Goblinworks Blog: A Journey of a Thousand Miles Begins with a Single Step

[Onishi]

Coldman wrote:

Short levelling duration, long duration to 'max' a certain skill, cap the number of skill points. Any creation of a skill system where a single character can continue learning skills indefinitely will always create escalating problems in the long run.

I actually think I have an idea on that one. A universal diminishing returns on skills. Most capless games imply diminishing returns on leveling up in one way or another. IE in level based, going from level 1-2 takes seconds to minutes, but going from 98-99 takes hours to days.

Same goes for skills Raising Skill X from 1-2 should take minutes, raising skill X from 99-100 should take hours to days.

Now where many games fail in this regard, is they treat every skill separate. IE someone with 99 of skill Y, and 1 of skill X. Can decide between leveling skill Y to 100 for 3 days, or spend those 3 days bringing skill X up to 40. This encourages everyone to become a jack of all trades character, and makes characters who specialize in 1 thing, weak by comparison.

But what if instead of making the diminishing returns skill specific, it makes them based on the total points. IE instead of factoring in the time to get a new point in skill X, You spend the time to get another skill point, and it is basing it on the fact that you have 100 total skill points, rather then how many you put into each category. Poof now you actually have both the option to be a jack of all trades master of none, or be a viable specialist in whatever, and your total point value be the same either way. Few people would try leveling everything, because it would drastically cut into whatever they want to focus on. Just like multi classing in P&P, if you are a 3 wiz, 3 ftr, it dosn't cut it easy on you and let you get your 4th level of fighter as if it were your 4th class level, it takes the XP of a 7th level character.

The diminishing returns is also what gives lower level characters a chance to catch up to higher level players. Assuming equal play time, they stay behind always, but the gap becomes less and less significant until it is unnoticeable.

[Northlander]

I'm someone who had never even heard about pathfinder before someone mentioned Pathfinder online at Neverwinter forums. However I've plenty of experience with MMOs and their predecessors MUDs and I find the approach that Goblinworks is taking intriguing and very risky.

Now I freely admit I'm more of a themepark player since sandboxes tend to be mindnumbingly dull. At worst they are "kill anything that moves in an environment void of any real focus" while at best they can be... well, I suppose more like single player games such as Skyrim - and even Skyrim has story.

It looks to me like Pathfinder Online aims to be a niche game. Niche games are not bad. They won't be hugely popular but they have very faithful fanbase, assuming developers actually respect their fanbase. Keeping the fans satisfied is going to be a monumental undertaking because everyone has their own vision of the world. Certainly it would help if the source for the game was not an environment where only imagination is the limit.

As a stranger to the setting and rules my concern is more related to the game itself: Will this be the type of sandbox MMO where mobs loiter around in massive groups without no apparent purpose and where players end up forming small secular elitist groups that don't talk with anyone else, or will it be something where the world mimics better real life, where it is easy to travel from one spot to another, and where the world itself supports interaction between players by focusing on "hotspots" (i.e. towns)? I like to give Skyrim as an example because it attempts to do something like this even if it is a single player game.

[Thursty]

Quote:

Hey everybody, check out the all new Cartmanland! It's our gra-hand opening! Cartmanland has over a hundred fabulous rides, six rollercoasters, and tons of great surprises! And the best part is... *you* can't come! That's right, because at Cartmanland, only I, Eric Cartman, can get in. That means only I can ride the all new tornado twister, a rollercoaster that splashes in the water. Wow! It's the greatest amusement park in the Colorado area, and nobody can go! Especially Stan and Kyle! Hahaha! So come on down to Cartmanland now, but don't plan on getting past the parking lot, 'cause remember:

So much to do at Cartmanland, but you can't come!... especially you Stan and Kyle.

Joking aside, I'm curious to see how this strategy works out. (Just hopefully Kenny doesn't die on the rollercoaster)

[GunnerX169]

Coldman wrote:

Jagga Spikes wrote:

if only more MMOs would set limits. devs should feel responsible to players that do play. trying to please everyone never really works to everyone content.

tho, what devs really have to work out is: early players shouldn't have long-term mechanical advantages over later players. while EVE skill system might look good, it creates characters that are increasingly adaptive. in an environment that is balanced through counters (which is necessary in player-driven sandbox; time-based stat inflation through planned obsolescence really shouldn't be considered), a new players, even if they specialize, will face older players that are specialized in counters.

make new characters somewhat capable from the start. keep a "leveling" short. allow for "retraining". make game be gameplay.

Eve skills is great in every way excluding it's lack of soft or hard cap. Roleplaying games, specifically of the fantasy genre, should encourage characters to play multiple characters than that of all roles on a single character.

Short levelling duration, long duration to 'max' a certain skill, cap the number of skill points. Any creation of a skill system where a single character can continue learning skills indefinitely will always create escalating problems in the long run.

