I think that on top of the MMO that Pathfinder could benefit from encouraging and highlighting fangame rpgs.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I, too, prefer a regular CRPG. F2P MMO's have all proven to be pure garbage in the past and while I don't doubt Pathfinder Online is not planning on following their crap trends, I still don't have much hope.
I have tried DDO, LOTRO, DCUO, EQ2, APB, Age of Conan and well, that's just about enough of ALL that. None of those games are even remotely close to being good, and the reason is entirely to do with the barrier between F2P and subscribers.
What happens is you end up with a divided player base.. On one hand, you have brats who feel they are entitled to ruin the fun and insult F2P players because, as they say, they're the true supporters of the game and its real backbone and on the other hand you have the F2P players, who according to the paid subscribers, are just scumbag leeches profiting fun off of their money. This is an attitude I experienced in all of the MMO's I poked at. Either you pay or you're ostracized by the community. I hit a serious interface glitch and lost my entire inventory in EQ2 and dared say in general chat "Is there a moderator or GM or admin or someone seeing this? I've just lost my entire inventory, including backpack" and, since apparently the bug was well known and affected F2P players only, I was met with a chorus of people screaming at me to log off and never play again because I didn't pay for the game. My reaction? To log off and never play again.
If this kind of thing ever happens even once in PF Online, I'll also log off and never play again. And I'm sure plenty of other people trying out the MMO for the first time will be turned off by this. Unless they can guarantee that their game won't be full of the trash the other F2P MMO's are full of, I'm more than skeptical. If they try packaging it with some crooked malware client that eats your bandwidth like DDO or LOTRO does, I won't even install it.
That's my take on this potential nightmare.
|
If I wanted to just join a group and fight it out with others then ill play halo, point of playing an rpg is the roleplaying, the growth of the character from a snobby weakling to a legendary adventurer, if I get skipped out on 90% of that growth then why not just give me the max lvl to begin with? What is the point of building my character if I'm not actually building my character?
This doesn't mean I should be grinding away but I should be present and interacting with my char as a part of building my char otherwise I didn't build it I just waited for it to build itself. I can deal with their skill system because its more of a timed unlock, ii still don't like but that's what comprimises are about.
I just don't want to see this turn into another game ill stay away from because its less rpg and more guild battles.
I, too, prefer a regular CRPG.
Got any examples of games that you like?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Plenty! I'll stick to the RPGs, though. Planescape Torment. Dragon Age 1 and 2. Fallout New Vegas. Deus Ex Human Revolution. Divinity 2. Risen. Arx Fatalis. I recently dumped 40 hours into Skyrim and liked it, despite being quite displeased with Oblivion and Morrowind. I really dig roguelikes, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup is my current top choice there. I have a weakness for Dungeon Master clones, particularly the old ones by Westwood (Eye of the Beholder 1 and 2, Lands of Lore 1), and I can't wait for Legend of Grimrock. The Kingdoms of Amalur demo recently was pretty cool and I'm looking forward to that in February, as well.
The best part of all of those games is that you can save at any time, quit, and come back without missing a beat. I guess I like convenience.
All thoose are single player RPG's....
Probably great games...but they don't interest me...also someone truly interested in a MP RPG shouldn't either...(take it the right way please...and feel free to comment).
By the way...I know what you mean...you want more story and roleplay. It can be done but I think the game has to have focus more on the multiplayer part than just being massive...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes they are single player RPGs, because there is no redeeming value in any MMO that I've played. I'd enjoy the narratives if they made sense, but they don't. You can endlessly repeat any quest, the entire game world ends up completely static and there's absolutely no point in doing anything because nothing ever changes.
If they make this MMO they'll be one in a sea of millions of horrible F2P MMOs. Even if they make a game that isn't as horrible, how are they planning on competing? Assuming they somehow get around all the problems of MMOs and make a great one, once they launch and aren't making any money how long will it take for them to wreck it in order to make some?
All those stories about MMOs going F2P and becoming successful are because the MMOs in question have huge licenses with built in fanbases spanning decades. Pathfinder is going to need to sell out HARD to compete, and I don't want to see that.
