Constructive Criticism


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:
I would tone down the achievement requirements big time and have the Max tier in a Skill cost much less XP total. So that players could comfortable max out a single role in a year.

I expect part of the decision to focus on a 2.5-year-to-max progression rate has to do with the features that will need to be implemented before folks reach that level of play.

I am also personally averse to suggestions that fundamentally alter the game design.

There are a number of "givens" that I think folks are silly to push back against:

  • You will face the risk non-consensual PvP;
  • You will lose Reputation and face consequences for engaging in random player killing;
  • You will lose items when other players kill you and loot your husk;
  • You will not be able to deposit items in the bank in one Settlement and pull them out of the bank at another Settlement;
  • You will take about two and a half years to reach the top levels of a particular Role.

I'm sure there are quite a few others as well.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Saiph wrote:
... a rate-over-time system, also known as "ROT." This system.. limits the maximum skill points a player could earn per day...

This sounds exactly like the Rate of XP Gain system we already have.

Does that mean you also would answer "Yes" to the question:

Nihimon wrote:
Are you saying the Rate of XP Gain should be adjusted so that Characters can only reach high levels in a narrowly-focused Role in 2.5 years?

Color me confused, but how is that exactly like the system we already have?

In the system we currently have, I also have to obtain certain achievements to advance? It is not strictly time-based.

CEO, Goblinworks

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Saiph wrote:
I do not want to train miscellaneous skills that have nothing to do with my role as a wizard in order to raise attributes which will then allow me to progress.

Confirmed with Lee and Stephen this morning that the above quote is the intent of the system and when the fix to the ability score gate is applied you will be able to achieve the necessary ability score increases simply by training things from the two (or three) trainers for your chosen Role.

Let me reiterate to be clear: The design objective is that if you want to be a better Wizard, all you have to do is learn Feats from Wizard trainers.

(Lee notes that there may be an issue with Constitution right now but that's something that we know about and intend to fix, and that training Hit Points is usually a solution if you find yourself in a dead end on Constitution.)

This is not a change and has always been the design intent. Perhaps we could have been more clear about this so that there wasn't any confusion and for that I apologize.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:


The risk is that players who are paying, but not truly engaged, are fragile. They're more likely to quit than someone who has something meaningful to do in the game on a regular basis.

I believe that you must be playing the game to be a player of the game. I believe in having a system which reinforces that design philosophy.

You don't want to do anything but let time pass to become more powerful? That's a legit critique. I disagree, so you lose that argument.

I agree. Please do not forget to read my post that is above yours and that you probably missed. :) This thread is going fast!

Goblin Squad Member

Saiph wrote:

Color me confused, but how is that exactly like the system we already have?

In the system we currently have, I also have to obtain certain achievements to advance? It is not strictly time-based.

The answer was in what you quoted.

Nihimon wrote:
This sounds exactly like the Rate of XP Gain system we already have.

It sounds like you're making the argument that the Rate of XP Gain system by itself is all that's needed. But that system by itself doesn't accomplish the design goal unless you rebalance it to make it take 2.5 years to reach the top of a narrowly-focused Role.

Goblin Squad Member

Pretty sure Saiph meant skills bought instead of gained.

I think we are making much ado about nothing with the achievements. The kill mechanic is clearly just a place holder for better stuff. Once the escalation achievements are implemented adventuring classes will casually accrue in every category (clerics do need help in the short term though). The ability score gates will continue to be tweaked I think. GW has already made major shifts in different directions as they try to get that right.

All of this stuff is just fine for day 1 of EE imho. With the auction houses in I'm looking at graphics, bugs & combat engine as the priorities.

Oh yeah, and the map. Because it is a competitive game and competitive decisions were made based on the full map.

CEO, Goblinworks

@Tyncale - Most players who start playing an MMO quit within 3-6 months. The attrition rate is tremendous.

HALF of the people quit in 1 month.

The ~20% or so who become long term players will play essentially forever, although they cycle in and out of active participation with the frequency of the cycle being between six and twelve months. 20% of the accounts created in EVE the first month it was live are still active today.

