|AvenaOats Goblin Squad Member|
@Sadurian: I like idea of dogs or pigs for hunting truffles for sale at the best restaurants! That would work. Or even mushroom sniffers. Speaking of herbs, hmm, makes me want to create a potions maester...
In general I do like/love the idea of being a minion master. There's nothing more satisfactory than sending a swarm of AIs onto another player! You may get NPC workers in the form of undead if you're a necromancer who might/could be sent out to do gathering for free/tirelessly? That could work - with risks.
I know star wars the old republic had crafting helper npcs you'd set to work to go fetch and also to work in your space ship. One of the bright spots of that game when I read about it. Again it's a decision on whether or not that is undercutting bots or if it's taking away valid gameplay connections from players eg specialists that go out to collect then get mixed up in all sorts of shanghaied conflicts!
Possibly if mounts are for travel eg just horse and saddle then they are very vulnerable to damage while used and so can be "destroyed" if used, so it encourages players to "dismount" or lose a valuable resource? I like the idea of fast mounts used for "fast travel" effectively also and perhaps along roads with different mounts adding different off-road travel options for eg??
In battles chargers with full armour would act differently and oc later in development expand gameplay, I hope.
If you go to My account at the top while logged in then: Paizo / My Account / My Downloads
You should find the pdfs you got for your level as well manage your Kickstarter PLEDGE section also if you want to change anything.
This has links to all kickstarter updates: eg fulfillment system *above* and FAQ etc:
Hope those are helpful.
Seems we're mostly singing from the same hymn sheet in our impression of what combat could best look and feel like?
I'm currently thinking it's real-time (tick) with a turn-base component ie the stamina 6 seconds (tick) and tab-target (tick) and AOO (tick) for melee and FF for AOE (tick) to make a difference between melee and ranged significant as well as the factor of managing relationships via friendly, neutral, enemey matrix of reputation, alignment, flags (tick) and who you just hit! The way the 3 weapon sets (tick) work with the stamina sorta makes me think of what I've had a peek at in the magic card system with a deck of idk 6 cards with varying parameters and energy burn and some work better against other combinations and so on with a huge potential deck to interact with - so the stamina thing seems it could gel together this tete a tete combat tactics we're all hoping to see finally in a mmorpg?! What a mouthful. Then how 1v1 might be rare and how parties interacting and then finally armies... (all guesses and no ticks!)
@Bludd to my mind, AoC is quite actiony such as animations that have more real physics in them (cannot actually remember now??) (there's a cool ks that had this actually) and hit locations via mouse or tabbing might be too micro. But I think certain attacks might lead to injuries that then act "as if" that target was """aimed""" for iykwim? I expect the animations are for visual representation (oc!) and also as stated for timing measurement. I'd be surprised if they are rag-doll physics quality of action-reaction to them. Maybe that is not what you were suggesting and I've read that bit wrong?
I know AOO is intended to reduce movement in melee, but as suggested by Jiminy that is another possible method as is a sort of melee "lock" put on you that then means if you can't shake it if you "turn your back" you're in a world of pain sort of thing? Again another consideration. Maybe that's what AOO already does.
I think GW is more or less on some interesting lines, especially differentiating melee and ranged more effectively. Would like "cover" which seems discussed in Nihimon's quote from Lee Hammock and even height for ranged too... not asking too much. :)
Let's have a stab at this then:
Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric =>
Barbarian: Fighter + Rogue + x
Sorcerer: Wizard + Cleric + x
Druid: Cleric + Rogue + x
Could work along those lines somewhat with different x for each additional branches on the main tree.
@Darth - It's possibly a consequence of the investment raised. GW seems to have done exceptionally well to raise the approx. 5-8m$ and that could be why EE is over a longer period of time; another few mil might have reduced EE I guess? In some ways it's possibly a better result anyway, a longer EE in the longer run I mean growth too fast it might go further away from pathfinder faster than the original players like... etc etc. I think main thing (at least my preference) is fast access to EE. :)
@Drakhan - I think the flags must be a core system of player interaction and that includes pvp heavily so I'd expect beta to start with it and develop it over time. It would seem penalties will be at a max. setting and the devs will tinker with it as the players interact with it.
Oh, good. We get to have the pickpocketing arguments again.
You took the words right out of my pocket.