A single player RPG is what they should be making. But they're being greedy and thinking an MMO will bring in more money. It's kinda gross, really. I would like to expect more from this company.
Umm... Wow. That's Alot of rage there darkling.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes they are single player RPGs, because there is no redeeming value in any MMO that I've played. I'd enjoy the narratives if they made sense, but they don't. You can endlessly repeat any quest, the entire game world ends up completely static and there's absolutely no point in doing anything because nothing ever changes.
They are all valid points, but mostly ones that do not apply to the sandbox MMO, of course there aren't many in the sandbox MMO genre out right now, eve is about the only successful one alive right now, but it is clearly the definition of avoiding the traits you dislike. The focus of the game is the politics within control and with other players, thus negating the static traits of the traditional theme park MMO's for the core of the game.
Also I don't see making an MMO as being greedy, a single player RPG has comperable income potential, but it isn't the field of expertise goblinworks has. There is absolutely nothing stopping any normal RPG developer from approaching paizo with an offer to make a traditional RPG, it isn't greed to make a game in the style that you have experience making, if you know of a good experienced offline RPG development studio, have them contact paizo and see about a license, if the group has enough experience that they could make a game that paizo would be proud of, I highly doubt Paizo would turn them down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alas, I'm sad I will not get to play the Pathfinder game, as I absolutely cannot stand MMOs. The infinite gear-grind to kill harder things for another gear-grind has just caught up to me after the intensity of FFXI (pre-chains garbage), followed by the death of intelligent thought (WOW) I just have no MMO left in me. I would have much preferred a Neverwinter Nights, but I wish the game great success.
Ndar, have you read any of the developer's blogs, found here?
https://goblinworks.com/blog/
You're describing a theme-park MMO; that's WoW and all its clones. PFO? Will not be like that. At the very least, it won't be anything like that. We're not even sure how many NPCs there will be, but it's possible there won't be very many. I know how burned-out you can get about MMO's (been there), but please, if you were to give any MMO a shot, please let it be the MMO that's trying to prove that you don't have to be WoW to succeed. Not succeed as in "We will be the GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME FOREVER", but succeed as in "We make enough money to keep the game running and our playerbase happy".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They keep saying they're not making a theme park MMO, but then they say they're using the same engine as SW:TOR, just without their modifications.
The core is going to be the same as every other MMO, completely identical. It has to be, they're using modular pre-made systems and slapping on Pathfinder paint. If they want to make something new, they'd need to start from scratch, that's at least a five year dev cycle for a AAA level game, they simply won't do it. This is a cash grab before MMO's completely die. Simple as that.
edit; Don't tell me to read the blog. I have. I'm not stupid. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They keep saying they're not making a theme park MMO, but then they say they're using the same engine as SW:TOR, just without their modifications.
No, we haven't. We haven't announced which middleware solution we're using.
You appear to be uninformed as to how middleware works.
Think of it as a deck of cards.
You could play poker (or many variations of poker). Or you could play Go Fish. Or Hearts. Or Bridge. Or you could try to cut carrots with them from a distance.
The deck of cards is simply a set of mechanics and systems that enable card games to be played. The actual games themselves are extremely varied, as is the experience of playing them.
Don't confuse one game or one game genre with the middleware. That'd be a noob mistake.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, well I've seen a handful of references to 'HeroEngine' tossed around. I assumed it was decided, my mistake!
I still loathe MMOs, though. I don't appreciate other people wrecking the game I'm playing. Online gaming is notoriously full of the worst people imaginable hiding behind pseudo-anonymity. How do you plan to combat the jerks whose sole reason for playing is wrecking peoples fun? You talk about avoiding griefing with this bounty system but I have to ask, is that how it was handled in EVE? I've heard a remarkable amount horror stories about griefers in EVE completely ruining the game for people.
Also, are you going to enforce strict rules against harassment of F2P players or are you going to encourage a caste system where subscribers are allowed to harass and insult F2P players until they quit or subscribe? Because that's complete garbage and you should just drop the F2P model completely if you are going to encourage it like the others apparently do. Maybe I sound harsh in these statements, but I've loathed all my F2P MMO experiences and this is a large reason why.