There is no meaningful difference to that 20% between "one year" and "five years".

There is no meaningful difference in retention to the rest of the players between "six months" and "five years".

The 2.5 year target is wholly arbitrary. It's not based on any kind of data I have that says that's the right length. But we had to pick something as the objective end point so that the designers could get to work. We have a 5 year financial plan for the game so we picked the mid-point of that plan as the target for maximizing a character's role and that still feels "right" to me today.

I do not believe we will see any financial impact from lengthening or shortening that timeframe because the people we're targeting for those maxed-out roles won't care either way.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
You don't want to do anything but let time pass to become more powerful? That's a legit critique. I disagree, so you lose that argument. But I respect you for making the argument. But saying that because the tiny handful of Achievements we've implemented are boring or grindy means the design paradigm is flawed doesn't move me very much.

Hi Ryan, thank you for your reply, I will always appreciate your candor and honesty.

I just want to elaborate a tad on my point: I never said I don't want to do anything other than let time pass to become more powerful. What I did say is I do not want killing 250 (random number) bandits to be a prerequisite.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Let me reiterate to be clear: The design objective is that if you want to be a better Wizard, all you have to do is learn Feats from Wizard trainers.

(Lee notes that there may be an issue with Constitution right now but that's something that we know about and intend to fix, and that training Hit Points is usually a solution if you find yourself in a dead end on Constitution.)

This is not a change and has always been the design intent. Perhaps we could have been more clear about this so that there wasn't any confusion and for that I apologize.

If I'm reading this correctly, this is lovely news indeed.


"I just want to elaborate a tad on my point: I never said I don't want to do anything other than let time pass to become more powerful."

Saiph, I think Ryan may have been addressing some other folks with that one.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Graphics wise I have 2 absolute musts to be fixed before EE starts.

1. Icons. I don't care if you use the same icon 25 times. I don't want to see a single ? on my character sheet, inventory, paper doll, trainer anywhere. It's one of those detail things that is actually 100 times more important than it seems because it sends short wave nuero blasts of subliminal messages that scream, "unfinished"

2. Fix those gorram ears on the elves. They hurt my eyes (the faces on the elves btw, are friggin brilliant, very Brian Froud-ish).

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

@Tyncale - Most players who start playing an MMO quit within 3-6 months. The attrition rate is tremendous.

HALF of the people quit in 1 month.

The ~20% or so who become long term players will play essentially forever, although they cycle in and out of active participation with the frequency of the cycle being between six and twelve months. 20% of the accounts created in EVE the first month it was live are still active today.

There is no meaningful difference to that 20% between "one year" and "five years".

There is no meaningful difference in retention to the rest of the players between "six months" and "five years".

The 2.5 year target is wholly arbitrary. It's not based on any kind of data I have that says that's the right length. But we had to pick something as the objective end point so that the designers could get to work. We have a 5 year financial plan for the game so we picked the mid-point of that plan as the target for maximizing a character's role and that still feels "right" to me today.

I do not believe we will see any financial impact from lengthening or shortening that timeframe because the people we're targeting for those maxed-out roles won't care either way.

Thanks Ryan, you certainly have access to all the good data. I love to hear those numbers. Count me to the 20% of "stayers" when it comes to Everquest. I sincerely hope you also have some data that proves that people can actually start to belong to *another* 20% group. :D Or is it impossible to get retention from people that are already "locked in" with another game? I will admit right away that I recently played EQ again. However, there are more games that I return to. But EQ is still getting most of my money when I go back there.

Anyway, as I understand from your post, ramping up Character-progression does not necessarily lead to better player retention? It seems to me it *could* be a factor in retaining at least interest for that year, and in that time-frame, there may be more chance to lock people in with all the other goodness that the game has to offer. If they can see the "end" of a single role in the near future(1 year), they may be able to take that 3-6 month hurdle. Maybe not so much if that is 2.5 years away. Though I agree that other features should be the real "lock-ins" with PFO.