Visibility will always be on. This is a result of players being able to fiddle with their monitors to see, so any gameplay involving visibility is compromised, unfortunately as it could be a great atmosphere builder. There will be darker areas in dungeons however and light-sources so some atmosphere if not functionality will be saved. I'll see if I can dig up the original conversation on this. I found out about this on these forums.
@Nihimon: Whoa, thanks for quoting Lee there: Missed that. This actually makes me see my preference limited choices in a more positive light:
Lee Hammock wrote:
b) My hope is that we can get Sorcerer, Barbarian, Paladin, and Bard in by the end of OE. They are relatively easy to add compared to Druid, Monk, etc, as most of their abilities are either not too difficult technologically or are combinations of other classes. Ranger, Druid, and Monk either involve a lot more tech (Animal Companion AI, wildshape), or a lot of custom animations (Monk combat) if we want to do them right. We're not going to do them unless we can do them right, as what's the point of playing a druid if you can't wildshape and don't have an animal companion?
That last part is exactly what I want to hear for Druid/Ranger (and I guess Monks will want very distinct animations). All good in the wood.
Moridian: It will be opening up again as per the previous blog:
Just Keep Truckin' On wrote:
Idk if they will still have the Alpha reward of Monster Cast but that is a very cool feature; a bit beyond my price league, but it's awesome possibilities.
@Zen: That's the heart of the question: Agree. I think Guards! Guards! will actually be doing other things but when called on eg settlement militia, will be to hand easily as it's their turn and hence they'll be crafting etc en situ. Conversely contracts going out with merchants will be very active I suspect (if my bandit brain is informing me correctly!).
The real crux of guards seems similar to:
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards! wrote:
IE Guards should be a very interesting role in a mmo game not the above in a single-player game!
A new mmorpg was announced at E3: Warhammer 40K. They are doing an interesting thing with their races:
The free race available to everyone will be the Orks. But free players will only be able to progress through the game’s content Ork Boyz: five of which are needed to take down one Space Marine. Behaviour expects that F2P members will always outnumber paid players and the Ork Boyz are their way of balancing F2P with paid members. Once someone becomes invested in the game, they can purchase the other races and open up the full progression paths for each (including the Orks).
There's an obvious difference in the payment, progress and gameplay of these games, but it's an interesting way of a race with a difference (numbers & power) and leveraging F2P players as content.
Maybe Goblins could be utilized in some similar way? Particularly in an escalation sort of way.
I'm not sure rendering them is a good idea as you'd have hordes of npcs and pc running around all the time.
I think work camps are effectively NPCs mining away for players and maybe Leadership improves the rate of these, though I'm not sure how Leadership will work, perhaps in formations, in settlements and maybe in work camps? Whether a few NPCs are rendered to represent them or not, I'm not sure.
The other side to it, is to not outsource gameplay that players should be involved in as part of niche of various economic acitivities to NPCs eg Hauling Business is very valid and some players should specialize in it.
There's been discussion on Bots previously and whether it would undercut them to provide players with some ability that mimics that. But it's not decisive. Partly the game design should mitigate eg camps will attract mobs so Bots would need PCs to defend those camps from Mobs and other players.
I think the low level players will start as gatherers so that is how settlements will have a demand for new players, which is a good system from that pov - and be paid for it: So settlements need to be run very economically and operations need to be profitable.
All these considerations are still not determined, but I think players will go out to the wilds for these functions and as a by-product conflict will occur, at least initially until a powerbase can be established and then contest other powers/settlements... ?
Purposefully destabilizing the Economy and other Nasty Business: How do the players handle these problems?
I seem to remember woods for heh wood and hilly/rocky heh hills/mountains for iron etc and indeed ponds and rivers for fish possibly too etc? I think even different mob types will have different locales too in the map. I guess it means no one settlement will be gimped due to location but at higher and higher levels different resources differences/avenues of production might occur variably across the map?
Because of the animations and graphics required = hours = dev time and cost both go up.
It's part of the Systems > Content strategy.
1. Race polymorph permanently to new race?
I think that's fair-enough and in the meantime we get to play some PFO sooner!
Agree above, "some" pickpocketing is a good thing for rogues surely: "Queue on this side; Rogues on THIS side!" :)
Goblin Works Blog wrote:
About 15 hexes will be sites for eventual player settlements (the systems for claiming, building, and administering these settlements will be introduced later in the Early Enrollment period)
With 3 races, 4 archetypes and the basics of a skill trill will be in place. It depends how granular the skill tree is: Expect it to become very. I mean obviously fighter will be useful with sword sooner for eg. And Idk with Cleric: Using water "look a pond = get me some holy healing water?" I think Random above asks this question quite well above. ;)
I was wondering if the archetypes actually refer to Killer (f), Achiever (w), Explorer (r) & Socialiser (c)?