It may seem weird that I'm even here, since I'm so frustrated with my MMO experiences. The thing is, though, I've been wanting a Pathfinder game for ages. Ages! Despite the replies of others in this thread, I really feel the door is closed on a good single player RPG using this system or in this game world because of this project. :/
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Now imagine firing up with that same group experience on a server where death of your character was permanent. Run that same scenario/event/raid, etc... Now it becomes an intense 'shared' experience. One with victory, tragedy and best of all...something that is worth your time."
Alright, I'll take the bait.
Character permadeath would make the game way more exciting and intense. I'd agree that having a permadeath server would be awesome, except for: open PvP.
Permadeath + open PvP = way too easy griefing and a whole lot of sad players.
All it would take is for one player to keep a character for long enough to get up into the mid and high tiers of power and he could easily dominate a single area. Did you ever see the South Park episode involving WoW (I can't remember the episode name)? It would be like that. And every time one griefer would fall, another would rise. Serious problems.
That said, I'm in full support of NPC permadeath, especially after reading Mogworld (To those of you who have read the book, you know what I mean). Just not PC permadeath. That would make griefing far more serious than just "I lost my entire inventory". More like "I lost the last 3 years of play on this MMO".
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Ah, well I've seen a handful of references to 'HeroEngine' tossed around. I assumed it was decided, my mistake!
I still loathe MMOs, though. I don't appreciate other people wrecking the game I'm playing. Online gaming is notoriously full of the worst people imaginable hiding behind pseudo-anonymity. How do you plan to combat the jerks whose sole reason for playing is wrecking peoples fun? You talk about avoiding griefing with this bounty system but I have to ask, is that how it was handled in EVE? I've heard a remarkable amount horror stories about griefers in EVE completely ruining the game for people.
Also, are you going to enforce strict rules against harassment of F2P players or are you going to encourage a caste system where subscribers are allowed to harass and insult F2P players until they quit or subscribe? Because that's complete garbage and you should just drop the F2P model completely if you are going to encourage it like the others apparently do. Maybe I sound harsh in these statements, but I've loathed all my F2P MMO experiences and this is a large reason why.
It may seem weird that I'm even here, since I'm so frustrated with my MMO experiences. The thing is, though, I've been wanting a Pathfinder game for ages. Ages! Despite the replies of others in this thread, I really feel the door is closed on a good single player RPG using this system or in this game world because of this project. :/
The "engine" behind a game is a lot similar to the engine in a car. There's a big difference between a Volkswagen van and a Porsche, even though they use the same engines. The game engine provides for displaying data to the player and communicating with the server. It doesn't do anything, and using the same engine is not the same thing as being a reskin.
Finally, if you loathe MMOs on principle, you won't like Pathfinder Online. There's nothing wrong with not liking PFO, any more than there is anything wrong with preferring Pathfinder to Warhammer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is that how it was handled in EVE?
No. There's zero attempt to limit in-game grief in EVE. The developers think its a feature, not a problem.
I've heard a remarkable amount horror stories about griefers in EVE completely ruining the game for people.
Of course, the converse is true. People who cannot find fun in any other MMO find it in EVE.
Also, are you going to enforce strict rules against harassment of F2P players
We'll have reasonable rules about harassment of any kind. Just keep in mind that one person's harassment is another person's legitimate advocacy. There's a blurry, gray line.
RyanD
Will this be a skill in PFO? Shuricards.
|
stuff
Okay... here's the thing.
You're a big fan of perma-death. That's cool. I mean, a lot of the games I like have permanent death. Final Fantasy Tactics, Dragon Age, Skyrim... there's a big precedent for permanent death.
However, from my perspective, you seem to believe that a game CANNOT be truly enjoyable without permanent death.
Think about that. What if I told you that if you ever lost a game of chess, you would completely forget how to play and had to learn the entire thing over again? What if you were playing, oh say, Blackjack, and you lost a hand, only to be kicked out of the casino and never allowed to go back, or even worse, never allowed to play Blackjack again?