Except that flexibility is limited to what you are flying when you run into a foe. The limit comes in the form of what modules you can, and have put on your ship. Sure an older character can do more damage, shoot farther, fly faster, etc. But all of that is moot if they are hard countered with the right form of E-war.

The other thing is that once you are involved in fleet combat those skills really start to lose there benefit. It's more about who has the right combination of ships then who has the better skills. Besides, a 2 day old character can jump in a basic ship and provide valuable support to a fleet as a tackler.

That said I would prefer if they didn't go exactly that route with this game. On the one hand it's nice that I don't have to log into EVE every day when I don't have the time, on the other hand it could be nice to have some rewards for time invested as well. Even money can be acquired in EVE with minimal actual playtime.

Also just to throw out a couple other ideas. It might be better to have a bit higher initial offering (10-15k) of players. Or perhaps consider the first few months a paid beta at a discounted rate. I would also eventually like to see some sort of player created dungeon functionality at some point, maybe along the lines of what they have in CoH/V, though I'm probably way ahead of myself on that one.

[Purplefixer]

Michael Brock wrote:

Sharoth wrote:

Wow. You are up late Gary. Go home and get some (much deserved) rest.

Gary doesn't sleep. I think he is a golem......

...

They make forum administrator golems!? Where can I find -that- Wizard, and can he make me an MMO Design Golem?

[Jagga Spikes]

GunnerX169 wrote:

Coldman wrote:

...

Eve skills is great in every way excluding it's lack of soft or hard cap. Roleplaying games, specifically of the fantasy genre, should encourage characters to play multiple characters than that of all roles on a single character.

...

Except that flexibility is limited to what you are flying when you run into a foe. The limit comes in the form of what modules you can, and have put on your ship. Sure an older character can do more damage, shoot farther, fly faster, etc. But all of that is moot if they are hard countered with the right form of E-war.

The other thing is that once you are involved in fleet combat those skills really start to lose there benefit. It's more about who has the right combination of ships then who has the better skills. Besides, a 2 day old character can jump in a basic ship and provide valuable support to a fleet as a tackler.

...

that happens on tactical level. however, on strategic level, side that has higher skill point total has more options on how to engage and/or respond.

granted, actual player skill trumps character skill, but there is no harm to accentuate it even more. as for items being of consequence, i think it's acceptable, as long as items are player-produced and destructible.

[Tom_Servo]

Wow are people ever pessimistic on these boards. If they make a quality product people will stick around. Those people will probably bring in other people. They have humble goals, a supportive fan base, and smart people overseeing things. Seems like a recipe for success to me.

That said, I must admit I've never played a single minute of any MMO. PFO just might be my first.

[Anthony A. Scott]

Doggan wrote:

This sounds like the game I've been waiting for since UO went to crap.

I second That!

[Tyveil]

Ok not sure why my post was removed, or maybe I forgot to hit the post button :(

I've been saying this for 10+ years.

Theme Park games, the way MMO's have been developed following the single player games pattern, is completely fail. There is a very high ratio of dev effort to playable content. MMO's need to go the way of the sandbox.

Players will be content playing in the same "zone" fighting the same "mobs" for a long period of time providing there is:
1) An engaging combat system.
2) Random and rewarding loot.
3) Superb character development and customization. If I can get better at skills by changing what I use, I may stay in the same zone or revisit a zone later to work on underdeveloped skills.

A quality sandbox game can reduce the dev effort to playable content drastically so that devs can stay ahead of the curve and an MMO can survive without caps and without players churning through content at light speed.

Player interaction and rewards for things other than Killing Mob X is also key.

[Kryzbyn]

I know alot of folks who said that what their planning for PFO is exactly whaht people miss from pre-NGE SWG.
If you can snag those players...

[jmberaldo]

There is a concept of interconnected events I worked on for an MMO in which I was Lead Content Designer that I believe approaches the 'sandpark' mix idea. While I obviously can't speak about it, I point at Guild Wars 2's Dynamic Events system

Basically, each region of the game has a series of small and large events (basically state-machines that interact with eachother). So, you could have a region in which orcs come out of a cave and begin to spread out. If players do not stop then, they take over a nearby fort and use it to send attacks further away (all that defined by a flowchart-like state machine). But thats just one event. Another one might be that a vender goes from one city to another crossing this path. If he is killed (say, by the orcs that now took over the fort), it cannot reach the other city and, therefore, the players have no access to whatever that vendor sells.

One of Arenanet's presentations mentioned also player-triggered events like this. For instance, if a player takes the 'pearl of power' from an undersea dungeon, it triggers a magical storm that causes coastal cities to be attacked by sea monsters

While GW2 was not released yet (and still makes use of instanced single-player style quests), I believe this is the best concept for MMO storytelling WITH relatively cheap content creation. Goblinworks might look at this as a good direction to aim at.

[kyrt-ryder]

If they built on that Dynamic Events concept JMB mentions (and expanded it appropriately however they saw fit of course), I would be a very happy gamer.

[tad10]

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Added discussion thread for Goblinworks Blog: A Journey of a Thousand Miles Begins with a Single Step.

