Valeros

Coldman's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 308 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not overly pleased that a second Kickstarter has begun. I'm all for supporting a project through Kickstarter; paying for a game 4 years prior to it's release is one thing, $100 for an early beta slot another, but asking for funding to the tune of $1,000,000 from our collective pockets is something else.

I could almost relax if not for the inevitability of a third kickstarter campaign should this one result in success.

I don't know if the community knows or if they're ignoring the knowledge that funding an MMORPG for no return and no assurances on the outcome of the game itself - it is a fools errand.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As much as I understand people's urge for MMORPGs to adopt more advanced forms of combat to that of older MMORPGs, I do not and never have seen combat as an element of gameplay which would keep me around for any great period of time.

WoW has tab targeting, global and local cooldowns and generally a very refined version of the norm, yet WoW arena PvP was far too elitist for me and this is coming from an old UO PvP vet who used to rave about skill based PvP, a too greater emphasis on combat can detract from the idea that you're playing an RPG. What MMOs generally have in common is a centricity around combat as the bread and butter of the game and this is at the heart of the scrutiny of it. Combat sits at the core of gameplay, finite PvP and PvE goals are completed and the romance ends.

In line with a post I made on another thread, the outcome of combat and player interactions are far superior to the substance of the actions themselves; any combat system eventually becomes boring and one can only turn to the purpose of the interaction to continue to be satisfied with participating in it.

Tera Online had arguably the most enjoyable combat system I've experienced to date, yet the game offered little to no purpose and subsequently nose dived. UO, Lineage 2 are two examples of games with long histories, UO lasting a very long time and Lineage to this day being played by hundreds of thousands of players (not on the retail servers); these games have very simple and dull combat mechanics but ones which will eternally be driven by the requirement to engage in combat for the larger social/political goals they hope to achieve and not purely.

I would even go as far as to argue that a game with too complex or purely skill driven combat system would alienate more players than it would attract through the elitist swing; bunny hopping Darkfallers I'm looking at you.

Keep it simple, smooth and well animated and very polished, but above all, give it a wide arching purpose to be defined and redefined by the player base and they won't even care what they're doing.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Goblinworks dice set, plushy toy and a cloth map of the River Kingdoms - I'm there.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A mechanic which tied the health of a forest with those who would seek to protect it/offered a beneficial incentive for druids/fey to inhabit and protect the area = awesome. Perhaps placing valuable 'required' natural resources there which the Druid class can benefit from or some variant of minor buff?

Too tired to come up with good ideas but social incentives for players to dwell in collective hubs is something a sandbox game really needs in order to blossom. I hope to see druids living in forests, smithies dominating the city forges, salesmen filling the market place (no damn auction house) and jesters/bards healing and rejuvenating tavern patrons. Oh the joy.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In a previous thread, Elth mentioned a desire for a return to GTA3'esque movement fluidity; climbing, jumping and vaulting walls, scaling rooftops and leaping from building to building. This immediately got me watching videos of Assassins Creed; a game I could not bare to play properly, yet put an exorbitant number of hours into simply for the enjoyment, the feel and the brand of freedom the game offered in regards to movement and truly being a thief in an urban environment.

I'm now in a frame of mind to ask myself and to you on the forum, why can this fluidity of gameplay not be transferred to an MMORPG? Many of the pitfalls of transferring mechanics to the MMORPG environment would not be felt in implementation of this mechanic and it would merely be a case of balance than that of technology.

Video illustration.

We're yet to find out how skills are handled, how character development will truly function and for this reason it is difficult to offer possible means of balance. It is however possible to say that this 'could' be balanced; offering such manouverability to only the most skilled acrobats would be key, and such a level of skill should come at a high sacrifice should one want to be a true street ninja (only light armour, ridiculously high dex, high deployment of available skill into acrobatics etc). Such acts of acrobatics would also severely drain stamina and such a character would be railroaded into being designed specifically to allow such athletics.

I don't need to emphasise how much of a positive thing this could be for the game; any MMORPG which produced a trailer including that of a thief backstabbing his victim, scrambling up the face of a building and disappearing into the night...unthinkable pleasure.

As I said, given the right engine, such mechanics are more an issue of game balance than programming and I'd believe the time invested in coding and designing such gameplay would make my eyes melt, and many others. Never before has an MMORPG had any degree of freedom of movement, and such an investment would trickle down to all classes as they would have a means to invest little skill in order to gain greater agility; at the very least have cool animations for jumping over obstacles.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I very much agree with what Ryan has been saying in this thread.

To offer an example from my own experience, I spent a good amount of time playing Neverwinter Nights on quite a hardcore Persistent World server. Dungeons there spawned somewhat randomly and took a few hours to respawn, this included chests etc and generally made dungeons appear like one would expect in maybe Diablo following completion; ransacked. Despite the obvious casual gamer response of 'why am I waiting to play the game?', this occurrence really seemed to supplement gameplay as it gave a natural period of hiatus in which I could focus on other things, that or simply spend the time finding an 'active' dungeon. Such irregularity also hindered the 'villains' of the server from attempting to grief players as dungeons were occupied by players so irregularly.

In my own personal opinion, this gave the world a true organic feeling in that the world did not simply contain spawn points to which could be farmed. Experience was something you did not take for granted and upon stumbling across a natural spawn or build up of monsters, you would jump at the opportunity to get your friends together and face any risk in getting that experience. Experience was in essence no different than any other resource and was not readily available; you mine when resources are abundant, you trade when prices are high, you slay when monsters are abound. I generally did not go looking for adventure in Neverwinter Nights as it was dangerous to do so alone and I was not guaranteed ever finding one. Instead, a player would perhaps come by and shout that goblins had come to occupy a cavern north of town and a band of us would join together to go sort it out; guaranteed both safeties in numbers and the opportunity to get our experience up.

I can only hope that this vision remains true and that 'looking' for a fight is more the order of the day that 'deciding' to go farm something for a few hours. That's how people get bored and move on. Organic and random spawning of monsters plays heavily into the social interaction and quality of social interaction and shouldn't be simply painted over with static, permanent spawns. Encounters ultimately become more sparse but the rewards and experience far more rewarding than your typical MMORPG, and unique instead of the monotony of hitting a static dungeon. Each location and enemy became a mini story and combat and risk ultimately felt more meaningful.

I'm rambling...get what I mean? lol

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Altearia wrote:

It doesn't need to be innovative, it just needs to be good, and both WoW and SWToR both have less than desirable combat systems, so if that is what is planned Goblinworks better think again. I personally will find it very hard to go back to tab targeting after all the time I have spent in TERA, where my skills actually have a large impact on the outcome of combat, rather than it being purely about numbers.

