|
First off, let me say that I'm very... intrigued by the prospect of a Pathfinder MMO. That said, looking at the website, I have a few concerns, questions, and ideas:
1) The Skill System
Sound like you guys have been enjoying Skyrim :P. Seriously, though, I really like the idea of "You play the way you want to" character design, where you build your character up from scratch. However, from what is available to us so far, there is no potential limit to the number of skills a player possesses. Realistically, this makes sense. You can do ANYTHING you want. However, what would happen when a single player maxes out EVERY skill? Don't get me wrong, it's a neat idea for a single player game, but in an MMO, you need other players to help shore up your weaknesses (not Holy Trinity style, though).
My suggestion? I really, REALLY like the skill system idea, and want it to stay. However, perhaps during character creation, a player can select specific skills to be "class skills," which have a hard cap that is twice as high as the non-class skills, or instead of being higher by a factor, is simply "X" number of points high enough to equip better gear, allowing for specialization while still having to build up various skills and allowing for variety in playstyle (think of the FFXI subjob system combined with Elder Scrolls IV).
2) PvP
Okay, here's the deal. I'm an organized PvP person. I like competitive matches of equally numbered teams. Fortunately, you have set the game in the River Kingdoms, which is known to have Gladiatorial arenas, which is perfect for this. HOWEVER! Persistent PvP in an open world is, frankly, just a bad idea. Even imposing harsh griefing penalties... will not stop griefing.
Don't get me wrong. A dedicated PvP server, or the ability to switch on or off PvP might work. However, I would actually recommend a PvP zone... perhaps a pirate city or something like that, where players can still participate in "theme park" style quests under the constant threat of PvP. This type of combat should award experience, just as fighting traditional monsters would (perhaps giving experience equivalent to that of an elite or higher monster?). In fact, there could be pirate city assassination quests, asking you to kill X number of players. Heck, there's an interesting organized PvP idea: Assassination. Free for all for X number of people, where killing your target grants points, and initiating combat with someone who isn't your target imposes a penalty.
3) Cooperative Play
We need to ensure that players are not competing for "theme park" resources. Sure, if you want to have a competitive, engaging economic system, you can limit the number of crafting resources. However, MMOs in the past have proven that "tagging" monsters is just not a good mechanic. It discourages cooperation outside of grouping, and grouping generally imposes an experience penalty. Allow non-grouped players to share experience and rewards while granting ALL involved players completion towards "theme park" quests.
4) Hybrid Payment Model
Don't do a monthly fee. Just... trust me. It's not a good idea. You may look at WoW or SWTOR and think, "But those games had monthly fees, and they're HUGE!" (SWTOR isn't out yet, of course, but it's gonna have a really large player following already.) But here's the thing: WoW may be the biggest, baddest MMO on the market, but what are the most SUCCESSFUL new MMOs on the market? The free-to-play ones. I'm not talking "free-to-play up to level 50 then you have to pay for content" mmos. I'm talking about games like the original Guild Wars, where you pay for the game, and then you play it. The Pay-Once model with an in-game cash shop has already proven immensely successful, and this type of payment model is, frankly, one of Guild Wars 2's bigger selling points to MMO players. If you make a good game, people WILL be extraneous cosmetic items and bonuses. Heck, if you make an AVERAGE game they'll buy all those things.
Basically: If I payed for the game, I should be able to play it, and it's a MAJOR turn off playing through a game for free, and then being shut down because you don't have access to all the content. It doesn't make players pay; it makes them quit.
5) Branding
This is the smallest issue for me, but I think it may be an important distinction. I would try calling it Golarion Online, or The River Kingdoms, or something like that, rather than Pathfinder Online. My reasoning is this: The two games will be very, VERY different. I mean, in a system that uses skills rather than classes, you become unable to replicate various aspects of the tabletop game that are "balanced" for this very game. I mean.. how would you do Animal Companions? Those are KEY aspects of two classes that, when thrown into a skill-based system, become FAR too powerful. I would recommend strongly separating the Pathfinder RPG and this new MMO, at least in name, so that people UNDERSTAND that the two are very different entities.
Whew. Glad I got that off my chest. Anyone is, of course, free to comment, discuss, etc.
Ad 1. According to rumor I heard reaching max in all skills in EVE online requires 24 years total. With appropriate learning curve of each skill there is no real risk of maxing everything.
Ad 4. I don't know any MMOs except Guild Wars that would use pay-once model with in game shop. Could you please present some examples beyond Guild Wars?
Ad 5. I thought about it as well. Yes, the Golarion or River Kingdoms would be closer to the actual game but it would not generate publicity for the Pathfinder. Pathfinder is the name of paizo main product and even the old setting book was called Pathfinder Campaign Setting and not Golarion Campaign Setting.