Goblin Works Blog wrote:
This is just awesome imo. The quality of the people on the forums makes me think the interactions online will be immensely fun even with less content. That said I will enjoy crossing my blades with a few here. :D
I thought there was player blocking in WAR? The defence of keeps basis with a shielf wall of tanks being healed, with AOE'ing the hell out of the stairs for any invaders, while the invaders attempted to break through the "shield wall" and surge in.
Not sure, like the idea of "locking into combat" with a particular opponent if melee is engaged?
@Grumpy: What Wargaming.net are doing is interesting: They're removing the P2W elements with a view to increasing the credentials of being a legit esport. Again this is another area that suggests if the game has:
1. Strong game play for eg competition aka esports this is enough for players to be very motivated/committed to enjoy/play the game en masse.
It seems if the game design has any/all of the above then the P2W is really not needed as the game fuels it's own growth and monetization. By contrast, the lack of a game to be able to stand out from the competition just leads to the devs working out ways to clip players of cash expediently. Also, the expectation of 3d graphics on a par with single-player games (almost) at the expense of interesting systems, maybe that is a trade-off for a mmorpg worth pursuing and equally worth relegating to the cash shop??
I can only imagine the disappointment if GW doesn't put in horse-breeding, after all this discussion :).
Analogous to the modern car industry in some respects, so could be a good business if included in game. Then the horses need kit also: Horseshoes, saddles, armour etc. And who knows cavalry will need a lot of horses if they are ever used in battles?
What if GW sold the ability to have your horses breed with different coat colors and different markings? IE your character with the horse-breeding skill buys a sort of "license" that then allows them to breed those variants? It's one way to fund greater graphical diversity. Of course properties (aka traits) such as endurance, top speed, encumbrance that have a mechanical component should be in-game only - to achieve.
I'm assuming horse have a natural life-cycle (ie item degradation?) and can only be bred by a horse-training with a ranch etc, so the above "license" is exclusive to those who purchase and use it. Perhaps even GW taken a % of the players' profits or something more elaborate than fixed price?
If down the line a new breed of horse or mount is added, again the initial graphical costs of adding such, might be about purchasing a license to go out and skill-train them... I'm not really sure that far down the road, so to speak.
Can we have a little more detail on the types of non-combat roles players can do? Eg Fishing, Trapping, Blacksmith, Carpenter, Stonemason, Cook, Brewmaster, Fletcher, Tanner, Merchant, Horse Rancher, Diplomat etc etc... in addition to more combat oriented: Soldier, Assassin, Bounty-Hunter, Bandit, Guard et al.?
Rich Baker wrote:
We're looking for the sort of things new posters bring up over and over, as well as subjects that there's simply a lot of speculation about.
I tried to look over question on these lines:
From RPGers perspective:
- How does PFO interact with pathfinder rpg and what sort of cross-overs will there be?
From General MMORPG gamer's perspective:
- Not another fantasy mmorpg/wow clone. What makes PFO different from all the other "failures"?
- Why is it tab-target combat and not actiony combat?
- Oh No! I'm too late to pledge the kickstarter: I'm throwing money at the screen but nothing is happening. How can I pledge?
Forum User Questions:
- Please make this for Linux. Pleazzzze.
RHMG Animator wrote:
Now I do think Goblin Works should release a demo Character Creator like the one for Dragon Age: Origin (Model Swap method) or Phantasy Star Online 2 (Morph based) as this will be the front door to Pathfinder Online and it should be polished like crazy and the feedback on the character editor will be of extreme value for the final version of the character creation system [edit: CCS].
Just a quick check: I was under the impression the CCS as with other game systems would launch relatively basic and be interated on over time. This might work in conjunction with character changes relational to skills chosen. This was my understanding of the CCS. Perhaps a good question for the FAQs next week's blog? An early release feedback version sounds like a good idea maybe.
Morain: I'm skeptical given the slow-motion car crash of the mmorpg genre over the past decade!
I think if it's possible to give a nudge, given a cracking design blue-print, a targeted audience and the middleware affordability in recent years, then it's worth a punt. I speak for myself.