As has already been said, you can fix and add sandbox elements post launch, but you cannot fix the combat, what you launch with is what you get for the rest of the game's life-time, and assuming this game lives for the next 10 years I would really like to have something more alined with TERA, than with WoW, it is just more fun. If you omit making the combat both good and fun then you risk a wide range of negatives, from being labeled 'yet another tab target WoW-clone' in an era that is shifting to systems with more user input, to outright killing the game through lack of fresh blood to the game. The new players will only experience combat for their first weeks of the game, they won't be building a town, they won't see many of the positive elements of a sandbox till they have progressed more into it, so if the first thing they think based on the combat is 'man, this game plays just like SWToR, and I don't want to play that again' they will just quit, and without enough new people to replace the old people, who move on to other things, your game just dies.

But all that said I don't want another themepark, I want something more to my game, I want to build a town and burn my enemies to the ground, I'm tired of being just another [insert class here] in [insert game here]. I will just be extremely put out if they just give me a Sandbox WoW.

My point is this. Tera combat is great, yet pretty much all the game has as a life line. Take away that and Tera is just another themepark. It's true that combat mechanics are initiated at launch and remain indefinitely, however a sandbox game relies heavily upon everything but the combat. Themeparks consist of quest grinding; combat is the mechanism in which you derive fun; PvP and end raid content is the name of the game and fun is correlated to the mechanism of combat in completing those goals. Succeeding is indeed fun, but equally as much as the difficulty in combat to reach that goal i.e arenas or Tera open pvp.

In sandbox games (or every sandbox I have encountered), fun is derived from the availability to achieve worldly and meaningful accomplishments through your actions, combat is just a facet of this. No sandbox I can remember had any distinctly innovative combat system or one which I would define as fun on it's own merit. From this viewpoint, I find it hard to imagine a sandbox MMO with a combat system similar to that of Tera, simply as I haven't seen an MMO in over a decade which can even deliver sandbox features, let alone an advanced combat system such as Tera's FPS combat or Darkfall's hack and slash. These features to me are integral to games which rely upon such mechanisms and in the case of sandbox games (Darkfall), have utterly failed to deliver both a higher form of combat system and sandbox features. I cannot help but think that if Darkfall adopted a more default means of combat, the game breaking lack of sandbox content and weird combat would not exist in any form.

A good sandbox game, even with a combat system identical to WoW, would not phase me. Given the scope of possibilities in game, how I killed people would be of little importance. Salem is a new and very popular sandbox MMORPG in which the combat is ridiculously simple, yet I see it doing very well and don't see how a simplified or even outdated combat system can hinder a game of vast potential for player interaction. Players are not going to login and say 'Oh I've seen this combat before', they're going to say 'I can't believe there is so much stuff I can do'. The game itself will have no comparison to other combat centric themepark games thus I don't think that combat mechanics need comparison on a similar plateau. Combat should not be the only route of entry and thus the game, in my opinion, should not pimp itself out in this direction and would be a poor take on the intellectual property which it carries if it did.

I don't see it reasonable to expect Goblinworks to deliver a combat system anything like what is on offer in Tera; in fact I'd see such a thing as detrimental to the game. Sandbox games are about everything other than high action combat in my eyes; you have control of the development of a vast range of things, combat in itself should not rely on a high calibration of 'twitch' skill as is the case in Tera, this combat has already created a themepark niche of FPS pewpewers. Any form of simplified combat requires an advanced level of skill to compete at the top level, even tiddly winks.

Keep it simple, that's all I hope. I play Tera for twitch combat, I can't see it being in Pathfinder on top of everything else the game requires to be a successful sandbox. Don't get me wrong, I'd accept both; I'd accept something fresh or a new take on the past conventions of combat, but twitch based FPS or innovative combat is a tall order when attempting to create a true sandbox world.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My years in MMORPGs have always taught me one thing; it's not how you fight, it's what your fighting for. Immerse me and give me a purpose and I'd quite happily fight a battle with a match of rock, paper, scissors. I recently played Tera Online and can honestly say the combat is the most fun in any game MMORPG I have ever played; am I playing it? No. Guild Wars 2 combat was also a great deal of fun; not gonna play that either. I remember when I first played Assassins Creed and was blown away by the combat system, equally, played it for maybe a few days. Games are not defined by their combat but by the outcome of combat.

My personal preference for a game such as Pathfinder Online, one which will apparently offer a rich sandbox experience, is to keep it simple. In my own personal preference, sandbox games should not strive to achieve twitch based combat, nor should combat be something explosive with 101 moves and backflips. I played the Dawntide beta (before it went boom) and Dawntide offered nothing more than tab targeting, auto attack and a few basic attacks such as stun etc. Did it matter? Not remotely, the scope and vastness of possibilities and purpose to be found in the game made combat no more a tool than chopping wood or mining rock.

If the River Kingdoms has a pulse, if the sandbox elements are there, keep combat simple, balanced and solid. Good animations and intuitive combat speaks volumes; flashy twitch based combat often ends up looking stupid, gets boring and in almost all cases turns a sandbox game into a repetitive action game. I'm not saying you can't have both, I'm just saying I've never seen it happen.

I would honestly simply leave combat at tab targeting, HP/MP/Stamina bar and a relatively small selection of melee combat skills which eat a constantly replenishing stamina pool and are used to cause an effect, rather than that of skills which would be constantly cycled to cause max damage. Perhaps even skills which are conditional, such as a counterattack following a successful parry etc. Having loved playing my Lancer in Tera, manual parrying using say the right mouse button is endlessly awesome, however this deploys hit boxes and the whole premise of my preference here is to not over complicate game design for little pay off. Dodging, as you mentioned, is something doable and would be welcome. Auto attack is fine for me, I actually miss it. Level up to 60 in Tera and tell me that you're not bored of clicking/tapping/caring. I leveled my lancer 90% of his levels using a xbox 360 controller for no other reason than being incensed at how stressful it was trying to kickback with a mouse and keyboard.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Was meaning to make a decent one, but found myself with a lil spare time to fire this out in the meantime.

Pathfinder Soundbyte

I'll hopefully do another soon.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Massively impressed. Simple but very interesting. I've always loved achievements and badges, yet hated them for just being a goal unto themselves. Merging these into acquiring abilities/prestige classes and in incorporating the 20 levels from the tabletop is a really nice touch.