It can be solved easily by introducing Pathfinder Society (not to be confused with Pathfinder Society Organized Play) as important faction in game explaining the use of the name.
|
|
1) But here's the thing. From a PvE perspective, how long does it take to maximize the skills needed to play X content? In addition, we would have to start looking at skills in an entirely new way. The first thing I think of is a list of skills:
Swords
Axes
Hammer
Cleric Magic
Druidic Magic
etc.
Sure, these could be dropped into a more detailed list:
Shortsword
Longsword
Healing Magic
Restorative Magice
Defensive Divine Magic
But at that point, you're just turning the game into a bigger grind to get access to the skills you want. I mean, there needs to be a time investment, granted, but at what level is each skill required to be at to succesfully content at X difficulty?
Let's just, as an example, say that, in order to stand toe-to-toe against an adult dragon, your associated skills (in a full party) should be around 20. So, I've got a 20 in Greatswords, Plate Armor, and say, 6 other skills, ranging from combat to non-combat. We beat the dragon, and after looting the treasure horde in the back of the cave, I find NOTHING that benefits the incredibly specific skillset I have acquired. All of a sudden, my incredibly specific skillset has screwed me over, and I need to find a way to justify doing the dungeon.
Now, the developers COULD develop a system that determines your rewards based on your skill levels, or they could develop a token system that allows you to spend tokens on various pieces of gear. However, both of these feel very... impersonal, and only serve to further complexity and time sinks. If I feel like using a spear, I have to go ALL the way down to low level challenges (that, by this point, my other skills FAR outweigh) to get good at using a spear. Assuming I spent a LONG time using that sword earlier, why should I have to level up that ENTIRE skill again? I already experienced content of a similar difficulty!
4) Guild Wars is really just my preferred example, because I REALLY like their business model. Other free-to-play games include Runes of Magic (admittedly not a great game with a poor design team imo), which even has a means of converting in-game currency to cash-shop currency, albeit an extremely HIGH ratio, and Allods Online (with which I have, admittedly, little experience). Both games are successful financially, without following a monthly payment model.
The reason I specifically mentioned Guild Wars is because the initial fee ENSURES monetary compensation for services provided, while also providing the benefits of a cash shop.
5) True. Like I mentioned, it was a minor point.
Goblin Squad Member
|
A skill system is not linear as you can go backwards and forwards and design and redesign your character as you please.
This being the case, lowering a skill or choosing to raise another skill does not mean a step back engaging in 'lower end' content because the world will not be linear either. No given direction is the right one and its your usage of your skill which improves your abilities, not what you specifically use it on.
Sure some areas may be harder than others and you can only engage with monsters which are within your 'range', but the game should not be structured like Allods, World of Warcraft or Runes of Magic in the zones are defined by level. Geography is geography, place monsters smartly through out the world and don't segregate them primarily in terms of difficulty.
You made decide you want to have blacksmithing as a skill. In themeparks you would need to goto low levels areas to find Iron - this is nonsensical. The world should contain iron everywhere and artifical barriers between zones should be avoided and in doing so, this solves the continuity problems with a skill system.
Those are my thoughts anyway!
|
|
The world may be a sandbox-esque world, but you still have to have lower-end content for people with lower skills and higher-end content for people with higher skills.
Don't get me wrong, I kind of like the idea of various levels of beasts roaming the countryside. But you know one thing I hated about WoW? STEALTH T-REX. (look it up... I'm sure you can find it easily)
When a player gets killed (and subsequently punished) through no fault of their own, the game has just positively punished the player. Pretty soon, the player will decide that location isn't worth the risk, and have to go somewhere safer.
Normally this makes sense. However (if I'm reading you correctly), if every zone were like that, it would detract from the game. It isn't about being challenging... content should always pose a challenge. It's about players getting the most from their experience, and random death, while maybe funny the first time, quickly wears on you.
Don't get me wrong, I kind of like the idea of various levels of beasts roaming the countryside. But you know one thing I hated about WoW? STEALTH T-REX. (look it up... I'm sure you can find it easily)
Bah, it's nothing compared to 100 meter high earth shaking Fel Reaver in Hellfire Peninsual stealthing on my friend.
When it comes to specialization I guess that skills will be gathered in cascading groups. So it is possible that we'll find our characters having possibility to learn and improve their 1-Handed Weapon skill, Sword Skill and Aldori Dueling skills with each of this skills giving different bonus when wielding sword (for example: 1-handed weapon - extra speed with 1-handed weapons, sword - bonus to hit and parry, aldori dueling - maybe bonus to parry and reduced chance of enemy parry/dodge) with possibly other advanced skills enhancing efficiency: Sure Strike to get additional bonus to hit chance, Precise Strike to reduce opponent's armor, etc.