|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Thod there should be various tech boffins in the forums who can advise?
That said, I've looked into this and when I get time will try to post/posit some resources for use on such issues. It's a very energetic w/e so forgive me if I fail in advance to get back today and I'm not a tech expert either so these are just pointers/resources you may already have covered/know of.
I was sold on the idea of PFO in part what I wanted in mmorpg "more freedom" from myself and in part from what Ryan demonstrated in design and again in engagement with interested people.
I was sold on the idea of EE despite limitations in part due to lack of alternatives and again because there's a chance a good quality community will harbour in EE, which adds a lot of value imo.
I did not realize Ryan had such a history in games previously but certainly did recognise the design idea was really great even if the implementation challenges still remained "staggering"!!!
Veeeery interesting interview (good interviewer and interviewee: It takes 2 two Tango as the saying goes).
What stood out for me the most was the way Ryan mentioned how unpredictable confluences were often important in how things shaped up.
Good question on "was it Pathfinder or was it an MMO?"
Maybe it's redundant if as per Ryan mentioning, at these various stages it provides "opportunity for conflict". Also combines with the idea of licensing the online aspect and the financial choices behind that.
I definitely see where you are coming from here. Guess this is MVP + 1, given all the below stuff needs to run smooth and iron out more "stuff". Then we get this it becomes more about as you say sustaining interest.
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Btw, there are also some high level wolf-type monsters that have been built, but I haven't seen them yet in the game, including worgs, winter wolves, and even hell hounds!
Music to my ears.
Feel like I'm more up to speed with where the game is now.
Calidor Cruciatus wrote:
Yeah I'm hoping the various player groups get their identities and parcels of land and become very territorial (and touchy!) and then seek to amass power and the strategy kicks in.
Ryan Described this very well here in this interview:
I'm guessing the basic gameplay "feel" is the key as is the core combat and how fun that is. Then how those are a part of the above game loop successfully.
All comments appreciated. I'm probably going to hold off hopping into EE on day 1 (moving around and getting a new graphics card etc) but also will jump in when I think the above is up to standard.
Please provide your feedback modelled on the above or in a more relevant way?
Just curious, where did you stumble by PFO, first? And bonus question, what in particular concerning the vision caught your eye?
I ask, so as you can contextualize the questions, because it provides me with an idea of who is drawn to the idea of PFO at this early stage any what about it they feel compensates it's vestigial current state of development.
TEO Cheatle wrote:
Worth holding onto that thought, rough seas ahoooy!!!
Calidor Cruciatus wrote:
Tbh, staggering probably makes the most sense. Sure a lot of peeps might be a bit disappointed not to jump in on day 1 along with everyone else because they want to wait for the full MVP features to be in, but it balances the various necessities this way I imagine.
Just hold off and dive in a bit later. That's what I plan to do.
It's pretty simple, if you don't feel like the game launch on 22nd is up to scratch, then don't spend your xp-time on it or even just pop one month's worth.
Personally I'm fine with others jumping in and myself jumping in later, given the current update.
I'm sure the devs appreciate that but I doubt they'll cheerfully announce that option: They want players both playing (working the game code) and paying (paying them to work!)
Q1: What do alpha players think of the current status and how that translates to M.Viable.P. for EE?
Q2: One of the reasons GW may want an earlier release than later irrespective of full content/features implemenented could be to do with the server and network of having many more players in the game (it sounds like they're keen to raise the numbers but ensure the density is kept managed in the recent update. If so, would GW consider free training-time for those that take the plunge and jump in without the full features, listed as a compromise, or even x1/2 cost of training time?
Q3: I kinda want to know some spec info, as I need a new graphics card so this info to have before hand is useful to be prepared to download and run the client, any details on this before EE start?
If the Hammer is significant part of your character concept whom you're building and attempting to understand how they would act, then I would hope you do what MUST be done, and not rest, nor stop until the sound of hammers falling on anvils (and goblin heads) rings across the River Kingdoms, that all players everywhere know the importance of hammers!
I'm working on a character concept myself and when it's done I'll pass it by you.