Roll on 2 weeks so we can learn more.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Darkfall Online, Mortal Online, Ultima Online, Ryzom etc; these are the only current examples of sandbox games in medieval/fantasy settings.

The formula used in themepark games regarding gear being 'constant' and that which is replaced than discarded is something that people are just going to have to get over. The grey/green/blue system is only fitting with a linear gear progression which funnily enough is attached to a linear game progression.

Gear should generally be readily disposable and offer choice. In a majority of the games I referenced, characters would pick a level of gear fitting to the task at hand as it was economical and they would not want to risk more than required should the task be dangerous/risk losing it. Maybe just a set leather if they're going into the woods to hunt animals as the woods can be dangerous; a set of infernal godly plate if they were travelling to slay a dragon in a large and secure group.

Gear in PFO, with the presence of full/partial loot, is not going to be 'epic'. If it is it will not be used in dangerous areas. Gear should offer a marked advantage, checked with the risk of losing it. That's it. If you had the hand of ragnaros then you wouldn't dare risk it regardless; leave it on the mantle. Whats wrong with just swords and armour?

When gear is perishable, it is readily replaced as such an occurrence offers crafters an abundance of demand. I've never played a sandbox where gear wasn't readily available from player crafters.

And finally, perishable items are required should an economy wish to FULLY function. We're not talking a WoW auction house based economy, we're talking about an economy which creates close to EVERYTHING used by players.

I struggle to post on these forums anymore as it seems there is an abundance of NFL supporters and a minority of NBA supporters, yet the football fans are telling the basketball fans how basketball works. Much of what Onishi and KitNyx say I agree with. To the rest of you I suggest that given that the game has been described as a medieval/fantasy sandbox with a player driven economy, consistent with a variation of open PvP and full loot, I would start looking at how that genre of game functions than confusing it with others. Yes I know this genre works in the tens or hundreds of thousands and not the tens of millions of subscribers, but get over that as well. As soon as Ryan or anyone else comes on these forums and starts talking like the game is going to in any way shift towards a themepark/mass market formula then your concerns would become correct.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:

Stop trying to put flags into a game which is almost certainly not going to have any.

PFO will be different to World of Warcraft. There are no similarities. WoW griefing is applicable because there is no risk to the harasser. The harasser can take from your time and enjoyment of the game, and you nothing from him. You will NEVER beat him and others wont take the time as they gain nothing from doing so.

Alternatively.

In a world where anything goes if your willing to accept the risk for it, things work differently. You can take as much from your aggressor as he can from you, potentially more if he's in better gear as to allow his ease of griefing. For every band of griefers there is an equally well geared, well skilled group happy to come and kill those guys for their gear. The griefers should be putting themselves at risk/in a vulnerable location if it is viable for them to grief you, thus you or others should be freely able to defend yourselves. This puts the griefer largely at risk.

Griefing is not a feature in open PvP/full loot games in any way similar to it is in a game with PvP flags/hybrid PvP. This arguement seems more a case of a guy in a trench during WW1 who keeps jumping out, getting shot and screaming 'OMG STOP'.

It's just most likely going to be a kind of game you will not enjoy.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chuck Wright wrote:

The only hole in your argument is that Ryan Dancey's statements have indicated that this will be a primarily PvP-motivated game. His posts elsewhere have indicated that PvP is the risk you need to face to reap any reward.*

So, unless they drastically change the lead developer's intentions for the game, we DO know what we're getting on that front.

*Let the pedantry begin.

That is not the case though. I have played MMORPGs, including sandbox MMORPGs, for many years and I'm not undermining any who have or haven't, but when he says that the greatest rewards are reaped in dangerous areas, that is not to be taken at all how it sounds.

Eve Online and Ultima Online were & are games in which rewards are best gained in dangerous places. Even today in Ultima Online this is the case. I guarantee you that Ultima Online's population is a minority of PvPers.

Resources to craft a MIGHTY BLADE OF RARE ORENESS might only be available should one obtain the RARE ORE from the MOUNTAIN OF DANGER. In UO currently, the scrolls to raise your skill cap are only obtainable from felucca (dangeorus land), yet they are readily available to non-pvp players.

You do not have to go to the mountain of danger. Safe lands could and should be full of things to keep none PvPers busy. The game will no doubt feature a rich market which shall service people everything they need; specifically resources and items which have been extracted from the dangerous lands.

Ryan does not mean that if you want the best items, you need to go to danger land to go get them. He does mean however, if you want to OBTAIN it yourself, that's where you must go. Otherwise put the effort in elsewhere to earn the cash and buy it on the market.

This is a sandbox. It will offer you the means to play the game how you want. PvE players will be viable and have access to all resources, but just different means of acquiring it. Saying that you need to PvP or risk PvP to gain any reward is the typical doomsdaying which has gripped some members of this forum. It is a ridiculous statement. They're largely taking Eve Online into account in the building of this game (by the looks of it). Eve Online and Ultima can both be played happily from within a condom.

In summation. Lets say I have 3 friends. They all own castles, land, magical weapons and armour and a wealth unmatched. One did so through launching wars across the kingdom and conquering his enemies and amassing wealth. The other did so through delving into the deepest darkest dungeons to slay the mightiest dragons. The other owned a shop and made furniture.

How do I know all this? I don't. But every single one of my experiences and what I have learnt from sandbox MMORPG is that how I play dictates my safety. How and where I conduct myself and how I want to achieve what I want to achieve. It's how they work and it's how they should be (and I hope how PFO is) designed.

Oh and for the record I don't plan on PvPing what so ever. I play for social roles and RP; I don't even PvE.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Trent wrote:
Coldman wrote:
Roleplaying games, specifically of the fantasy genre, should encourage characters to play multiple characters than that of all roles on a single character.
Why? Skyrim requires no such many character approach and I hear its getting pretty decent reviews from the rpg crowd.

Apologies, I was referring to massively multiplayer RPGs. In Skyrim you are the hero of your own insular world. Great. Having a single character immerse himself and conquer in his own game is kind of the point. The same in the tabletop game. Make your party the kings of Golarion, why not.

In an MMORPG, you populate and bring the world to life. Having hundreds of thousands of identical heroes loses most of it's validity as soon as you realise your fulfilling no purpose beyond your own short sighted entertainment and nobody will hear you leave. In my opinion, most common gaming outcomes of RPG games should be left at the door of any sandbox MMORPG.

Having multiple characters fulfilling certain roles brings the game to life. It doesn't matter if each blacksmith has relatively the same skill set as they each have a place in the world and each play their part in maintaining that world.

