.

Gets me really excited for the game despite the very challenging tech operation GW are working on atm. :)

Edit: Ook, 3,000 posts *shivers*

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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":-


  • Adventure
  • Exploration[/LIST]


    A. Dungeons such as:-

    i. Torchbearer pressure
    ii. procedural generation
    iii. require skill to find (Exploration)
    iv. special skill-training eg survival et al to get in and out of.


    Eg nav and map of huge world and logistics.

  • Goblin Squad Member

    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
    2. Ranger needs to have a requirement to use Pet(s)

    Pet depends on AI. This leads to:-

    1. Ranger without Pet is under-powered
    2. Ranger with Pet is over-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
    2. Role-Based 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.

    Goblin Squad Member

    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. :)

    Goblin Squad Member

    @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.

    Goblin Squad Member

    @T7V Avari

    >"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. :)

    Goblin Squad Member

    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.

    Goblin Squad Member

    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:-

    The Beorning is coming in with a similar level of anticipation and controversy that swirled around the Rune-keeper. There are folks excited about the possibilities of playing a skin-changer, and there are those hotly debating its lore qualifications. And if I have to hear "Beornings are a race, not a class" one more time,

    As you probably expected, the Beorning will cost 1000 Turbine Points to unlock, at least on the test server. It's not a surprise, since Turbine still charges for the Warden and Rune-keeper, but I wanted to make sure that it's clear that Update 15 won't be handing bear-men out for free.

    The skin-changing skill is first up; it'll transform me into a bear (which is, by the way, the only other form this class takes, so don't be thinking that you will have a wide variety like World of Warcraft's Druid).

    So it looks as if the bear form is for a temporary battle boost and not something that's sustained over the long haul. At least we won't be seeing a million bears stampeding all through Hobbiton come this patch.

    Instead, the tutorial sends me to do a variety of learn-your-class tasks, such as talking to cows in animal languages, sparring with a cousin, and smacking down those oversized Middle-earth mosquitoes. So how does the Beorning feel in combat? At least initially, it's a fairly standard melee attacker who has the special option to shift into bear mode for stronger attacks. The transition between forms is done with a fade-in, fade-out instead of any really cool transformation animation, but I wasn't expecting anything great in that regard. It is kind of fun to smack things down as a bear, although the always-ticking-down wrath bar keeps that fun on a time limit.

    Very initial impressions of the combat style leave me wanting a lot more. The lack of a ranged pull means that every fight involves running up to the mob, after which I spam attack skills until I can go into Smokey mode and then spam the one skill I have there. Probably the biggest issue is Big Bear Butt Syndrome, in which your huge hiney obscures a lot of what's going on in the fight. The bear model isn't terrible, but it's not much better than bears already in the game. I would like to see customization options with bear mode to differentiate my hide and pattern from those of other players.

    As I mentioned previously, the Beorning is extraordinarily flexible in how you want to play it, either as pure DPS, healing, tanking, support, or some mix of the above. The Hide trait line is the Beorning's tanking build.


    1. Anticipation of a new option/choice
    2. Monetization
    3. Bear-form is merely a combat skill boost (temporary)
    4. Gameplay of the new class is: Quest/lore pve flavor + combat option
    5. Seems to be a cost-effective new class first release
    6. Some problems of making the combat controls more friendly in animal form with limited attack options (see 5.).

    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.

    Goblin Squad Member

    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
    There are some others but from cursory inspection they don't appear necessary or focused for our initiatives' objectives.

    (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. :)

    Goblin Squad Member

    @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:

    In Pathfinder a werewolf in hybrid form looks extremely bestial but it is interesting to note some do wield weapons like a human.

    I feel like there should be more than one path to take as a werewolf, and reasons for characters of every class to consider it.

    One of those paths should be people who lose themselves entirely to the beast within, give up their armor, weapons etc. and go fully feral werewolf trading their last shreds of humanity while in hybrid form to pure bestial power. Doing that should have effects even on their human form both negative and positive.

    See this is one of the essential dualities:-

    Enforcing roleplaying

    A roleplay-mandated world is essentially going to have to be a fascist state. Whether or not this accords with your goals in making such a world is a decision you yourself will have to make.

    Storytelling versus simulation

    If you write a static story (or indeed include any static element) in your game, everyone in the world will know how it ends in a matter of days. Mathematically, it is not possible for a design team to create stories fast enough to supply everyone playing. This is the traditional approach to this sort of game nonetheless. You can try a sim-style game which doesn't supply stories but instead supplies freedom to make them. This is a lot harder and arguably has never been done successfully.

    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!

    Goblin Squad Member

    Gloreindl wrote:
    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)!

    Goblin Squad Member

    Thick sturdy legs and arms of coiled muscle are a must for dwarves.

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    If you can create a formal attire such as a Harlequin costume and cape (& hat?) for example and work on diplomacy OOC to support you IC then who knows?!

    Goblin Squad Member

    It's alive!


    Today we deployed Alpha 10. The critical feature of this deployment is the first iteration of War of Towers:-

    [link] "This is a key feature of the early part of Early Enrollment. It provides a variety of important features that closes a number of critical game loops."

    Sounds awesome.

    Goblin Squad Member

    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.

    Goblin Squad Member

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    What makes a game last a generation?

    Raph Koster wrote:

    Problems that aren’t actually solvable. Instead, players can only approach optimality. This means there’s always another hill to climb in terms of increasing skill, so people keep devoting the time.

    These tend to be problems that fall into high complexity classes. In general, NP-HARD problems that we solve using heuristics make for long-lasting games. Mind you, these problems need to be intrinsic to the core game loop.

    No end in sight for problem variations. New problems using the same ruleset is also a way to give hills to climb. (Yeah, this means that “authored” games with fixed levels are almost certainly not going to endure in quite the same way. A narrative game is very unlikely to last a generation.)

    The typical ways of providing apparently endless content are:

    • a decently large permutation space. We have an enormous ability to prune possibility space in our mental models. Tic-Tac-Toe is small enough we solve it pretty readily. In contrast, there are a lot of possible games of go.
    • a human opponent. Humans add in a whole new set of problems that are also inherently hard, problems of psychology and status.
    • procedurality in problem set generation. Every game of Tetris is different. The weather adds random elements to every sporting event. And so on.
    Independence from representation. Games that endure a generation or more are ones that are susceptible to the folk process, that embrace the idea of being co-opted by their players.

    1 to 50 of 3,035 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.