You need to rethink one aspect of your business plan. Think facebook here.

People like to play with friends.

Gamer X gets an invite and likes the game.

He tells his friends Y and Z. They try to join but the game is capped.

Gamer X ends up leaving the game because he can't play with friends Y and Z.

You need modify the plan roughly as follows:

1. 4,500 new players to start.

All these players get 2-3 friendvites.

At the end of the month you see how many friendvites have been used ( let's say 2,000) and how many people are no longer logging in.

Say 2,000 friendvites have been used, and 1,000 are no longer logging in.

Total population at the end of month 2 is 5,500 (4,500 - 1,000 + 2,000).
Invites for month too will then be 3,500. These new invites also get the 2-3 friendvites, at the end of month 2 you again compute current player base and that determines invites for month3.

Cheers

[Onishi]

tad10 wrote:

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Added discussion thread for Goblinworks Blog: A Journey of a Thousand Miles Begins with a Single Step.

You need to rethink one aspect of your business plan. Think facebook here.

People like to play with friends.

Gamer X gets an invite and likes the game.

He tells his friends Y and Z. They try to join but the game is capped.

Gamer X ends up leaving the game because he can't play with friends Y and Z.

You need modify the plan roughly as follows:

1. 4,500 new players to start.

All these players get 2-3 friendvites.

At the end of the month you see how many friendvites have been used ( let's say 2,000) and how many people are no longer logging in.

Say 2,000 friendvites have been used, and 1,000 are no longer logging in.

Total population at the end of month 2 is 5,500 (4,500 - 1,000 + 2,000).
Invites for month too will then be 3,500. These new invites also get the 2-3 friendvites, at the end of month 2 you again compute current player base and that determines invites for month3.

Cheers

Seconded, I have no problem with the limited invite process, even competing and praying to the FSM for hopes at being one of the first group. But I would gladly take my odds being reduced to 1/4th of what they are now, in exchange for bringing my wife and 2 friends.

[NeonParrot]

JoelF847 wrote:

I have to say, the limited number of new players each month is a bit distressing. When you factor in that just about everything with "Pathfinder" in the name has sold far more copied than initially anticipated, if you have 50,000 people interested in the game when it launches, and turn away over 90% of them, some are simply going to not try again. Either because they get involved with another game instead, or hold a grugde over having their money turned away to play a game they wanted to, it strikes me as a way to generate far more ill will towards the game than beneficial.

When you also factor in the very realistic situation of having one player get in one of the first few months, and love the game, only to find out that even though he's plugged the game to his other gamer friends (either other MMO players, or tabletop gaming group, etc.), they can't get to play for several months until they are able to get in....by then the original player may have become dissolussioned with the game and his friends never join to play with him.

I agree, I see this as a major problem. One of the best ways to attract and keep players is word of mouth. You should do what you can to attract new players.

JoelF847 wrote:

Finally, giving preferential treatment to guilds from other games is simply elitist a major turn off to potential new players (at least some of them, counting me - I don't claim to speak for everyone) when there's only a limited number of openings. So I potentially can't get to play because people who play another game get a "fast pass" to the beginning of the line?

I agree, in a sense, you are writing the game candy for whomever brings the largest number of accounts with them. What happens when they agree to migrate en masse to another game? Or bail when you need them?

I think this will also have a hugely negative impact of attracting long-term players. These are casual players who just like the game and never cancel thier subscriptions.

JoelF847 wrote:

Now, if these first 7 months are the Beta period, that's one thing, but the blog post doesn't indicate this is the case. By not being a Beta, it's a finished product that's able to be paid for, and I can't fathom the business sense of actively turning away customers.

If there is no Beta, I think its like stepping off a cliff and hoping you are in a deep pool of cool water rather than the lip of a volcano.

[eldaryth]

I am so looking forward to this game. I have played pathfinder pnp for a year now after dumping the disappointing dnd 4e. I am a subscribing casual gamer for DDO; which is good, but suffers from the problem of grind like most MMO's.

The chance to play in Golarion is the main pull for me. I think there will be no problem in filling the small player caps listed with such a large pnp player base.

Good luck and hopefully I will achieve noob status. (Might be my first characters name...)

[Kosten07]

Dear Ryan,

First off let me say how excited I am for this game to not only come out, but to succeed.

I've been playing Pathfinder since it's release and to me its the true successor to TSR's D&D. I've also been playing MMOs since EQ vanilla.

I'm currently one of the WoW players that leave to try other MMOs and then "snap" back when I get bored with the new flavor of the month MMO.

I'd like to give you my two cents on what I would like to see in this Pathfinder MMO:

1) In my opinion, one of the greatest things about WoW is that the world is non instanced (not including BC, WotLK, Cat, and dungeon/raids etc.) Being able to travel through an open world and explore without constantly having to watch a loading screen really adds to the immersion and enjoyability of an MMO. I would hope to see Pathfinder with the same type of open world phasing and to stay away from instancing everything.