Q.9: I'd argued an open question of how much delay would you tolerate from 15th Sept for GW to continue development from days to weeks to months?
Q.X (10!): Suggest a question on what sort of things do you want/expect from Crowdforging too.
Snitches Laden wrote:
Thanks Man, I fell back in love with MMO's once I found out about eve-online unfortunately I was ten years to late to the party I'll see what I can do man Love Path Finder and not having to DM would be amazing lol.
That's my story with EVE tbh. I always meant to jump in but kept delaying and now it makes more sense to give PFO a go. So much choice and so little time. I like the idea of a Game Of Thrones dynamic more as well. I'd say I really want to see mmorpg genre take more of EVE's concept forwards also and see what it leads to.
But the game will launch in Early Enrollment as an "MVP" (Minimum Viable Product) Big Things Have Small Beginnings and add systems via "Crowdforging" Announcing a New Crowdforging Tool: Ideasscale or this ad hoc unofficial one: Poll: Crowdforging feature implementation priority
Snitches Laden wrote:
I think that adding something like this to the game will not only make player interactions more meaningful...
Bingo. Could be an awesome role for player to take up.
Well I'm happy to see the Legal System is top of the charts atm.
However, I'd IMPLORE! :) people to vote for Caravans next. The Legal System is highly necessary to create status information between players and groups of players: Such information is rich for gameplay. But also just behind that is moving heavy goods is also rich in gameplay due to it's information impact on the economy and if it needs hauling via caravans that is a major economic trade requirements if it cannot be moved so easily without such "heavy-lifting" major operations to move. It should make economies more localized due to such severe limitations of movement of such goods and time to do so and exposure as high exposure target for aggressors further increasing the importance of this feature to the game for economy and pvp and organization.
I really like it (big fan of ambushing). It's allowing the a option to actually "hide in cover" which you normally can't do in mmorpgs. hence my usual favorite of finding a climbable tree and spending a few minutes climbing high up out of field of vision. Few and far between in most mmorpgs though.
Could limit to requiring some vegetation nearby instead of anywhere?
Love the idea, think it's necessary.
Master of Shadows wrote:
It can be hard to untangle.
Imho, however, the way to conceptualize it is as per Spaceships:-
1. Choose a hull type
When you make once choice eg Hull, you're already building a particular kind of tree-build with a particular emphasis: Slow but high armour-shields, low movement, but high cargo hold etc...
IE you're anticipating and planning your FUTURE FUNCTION for the specific goal you want to achieve.
Tbh, this is the best way forward. It allows players to choose MORE future functions but keep each built for those functions specific/specialized towards doing that more effectively. It's not about the build it's about the goal = interesting decisions for players and ideally as they play more MORE of those to be able to make.
There's 2 major technological opportunities with digital games vs physical games I can think of to compare:-
1. Networking many, many people into the same game space.
The design of PFO does align with this in mind, so at least it's first step is in the right direction unlike most mmorpgs that have been developed, which may have travelled very far - but in a different direction and hence you can't help but ask the question, if not using the above, then why not just play a nice game of turn-based DnD/Pathfinder/TT instead?
What is the expected problem that death penalties are intended to mitigate? Spawn rushing is already a prohibitively expensive tactic.
I just see the suggestion I proposed above as a fun system to mess with the "reality of the game world" according to Pharasma's Mark.
Interestingly I see Camelot Unchained has similar idea for stealth; it's an idea that I would like to see more of in fantasy. There may be important repercussions with the pillars and a fair bit of fiddling with the radius of death - who knows could be an upgrade path!
Stephen Cheney wrote:
It's still TBD whether we'll let you respawn at your choice of any threaded bind point, or just close ones. Doubtless, there will be some use of the Suicide Railroad no matter what we do, but we don't really want it to become common behavior or strategically significant.
Here's an idea that adds a bit more complexity but also more nuance.
Atm, you're saying options on respawn are, either:-
1. "Respawn at your choice of any threaded bind point." OR
Now if we conceptualize your soul-binding as in the Ethereal Plane for your soul to travel to soul-binding to reform a body.