You seem to be under the impression that the average MMO player approaches death ENTIRELY casually, is if he fully comprehends how glorious it is to be, essentially, immortal. But losing at a game is still losing. I've had really nail-biting scenarios in WoW, Warhammer Online, Runes of Magic, and SWTOR, and none of them would have been any more fun if I had had the threat of permanent death looming over me.
That's because the punishment is losing; not being good enough to overcome the challenge. The fact that I can still experience frustration and suspense without the threat of permanent death is a testament to the viability of "Gamebox Immortality." In fact, I'd even go so far as to wager that I've had more nail-biting moments in most MMO's than I've had in games that feature permanent death (Pathfinder and D&D included).
Granted, I'm only one person. However, assuming the decline of an entire genre of gaming (when that genre is showing immense growth and success) due to an aspect of gameplay widely enjoyed by the gaming community seems unfounded.
|
|
Something that is overlooked, two things actually, one pathfinder has rez spellls which off set permadeath a little bit, just pay a priest to rez you if you die.
Two, different people will feel different about different consequences, some will feel the pain of failure enough to not need other penalties but some don't see it as failure to die a couple of times to scout the boss and learn its techniques.
For both of these reasons I suggest neg lvls like the book, penalties most likely to be felt stong enough to really avoid death like a real character would. Yet you don't lose EVERYTHING.
At least ddo gave the illusion that you came back to life because some priest intervened.
|
|
stuff
I am currently playing SWTOR. My main character is Xue, a level 42 Vanguard. I'm one heck of a tank.
Xue is also a bit of a rebel to authority. She was scarred at an early age by an Imperial attack, requiring her to receive cybernetic implants in order to survive. She learned early on that the Republic was too mired in its own political struggles to defend its citizens, so she would need to do it for them.
Xue worked her way up the ranks of the military, eventually being assigned to a special forces Unit, Havoc Squad. There have been setbacks... believe me, there have been MAJOR setbacks, but she has persevered, despite them. Republic authority has frequently told her to conceal information and objects from her allies; orders she has blatantly ignored in order to keep her allies informed and gain their trust. She does her best to keep the peace in the universe and right wrongs as she finds them, but is unwilling to allow politics to interfere with her duties.
With all due respect, my character is more than gear and attributes.
This is the same type of complaint I hear people waging against 4th edition, saying it "discouraged roleplaying." People were discouraging roleplay LONG before 4th edition, and while it may have had immersion issues here and there, it never discouraged roleplay.
Also, all games experience decline after launch. This isn't because they're bad games, it's because people lose interest. It's the human condition that causes decline of interest, not poor gaming (at least, not all the time).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
stuff
With respect, literally everything in computer science is mathematics. The roleplaying part is facilitated by, not encoded in, the software.
There is a Massively Multiplayer system where permanent death is in effect and common- White Wolf sanctioned live-action roleplaying. No matter how many times a hostile player character is killed off, the number and attitude of hostile player characters remains constant. Character death remains the first resort of conflict, simply because it is known that any conflict will result in at least one character death, and everyone calls 'not it' as soon as they can, with as many allies present as possible.
Would you rather have to create a new character every time a group of identical bandit PCs killed you, or suffer a small drawback and keep the same character? Because the guild of bandit PCs will always have the same characters, even if they have to be 'new' copies of the old one. We can't enforce a prohibition on "The last guys' long-lost sextuplet, with exactly the same character sheet except the roman numeral..."
|
|
Except for the fact that in permadeath the greifers will likely never get high lvl, where as a legitimate players will. if only because griefers are constantly hunted down by those who have been griefed.
Either way I hope they have a "server" for permadeath. Ill probably be cleric and rez people for a fee.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is only one penalty in MMOs and that is time.
Permadeath means an insane amount of penalty for old characters. Just think about it: you played your char carefully for 1+ years and then it happens. Would you play this game any more? I know I wouldn't.
A game with permadeath either lets noone die or only has characters that are young - neither is "fun".
So, instead of a not working extreme solution you could go another solution, just as GoWo intends to do: you loose some stuff and thus the time you need to replace it and you loose the time it took you to travel to this location.