2) One server for all players. Is it possible? I don't know, but since your doing a sandbox game and you have the involvement of someone from CCP and their stunning success and innovative refining of technology and coding, what an amazing game it would be if everyone was on the same server!

3) True player driven content. One thing about theme-park MMOs that keep the end game players from getting bored is the constant need to get better loot. I think in a sandbox game true player driven content would give hardcore gamers (and casual players) something to do other than worry about needing that new epic sword. There are plenty of examples that I can think of: creating player housing that eventually could grow into towns; a true crafting system that would allow players to customize their looks, weapons, armor. These are just a few but I am sure plenty of others could come up with some ideas.

4) Lastly, and most importantly, consequences. In theme park MMOs once you've done a quest, or fought off a random event of some monsters attacking your town, a lot of players become apathetic because of the been there, done that attitude, so they don't bother getting involved. What if though those players watch as those monsters destroy their town and its gone? This might seem a little harsh but currently in MMOs there seems to be too much of a trend to hand hold players. I'm not suggesting that the pendulum needs to swing completely the other way, but it would be nice to see some balance.

Anyways, this is just my two cents as a long time gamer who has been role playing and mmoing for a long time. And again I can't wait for Pathfinder the MMO!

[Ryan Dancey]

Kosten07 wrote:

1) In my opinion, one of the greatest things about WoW is that the world is non instanced. I would hope to see Pathfinder with the same type of open world phasing and to stay away from instancing everything.

Agree. That's going to be a goal.

Quote:

2) One server for all players.

We want the largest possible servers. If we can get everyone into one, that's the ideal outcome.

Quote:

3) True player driven content.

Or die trying. :)

[Count Buggula]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Kosten07 wrote:

Quote:

2) One server for all players.

We want the largest possible servers. If we can get everyone into one, that's the ideal outcome.

I REALLY hope you're able to find a way to pull this off. One of the reasons I enjoyed Guild Wars while I had a hard time getting into any other MMO is that everyone was in the same game world. It made finding the right guild easier, it made finding players to group with easier, etc.

I hate the idea of having to choose between which group of friends I want to play with if I went to play WoW, for example, since they all play on different servers.

[brianwisti]

I'm excited about this, even though I only own two Pathfinder products at this point. I am excited because I want to see Goblinworks reach their goals and present a model that other niche MMOs can use. It's not "WoW or bust". A MMO should be able to thrive and succeed as long as it's smart about costs and reasonable about goals.

Also, Pathfinder *is* pretty awesome. I'd play. I'd even wait X months to play. Looking forward to future posts on the game's evolution.

[baktubak]

I'm very glad to see a company critically thinking about how to produce a successful game. I'm a very frugal guy myself, and the idea of doing more with less is right up my alley.
Eve has really grown into a wonderful game, great that someone noticed! I must also say that knowing there is a cap on players makes me want in early all the more! A pathfinder club that won't have just anyone as a member? Sign me up!

[tad10]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

We want the largest possible servers. If we can get everyone into one, that's the ideal outcome.

Lol. Given you want a 120k playerbase I don't think this is going to work as well as you think it will (unless you public instance every zone). You must have missed the AQ opening in WoW or the EQ progression server nightmares that was Lower Guk during Vanilla prog.

I think the rule of thumb is that no more than 20% of your playerbase is online at any given time (barring game starts or new expansions or whatever) with 120k that means 24,000 people online at all times. That's a lotta meatballs for one server.

This is not a problem if you're using instanced content (e.g. DCUO) but if you are trying for a non-instanced world it won't work. There is no server software currently existing that can handle that kind of load without severe lag (not necessarily lag everywhere, but certainly where players are concentrated).

It's statements like this that make me think your game is vaporware Ryan. :( I am really hoping it is not vaporware given the lack of sandbox MMOs on the horizon.

Good luck.

[kyrt-ryder]

Something to keep in mind tad is that they have time before they reach those numbers, time to experiment with different technologies and applications of those technologies. While it's a difficult slope to climb, I have a feeling it is indeed possible to reach the summit.

[Balodek]

Server technology has come a long way since WoW and EQ launched. Getting everybody on one server that can be hot upgraded wouldn't be difficult anymore. The ability to add hardware to a server while it remains running and boost the power is incredible, and something that was far beyond the average MMO company 10 years ago.

[Ryan Dancey]

tad10 wrote:

Lol. Given you want a 120k playerbase I don't think this is going to work as well as you think it will.

It's statements like this that make me think your game is vaporware Ryan. :(

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

[uriel222]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

tad10 wrote:

Lol. Given you want a 120k playerbase I don't think this is going to work as well as you think it will.

It's statements like this that make me think your game is vaporware Ryan. :(

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I know SOMEONE who isn't getting into the first 4500... :)

[Xeriar]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Quote:

2) One server for all players.

We want the largest possible servers. If we can get everyone into one, that's the ideal outcome.