1. Material Plane where your body exists
i. Your soul-binding points: IF one, then greater radius and you travel instantly back to it in that radius. IF more less radius but more of them and so on.
You could make the ethereal plane a sort of dreamworld overlay or alternative spatial dimension with the Soul-binding points like beacons. Here there could be ethereal dangers and demons that could cause further soul-damage to the character if caught up and that would cause a greater death penalty on respawn.
In time, it could be a whole other side of the game to explore further...
1. Variable risk cannot be predicted
I'm glad they were useful; at least to peel back the eventual scope of PvE plans that PFO is envisaged to one day climb towards.
Wandering Monsters I thought meant static/trash mobs who are in the way of you harvesting?
That said what you are saying is 1-off uber-monsters such as a dragon attacking a settlement randomly etc. Now that would be a feast.
Here's some links to the PvE Blogs I can remember if that is of use (in case it is):-
Adventure in the River Kingdoms => PvE Overview
Where the Wild Things Are => Dungeons & Mobs
Over the Hill and Far Away => Map Hex Types
When the Demon is at Your Door => Escalation Cycles
Whenever I think of roleplaying in an MMO, I am reminded of this.
That's fairly funny; tbh some of the skill of these RP'ers is impressive so I can relate to that outcome!
This said, I believe the concept of RP can evolve beyond "Olde English" words and work more with actions. Working on this atm.
It's been a long time since I last looked at the game in this perspective, so thank you for reminding me of it OP. There is indeed much "validity" to your point of view, your periscope (at this point in time!). :)
Try to dig back through memory some of the ideas, but it will only be a rough pile of ideas for you to inspect for nuggets of value (!):-
1. Concept: PvE = Faucet to the Economy ; PvP = Sink to the Economy
This is a major conceptual adjustment to themepark mmorpgs. It's of paramount importance for PFO to develop an economy "the beating heart of the game" that drives human motivation and leads to as per the features of the game on the website:-
2. Time: PvE costs buckets of money. Want proof:-
Themeparks cost 250m$+.
Hence PFO will work under a different basis of building systems that integrate: The collective of these adds complexity from which emergence derives. As the game grows the devs can add more of these things and more on a bigger scale and better quality and deeper (as per Ryan) "fractal" nature for eg:
3. Example: Dungeons:-
This is major PvE "sheeeeet!"
Let's take 2 types:-
A. Emerald Spire - whopper really highly crafted by great designers. Cost = buckets and long dev to fully develp all those levels.
B. Wormhole Dungeons - These "pop" are procedural, require specialist adventurers and dungeoneering spelunkers. Devs could integrate into economy. Best of these wormhole dungeons could pop in most developed Hexes = draws PvE'ers...
I think you can see how PvE has to evolve at the pace of the game and as a part of the whole.
You can also see how high quality PvE has been the preserve of Themeparks and how expensive it is but how low in longevity it can end up being.
Maybe this helps understand how things develop over time.
Given enough time PvE could be some great specialization opportunities for characters in PFO... given enough time and using Pathfinder's rich lore and strong designers (Eg Emerald Spire).
There is so much stuff they could bring into PvE that would be so new and fresh to the game and bring the next level to sandbox games in general. Has the environment been forgotten for a more static stagnant system only focus on player to player interactions? I don't know maybe it is just me who is starting to fear this?
Now, going to be honest: The design of PFO is for the reverse of this to occur, as per the above reason, and following what you suggest would be the reverse of that; as proven by many previous mmorpgs.
What you want for complexity out of PvE is only seemingly possibly with Dwarf Fortress simulation complexity or MUDs that only use text (as opposed to ascii graphics). That is the honest appraisal of the current technology I think.
OP, there was a plan for those meteorite hexes to be highly contested. No idea what the latest scoopy on that is from the devs?
To go back to basics, there was 2 schools of thought:-
1. Some area for the wilds where people expect "anything goes"
So if 2. holds, then I guess it rubs up against 1. and making 1. ain't such a good idea afterall?