Seems ok and not on the light side.
|
|
One, I would prefer neg lvls myself.
Two, I suggested a seperate server so those who can have and those who still win.
Three, its called a rez spell, the high lvl char is very likely able to pay for a rez. You can even rp it as the warrior goes to a preist and hands a piece of hair and a bunch of gold in return for being rezzed if he dies. Just don't leave town without paying the priest. Or if you think you won't die or everyone hates your griefing they won't rez you and you can't rez yourself, which only encourages group play which they want to do(as far as I can tell anyway)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is that how it was handled in EVE?No. There's zero attempt to limit in-game grief in EVE. The developers think its a feature, not a problem.
I've heard a remarkable amount horror stories about griefers in EVE completely ruining the game for people.Of course, the converse is true. People who cannot find fun in any other MMO find it in EVE.
RyanD
That's interesting about their perspective. I can see why some folks would appreciate this attitude and how cutthroat it would make the game, but that is certainly too much for me. :)
Anyhow, while I fear this may not be up my alley, I do hope it turns out interesting. Good luck.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Either way I hope they have a "server" for permadeath. Ill probably be cleric and rez people for a fee.
You know, there's already an option for perma-death.
Or is it that you really hope that other people are forced to endure perma-death when they get killed?
I think your argument that no griefers will ever get powerful is extremely naive. If their only option is to hide in the shadows, pretending to not be griefers until they're powerful enough to stand their ground and come out into the light, then that's what they'll do. And they'll also tend to find each other, and help each other survive until their power is sufficient.
I would like to see some significant penalty to death, but not so that I will avoid it, I already do. No, I want that penalty so that virtually everyone I group with will also avoid death like it really should be avoided. I don't want to be the fearless Paladin who's the only one in the party saying "we shouldn't do that because we'll probably die."
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
One, I would prefer neg lvls myself.
Two, I suggested a seperate server so those who can have and those who still win.
Three, its called a rez spell, the high lvl char is very likely able to pay for a rez. You can even rp it as the warrior goes to a preist and hands a piece of hair and a bunch of gold in return for being rezzed if he dies. Just don't leave town without paying the priest. Or if you think you won't die or everyone hates your griefing they won't rez you and you can't rez yourself, which only encourages group play which they want to do(as far as I can tell anyway)
So, your system would penalize players everything they were carrying, plus some gold paid in advance. That would be the practical effect, anyway. Other than the case where serial griefers manage to take out your character before he can get a new life bought, how is that significantly different from a post-paid death penalty?
|
|
As I said I would prefer neg lvls, I was tired (hence some missing words) and just trying to point out options for other ideas instead of merely repeating why my way is better then every other way.
Anyone can say something good or bad about anything, but people usually focus on the good of their ideas while focusing only on the bad of others.
Instead of arguing for or against, either give a suggestion for different perspectives or give a true pro/con of a perspective and then your preference.
Item two should say "have a seperate server for permadeath so those who want it can have it yet allowing those who don't, to play without it."
And yes I could just delete a character if dead but like nihimon said I want the others in my group to try and avoid death instead of just ignoring it. Sadly I don't think inventory loss will be very good, its not enough yet it also seems entirely unfair.
In another thread someone replied that neg lvls would put them behind others, I say that's only if they good enough to not die as often as you. Aka catch up feature, and if they don't die as often obviosly they are ahead of you anyway, and not just stat-wise. It penalizes death without penalizing anything else. Inventory loss penalizes multiple things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Eve had an effective system for penalizing death. The more skill points you had acquired, the more expensive it was to "insure" yourself against death. If PFO required you to make a substantial donation to the temple of your choice in order to guarantee your resurrection there, I think that would discourage suicidally stupid behavior. Of course, finding the actual numbers behind "substantial donation" would be a challenge.
I have to agree though that in general, MMO RPG's do not translate well. The tabletop game had far more umph. More risk, more glory. Less Monty Haul. I'm so very tired of watching no talent people simply barrel up to raid troughs, push a bunch of buttons in perfect harmony because they've done it to death, and walk out with rewards. No risk for them, not really. They can't die, can't lose anything, so no challenge either. And if there is no risk and no challenge, where is the basis for a reward? And the kicker, it was designed to only be beaten in a particular way, and once everyone finds out, the people who didn't do trial and error reap rewards for which they've never even sweated a drop. And most of the time, raid mobs are dumb as posts. I've never seen one use intelligence. I'd hire a guy just to run them when players are tapping them once in a while, just to liven it up, and stop the mindless complacency.