One thing that I find especially silly is having NPC logic run on the same server that keeps track of the rest of the world. If, for some reason, you pick an engine written by people who couldn't wrap their heads around database sharding, I hope you'll at least be able to offload some CPU and I/O intensive work to other servers to maximize the number of simultaneous players you can support.

[Tyveil]

Ryan,

I've gone back and read a lot of your posts and I have yet to find an idea I don't agree with. I was very disappointed when early 3D MMORPG's came out because I knew the game design wasn't right for an MMORPG (too much theme park and not enough sandbox, as you have put it). I realized every MMORPG after would follow, what do you know we have 50 EQ clones since that day. Whatever you do, please stick to your guns. I'm not sure how you're getting the backing and support you need when it seems everyone thinks other MMO's have already done it right and just need "tweeked" in areas. I sincerely hopes this game makes it through to launch without any compromises. If so you for sure have a lifetime player here. Best wishes and looking forward to future updates.

[Xeriar]

tad10 wrote:

I think the rule of thumb is that no more than 20% of your playerbase is online at any given time (barring game starts or new expansions or whatever) with 120k that means 24,000 people online at all times. That's a lotta meatballs for one server.

And yet Second Life peaked at nearly 90k in 2009.

The only thing 'technically required' to share a single server would be the transactional server. Basically 'who has what' (which would track not only players and npcs but also in-world permanent containers and such), and even this limitation can be gotten around if you are willing to sacrifice some security or speed. But, being that it would be I/O limited, sticking a few large SSDs on it and calling it a day could support a ridiculous number of people on-line simultaneously, especially as people doing nothing but chatting it up wouldn't add to that server's load. Everything else, you can in theory shard between multiple servers to create a single, integrated 'world'.

Though depending on the method, the seams of said world could be anywhere from nigh invisible to quite distracting.

[tad10]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Lol. You get a 120k active playerbase (again using the 20% rule means about 24k online most nights) in a fantasy game that is on one "server" that is majority non-instanced content without horrendous lag in populated areas or daylong queues and I'll eat my hat on youtube. I think that's a pretty fair bet. And don't tell me you're extrapolating from EVE. A space game is not a fantasy game and last time I checked, didn't EVE have horrendous lag when too many players sat and fought it out?

I mostly like your busiiness plan as revealed on your blog (I think you're making things a little more complicated then necessary by going for skills/archetypes instead of simpler classes/levels but whatever - I am sure UO fans will go bananas when they find out) except for this 1 server idea and my comment above that you need to allow for friendvites for un-guilded individual players.

[kyrt-ryder]

Can you identify your youtube channel now so we can check it and make sure who the owner is and that they don't already have a hat-eating video? Granted that person 'could' make a hat-eating video later, but by pre-identifying it (whether or not that person actually is you) then we dramatically reduce the odds of cheating.

[tad10]

Xeriar wrote:

And yet Second Life peaked at nearly 90k in 2009.

Please don't compare Second Life to an actual game - a 45 fps?

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Server_architecture

AS for the rest, the way you handle 120,000 people on one "server" is through massive instancing. That's not what Ryan says he is doing. He stated that he's doing non-instanced content. There's two things they could be doing - zoned content (a la EQ, Vanilla WoW) or seemless world (VG, some later WoW expansions). If zoned content then he's using a form of instancing - but he's still going to get zone crashes when 10,000 people hit a zone. What goes on with any server with that many people is effectively an denial of service attack because too many people are hitting a particular server with requests. What WoW and DCUO have done is setup queues - so only a subset of the playerbase is acdtually hitting the game server. Thus my bet above.

From his response to my post it's pretty clear that Ryan wants to try and put it all on one "server" because he wants to do it, not because it is a particularly good idea (it's not). Lets face it, from a practical standpoint you want multiple servers because its easier to grow the business.

What he should be doing given his slow growth business model is: start out with one server then split it once he hits a certain usage level. Then grow servers A & B until they hit that same usage level and split again.

[tad10]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Can you identify your youtube channel now so we can check it and make sure who the owner is and that they don't already have a hat-eating video? Granted that person 'could' make a hat-eating video later, but by pre-identifying it (whether or not that person actually is you) then we dramatically reduce the odds of cheating.

I'm well known on fohguild :-) surfacetad10 is my youtube alias.

Here's an old VG video of mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsTIG-QNgWo

I'm not worried about the bet as the tech doesn't exist to do what Ryan said he wanted to do. Sure he can put everyone on a server but a la EVE if something big is going on lag will be crazy.

Frankly I'm surprised he commented - he clearly follows the Ngruk school of CEOing.

[Kryzbyn]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

tad10 wrote:

Lol. Given you want a 120k playerbase I don't think this is going to work as well as you think it will.

It's statements like this that make me think your game is vaporware Ryan. :(

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I'll take "No." for $400, Ryan.

[Xeriar]

tad10 wrote:

Xeriar wrote:

And yet Second Life peaked at nearly 90k in 2009.