Having hundreds of heroes amassing vast skill pools makes an otherwise well designed world lose all authenticity and look ridiculous. You can't make single characters look remotely normal if you let them do everything. You cannot have a medieval/fantasy sandbox MMORPG where everybody is Jesus.

Let the people who want to be heroes earn that in game. Not through a massing a ridiculous amount of skill points. This works in New Eden; Eve portrays everything I could dream of for PFO, I just do not see that skill system working in Golarion. Happy to be proven wrong though.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Funny. I leave the forums for a few days, the game is no more or less detailed or developed and yet your all trying to bludgeon each other wielding your opinions in one hand and your anxieties in the other.

The game could be about flower picking. Saying you can't play a strictly PvP game or you can't play a strictly PvE game is an argument you can have with yourself. It has got nothing to do with Pathfinder Online nor are they trying to develop this game with you specifically in mind.

Wait for more details. Make a decision. Try or do not try the game.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Klaus van der Kroft

Your missing my point. You punish random player killing in open PvP because there is full loot of player bodies. Random player kills make up a small minority of the playerbase, other players craft, hunt monsters etc. Assuming these two groups of players operate in the same game world, the carebears will be hunted for their loot. You need to balance this. I come from the world of UO where reds would wait outside town to feed on the inventories of newbies, not the world of Azeroth where people roll eachother for pointless fun. If this game is going to feature full or partial loot and non consensual PvP, forget everything you know about themepark PvP immediately.

Ryan has mentioned that we should expect some level of looting to take place in this game. He has also mentioned that open pvp will feature.

When you allow players to murder other players in non consensual PvP and loot their gear, you have to balance it out with a punishment should they be caught/killed in the act. I am not saying punish them for committing the act, I am saying punish them for being caught and killed in the act.

This system of punishment exists in a metaphorical world in which both carebears and random player killers exist in the same areas; its a means to balance this environment. Think of Eve. RPKs are punished for the cost of their stuff should they suicide gank a player in highsec automatically. They are not punished in 0.0. This is more what I am talking about.

You're correct and I didn't quite say what I meant in regard to Darkfall. Open PvP was done very well in Darkfall, although it failed in so many other areas I got carried away with myself in claiming it a failure.

I'm not posting on this subject anymore as players come from too many backgrounds and have their own impression on what PFO may or may not be like. We also share totally different ideas that it's almost impossible to hit a common ground without writing books and exchanging them with eachothers.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Offer us a fantasy replication of the political PvP geography of Eve and you have succeeded Mr Dancey. In my eyes atleast.

Space is rubbish.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
So either have proper Open PvP, or have it seccluded to pre-determined areas. But whichever option is taken, it has to be done with the idea that it is supposed to be a desired thing for the game, not a burden.

You need to attach a burden to random player killing, otherwise it will grow out of control and alienate 90% of players. This scenario has existed in past MMORPGs as it becomes the case that being classed as a murderer and randomly killing players, in the case of experienced players, becomes almost easier than not doing it. It becomes a PvP switch and all PvPers become red and simply prey on the weak and eachother as they risk no more than a player who chooses to abide by morality. Thus the weak can be killed and looted by experienced players and do nothing about it. Should they hunt down and kill this player, they do not really one up him as he will just come back.

You're alienating all but the hardcore PvPers. Please see Darkfall Online for such a failure.

Open PvP is there to emulate risk versus reward in the sense of replicating a dangerous world. This was the triumph of the system. True open PvP in WoW where there is no risk is a laughing stock. There is literally no point to it. World of Warcraft features faction versus faction PvP and this will doubtless take place all over the place for those who wish it in PFO. Open PvP in the sense of generalised non-consensual PvP needs policing, simple as.

Consider an MMORPG which had full loot, open, non consensual PvP, no policing of random player killers and one which would survive 15 minutes in 2011? Again see the failure that is Darkfall Online.

The point here is to accomplish non consensual, open PvP on a single server, welcome to both PvE and PvP players. This is possible and exists now in certain MMORPGs. People need to stop enforcing their own playstyles on others and realising that both can go co-exist and benefit eachother in creating a rich and diverse community, not to mention a great game. Separate servers is a poor fix.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathan Nasif wrote:
Sounds like a good thing for a council of Druids to watch out for and try to prevent, peacefully or with the shillelagh

Imagine an MMORPG sandbox environment in which a council of Druids could physically play such an integral role in preserving local ecosystems.

Imaginations are dangerous.

♠ Join the Pathfinder Online community in IRC | Server: irc.stratics.com (6667) Channel: #pfo | We'll see you there! ♠

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
you're making things up in order to make the "other" side seem equally ridiculous.

You're starving the room of context as usual in proving a point.

Given the lack of context, then yes that was exactly what I was doing. In the wider context, Kryzbyn's post would seem to be bashing the pro-immersion school. There is more than meets the eye to the bare bones of our posts as one was specifically aimed at mocking more than what was immediately included in the post.

Scott Betts wrote:
you're making things up in order to make the "other" side seem equally ridiculous.

He's using something ridiculous to slander an otherwise valid point of view.

This is a wishlist thread. Let people continue wishing for what they desire without featuring comedic slander of people's playstyles or Scott's highly analytical self glorification.

♠ Join the Pathfinder Online community in IRC | Server: irc.stratics.com (6667) Channel: #pfo | We'll see you there! ♠

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

The difference between your sarcastic argument and Kryzbyn's sarcastic argument is that people have actually asked for things comparable to what Kryzbyn was "asking" for. No one has actually requested anything like half the stuff you're talking about.

No one actually wants a game devoid of challenge. But I bet there are actually people here who would like a game where you need to cook your hunted, skinned, and cleaned venison in real time.

I think we can safely ignore people who want to slow cook their venison, but I do not see how any side is more or less valid.

People have argued against making the game difficult. People have advocated zero death penalties. People have or will expect quests locations to be marked. People have argued for no PvP. I'd say that these have been discussed or supported more than slow roasting venison.

The only difference between the two sarcastic posts is that you give one preference for whatever reason.

♠ Join the Pathfinder Online community in IRC | Server: irc.stratics.com (6667) Channel: #pfo | We'll see you there! ♠

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
In our case this statement is inaccurate.

*Corrects himself*

Skill systems work in that you raise skills similar to that in the MMORPG Eve Online. Considering you meet the pre-requisites for said skill, you may choose to begin learning the skill as if telling your character to read a book. After a period of time has elapsed you will have learnt the skill; think Neo learning Kung-Fu in the Matrix.

