|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Baldur's Gate and NWN did a good job of recreating the TT into a single-player type computer game. Because it was just one player or several in multiplayer they could make a campaign for you to play. The whole purpose for the PC game could be to recreate a TT campaign .
But the MMO is a different creature , imagine 1000 people trying to sit down at a table and play a TT game at the same time. The theme parks try to do that and it can be fun. PFO won't be a game like that ,instead of quests for content it will be the actions of other players that create the possibilities for your own choices of what to do.
So I look at who is making the game and hope that they can take what they have to work with and create something that satisfies the type of interest I have. The possibilities of what you can do in PFO will be so far above what you could do in Baldur's Gate that PFO will be the game that more closely recreates the gameplay that the TT rules were made for. But it all depends on all the other players and what they do.
So I don't believe that a cut and paste of the rules from TT to PC recreates the fun of the original ,it just makes you feel like you are making the same character that you could have made. That is part of the fun , but the wide open choices of what you can do in PFO is the part of the TT game that also needs to be recreated for a huge crowd to enjoy at the same time.
So PFO could be very satisfying or a huge disappointment ,like an mmo in a galaxy far ,far away was after I followed it's hype for 4 years. It seems that it isn't the IP that matters ,it is the people that make the game and what it is that they are trying to do. I believe GW is trying to make a game that appeals to people who love the TT type gameplay, not recreate the gameplay itself but recreate what is satisfying about doing it.
TEO Pino wrote:
Well ,this whole NAP seems bad for own future ,so I was just warning of the pit falls of leaving the thousands who will join EE out of your plans. The increase in the numbers should not be seen as a bunch of serfs coming to PFO to join your NAP, it being a PVP game and all.
So much of this future is going to be about us losing control and not having a choice but learning to deal with what happens to us, so we could learn how to PVP as a settlement fighting a settlement, and have a chance to survive as a settlement when it gets to that point in the development.
I can't imagine a PFO (in the future )where you don't have enemies, that is an important part of the game.
KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:
You kind of just said that there will be no wars in The War (of Towers).Is that how the devs designed it to work or is it just the vision of the few here on the forum, the majority that join later in EE will just push back against any attempt to hold them from doing what amounts to meaningful pvp as opposed to a 'it doesn't matter very much' level of pvp.
If you take all the towers from a settlement you have 'won' a war against them.
So a couple of guys on the internet think they can stop 20,000 players who signed up for a PVP game from doing the only PVP that doesn't wreck your reputation? Don't think that's gonna work, or did I read this wrong and the leaders want to PVP and did not make a lets-not-pvp deal?
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
I downloaded the free version of FRAPS to see what my frame rate was in Skyrim . It should work with any game.
It would not be unreasonable to have certain kinds of encounters cause greater or even complete equipment damage on death.
Well if it is a PVP death ,the winner will loot you and you lose it all, so as it is now the PVE death is less of a loss than a PVP death . Your non-threaded gear could be put on a timer and it is gone if you don't get back to it , simulating the mobs taking it.Or for hard core the boss mob could have a spell that breaks threads ,so if you die you lose more gear. I'm not against the idea of some PVE being higher risk encounters, its a good idea but it does have to make sense .
Why even think of solo gathering and harvesting as dangerous PVP activities, those are supposed to be the safest things you can do. People that want PVP don't want to go search the woods and chase after solo runners who are just harvesting, if a gatherer wanted PVP they would be doing it. This is a straw dog considering that this is the MVP and we are a long way from real settlement warfare and the territory control that goes with it, the territory control will make solo gathering dangerous .
The OP was more about "I don't have time for PVP wars ,so what am I going to do in PFO?" I don't think a neutral city is addressing what is needed, maybe a settlement that trades and supports others who make war would be better for a casual player. I think crafting and trading can be done as a casual player and it will be a very needed activity. As long as PFO does not have roving gangs of gankers that exist to ruin your day it will rise above the bad PVP reputation mmo's have.
<GLiberators> Qyck Majere wrote:
I agree it is not pay to win, we also need to consider that some people have less time to play the game. They can purchase what they could have gained if they had more time in-game to construct it, so there is the huge advantage of having lots of game time to get ahead that people don't seem to see. To be fair we need to look beyond just the game mechanics and consider how the players live their lives too.
People who buy a base camp can store items in it ,and at some point we will be able to craft the same instead of buying it, but what is the big advantage in storing items. You stash your loot at the base camp but it still needs to be taken to a settlement so why not run to the settlement instead of a base camp? It will take the same number of trips to haul it all from a base camp or straight to a settlement.
How are people planning on using base camps, you still will spend the same amount of time running loot to a settlement with or without one, won't you?
<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
I agree with what you say but one thing I would like to add. In any effort to bring about what is 'best' for the community we should never ignore what it will do any individual . We can't view even one person as expendable in our effort to have a good community , and many individuals would be hurt by this attempt to go back and undo things.
I am talking about trying to vote one settlement into oblivion or harass them into quitting.
I will sell you my vote, you tell me who to vote for( don't say Pax ). The price is that you will become my forum bodyguard forever.
Sorry Bludd but you have all the appearance of someone who just wants to fight and argue on a personal level, what are you really mad about? You aren't able to follow how this thread evolved , you are stuck repeating Pax did nothing wrong . But I think you are just in the mood to fight it doesn't matter with who or about what, I'm not real interested in doing that.