In terms of updates weekly, participation over a couple of years that in part spreads the cost over that time in addition to pledge rewards and the final product. It's not an option I could repeat but I have not seen another option to compete either: Large publishers make me more uneasy in games development all the time. For eg EQ:N might be great but the way it's been communicated to date, I dislike that a lot because it's the same for the last number of mmorpgs: Like when film-makers treat their audience as morons to reach the widest audience for the latest blockbuster. I'd add Star Citizen looks like it could be very successful and EVE seems to go from strength to strength, but I still think a terrestrial fantasy avatar game which is BIG/DEEP has a lot of potential that is not tapped over a decade. Really I'd like to be a part of the next stage of story-telling where players make the stories, which is glimpsed in EVE for eg.
That's a good question: The players ability to make the game enjoyable for everyone else. I think that's the problem with P2W: It makes the game less enjoyable for others because it circumvents the game and possibly because the people who would pay for that with cash want their value for money.
You've got to admit a Dragon is fairly awesome creature if it was in-game and a powerful asset and somewhat exclusive, all the more so. Some CE scum attack the poor peasants working in the fields, the cry goes out... "UNLEASH the dragon!"
I have to pop in with another suggestion. Looking at the F2P-newbie case I think is useful as it's targeted at a segment of the player population that is much more transitional/high turn-over/immigration status even: They get their passports stamped when they join a settlement fully possibly.
But also another more specific way to look at cash shop is that the problem is: Real Cash -> In-game wealth -> purchase game power. Obviously that's wrong. What if cash shop has different options for different alignment/reputation settlements. That could be another way to look at it. Again it may come to nothing, but if say a very dangerous Dragon could be purchased by CE low rep then they are going to go on a rampage. Now a LG high rep settlement they might use the dragon as a deterrent.
What I'm saying is that power in the "right hands" may not be such a bad thing. :D
That's true, the full security zone as it were.
I guess I'm conflating new F2P players with ones that "convert". I forgot that NPC towns can be settled by players: I always thought of them as feeders to player settlements as integral to the game, but that's probably not true.
My preferred vision has always been that Lawful Good is the place for highest probability of peace and security (sub 100%), but I can see how different players who enjoy different alignments would like a more PvE-ish NPC area for any of the alignments. Guess I painting the game with my own prejudices! ^_^
I still think the joining of an organisation could be a useful differentiation for new players to converted players and any ramifications on the cash shop. Maybe.
No, I think as it stands that's exactly what they will be: I suggest they are economically separate if you are adding a F2P access to the game for new players.
I know GW have talked about if a F2P has been messing around for say 6 months in the game, what GW want to do with such a situation. If they have joint a settlement then they're possibly positive to the game and if they're earning skill-training in-game, it's positive to GW. But once they join a settlement then they enter the game economy proper.
To be clear: I've not spent much time thinking about it, but it's a possible approach to keep the positives of F2P without the negatives (corrupting the in-game economy).
@Avena the npc settlements will have markets like every other settlement. FTP players can buy there. Who else are the newbie crafters selling their equipment to?
Yeah the meaningful interaction thing you mentioned, that's worth considering *doffs thinking cap*. I'd suggest NPC towns have npc vendors which reflect the prices basically in the cash shop so they can either go out (play and take time) and get stuff or pay money to get stuff (and see what it does). That way the F2P newbies can experiment with the game a little bit, with the side-attraction of real players advertising how much better their settlements are... ?
That way the NPC settlements are separate economically but a new player experience - atst with a pull to go to a human player settlement and be involved more collaboratively. Atst, it's worth having the F2P access for the high-turnover of players who might shed a dime or two as any investment leads to more investment.
Be interested if holes can be picked into this!
@Bringslite: What I'm saying is they get the Tourist version with higher costs in the cash shop if they want something without going through a settlement immediately ie sticking to the NPC towns. Once out there then a) They can't access cash shop b) it's cheaper c) it's not as safe d) They can join a settlement and that puts paid to cash shop stuff they can get at their settlement? I think being charged a little more for eg consumables as a tourist is a fair trade? I mean you get to see the sights... :)
@Bringslite: I think the absolute key (I've thought this for a long time tbh though I've also seen it elsewhere) is the contract between dev and player: For mmorpgs: The contract is expected to long and reciprocal and developing. Recent mmorpgs have shown that devs fear and have every right to fear that players are going to break the contract faster and faster and move on to a new game. Afterall most games are best small imo, especially when there are so many and so many new options every day even, also. But this is the bane for mmorpgs that should develop interesting communities: But again the mmorpgs coming out are not going in that direction successfully both design (solo friendly) and also monetization (milk as many players as fast as possible).