I've had a few DnD characters (real DnD, not the perversion that is WoTC) stay dead, and while it sucked, it taught me how not to be brain dead. Stupidity should never get rewarded, not really. The new version of DnD that WoTC puts out is a travesty of monumental proportion: it's WoW on paper. No risk, no challenge, nothing to lose but time. Far too easy too. I'd love a permadeath, or at least, death that can only be beaten by characters learned in the arts of necromancy such that they can raise up the dead, or they pay a fortune to an NPC church and have the remains enlivened.
Something that causes a loss that you notice, not just sitting around for 10 minutes waiting for a death debuff to tick off. Which is so very very lame. And if someone loots your corpse, oh well. If someone found your dead body in real life, and was of a mind to fleece it for profit, it would happen. I wish games could be a bit more like that. People want this, as they want griefers to suffer some form of reality (action/consequence), but for their own play, no thanks. I hear too many people say they don't want to work hard and lose. But life is like that, sometimes, hard work doesn't win. Professionals always lose sometimes, even in sports. Why should an MMO be different? Tabletop RPG games can be won by bad dice rolling for NPC, why shouldn't the reverse hold true? It's not very fair otherwise, as it automatically gives the players the advantage. For real balance, anything a player can do, and NPC should be able to do too. That makes a game; not having it makes it nothing more than a daycare.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Of course, WoTC released 3rd ed, which would become Pathfinder with no radical changes. Virtually every computer adaptation of 3rd ed or 3.5 has lessened the penalty for death in some way, typically to either a fraction of gold (In keeping with the style set out by Dragon Quest in 1986)(Notable exception: ToEE), while every single one has offered the ability to perform infinite do-overs. Games based on earlier versions of D&D, as well as CRPGs not directly based on D&D, typically had a standard game over on total party death, but allowed recovery from character death if there were survivors, typically at the cost of gold and/or experience. Just like in Pathfinder.
|
|
I've had a few DnD characters (real DnD, not the perversion that is WoTC) stay dead, and while it sucked, it taught me how not to be brain dead. Stupidity should never get rewarded, not really. The new version of DnD that WoTC puts out is a travesty of monumental proportion: it's WoW on paper. No risk, no challenge, nothing to lose but time. Far too easy too. I'd love a permadeath, or at least, death that can only be beaten by characters learned in the arts of necromancy such that they can raise up the dead, or they pay a fortune to an NPC church and have the remains enlivened.
I don't think you ever played with the same people I did... what the encounters about 3 levels higher than the party on average, an average of about 20-30% chance to hit anything with anything, and some really tough puzzles. Oh, and self-sacrifice, as was the case when I sacrificed my own life to buy time for a city of Myconids to escape an oncoming wave of Aboleths, which I held off LIKE A BOSS, dying gloriously at the hands of one of 2 surviving Aboleths (out of 5).
But, on to the task at hand. I would like, specifically, to point out one part of your post which (imo) sums up the entirety of your statement.
I hear too many people say they don't want to work hard and lose. But life is like that, sometimes, hard work doesn't win.
The only thing you can lose, in a game or in life, is time. If your wallet gets stolen, and you lose all the money in there, you don't lose "stuff"; you lose the time you spent getting that stuff. Stuff can be replaced... gear can be bought again, levels regained, etc., whether or not permanent death or harsher death penalties are part of the game. Even in D&D, a total party wipe is simply a loss of the time taken to build up those characters. The primary difference between D&D and the digital version of it is that, for the most part, events are somewhat under our control.
Now, when I say that, I'm not talking about in-game events, I'm talking about things like... oh, say, character sheet management. Let's say that your DM has a policy that if your character sheet ever becomes sufficiently damaged, you can't play that character any more, and moments later, the character sheets gets blown out the window into a lumber shredder. Through no fault of your own, you have been robbed of the time you spent building up that character, and it had nothing to do with intelligent play.