Please don't compare Second Life to an actual game - a 45 fps?

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Server_architecture

Ah, right, I throw out an example that blows your numbers out of the water, even though it's far larger and far more complex than PFO is ever going to be, and that it's an absolutely -ancient- grid model, but it doesn't count, because it's 'not a real game'.

Quote:

AS for the rest, the way you handle 120,000 people on one "server" is through massive instancing. That's not what Ryan says he is doing. He stated that he's doing non-instanced content. There's two things they could be doing - zoned content (a la EQ, Vanilla WoW) or seemless world (VG, some later WoW expansions). If zoned content then he's using a form of instancing - but he's still going to get zone crashes when 10,000 people hit a zone. What goes on with any server with that many people is effectively an denial of service attack because too many people are hitting a particular server with requests. What WoW and DCUO have done is setup queues - so only a subset of the playerbase is acdtually hitting the game server. Thus my bet above.

You're happily moving goal posts.

1) There should be no reason for ten thousand people to be drawn to a single cell or zone (depending on the model). They're pushing the sandbox idea for a reason. It's why I'm interested.
2) The options are not 'zoned, instanced, single-instance'. There are other potential models, such as dynamic cells, which would do what Ryan wants and handle your situation by reducing the distance at which characters can be interacted with (i.e. seen, fought, or traded with) according to how many were present in an area. Is such a thing available for licensing? I have no idea.
3) I wouldn't mind a zone model, however. Zone getting too popular? Move other zones to a new server or divide the zone.

Quote:

From his response to my post it's pretty clear that Ryan wants to try and put it all on one "server" because he wants to do it, not because it is a particularly good idea (it's not). Lets face it, from a practical standpoint you want multiple servers because its easier to grow the business.

From a practical standpoint, I want to grab some friends, build a city, and show it off. That's why I'm interested. That is ideally done by ensuring that no matter where someone might be initially committed in the game, they can still trek up to my city, chat us up and take a tour.

This is a selling point. Maybe, if they are forced to, it means splitting the world in half, and having easy transfer between servers. That would be frustrating, but I'd deal.

Quote:

What he should be doing given his slow growth business model is: start out with one server then split it once he hits a certain usage level. Then grow servers A & B until they hit that same usage level and split again.

And that would just piss me off. "And now, half the people who occasionally liked to visit your city magically can't find it." I don't think I'd be the only one.

[Ryan Dancey]

tad10 wrote:

Lol. You get a 120k active playerbase (again using the 20% rule means about 24k online most nights) in a fantasy game that is on one "server" that is majority non-instanced content without horrendous lag in populated areas or daylong queues and I'll eat my hat on youtube.

I'll take that bet.

BTW, just curious, are you aware of what the (single shard) Champions Online game achieved in its PCU?

Or the (single shard) Star Trek Online?

How about Darkfall?

Ultima Online?

Second Life?

Do you understand the difference between "PCU", and "number of active players in the same virtual space"?

Do you understand the difference between server-lag, client-lag, and network-lag? And how those relate to the number of active players that can inhabit the same virtual space?

EVE can support about 1,000 active players in the same virtual space without major performance problems on the server or network (client lag is the biggest problem at this scale, primarily due to video card issues). It can get up to about 2,000 active players in the same virtual space without crashing the server, but performance degrades badly on the server.

EVE has 7,500 star systems. Each system can be hosted on its own node (called a Sol server), although in practice most systems are hosted on shared Sol Servers because they do not generate enough traffic volume to require dedicated hardware.

Within each system, virtual spaces called "grids" by the players are created for each active player, and are shared by active players within a certain range (which is dynamically resized). It is possible to have those 1,000 active players scattered all over the system, or concentrated in one grid - the load on the server is effectively the same, although the network load goes up as a function of N^2, where N = number of active objects being tracked by the server. So 1,000 active players in 1,000 grids would be less taxing on the system than 1,000 active players on one grid.

When a player is in a station, that player is not considered an "active player" in the system's virtual space - so the total population of a system could be much, much higher than 1,000 without causing performance problems.

EVE's system would be infinitely scalable to the point (at least) where each grid could be run on its own hardware except for one problem. The game's core logic is written in Stackless Python, which is one of the reasons EVE was able to grow to the size it was, but now has become a limiting factor. Stackless Python cannot be run across multiple cores. It has a programmatic object (called the GIL) that doesn't enable it to spawn multi-core processes. Long before I left CCP there was work underway to address this issue, but until the problem is solved, there likely are hardware limits to the growth that EVE can maintain within a single virtual space. (The interested can watch this talk: http://blip.tv/carlfk/mindblowing-python-gil-2243379) (And you can see some of how CCP is dealing with this here: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=925)

The idea that a modern "massively" multiplayer online game should have a PCU in the 3,500-5,000 range (I'm looking at you, WoW & WoW clones) is ridiculous. WoW was designed in the early part of the 2000s. It's been nearly 10 years since its network topology and database systems were devised, 10 years which have seen the rise of all sorts of better solutions for transaction processors (look into CouchDB, for one example). But since Theme Park MMOs don't gain much value from having large simultaneous server populations or large virtual space population, most of the theme park segment hasn't bothered to try and come up with a better solution. In fact, they're actively developed to avoid large concentrations of players. Can you imagine what some of the shared spaces in WoW would be like if 1,000 characters were all in the same virtual space? They feel excessively crowded with just a few dozen!