So it boils down to trust. Hence working out what is acceptable for the devs to expand their revenue streams atst as what is acceptable for players to experience MORE FUTURE GAME CONTENT and not RENEGE on their side of the deal and quit after 1 month when a mmorpg has been in dev for years costing millions!
Puffin seems to have produced some good guidelines I have to say. But if GW is resolute to having some F2P population I think that is the area where time vs money is open to discussion, especially if in the game you have a ratio of sub players 1 : 3 F2P players or something like that where F2P players are "tourists" who may decide to purchase a full-time property in PFO; if they enjoy their holiday (all flights and hotels incl. with special bonus spa option...!).
Also would be nice to have more information on what the various add-ons do or offer. I'm tempted to purchase the regional trait pack ... but I have no idea what it does or what the options
It does not surprise me that the Twice-Marked of Pharasma is popular: I think it sounds useful eg rezzing somewhere useful or even going to some spirit realm?!
Whereas the regional and other packs could be quite limited utility. Again the extra training time seems very valid and a safe bet.
I was thinking about how LoL does F2P. It's not so dissimilar to a game of Warhammer TT Fantasy Battle. What I mean is that each unit/mini has a price to it** (steep tbh!), for your collection and therefore the pool you can draw from for any given battle, with battles always "equal" (via play-testing) through a points system eg 500pt, 1000pt battles.
So the GOOD thing about Warhammer FB TT and LoL is that when you pay, you are separating that pay from the influence in game. In fact the payment in particular LoL is to add more gameplay to the game. How you use each champion still determines the game. There's a slight balancing problem but it's not so bad eg newer champs usually a little OP etc, but that's a bit like the frequency of Magic The Gathering cards from what I've read on that; an aside.
The REAL CORE problem I have with F2P games goes like this (wrote this elsewhere c&p):
One of the biggest negatives (despite the potential positives) I think with F2P is the intrusive conflict between my critical mind (valuation) and switching that off to immerse and enjoy the game, my playful mind.
When I make a money decision I really like to turn off emotion and be negative about it (odd to add: Doing some accounting function jobs this is very much the most accurate mindset you must cultivate I believe). By comparison generally playing a game is about exploring/making decisions/learning systems in a playful, inventive and creative way. The F2P model is very disruptive between these 2 extremes with the influence of intrusion on the game imo very damaging to cultivating the latter state of mind.
If I'm competitive and money is involved = "P2W chicken cycle" which ends up destroying the game for the people who do out-spend each other to keep on the P2W treadmill as it goes faster and faster. This is discussed somewhere where in china a new server opens and players flock their to repeat the process of "chicken" (can't find the link atm).
I think the skill-training sub fee is equivalent to eg buying a new miniature unit or LoL champion so that is very good system as the player can choose to add gameplay and what type of gameplay. This seems very reasonable to me as it is a decision that is switched off once made and separate when I'm playing the actual game.
The way I can see MT's in the cash shop for consumables or goods is only if this is for F2P players who are not socially connected, therefore at a higher rate for the convenience of not relying on anyone else?! Therefore these players are playing the game but not buying into the game fully (yet), I suppose? Again for settlements there may be further content at that level of organisation that could be bought that reflects a very different "service"??
**Similarly buying terrain, rulebooks, paints for WH:FB are understandable costs (better to join a gaming club and chip in) which probably are similar to character customization, other graphical content things to stick in the cash-shop.
A lot of hard work being done at GW HQ. Very good to see the transparency.
I notice Shroud of the Avatar is doing a monthly payment option above and beyond their original kickstarter (which they smashed by almost double ie +1m$ extra) for the higher tiers they have done eg upwards of 11,000$. Now I can see a reason for doing this for people who want a higher tier. In fact I'd love the alpha tier but could not stump up in one lump sum. That said, my initial feeling on the subject is that this is a WRONG move by Portalarium to open up this option this soon in the title's production. I think the nature of Kickstarter is that if you cannot afford a certain level (as a backer) then don't take on so much risk; particularly being caught up in the first rush of enthusiasm for a large project that is relatively long in development. Now anyone is free to act as they decide, but I think the weight of the project shifting too much onto the shoulder's of people's good will; particularly as it could be conceived as a sub for the game before it's already out!