This is why death penalties aren't as severe as they could be: Sometimes these kinds of events are beyond a players control, and players should not be penalized for unavoidable circumstances. That's like having your dad come up to you and punch you in the face for totaling your car (which you bought and paid for yourself).
This is why death penalties aren't as severe as they could be: Sometimes these kinds of events are beyond a players control, and players should not be penalized for unavoidable circumstances. That's like having your dad come up to you and punch you in the face for totaling your car (which you bought and paid for yourself).
First, I can't believe you said that. The example is ridiculous. I am not talking about something that a player has no control over. If a player does not wish to die in PvP, they have only to avoid it. That is the simple fact. Don't want to risk it, don't fight. If however you wish to risk it, then you should accept any and all risks that come with that decision. If you aren't prepared to do that, stay away from risk. There is no such thing as an unavoidable circumstance in consensual PvP, and even in non-consensual PvP, it's easy enough to avoid by either rolling a non PvP server, or avoiding the PvP areas. But asking to have risk removed so you will choose to fight more often is like taking the bullets out of guns in a gun fight. What is the point then? Nothing will change. The problem I have with most PvP in games these days beyond FPS is that winners win substantially, while losers do not lose substantially. The equation does not balance. If you win a lot, you should be capable of losing a lot, and yes, that means everything you may have previously won up to that point if you are dumb enough to have it on you. If the only way you will fight in PvP is when it's safe for you to do so, stop calling it PvP. It's a glorified duel, and you should win nothing since you risk nothing.
I can put this even more basically. If you have nothing to lose, what are you fighting to protect? Game rep? Lame...
Dying isn't the only result of losing in PvP.
Says who? Anyone ONE player dying in a battle can't possibly cause large scale loss. And even if there are substantial rewards for control points and other game areas, making it MORE difficult to kill players seems counter-productive. At least, it will be hard for people to take something away from people who get there first. Once entrenched, a pvp system that does not allow for quick fights will make it easier for players to hold onto those areas, making things fairly permanent and static. What would that do to the long term life of the game I wonder? I'm sure people arguing for certain game behavior as pertains to pvp have thought out their arguments through to ensure their stance benefits them the most. I'd expect that, but that also means people should be picking them apart to find those hidden motives. Another thread has already started concerning entrenched players, so it's not a new idea to be thinking along these lines with regard to any game system.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If a player does not wish to die in PvP, they have only to avoid it. That is the simple fact. Don't want to risk it, don't fight.
Dying isn't the only result of losing in PvP.Says who? Anyone ONE player dying in a battle can't possibly cause large scale loss. And even if there are substantial rewards for control points and other game areas, making it MORE difficult to kill players seems counter-productive. At least, it will be hard for people to take something away from people who get there first. Once entrenched, a pvp system that does not allow for quick fights will make it easier for players to hold onto those areas, making things fairly permanent and static. What would that do to the long term life of the game I wonder? I'm sure people arguing for certain game behavior as pertains to pvp have thought out their arguments through to ensure their stance benefits them the most. I'd expect that, but that also means people should be picking them apart to find those hidden motives. Another thread has already started concerning entrenched players, so it's not a new idea to be thinking along these lines with regard to any game system.
What I'm saying is that you don't have to kill your enemy to make them lose, and that killing them doesn't always make them lose. It's entirely possible that the mechanics will allow an entrenched group of players to be defeated in a manner that doesn't involve engaging them in combat.
If anyone ever gets to the point where they win (transitive verb tense) at PFO, then the game will be over for me. I am intrigued by the concept of being part of developing emergent behavior, and it doesn't matter to me if that emergent behavior comes from being stronger, weaker, or evenly matched with the opposition.
|
|
First, I can't believe you said that. The example is ridiculous.
The point. You haz it.
Believe me, I understand the desire for harsher penalties. Really, I do. But the fact of the matter is that taking things from a player when they are out of the player's control (lag, latency, power outage, etc.) isn't fun, and isn't fair. What happens to the top tier player who has been playing safely for a year, doing everything he could to stay alive, only to wind up getting randomly disconnected in the middle of a duel, or any other form of PvP? Why should this player be negatively punished for a situation beyond his control?