Anyway "tad10", you should probably start picking out that hat now, and we'll be sure to link the video on our community site after your meal.

RyanD

[Taalyn]

I think that an open world fantasy based sandbox MMO is a great addition to market.

The tiered access sounds interesting - limiting the number of new players per month - I don't know if I've seen a game take this approach before. My main concern is your "how to get in" description. It's a great idea to get people who are interested and passionate about the existing Pathfinder world and game. I think another target group is the passionate sandbox gamers. While the pathfinder players will bring the existing world into sandbox, the sandboxers will bring the sandbox into the Pathfinder world. Unfortunately I am not to be counted in either group.

I am also extremely pleased that Mark is involved in the project. I hope that a CoH architects edition style interface is considered for adding content to the sandbox. Like others have mentioned I hope there will be a DM mode in the game. Given the opportunity, I would love to have limited control over an area placing kobolds and setting reaction thresholds.

I would love to see a Frozen Synapse style interface for both the "Architects Edition" and "DM mode". Each creature could have a path and a set of instructions that are contextual. If they are inside the hut and spot the player, they attack with bows and spears; if they spot the player while outside the hut, they run to the hut or charge the player.

I think this would let the sandbox players play in the sandbox and allow the players to build their own theme parks. Based on the experience I have had in CoH the player made content is amazing. Granting the best of the best of player content builders even more access the game could even have player created "end game" encounters.

[JRR]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

.

I have to wonder if you can be sure to fill your 4500 per month playerbase growth when it's restricted to subscribers, but only time will tell for sure. Best of luck Ryan.

I have zero concerns about it. We'll have far more folks who want in than we'll have slots available. Think of it like the waiting list for a new restaurant.

If I have to be on a list to get in, I'll generally eat somewhere else.

[Onishi]

JRR wrote:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

.

I have to wonder if you can be sure to fill your 4500 per month playerbase growth when it's restricted to subscribers, but only time will tell for sure. Best of luck Ryan.

I have zero concerns about it. We'll have far more folks who want in than we'll have slots available. Think of it like the waiting list for a new restaurant.

If I have to be on a list to get in, I'll generally eat somewhere else.

Nah you'll be like everyone else, you'll sign up for the list, try another game, Then jump for joy 3 months later when your application is accepted.

[JRR]

tad10 wrote:

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Added discussion thread for Goblinworks Blog: A Journey of a Thousand Miles Begins with a Single Step.

You need to rethink one aspect of your business plan. Think facebook here.

People like to play with friends.

Gamer X gets an invite and likes the game.

He tells his friends Y and Z. They try to join but the game is capped.

Gamer X ends up leaving the game because he can't play with friends Y and Z.

Agreed. I have a few friends that I play mmos with. If I can't play Pathfinder with them, then I won't be playing Pathfinder, I'll be playing WoW or Star Wars or Rift, or whatever.

[TerraNova]

While I am intrigued by the blog, color me sceptical as well. Even if you start small, you would still need a substantial "Content Mortgage" to avoid paid-beta syndrome.

It is, however, potentially a way away from the "common wisdom" that only lumbering giants (like EA / Bioware) can successfully develop an MMO, and that you can only hope to break even at half a million customers, over the course of 4 years.

I'll see where this goes, try the game (if Goblinworks will have me), and follow the rise (and fall?) of the project with even more interest.

[Wirth]

It is almost scary to see people supporting proposed development plan.

It basically means that instead of releasing competitive, 'fully' developed product, they cut the costs by releasing the game with basic features and minimal content. Content then will be released as you, paying customers, will be funding following months and years of further development.

It isn't really innovative approach, it is called paid beta.

I personally do not think this will work for all reasons pointed out before, but who knows, maybe there is enough fools out there.

[HolmesandWatson]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

tad10 wrote:

Lol. Given you want a 120k playerbase I don't think this is going to work as well as you think it will.

It's statements like this that make me think your game is vaporware Ryan. :(

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Ryan, that looked petty. In your position, you need to rise above comments like that. I get the mounting frustration in dealing with the populace (try running the national governing body for 10,000 Ultimate Frisbee players who want to know why it's not an olympic sport) but you won't do yourself any favors snapping back.

Even if you're thinking it, don't type it. You and Lisa are the faces and voices of Goblinworks. Just mutter 'Mouthbreathers' to yourself and move along.

I thought your initial blog post was informative and look foward to more.