As you progress higher and higher in this skill, the time required to progress increases dramatically. The time required to reach the first level of a skill is comparatively fast.

Am I getting closer? ^^

♠ Join the Pathfinder Online community in IRC | Server: irc.stratics.com (6667) Channel: #pfo | We'll see you there! ♠

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Onishi wrote:
True though in the long run, instant travel still needs to have limits as well.

Both Eve Online & WoW handled travel quite well. Taxi services such as warp gates(?) and grpyhons offered players a fast means of travel, but one which also entailed some travel time.

Allowing players to travel where ever they please at a quicker, yet still time consuming place (whilst afk) is the best option. Prices would not converge across local markets as time constraints still exist, yet players would be free to travel with relative ease as opposed to on foot/horseback.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Svevenka wrote:
Am I missing something? Jumping to conclusions? Overreacting? Does anyone else share my fears?

The game is not even in preproduction, yet could be jumping onto our screens at a very accelerated rate thanks to this approach to design and launch.

Consider it more your getting it early, than you have to wait and play it late. At launch we must assume that the playable areas will be small, content minimal and in effect a beta. A pay to play beta.

The game is intended to be free to play and this period will only be for paying customers. I think this will be less of a problem than most think.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think many are missing the advantages in such a launch philosophy.

Launching in this manner allows them to squeeze every bug and optimization out of small portions of content before expanding the sandbox organically in tune with the requirements of the players.

Instead of the conventional production process, the development and expansion of the game will be a liquid process which will shift production to where it is most needed and the game will progress intuitively. It will be difficult to force the same balanced growth which Eve Online experienced and I sincerely hope that the low cap stages of launch are considered a 'beta', otherwise it can be quite disenfranchising for communities to be unable to enjoy the game together.

This launch manifesto has all the potential, if used correctly, to create something truly interesting. Imagine watching the game expand and grow around the players naturally? Monthly content updates and not an ounce of developer time wasted so that it can be focused where it's needed.

I personally prefer this to a philosophy of spending 3-5 years developing a product to a certain specification, spending tens of millions of dollars, unveiling to a massive audience and then spending the next 12 months hoping you've got it right.

We should all put faith behind this as, save for the launch cap, can only play in all of our favour.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:
Amen, brother. Let there be Pathfinder NWN.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Yeah...was kinda hoping they'd come up with something better for endgame than status quo. But, it is what it is, and the storyline alone is worth buying and subbing.

$60 + $15 a month is a hefty premium for a few weeks original content. I look forward to a record breaking loss in subscriptions unless they have a sweat shop of voice actors in Taiwan.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

You can say I am leery. I have zero interest in a game where I need to watch my back the whole time I am playing for other players who gank me for giggles and LULZ.

PFO looks to be not a game I want much to do with so far.

What is known of the game thus far player safety will be relative to the areas in which he chooses to play. Killing another player will come with a harsh penalty, presumably one which players will not undertake lightly unless you've given someone a good reason to kill you, or he enjoys playerkilling so much that he just can't help himself.

Everything I have heard from Ryan and Mark suggest that the game will not be a kill zone. Modern day themepark games accommodate griefing as there is no mechanic dissuading the griefer to stop corpse camping you, or the player to stop trying to resurrect. Both parties have nothing to lose and they can annoy each other indefinitely forever. If you told me that I could stand in front of a person's car in the road and not move, free from the risk of them beating me up, being arrested, gaining a criminal record or being punished in any single way...why the hell not?

People often forget that everytime you kill a player killer you are griefing him from conducting his playstyle of feeding on the helpless; a well designed open pvp game places far greater risk on the playerkiller than on that of the helpless.

Open pvp and full loot, should it exist in it's fullest incarnation in PFO which it more than likely will not, will have an abundance of rules to control players griefing each other. Simply because these rules have vaguely been used since the early games of the late 90s, it does not mean that they will be implemented as poorly.

Losing your access to towns and cities, being preyed on by bounties, players and NPC hunters in higher security areas; these are the things I anticipate that the griefers and playerkillers will be facing and I don't understand why anyone thinks that they're going to get an easy ride.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
superfly2000 wrote:
I don't know why when most hear the word "MMO" they instantly think about a stereotype full-out MMO.

As far as Scott is concerned, if it doesn't look, feel and play to the specifications of the typical MMORPG gamer (brain damaged frog), it is an inferior product. In business terms he has a point and we can give him a gold star, but it is still dictating a brain dead product. Such a discussion as to how to try make your themepark less brain dead is a debate for the MMORPG.com forums.

Guild Wars is a living example of a game in which an MMORPG game was played in small parties. Cities would act as quest hubs/player hubs and parties would be created and venture out into the instanced world.

NwN is a living example of D&D rules integrated into a game which flawlessly produces an enjoyable TTRPG adaptation in a small scale MMORPG-esque persistent world. Paired with the system of Guild Wars, I fail to see how you have not brought Pathfinder to the MMORPG platform in it's majority.

There is such a wealth of possible ways in which an MMORPG could be designed and played that the idea that anything must be reproduced from a single title is insane. We're literally at a junction in this industry where gaming companies dare go as far as adding voice acting and story driven quests whilst leaving every single feature intact else untouched.

The debate should be regarding how we go from the OGL to the MMORPG, not from the MMORPG to the OGL. Such a movement would not be 'a terrible idea'.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
I'd rather have fun "doing nothing" than getting killed, then having to run and cry for a craftsman to get me a new armor set and weapon, only to lose it again the moment I step out in the open a second time. Either I run out of money and have to sit in the town naked while trolls come to laugh at me, or then I run out of patience and just ragequit the entire game by that part.

So you'd rather play a game in which gear is easily acquired and where you can operate in relatively safety?

I think you've just described Pathfinder Online! Just because open pvp and loot systems are mentioned, it does not mean a thing my friend.

Eve Online has open PvP and player looting (not to mention the fact people can destroy your ship), yet gear is readily available and you can play the game in almost it's entirety without ever having to risk your ship or your possessions to other players. Commodities only available in dangerous areas can be as dangerous as acquiring them or as easy as buying them.

The dangerous elements needn't concern you, yet removing them would destroy fundamental aspects of the game and so many playstyles and roles.

I think some are being a little greedy. Goblinworks are not going to make a free for all like Ultima Online. Relax.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In response to Scott.