I realize that the coming 1.5 years will be very different anyway, because most of the systems that *should* lock in people are not implemented yet. Not sure if a faster character progression would help much there. Could be?

Let me just say that the whole idea of local markets and local Auctionhouses (I already have stuff in 2) is already locking me in badly......now we need more options for transport!


I have a grievance -

Ryan wrote:
"We've been very up front about this from day one - you do not become more powerful simply through the passage of time. You become more powerful through succeeding in doing meaningful things in game, AND the passage of time."

Doesn't time pass normally if we're trying to do something meaningful in the first place? Why is there a need for gaining xp on a timed basis if there are these achievement gates to deal with in the first place? We have to work towards completing them anyways and that takes up time. If it's to prevent people just burning through the path because they want to specialize, what is the real issue here?

This is a legitimate question of mine that I don't feel anyone has answered without injecting a fair amount of vitriol into their reply.

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Pigtails - having an absolute time required to reach certain points means we have total control over when those points are reached and can't be "surprised" by players who find creative ways to overcome in-game challenges faster than we thought possible.

Also, as I've said before, you should be time-gated much more often than you are achievement-gated. The achievements should be won as a natural part of playing the game at a moderate level of engagement. Most of the time you should be thinking "how long will it be before I have enough XP to buy that Feat I want", not "what do I have to do to complete this Achievement so I can get the Feat I want".

Having absolute control over character advancement enables us to roll out features and to iterate on existing features at a rate we can sustain with the resources we have available. Of all the innovative things CCP did with EVE, I think it is the most material innovation they made that created their long-term success.

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tyncale wrote:
Anyway, as I understand from your post, ramping up Character-progression does not necessarily lead to better player retention?

If you don't reward new players with cookies often and quickly they quit really fast.

That's why our character power graph is not a straight line but is instead a curved line. You'll get most of the benefits of a Role within the first 6 months. New characters get significantly better almost continuously.

Psychologically that's how we get you to want to engage quickly and passionately. Once you've had a chance to explore the game and start making social connections and discovering long term goals your incremental character power increases become less significant in retention.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Pigtails

Kind of reminds me of arcade games. You won't pass them by just sticking in a bag full of quarters. The idea is you throw a bag of quarters and play the game at a competent level.

I'm with GW on the theory, if for no other reason than I don't like the idea of an army of cooked characters suddenly raining on your city. I'd at least like a shot at knowing they are coming when they power level achievements.

I'm completely in favor of placing some kind of speed bump for the "pay to not play" crowd.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Tyncale wrote:
Anyway, as I understand from your post, ramping up Character-progression does not necessarily lead to better player retention?

If you don't reward new players with cookies often and quickly they quit really fast.

That's why our character power graph is not a straight line but is instead a curved line. You'll get most of the benefits of a Role within the first 6 months. New characters get significantly better almost continuously.

Psychologically that's how we get you to want to engage quickly and passionately. Once you've had a chance to explore the game and start making social connections and discovering long term goals your incremental character power increases become less significant in retention.

After 6 months we have been buttered, fileted and a dash of paprika.

You so mean RD. But it's true. My personal window is 3 months. I have quit 95% of the games I have played within 3 months. Any game I played after 3 months, I played for 1-3 years.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Thanks for the response Ryan.

The skill queue is only 24 hours, the last skill can run past but its enough of a queue to allow you to go to work and not worry about your training. Not sure how that is bad.

I disagree in that... The people who are paying but not playing, are more likely to come back then the people who leave and do not continue training. The first group has something invested and the second group has cut its ties.

You do not have to say Minimum Viable Product. We ALL know that. The Achievement system is not exactly Minimum Viable Product either. You did not need that coding in place for the game to move forward. Especially if you plan to have something completely more advanced later.

It is awesome to hear that the attribute system will be properly adjusted. Earlier in alpha you told people to suck it up and spend the xp on skills they didnt want. The impression was left that this is how it will be. I and everyone else I am sure is glad to hear otherwise.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Avari wrote:
2. Fix those gorram ears on the elves. They hurt my eyes (the faces on the elves btw, are friggin brilliant, very Brian Froud-ish).