As above I can see the utlity of offering the option (even for myself), but it does not sit well with me and I think that's something to keep sight of for building respectful relationship with customers: The temtptation to "milk" freely offered money is no doubt high, but it comes with a cost of uneasiness, is possibly one way to put it into words. Anyway thought I'd flag that up for consideration. I realise the highest risk in this project is likely going to be the development stage and all extra cash raised is significant to reducing that, but nonetheless, responsibility to customers is still a valuable thing, in my book. Ryan even said this in the kickstarter to paraphrase: Don't get yourself out of pocket.
I'm very happy personally more people can have the option to join the Early Enrollment process, as the project picks up momentum and there are spaces still available it all helps it come together.
As already mentioned I think if you have access to cash shop for 'certain settlements', then it starts to go down a path away from P2W escalation. How to figure that out, is the tricky part though (also does still depend on what options are in said cash shop naturally but not so decisively I believe). Over to GWs... "my work is done here, now." ಠ_ಠ
I think this line of thought could be developed a lot further.
Yes. There's been some very good projects on kickstarter. I certainly broke my kickstarter rules for the long-shot of Pathfinder Online's vision: "Only back what you really dig... and don't dig too deep into your pockets!" ;) It is an exception that is already being offset I'm happy to say. In some ways the risk was minimal given I've not subbed to an mmorpg for a while now, from that pov, which possibly is good news as far as pathfinder online is concerned and seems reflected in other people's dissatisfaction with mmorpgs for a good while now, I believe. I think PFO will have legs as far as kickstarter projects are concerned!
With the way Microsoft are going with Windows (8) atm, Linux may well be a big part of the future (See Valve's interesting in promoting Linux on Steam). I'm attempting to get into understanding Linux using a Raspberry Pi by tinkering with it. Long way to go but I think it might be a positive direction, one day. :)
Cool, this is already "out there". Agree comes with a few tricky boxes to tick, but irrespective, probably more potential good than bad easily I think. Of course such a settlement becomes even more interesting and valuable to it's members. I guess if you keep the cost per person lower, then even if said settlement were destroyed, overall each person has not lost too much individual equity, so it's no great shakes. But equally the more valubale and personal the settlement, the more vigorous is it going to be defended! Kinda motivating solution overall I think?
[EXPORING IDEAS]Tentatively exploring this idea more: A cash shop could have a map to find a dragon egg. That way the cost could be high for the POTENTIAL to EARN a dragon (find, extract, raise safely, train and use without losing in battle eg). So potentially that might be a way for GW to include such a beast in their cash shop. I'm not sure the link is perfect, but it's an idea to explore. I'd also caveat by saying only settlements with certain DI advancement and particular to eg beast-training and finally out of eligible settlements a proportional cap on the number of dragons existing in the world at any one time; perhaps tracking the total map size with number of advanced settlements?
That way someone's dragon eventually becomes a target itself, the longer it is in the game world along with the rest of the dragon population, but equally said beastie slowly grows in power. Etc.
It could be argued: Why include the cash-shop at all? But if you are doing a limited number of eg beastie, this puts a limit on it's draw for the playerbase and hence design/dev resources expended. But a huge dragon imo by definition is an apex monster and so should be limited. Hence the Cash Shop if pricing it expensively (but affordably for a settlement to buy said map) then it actually pays itself for this special role in the game and is worth the resources and fits the preferred frequency of a high power component of a settlement's offensive capability. No doubt a little white elephant going on with Dragons too to further balance their power vs cost.[/EXPORING IDEAS]
You know, I was thinking about the way settlements will work and came up with an idea that could work royally (or crash and burn):
If there is a necessary function (a good fit) for the cash shop eg aesthetics:
1. In-game art assets are costly and icing on the cake so not vital but conversely seem to be highly desirable/demand by players.
Then, if settlements are the collective collaboration of the members, then the extent of development of the settlement itself opens up higher grade features such as buildings and a whole lot more no doubt. Now those buildings have elevated and increasingly so functions eg skill training. But if there is a cash shop option that is only opening up to settlements that reach certain development advancement stages, then such things (at least to begin with) of aesthetics for the buildings could be opened up and paid for (real cash) from the settlement if they all vote on it. This way a big change with a big cost can be spread over a wide player base - and it has been earnt in game also, as well as variously voted on.
I don't know what could increase the scope beyond aesthetics.