The influx of millions to the themepark came majoritively from everywhere but the MMORPG market. Before the WoW monster, MMORPGs were nothing new and struggled in any attempt to capture a significant market share. If we assume this majority can be your average PC or console gamer, such singleplayer or multiplayer games must by design not penalise players too harshly.

Do these millions of new MMORPG gamers constitute an MMORPG market per se, or the new World of Warcraft or MMMG (Multiplayery Multiplayer Multiplayer Game)? I needn't remind you that the WoW playerbase has to date been largely non-transferable to any other MMORPG game than that of a startling resemblance to WoW. The WoW market is closed for anything but a WoW game, it's identical twin or similar adaptation of a single/multiplayer experience to the MMO genre. Despite short sighted opinion, these two audiences are not remotely the same.

Who are we trying to appeal to Scott? As far as I am concerned, challenging World of Warcraft for any amount of it's playerbase is as would all agree, ill-founded. Not only do such MMORPG attempts to appeal to the WoW player fail in capturing any of the new WoW market, they also alienate the traditional market through attempting to conjoin both the WoW game and the traditional (or different) MMORPG. World of Warcraft Jim goes back to Warcraft and Jerry complains it's too much like Warcraft.

The large majority of the now very large MMORPG market prefer an easier, relatively risk free MMORPG - I totally agree with you. But this is a new MMORPG customer and one which is inaccessible unless you cater to their specific needs whilst accepting a relatively dismal chance of any success.

Taking the above into consideration, the only reason I would agree that they should make the game easier in accommodating to the mass market of MMORPG games is - never. It's why so many fail and I think that Goblinworks would achieve a far greater success in going the route of Eve Online; be it's own product with it's own market and leave the WoW market alone.

In response to Icyshadow - I'm not picking on Scott and he's entitled to an opinion. I'd enjoy these debates more if he expressed his opinions than simply point out every occasion in which someone suggests a feature or mechanic which does not appeal to a massive majority of tens of millions of people. Is aiming a solid product at 500,000 less of a business plan?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ansha wrote:
I'm not sure how the age of the platform is relevant to your contention that '"nonconsensual pvp in a grindy themepark mmo is utter fail" but not in a sandbox.' I was pointing out that even in UO, the prototypical sandbox MMO, people voted with their feet and went to the non-pvp facet when the option became available (and it was only about 3-4 years old at that point).

That was a long time ago. It was either Ultima Online or nothing in regards to mainstream MMORPGs. Open PvP was more a social experiment than a well thought out game design and given the chaos which ensued, it is no surprise everyone jumped ship to Trammel. We shouldn't forget the influence of human nature either; Offer someone the choice between an instant peanut, or a peanut at the end of a mine field, which would they take? Trammel was but a little blue door away. PvP and loot mechanics were not the talking point they are today and the choice was simple.

Now however, the last decade has shown that PvP servers are amongst - if not - the most popular servers. People are choosing non-consensual PvP over consensual PvP. To go back to your example of Ultima Online, in terms of active players, UO free servers deploying Felucca only rulesets are by far the most popular and I don't think there are many still occupying EA's Sosaria.

Mortal Online and Darkfall Online attracted the attention of hundreds of thousands whilst deploying almost no marketing what so ever beyond offering a few interviews. Both games failed drastically, but not because people did not enjoy the concepts employed, quite the contrary. Full loot, open PvP and a sandbox environment were the pulling points of these games. Had these products had bigger studios behind them/great access to resources as to have allowed for greater marketing and a strong execution of these features - we wouldn't be having this debate.

We argue about how much we should maximize or minimize WoW's influence on this game. We do the same in regard to Felucca and Ultima Online. The important thing here is to establish that both are wrong for Pathfinder Online, yet both offer key ingredients which it will need to appeal to it's fanbase.

In my own opinion, full loot and open PvP works. Eve Online, Ultima Online (currently on player servers) and Darkfall Online (despite everything else wrong with it) show that it is far from the beast it was in 1998. Open PvP systems are now intelligent enough to incorporate appropriate risks and punishments to which developers can readily scale in policing such an environment appropriately.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:

This is not true. I have a group of friends playing EVE. Areas of Eve are dangerous, and known to be, but they are sometimes major routes players need to take. When someone needs to transport something important through one of these areas, they talk to the corporation and ask who is free to scout the area. Someone sends in a disposable alt/clone in a cheap ship, runs some scans, and sends back his report. The important ship then jumps in and moves through the area if it is safe. My friends enjoy working arround this element of danger as a logistics problem. Thus non-consentual PVP creates other interactions in game and influences player behavior in creative and fun ways.

As far as mining goes, it means you do not mine in dangerous areas alone. In EVE, you get a group: 1-2 people with combat skills to watch everyone and be the guard, 3-4 miners who churn through the asteroids, 2-3 haulers who take the mined materials back to base. If hostiles show up, the miners pack up and run while the people who are there to guard fight. If it looks like a long fight, they jump into alternate ships specked for combat and counterattack. This encourages group behavior and reliance on a guild, which is one of the big advantages of an MMO game.

*Sigh of relief* Sandbox MMORPG player interaction. Why do so many want to remove the elements which make such an environment possible I will never know. Such little understand for how well it can operate.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KitNyx wrote:

I must disagree, I do not like the static NPC taxis...BUT, if players can build ships, they could take passengers. If players can focus on animal handling and train flying mounts such as griffons or dragons, AND they can take passengers, there is a taxi system that builds the economy. As a sandbox, I must argue that anything you think to implement, PCs should get the first option of doing it.

As to why not just give everyone there own flying mount? I already expressed I think the work involved with finding, raising, training, and even controlling such a beast would be beyond the skill of someone who has chosen instead to focus on combat or adventuring skills (of course,...

Totally agree and I did not consider this perspective; I was in Scott sparring stance.

But yes, this is a great idea and very in tune with animal taming from Ultima Online. Tamers could tame and control powerful creatures, but required a range of skills to do this. NOTE: Animal taming was amongst the slowest, if not the slowest skill to train.

This requires that there is indeed some form or skill cap (soft or hard) or system which disallows players from acquiring a monopoly of skills as to allow only the most dedicated animal tamers such a creature.

Given this scenario, this is an excellent idea. All I ask is that the creatures are lore specific and eye pleasing. I swear people can now ride Power Rangers in WoW.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DeaconX wrote:

I love how my adventures are unfolding seemingly naturally.

I love how much control over the development of my 'blank slate' character I have. The world feels alive, it's visceral, it's interactive and it just feels for the most part, really 'right'.