I think my ears are magnificent, tyvm

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
T7V Avari wrote:
2. Fix those gorram ears on the elves. They hurt my eyes (the faces on the elves btw, are friggin brilliant, very Brian Froud-ish).
I think my ears are magnificent, tyvm

Oh I'm sure. 15 sports channels and Joel Osteen 24/hrs a day is nothing to laugh about.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Earlier in alpha you told people to suck it up and spend the xp on skills they didnt want.

A few folks tried pointing out, at the time, that this was likely because it's Alpha and they need the game tested; there's a lot that needs to be sucked up when one's testing, not playing. Voices of...I'll be polite, and call it "concern"...sounded as if they thought what we have now is what we'll always have, regardless of statements, assurances, and blogs to the contrary.

I dread that the arrival of Early Enrollment might bring variations of "but I already advanced my character to level 8, why do I have to do all that again?".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMHO, public relations is going to be one of the most important activities GW can pursue, going into and through Early Enrollment, besides actual development.

They're going about this project in a way that is going to feel very strange to many people (not me I'm a programmer) and shaping they're perceptions will be critical to keep them from bouncing away quickly and not seeing the potential.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it is great that we discover answers directly from the developer. Whether or not it is what one wished to hear, it is infinitely better than dead silence.

Goblin Squad Member

I like the timed XP gain. The last expansion of WoW saw someone use a spot in game that gave a rather large stacking buff to damage, HP and resource regen from a camp of monsters that dropped an item that gave the buff to everyone in range monster and player alike. The player found the area in the PTR, ran there as soon as the game was live and farmed those mobs with the buff as fast as they would respawn. The managed to grind all 5 levels to cap within 4 hours. Using a totally legit in game buff and killing monsters. (I very much disagreed with Blizzards ruling that it was an exploit and subsequent temp ban and roll back of levels.)

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
regardless of statements, assurances, and blogs to the contrary.

In MO they have a saying, Show me

Cause I do not remember anyone saying it would be different. In fact, Ryan checked himself to make sure that someone could focus. Check above post from him.

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
I dread that the arrival of Early Enrollment might bring variations of "but I already advanced my character to level 8, why do I have to do all that again?".

That would be funny.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:


Let me reiterate to be clear: The design objective is that if you want to be a better Wizard, all you have to do is learn Feats from Wizard trainers.

Oh, thank god, I did not want to have to take fireball, or dowsing or some other silly stuff if I truly want to be a brute force heavy armor wearing axe fighter and mine and toil away at the forges like a proper dwarf!!!!!

Goblin Squad Member

Football players take ballet.

Nothing wrong with that ;p

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the reasons I think we are seeing some of this discussion about gating is that we have never operated the game in the long-term play mode.

We had several short tests with lots of restarts so people played for a couple of days or a week then got restarted. Those short term characters were always gaining new Feats because starter Feats are cheap.

Then we had a couple of tests where characters earned enormous amounts of XP and we removed all the gates so players never had a sense for how long it would take to earn what they got when they were supercharged.

Now we're actually operating the game in its intended mode. We are seeing characters starting to hit 7 and 8 levels in Roles because they've been played for 3 weeks or so. But we're right at the point where the rate of advancement also starts to slow down. Up to this point there's been a rapid accumulation of Feats along a Role's training path but as the characters age into their first month, that starts to become less and less frequent. For the first time players are going to have a sense for what it means to know that if they want that next incremental upgrade they'll have to wait a material amount of time for XP to accumulate or they can go train something else quickly. Now we'll start to see players raising concerns about how rapidly they're gaining XP, not how onerous it is to kill monsters.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The point of my above post is that players will always find ways to gain power in the systems provided as fast as possible and limiting that to a manageable level for the devs to be able to build systems and content for is a good thing in my book.
(I'm at work and hit the submit button rather than the popup for my phone call)
It's one of the biggest complaints of most themepark MMOs that people race through the content then b%&$@ they have nothing to do.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and reply to it. Be civil to each other, please.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the early days, you can spend all your xp, and if you log off to go to sleep, school or work, by the time you get back you have enough xp to buy more feats. It will indeed be interesting to see how well we adjust to "I can start another feat at rank 1 today, or I can wait a week to buy the next rank in one of my existing feats."