You say that you're not talking about something that a player has no control over, but the game doesn't distinguish between a player death from being in the middle of a duel or a player dying because of a disconnect. If death is to be handled equally for events within and beyond the player's control, the death penalty needs to be less severe.
Also, look at board games. Do people play board games because they have something to "win"? They play because the act of play is fun, and is inherently rewarding. I would certainly hope that the gameplay in Pathfinder Online is inherently rewarding, even to the loser.
Losers do not deserve to win anything. No one should get credit for showing up and doing nothing more than losing. That is why the guys who win the Superbowl get rings, that is why the guys that play NHL win a Stanley Cup, while losers play golf. The whole 'no loser' policy is fine for children; adults should be capable of dealing with loss in a game. After all, you can dust off and start over, you haven't really lost anything of substance, not even your life. But you will learn something when you do lose, and maybe the next time you won't make the same mistakes.
And while it's nice to claim disconnects cause loss, how many players out there intentionally pull their ethernet cables when they know the game has disconnect protection. People do that in online poker for crying out loud. These are not the acts of mature people, they are the acts of children, and essentially are gaming the system. Cheating is another good word for that. If you have to cheat to avoid loss, you have no place in any contest, as you are incapable of processing the experience properly. And if people who fight PvP notice certain players always losing connection in losing fights, I think those people should be reported and prevented from further gaming just like they do in online poker, as they ruin the experience for everyone they come into contact with. I have no sympathy for them at all. And if that means they get a ban on the account due to their rampant cheating, so much the better.
The other side of that issue is that everyone that plays online games knows the risks of connection problems, and accepts them as a matter of course. It's totally fair because we all have to deal with it. If you have to blame that for your loss all the time, I think the problem is more personal than a faceless machine trashing your IP connection.
No loss PvP is for kids, period.
|
|
Losers do not deserve to win anything. No one should get credit for showing up and doing nothing more than losing. That is why the guys who win the Superbowl get rings, that is why the guys that play NHL win a Stanley Cup, while losers play golf.
This is actually all I really needed to hear.
1st: Golf is competitive. There are tournaments. Your statement is invalid.
2nd: Punishing the many for the sins of the few is, generally speaking a bad idea. Yes, a few people cheat, but the average person isn't going to have his hand poised over his internet connection ready to pull the plug in case of emergencies. Just because a work-around exists doesn't mean it will become commonplace.
Also:
Losers do not deserve to win anything. No one should get credit for showing up and doing nothing more than losing. That is why the guys who win the Superbowl get rings, that is why the guys that play NHL win a Stanley Cup, while losers play golf.
Football players get paid regardless of whether they win or lose. Their salary may increase or decrease, but they get paid.
After all, you can dust off and start over, you haven't really lost anything of substance, not even your life. But you will learn something when you do lose, and maybe the next time you won't make the same mistakes.
So... losing in an MMO doesn't really hinder you, other than the fact that you lost the game/match, which is... absolutely no different than a sport, yet you use the later as an example of an "adult game". Smooth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually I think the real logical reason for light death penelties is pretty simple. You have guild assets/goals and personal assets and goals. The guild assets are most likely going to be huge, building a kingdom isn't going to be trivial or cheap, dozens-hundreds are going to be needed for that task, and it is pretty much assured that players can and will tear down/take over other players kingdoms.
Players themselves will feel the loss of a kingdom big time, but they feel individual penelties much harsher. Defending and attacking a kingdom will cause a character to die... many many many times... If the penelty for death is high, you can pretty much guarantee 15 minutes into a war players will take a quick estimate on who is winning, and not very many will keep fighting as soon as odds of winning drop below 40%, and after the first wave of players leaves, the next wave will follow as the odds will drop even lower after that.
This would make war pretty boring... which isn't particularly good thing when that is intended to be one of the prime sources of entertainment in the game. Come backs from behind are awsome, but people aren't going to bet a months worth of work on it.