I may catch a bit of flame here but honestly, I'd say if PFO turned out anything like SKYRIM with a lot more sandbox features, I'd be subbed and getting my friends online in no time.

I'd MOVE IN. :D

I think that's got something to do with the game setting itself as predominantly a roleplaying game; one offering an authentic and believable world with appropriate systems to play to the games strengths, not pandering to it's players every tear inducing lip quiver.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Question #19 was the biggest surprise for me. It sounds like pretty much no one here likes end-game raids. This tells me that we probably don't have a lot of hardcore MMORPG players participating in this forum.

Your perception and relationship with MMORPG games frightens me. It frightens me because your right. I feel like the marooned Japanese pilot on an island somewhere in the Pacific, thinking the war is still ongoing.

I've played MMORPG games since their popular inception and I've never cared so little for a game feature than that of end-game raiding.

Once upon a time, the whole MMORPG market would have agreed with me. Next thing you know, a number similar to that of the population of Belgium thinks I'm stupid.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
I hope it is a lot like Morrowind, with a handful of spell effects and every spell a combination of some degree of those... wait, I just had a thought to using Linear Algebra and Matrices to program a spell system... anyway, and then allow players to craft their own spells (though possibly unable to actually cast them if they go too far overboard).

We must be careful Derek. The MMORPG genre struggles to get a primitive game out which functions as intended whilst, if we're lucky, delivers a glimmer of innovation or originality. The way this forum reads, people should be able to build everything, anywhere, with anything, through telekinesis, whilst painting a portrait on the back of a flying polar bear on route to finish decorating their new subterranean ice cream parlour.

In reality, I'd be happy with the spells we got from the RPG with any deviation from the standard norm in how exactly we cast them.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
KitNyx wrote:
Elth wrote:
This is one of the problems that I have with the current MMO's and even some upcoming ones that I have had the opportunity to test. There are too many games that feature you as the "Chosen one" in your own special snowflake story. There are virtually no MMO's out there that allow the player to imagine their own story, allowing the player to fill in the blanks with their own imagination is how good games remain nostalgic. Give players the tools to live in a persistent world however they choose and you cater to more than just the wannabe heroes, you cater to the empire builders, the roleplayers, the explorers, the merchants, the actors, the musicians, the thieves, entrepreneurs and so on...
+1...because this actually includes the hero or "Chosen One" type being argued for too...it is just not handed to you.

Who'd of thought you wouldd have to earn that title?

I'm happy being just a crafter. A civilian, peaceful, crafter.

"Your pretending to be a blacksmith? You do know we're all superheroes right?"

Will a MMORPG in the 21st Century let me please do this without people raising an eyebrow at me? I feel like Chuck Norris hiding in a McDonalds restaurant trying to flip burgers.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KitNyx wrote:
I respect everyone right to their own opinions and definitely expect the devs will not go my way on this. I am just insuring an alternate voice is posted here too because I actually prefer no instancing. And if a legendary dragon is killed, and its treasure taken...it is dead and the treasure gone...but now a group more powerful than the dragon has the items of uberness the dragon once guarded. If you can find out who, you can know where to go to get them for yourself.

Nothings more of a killer for me than the fact that thousand of people ran around World of Warcraft with the Hand of Ragnaros...How many hands did he have?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Coldman wrote:
A well designed MMORPG should not need RP specific servers. In a perfect world (or well crafted world), the roleplayers would seamlessly gel into the player environment; not require a barbed wire cage.
I don't think that's true. The hardcore roleplaying types are going to want to isolate themselves from the non-roleplaying masses, and the non-roleplaying masses aren't going to want to bother with a bunch of people who insist on proper roleplaying interaction. Separation actually works pretty well.

Well that depends where you go. My most dominant RP experiences in MMORPGs come from Ultima Online and to some degree, World of Warcraft. The RP community in Ultima Online are one of the few who preferred integration with the game world as it's mechanics allowed for them to always remain in character and 'police' their own existence. Full loot and open PvP were for them, valuable tools in their immersion and they also had the opportunity to compete in mainstream PvP whilst maintaining their characters and institutions. Most remained in Felucca (until it died) and many still live on in Pre-Trammel private servers.

World of Warcraft RP, on the other hand, relies 100% on it's segregation and I agree that without this it would not be possible. How things pan out for PFO, we shall have to see.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Coldman wrote:
Eve Online (the exception) I think can and has handled around 10,000 or a little more.
Actually, EVE's record as of this year is 63,170 concurrent players.

Good lord.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

Do away with servers as separate worlds.

When I want to play an MMO I want to play with *everyone* not just the people who happened to pick that particular server.

Why couldn't a server govern a particular area in a world rather than an entire world with only a small chunk of the player base? I understand that some areas will have higher populations than other and would be very overpopulated, which would cause a lot of problems, but there *has* to be an way to remedy this.

I'm tired of joining a game and having to build a bunch of different characters on different servers because I have friends all over and no one wants to start over just to join me or pay for a server transfer.

Unfortunately, demand has surpassed technology in this regard. A modern game server for a MMORPG game could probably only handle between 4,000-6,000 players concurrently; Eve Online (the exception) I think can and has handled around 10,000 or a little more. Ryan or Mark could definitely give you more precise stats but it is definitely a figure in this region.

Sadly I cannot see very much room for manoeuvre in this regard. Darkfall Online attempted to deploy some form of 'server cluster technology' in accommodating 10,000 concurrent and succeeded I believe despite everything else going wrong. Any hope however of a single server is problematic and ultimately dependent on how many we are at release.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a 101 ideas I'd love to share for Pathfinder Online and will refine a few of my better ideas and put them up for you to look at once I flesh them out.

One aspect which I do feel very strongly over is the art direction. One thing I wish for above all is for the high quality of art and the persona of Paizo's published products to come to life in Pathfinder Online.

There has already been a great deal of discussion on how a cartoon-esque or stylized graphics engine is largely beneficial to an MMORPG game. Nothing would lend itself more to bringing Pathfinder to life than an engine in tune with that of Borderlands; a visual style to which such massive wealth of Pathfinder artistry could truly be brought to life in truly stylized, yet accurate way.

Just picturing Paizo goblins running around in cel shading as if they just popped out of We Be Goblins...makes me feel all warm inside.

Do it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Yes, a magic automatic fantasy insurance system is much more immersive and realistic than a magic automatic fantasy resurrection system!

Can I vote that both those systems suck?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alouicious wrote:
You yourself admit that Ultima Online was terrible. My point was for Goblinworks to not emulate Ultima Online, I.E., not make a terrible game. You seem to be arguing something completely different.