Goblin Squad Member

The xp gain does not bother me at all. When you spend 2 months training Capital Ships 5, you get used to that. People who have played Theme Parks or PnP only will have issues.

You are likely correct in that most people will not have a problem with their achievements. I know I will as I will have more then one character from the word go and had no intention of PVEing with certain ones. I just do not want to watch a kill counter so I can train my characters. Especially when the whole point of it is for people who are not playing.

Goblin Squad Member

I am of the mind that you should take the money of players that would pay for training time but play very little. The issue with (MVP) achievement gating is that the number whom what to give you that money to develop the game while they wait in the wings will go dow significantly.

I am currently in this group. MVP is not currently at a point where I want to spend all of my "gaming" time. I have money. I would like to give that money to you to develop the game as talked about in the blogs. During this time I would log in 1 to 4 times per week spend xp, develop my guys, play a little, and check out new features and see if you (GW) are "there" yet.

I will probably still do as I planned but I will tell you that if Im unable to spend the xp that I have paid for I wont be happy about it.

Personal motives aside, I feel double gating (time AND achievements) are twice as much gating at the same or greater price or any MMO I have played.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

What does PnP stand for in this context? I only know Plug and Play, and it doesn't seem to fit.

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:
What does PnP stand for in this context? I only know Plug and Play, and it doesn't seem to fit.

Pencil and Paper or TT table top

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Now we're actually operating the game in its intended mode. We are seeing characters starting to hit 7 and 8 levels in Roles because they've been played for 3 weeks or so. But we're right at the point where the rate of advancement also starts to slow down. Up to this point there's been a rapid accumulation of Feats along a Role's training path but as the characters age into their first month, that starts to become less and less frequent. For the first time players are going to have a sense for what it means to know that if they want that next incremental upgrade they'll have to wait a material amount of time for XP to accumulate or they can go train something else quickly. Now we'll start to see players raising concerns about how rapidly they're gaining XP, not how onerous it is to kill monsters.

I'd offer we might not quite be playing in the intended mode, because we aren't playing for keeps yet. Just one example: there are tons of escalations on the map that have progressed to 75-100%. After EE, I expect towns to be working against those escalations, to keep them from interfering with the War of Towers, or (eventually) our bulk harvesting, or the steady flow of resources. Working those escalations down will provide a good number of achievements. Maybe I'm off in my thinking though; maybe in EE we'll just ignore escalations.

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:
What does PnP stand for in this context?

Often, Pen & Paper. I'm not sure about in this context, since I don't see it.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KarlBob wrote:
What does PnP stand for in this context? I only know Plug and Play, and it doesn't seem to fit.

Pen and paper.

And as someone who has played nothing but themeparks and tabletop, I have zero problems with the timed xp gain; in fact, it'll be nice to be able to indulge in my usual stop-and-smell-the-roses playstyle and not find out everyone I know has powerleveled past me.

(Note: many will no doubt have made min/max choices that put my "does this make sense for Deianira?" training style in the shade, but that's a different animal.)

Goblin Squad Member

Could also be EVE's model Pay not Play?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Jakaal wrote:
KarlBob wrote:
What does PnP stand for in this context? I only know Plug and Play, and it doesn't seem to fit.
Pencil and Paper or TT table top

Thanks. I was thinking of comparisons to other MMO experiences, not comparisons between an MMO and the tabletop game.

It seems like PnP players who don't have prior MMO experience should have an easier time with idiosyncratic systems in PFO, compared to people who expect certain things based on their experiences in other MMOs. The system that you first learn sets your expectations of "normal" mechanics.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I took the theme park and PnP comment to just mean that in both of those types of games a character earns xp for activity and levels up as xp thresholds are crossed. In EvE (and now in PFO), characters earn xp over time. In EvE it is queued against training, in PFO it can be saved and spent on training when and if achievements and other precursors and thresholds are met.