FMS SirZac wrote:
Don't be so quick to judge the OP, maybe it is a Pax member who is concerned about their guilds ethics. People who try to uphold high ethical standards get personal attacks from all the ones who think they don't answer to anyone.
I don't care if they have two settlements , I care that they are now on public record as refusing to do what Ryan asked them to do for the sake of a good community, it is wrong.
Pax Morbis wrote:
You refuse to comment on your refusal to do what Ryan asked your guild to do for the purpose of building a better community, then you don't care about what Ryan says or about what is best for the community. So you have set that as a standard of behavior, it is wrong.
Is the official position of Pax that you can refuse to do what a CEO asks you to do for the best interests of the game and do whatever you want, or are you breaking from the official Pax policy?
Here's the thing, it's not just about Pax getting two settlements, it is about Ryan leading us in building a better PVP game community. Ryan will not tell everyone what to do , he asks us to do things. If we do what he asks then we support his leadership and vision of making PFO different from what is out there. If we refuse to do what he asks we undermine the entire effort to make PFO different and encourage others to also ignore the higher community standards that are essential to make PFO different.
If Pax ignores what Ryan asked them to do then they are replacing Ryan's leadership for the community with their own and in effect telling us all to ignore what Ryan says and do what you want. So you end up with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes and the vision of a PVP game that will be different fails. Ryan has to be our leader in community standards , we cant all just decide for ourselves what is good because people will put self interest ahead of the vision for a better game and it will ruin PFO as a better PVP mmo.
Well it looks bad if you ignore what Ryan says about setting good standards for community behavior. Some people don't give a rats arse what Ryan says about having high standards for PVP gameplay ,they just want to know what they can get away with without any GM action.
The story at this point looks like Ryan asked , but did not tell you , to not go for two settlements.
@ Proxima Sin , So you are asking do people want to try to help others that seem hard to help or kill, kill , kill them. I think wanting to help them to be 'beneficial participants of the community' fits right in with what Ryan has been saying about how to change the toxic perception of PVP mmos. It isn't just kill them or help them but some of both that will change things. It will take time for some people to adjust to a new kind of PVP gameplay that isn't a FFA but allows you to kill anyone anyway. People are going to experiment with the game systems.
They are only a jerk or griefer if they waste their talent for doing dirty deeds on selfish pleasure, they can fit in with expected and sanctioned gameplay with minimal change required , join the evil military. They can play the goon squad and kill people and the righteous can find them all in one place to smite them more easily.
So I would say forming merc companies of low rep characters is what the OP could be looking for, seriously.
So if you can get hired as a merc because you are low rep and kill players that go where someone doesn't want them to it is different than griefing, it's all about the why and not the what. That would be one way to help griefers to be more useful to the community, turn them into a mercenary company.
I think we can all agree that the first thing to do to change a griefer is to stop them from griefing. If they are content with what happens to them if they grief then they wont stop, so killing them a lot will help them, maybe. If they never wanted to play the game as intended then they will quit, if they are interested in non-griefing gameplay then some one can help them get involved . But it all starts after they give up griefing behavior, so getting killed a lot is what they seem to think ruins the game , that is why they do it to others, when it happens to them they will be ready for something different.
In an mmo you have to make up your own story to go with what happens, but what if there were official player-storytellers who gave us a kind of history and background flavor to what goes on in the game. Something you can read and it makes the mmo feel like a Pathfinder campaign, it would all be after the fact but would make the world have a recorded history that sounds like a Pathfinder story. Some kind of recorded history of the world would be cool to look back at after a year or two. It could also keep us up to speed on what's going on around the game world.
PVE is a boring grind because you know what will happen before you engage . You know the mobs hitpoints and its level and its class , the info is all given to you but with less info on the mobs it is different gameplay. What if the mobs have generic names instead of names that tell you their class and no hitpoint number and no con system to tell you the level of the mob. Now its not going to be boring because the risk of death increases.
Maybe there are enough people who are tired of the easy mode PVE gameplay to do it differently.
Some type of world progression that is a result of player actions. I know the world and gameplay will change as new features get patched in, but it might be fun if some of it needed to be unlocked first. Like an epic battle that needs to be won against mobs to open up a new map area, or research needed to allow new spells into the game, something everyone can contribute to if they want. Even better would be a competition between two or more progression choices based on player actions , it might fit in well with crowdforging new features into the game.
I would love to hear from the folks at Paizo about how the Pathfinder IP is being used so far to make PFO. Things like how is the Pathfinder world coming alive in PFO and what you like about it, what would you like to see happen in the future?
Before I heard of PFO I knew nothing about Pathfinder but I am liking what I see and have great expectation and hope that the IP will make for a rich game world environment with a very unique feel to it.
I understand some things are hard to put in an mmo and the rest is even harder, but I have seen what I would call 'using' an IP in other mmo's and it seemed more of a marketing tactic than a love for the IP.
Of course any input from GW is welcome too, what kind of things do you actually do to make PFO feel like it is uniquely Pathfinder. My understanding is that Paizo owns the IP that GW is using to make PFO. I'm not sure how involved Paizo is in making the game.
Frankly, I think I'd be a little put out if folks are getting into Alpha without forking over $1,000 or more...
If GW lets the Alpha level backers pick any new testers to invite that would seem like a good way for your kickstarter reward to keep its value. Oh the power you will have....