I'm trying to clarify that emulating Ultima Online is precisely what Goblinworks needs to do. Both combatant and none combatant paths of progression, player driven economies, integrated player crafting, a persistent world free from instances, an authentic and rich geography etc etc etc etc etc.

If you think for a moment that I am suggesting a 800x600 isometric view, low quality textures, double click combat mechanics, a lack of GUI, a poorly coded client and an open environment for unrelenting PKing, griefing and scamming... then we're not understanding one another. To put the ball in your court, if Goblinworks does not emulate fundamental elements of Ultima Online, then it has already failed at becoming a 'sandbox' game.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alouicious wrote:
The thing is, pen and paper mechanics are, in no way, shape, or form, suited for massive multiplayer online games. Like, at all.

Lies.

A massively multiplayer computer game is the penultimate environment to accommodate a true RPG environment; it's just never been truly attempted before. The fact that MMORPG games have taken a different path within the mainstream is not an indicator that this is remotely impossible. Ultima Online was closer to achieving this goal 13 years ago than World of Warcraft could hope to achieve in the next 13 years.

We live in the technological age of Skyrim, yet expect no more from our MMORPGs than floating exclamation marked quests from 1-85th level, followed by scripted, instanced raid dungeons and 'dailies'. Baldur's Gate came out in 1998, you telling me you cannot even offer me that level of depth in an MMORPG game in 13 years?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm drunk and will pursue this in the morning.

But for now: Life is fun and rewarding because it's difficult, and at times, boring. Sex with a prostitute is instant gratification for money. I'm not here for that.

I want an alternate experience in a fantasy world. Not to have sex with a prostitute on my computer.

Enormous spaces exist because that is how geography works. Horses do not despawn because that is impossible. Cattle farming is a necessity in order to farm cattle.

Just because I want my car to become a statue in my pocket, my wife to house a 'on/off' switch and my job to be something that I can decide as to whether I will turn up to or not; such a scenario would strip life of its ultimate fruits, as would it strip my gaming of its fruits. Stop trying to ruin my fruits. I've had carrot on a stick and I don't want it anymore.

Up until World of Warcraft, MMORPGs offered players an enormous learning curve and longitivity in introducing players into an online world. Today, they offer nothing but simple gameplay and require no more than an entry level of experience to end game, to which they require an inch more. Guess which era I enjoyed more? Realism has established the strongest communities in any MMO to date which continue to exist in every arena in which they were made and the players will remain; carrot on a stick is going to die, the players forgotten, only the title will live on.

Summation: We play Pathfinder because it offers a realistic and enjoyable system to recreate believable fantasty settings. Such consistency with reality is required for immersion. Gravity applies.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am an MMORPG gamer of 14 or so years and understand your position and respect and relate to your eagerness to want to be part of Pathfinder Online.

I think a lot is yet to be determined in regards to exactly how the game will function. The features you ask for are indeed relatively unheard of in MMORPGs to my knowledge. I have personally played games to which players could setup and establish player vendors in both cities and their own private residence, but nothing as advanced as what we're talking about. This is not to say that this is not possible, far from it. The ability to run a 'Sims'-esque NPC is not far fetched and would actually be a great feature and solution to a number of ingame problems. I can only hope that this will be an innovative project which can cater to you and not one which seeks to give Paizo a 1% slice of the MMORPG market with 'just another' MMORPG.

I don't see Paizo attempting to challenge the might of World of Warcraft or The Old Republic at their own game; I even doubt that any serious number of the 10-20 million market share has even heard of Pathfinder, or have any interest in P&P RPG systems. My money is on them appealing to loyal & valuable customers such as yourself; atleast that's what logic would dictate! They'd be fools not to and I sincerely hope that this is the case. Time can only tell.

Hope Ryan or someone can give you an answer as I'd sure like to hear one too.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Good thread and OP. Agree with a lot of things said, not so much with MMORPGs being in any kind of decline. The MMORPG industry enjoys both Bioware & Blizzard; the highest number of players ever and the widest range of titles available. I do however agree that MMORPG gaming in terms of quality and integrity is at an all time low.

Goblinworks need to create a world.

- Forget linear paths of progression, forget theme-park and forget raiding. WoW (and soon TOR) have SHUT THIS DOWN.

- Forget green, blue, purple and orange items. See above. We're making an RPG here, not a dungeon crawler.

- Forget instances. The technology to create scripted and immersive PvE content existed before and after instanced content. Look at the open quest content of Rift and Warhammer, with rewards based upon participation and effectiveness. This also relies on:

- Forget open pvp without strong and decisive risk & punishment for PKing. Allowing meaningless player killing at a low level of risk will alienate your playerbase and damage the experience. Mass murderers in real life give up and risk everything, so should virtual ones.

+ Create a world rich in character, identity and authenticity. None combatant roles, trade, crafting, politics; stay true to all elements of gameplay from roleplaying a fisherman to dragon slaying and do not feel the pressure to imitate. These features are what set you apart and define you.

+ Create an authentic fantasy world; place emphasis on player made institutions, content and goals. Unlike developer made content, these are without an end. Lore, world design, open travel and freedom to move between locations without escalation of difficulty between them; such design features are lazy and destroy immersion. A bear outside of a city is no more difficult than the same bear outside of another (Weird point to emphasise, but it ANNOYS me).

+ Simple items, not magical items. Be it looted, crafted or bought, items should deteriorate in time and through use. Everyday gear should be chosen out of preference than that of superiority. Offer a wide range and leave symbols of wealth and status to more cosmetic or strictly material aspects of the game (clothes, housing, mounts).

+ All but stomping out playerkilling to all but the most ruthless PK does not mean no open PvP. Faction warfare/Realm vs Realm/Guild vs Guild; a wealth of opportunities exist to encourage open and free PvP with a defined and accurate purpose. Do NOT use an all purpose PvP switch. It's lazy.

+ Do not give in to market peer pressure. The market is closed for anyone offering anything that already exists. You have a solid and enjoyable P&P system which offers everything that MMORPGs today fail to capture; bring that to internet in the most accurate way possible and we'll pay and play for your game for years to come.

Ultima Online was the last to offer such a world and it still lives today. It obviously fails to stand up to the titans in the genre, but when you contrast it's technical inferiority in almost every aspect, it's comparative success makes it still the best MMORPG to date. You have every opportunity to recreate that magic ten fold, and with the best intellectual property and quality of content that I could have hoped for.