Ryan said a while ago, "killing in context" quote-unquote eg ritualized forms of interaction of who fights who for what reason (and how and where) > is superior to what you get in other games "murder" ie no reason other than a reward of having a toon who can freely do this against another player. That is don't get me wrong fun because it's another player and not dumb/inert AI; but it's piss-poor gameplay when it's frequency rises and is bad for the growth of the game.
I've garbled a lot of things hazy from memory there but hope it makes some sense by providing context to the decisions being made or taken.
That map is awesome!!!!
This is the sort of thing I think that will eventually "sell the game" to more interested people: Not the combat or basic features, but the emergent powers and interaction complexities. G8J.
Wonder if this article has relevance for the map construction and other considerations of promoting a dynamic equilibrium of conflict:-
In EVE's early years, the map was split between hundreds of small alliances, each of which slowly expanded its influence by conquering the star systems bordering its space. Skirmishes and pirate incursions were brief and commonplace, while border wars over territory were long and protracted affairs. Today's nullsec is a different animal entirely, with nearly the entire map carved up between two colossal mega-coalitions of alliances (N3/PL and CFC), each one internally held in a state of perpetually monotonous peace. No alliance in a coalition can break away and stand on its own for fear of being demolished by the others, and so all of nullsec is at peace with its neighbours and bored to tears by it.
You're right of course, it's a bit beyond MVP, but I thought if it's worth doing then it's worth integrating other systems into it atst hence monster-hunter trade/training springs up, gladiator role springs up, builders have another expensive high-grade building to build, idk the betting system is the idea the building draws business and punters so makes the investment worthwhile and feeds the economy, leading to competing venues outbidding, out-splashing each other...
... yeah imagination run wild, but integration as well as the actual activity itself of face-offs.
For an MVP idea:-
1. Building required
5. = 1.-4. = player entertainment
For example on 3. it might make sense to have a standardization of this role progression eg Soldier, Merchant etc?
Doesn't it work:-
Trialers = Fun = Instant or very immediate gratification desirable
So, I think if the character is more mature, the xp gain is about doing better what you're enjoying doing?
I like the idea the devs are gods walking in the midst of mortals, inscrutable and unknowable, they perform their own works. That old beggar you just kicked out of the way on the street, perhaps it was the king of the gods? In which case you just made a very very bad mistake.
That's usually how religions work. Why not provide PFO's pantheon of gods/religion with teeth and hands?
Those who are interested in RP'ing of Inn-keepers appear to have a role that could be exceptionally well suited to RP with the full works to support such a role, btw, and of course such a role is by nature highly sociable... unless we're talking about "The grumpy/surly inn-keeper at the 5 Bells Inn... but the bitter is the best in the business, and hence the customers put up with the bad service,"?
The thought of worrying about how much my stuff weighs sounds dreadful. In every other video game I've played I collect A LOT of stuff and keep handy things around just in case. Having to worry whether I'll be able to move at all because I want to use the items I've acquired does not seem like it would help the overall fun of the game.
It sounds brilliant to me = interesting choices to make as well as knock on effects on groups and the economy.
If it sounds dreadful to "you" then that could be because:-
1. You are solo'ing
1. You solo you limit what you can do.
I have no idea if that is how the game is designed to work, but I want to see if the challenge has any application to your expressed preference?
What I do know or suspect:-
1. Your encumbrance limits your gear, which limits the builds you can multi-class without instant access to all that gear.
In a spaceship game you would have a larger hull for hauling stuff. I'd like to see PFO use beasts of burden or carriages for this for items of bulk and heaviness, personally. I'd also like encumbrance for items on the body to match the increase in weight to power ratio to move all that weight over distance ie encumbrance does what it says on the tin by hook or by crook for most bipedal races of a certain size that power ratio hits a limit in the same general zone.
Perhaps I've got it all wrong in my enthusiasm, but I have high hopes.
The game needs to ensure players are making interesting choices to a high frequency and ideally social interaction to a high quality. Possibly this system helps with both those outcomes? I hope so and solo-ing may be something exciting to do to specialize in, but don't expect to be taking half the kingdom back home with you!?