[Dirk Jimbrose]

I think the only way this model can work is by allowing the player community to help add content in some way. Let's take the example of MineCraft. A silly idea of one person has turned in to millions of paying customers; even before it went "live". Why? Because he opened it up to the players.

I had some great D&D DMs that came up with better stories than anything TSR ever did and TSR had some awesome story writers.

[Crovak]

To be honest I am very excited about this game. The approach being taken, and the potential for the future are very exciting indeed. Being a "bitter vet" so to speak after many years in Eve, I would like to ask a couple of questions please.

Goblinworks FAQ
"Will PvP (player-vs.-player aggression) be allowed?

Characters will be able to attack rival characters in most parts of the game world. In many circumstances, though, unprovoked aggression may carry severe in-game penalties."

Ryan what, if you do not mind answering, is your opinion of CCP's zone concept? Referring to 1.0 space down to 0.0 space, and how pvp happens within the current game mechanics. Do you have any issues with it? Are you going to mimic it in some ways? If so what will you do different?

Good for starters anyway, and thank you in advance for taking the time to answer. If you do not find the time, well it is all good. Just curious :)
This area is very important to me as a player.

[Tyveil]

Wirth wrote:

It is almost scary to see people supporting proposed development plan.

It basically means that instead of releasing competitive, 'fully' developed product, they cut the costs by releasing the game with basic features and minimal content. Content then will be released as you, paying customers, will be funding following months and years of further development.

It isn't really innovative approach, it is called paid beta.

I personally do not think this will work for all reasons pointed out before, but who knows, maybe there is enough fools out there.

If you have a good core system designed to be a sandbox then very little developer content is needed to have an enjoyable game. With theme parks this is very different because players consume the content then they're done. I disagree with your assessment and hope they release the game as soon as the core gameplay is for the most part done and there is reasonable amount of sandbox space to play in.

[Caineach]

HolmesandWatson wrote:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

tad10 wrote:

Lol. Given you want a 120k playerbase I don't think this is going to work as well as you think it will.

It's statements like this that make me think your game is vaporware Ryan. :(

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Ryan, that looked petty. In your position, you need to rise above comments like that. I get the mounting frustration in dealing with the populace (try running the national governing body for 10,000 Ultimate Frisbee players who want to know why it's not an olympic sport) but you won't do yourself any favors snapping back.

Even if you're thinking it, don't type it. You and Lisa are the faces and voices of Goblinworks. Just mutter 'Mouthbreathers' to yourself and move along.

I thought your initial blog post was informative and look foward to more.

Personally, I was glad to see that kind of developer response to someone.

[Caineach]

Wirth wrote:

It is almost scary to see people supporting proposed development plan.

It basically means that instead of releasing competitive, 'fully' developed product, they cut the costs by releasing the game with basic features and minimal content. Content then will be released as you, paying customers, will be funding following months and years of further development.

It isn't really innovative approach, it is called paid beta.

I personally do not think this will work for all reasons pointed out before, but who knows, maybe there is enough fools out there.

I don't actually see this as a problem. I know lots of people who have paid for betas. Minecraft became the most successful indie game ever while it was still in beta. As long as the beta is a fully functional working game, its not a problem. Sure, there will be bugs and players will always want new content. If you have a good release schedual, you can accomodate that though.

The whole concept for a persistent, player-grown world requires player input. Allowing players to effectively design the things outside the starting zones greatly reduces workload and allows them to focus on new things you can do instead of new areas. Players who come in later will find a developed world, but if they scale it right and expand the wilderness, new players should be able to run out and make their own thing.

[Morgen]

If your dealing with software vendors, please don't get any kind of engine from Turbine. Their characters can't move properly in their worlds and that makes it just look terrible.

The less Pathfinder online looks like one of their games the better.

[jmberaldo]

There are many payment models for MMOs today, each with a different focus. While I know in North America most people abhor the F2P model (even though this seem to be changing), it seems to be the 'model of the future', at least as a basic concept.

Turbine's change to F2P games first with DDO makes a lot of sense especially with the sort of game that ia D&D. People are used to buying adventure modules, so that buying adventure packs makes sense to them. It's not so different from what DCU is doing now. And you still can keep the monthly payment by the use of "VIP accounts". I would say the same about Pathfinder online.

A similar (but different) case is Guild Wars 1. You pay for the game and for expansions (content), but otherwise the game is free.

Both games also have microtransaction, of course, which help keep the developer with "small money" (in the player's perspective, as this sort of items are often very much profitable for the developer).

In fact all of this came up because of SWTOR (I played the last beta run) and how we agreed their monetization (buy game + monthly charge) feels wrong. Bioware is famous for content. So, if they decided to innovate in content and keep the core gameplay not unlike the current default (read WoW), it would sound reasonable that they sold content packs instead of charging monthly.

While I know Pathfinder Online will not be SWTOR, it seems to make sense to me that PFO would work out as a basic sandbox game with some basic content (remember Dynamic Events!) and monetize on extra content such as adventure modules, character/guild customization and maybe access to certain areas