I really think that the great majority of players will quickly adapt to the system without too much trouble. It's a lot like how we buy research advancements or units in many games. Clear explanations will go a long way. The biggest problem is "too many choices", but that's nice in its own way.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
KarlBob wrote:
What does PnP stand for in this context?
Often, Pen & Paper. I'm not sure about in this context, since I don't see it.

Pen and paper?

Who brought the case of white out to your sessions?

;p

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:
It seems like PnP players who don't have prior MMO experience should have an easier time with idiosyncratic systems in PFO, compared to people who expect certain things based on their experiences in other MMOs. The system that you first learn sets your expectations of "normal" mechanics.

Mhmmm. "Because the DM says so" can translate quite well to "because GW says so."

(edit: Which is how I decided to get over* my whole PvP issue.) (*Mostly....)

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Avari wrote:

Pen and paper?

Who brought the case of white out to your sessions?

lol. So true.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
You are likely correct in that most people will not have a problem with their achievements. I know I will as I will have more then one character from the word go and had no intention of PVEing with certain ones. I just do not want to watch a kill counter so I can train my characters. Especially when the whole point of it is for people who are not playing.

Perhaps the discouragement of creating a plethora of specialized alts is an intended feature of the achievement system?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
T7V Avari wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
KarlBob wrote:
What does PnP stand for in this context?
Often, Pen & Paper. I'm not sure about in this context, since I don't see it.

Pen and paper?

Who brought the case of white out to your sessions?

;p

Several people in my tabletop group choose Dry Erase and Sheet Protector (DE & SP). That way their character sheet isn't covered in white out or smudged to illegibility by erasers.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:


You are likely correct in that most people will not have a problem with their achievements. I know I will as I will have more then one character from the word go and had no intention of PVEing with certain ones. I just do not want to watch a kill counter so I can train my characters. Especially when the whole point of it is for people who are not playing.

Crafting characters can pretty much just craft. Adventuring characters need to adventure to level. I think it's very well conceived, just needs some work on the details here, more robust system there.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KarlBob wrote:
T7V Avari wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
KarlBob wrote:
What does PnP stand for in this context?
Often, Pen & Paper. I'm not sure about in this context, since I don't see it.

Pen and paper?

Who brought the case of white out to your sessions?

;p

Several people in my tabletop group choose Dry Erase and Sheet Protector (DE & SP). That way their character sheet isn't covered in white out or smudged to illegibility by erasers.

Nerds!

Everybody knows a great character sheet has the hit points rubbed into a grimy dark hole!

Goblin Squad Member

Gaskon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
You are likely correct in that most people will not have a problem with their achievements. I know I will as I will have more then one character from the word go and had no intention of PVEing with certain ones. I just do not want to watch a kill counter so I can train my characters. Especially when the whole point of it is for people who are not playing.
Perhaps the discouragement of creating a plethora of specialized alts is an intended feature of the achievement system?

Doubtful

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Avari wrote:
Xeen wrote:


You are likely correct in that most people will not have a problem with their achievements. I know I will as I will have more then one character from the word go and had no intention of PVEing with certain ones. I just do not want to watch a kill counter so I can train my characters. Especially when the whole point of it is for people who are not playing.
Crafting characters can pretty much just craft. Adventuring characters need to adventure to level. I think it's very well conceived, just needs some work on the details here, more robust system there.

I disagree, but whatever.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
You don't want to do anything but let time pass to become more powerful? That's a legit critique. I disagree, so you lose that argument. But I respect you for making the argument. But saying that because the tiny handful of Achievements we've implemented are boring or grindy means the design paradigm is flawed doesn't move me very much.

I only loose the argument because I was stupid enough to trust you by giving you 1500$.

Give me back my money, and I'll completely stop arguing. Nobody will lose, you will do whatever you want, and I'll have nothing to say about that.

But of course you won't, since well, the last two years of your company have been financed by our blind faith.

151 to 200 of 371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Constructive Criticism All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.