Audoucet's page

I think it was probably a mistake to be reliant on subscriptions during Early Enrollment to continue development.

And I will remind you that they pretended that our money was just to accelerate things, but that they had enough funding to support a 5 years development. Which was clearly a lie.

WoW is bleeding players every day. SWTOR is a substandard game kept alive only because of the name on the box and the reputation of the publisher.

SWTOR is in my opinion the most enjoyable casual MMO, and PFO could learn from it.

I agree with the general direction he made us believe, he was setting. Absolutely not with the actual direction, he set.

"Caution: This guide will (...) help you make a more informed decision

And Coca Cola will help you make a more informed decision about drinking cola.

And yet, those things are the essence of the tabletop experience. Without a patient group around you, willing to talk you through the complex rule system, you couldn't get anywhere without reading a large book.

I'm not sure about the USA, but in France, we have such things as table of contents, index and glossarys, to help us using our books.

Audoucet wrote:

things

Andius, just so you don't think I missed this. I'm no longer interested in whatever turned you bitter. While I may or may not read your posts, I don't intend to ever address any more points you bring up, regardless of validity. Good luck with your life.

Audoucet=/=Andius, there are more letters.

Ryan's new business plan. Waiting for Decius to buy more players.

Honestly, this kind of account is the most interesting, you get a DT, AND you can choose your characters' names.

It's worth the lack of three months xp.

I would totally be interested, if the game was interesting.

I have to say PFO has SO MUCH GOING FOR IT; in particular the IP is literally and figuratively out of this world good quality.

Except there is absolutely nothing even remotely about PF, in PFO.

At what point should someone who is legitimately playing the game stop doing what they are doing because of the amount of distress it is causing the other player?

I am specifically concerned with my actions and how they are/will be affecting Scorchbark; but I think the question has general merit, as well.

Most of the time, when you start questioning yourself, it's a good indication that you're playing with fire.

Talk to the leader of Blackfeathers Keep. The guy sounds like a real jerk, basically preventing other people from using the settlement because he doesn't like the game now. He hasn't been swayed by reason, maybe money will work.

Yes, the guy whom no one actually heard looks like a jerk. We know it, because the guy who's trying to steal his settlement told us.

Maybe its a little bit like being one of the first owners of a new prototype sports car that still needs work but has possibilities.

"This Monday, you will finally be able to buy our new model of Ferrari, the exceptional F-T801, at the incredible price of $3.9 million ! Enjoy the incredible thrill of sitting in what will be a state-of-the-art leather sit, but is really just a garden chair nailed on a skateboard for now.

Enjoy the excitement of our incredible V14, in a larger-than-life 1/16 numbered reproduction, before the shipment of your car (ETA soon©) !"

Can you give a summarized translation please?

Long story short, the game isn't what they expected, so he is offering anyone interested to take over.

When I was saying the exact same thing, I was called a frustrated troll.

That "1,000 options, 1 meaningful choice" problem is my analysis too. It's illusionary depth. It also creates a nightmare if you want to have a player-driven economy because you can saturate the market with goods that are extremely hard to distinguish and that makes clearing sales inefficient. The market will standardize on a few options, those will get all the activity, and anyone who wants to explore the design space will find themselvrs at a tremendous ecoomic disadvantage meaning few will bother. It is the classic trap of a game system that drives a huge investment of time and resources for very little value.

Except if you make the effort, to make it viable. It is obviously a design choice, but it is entirely possible, if resources are too much limited for everyone.

If you have a population of 100 000 players, with a need of 500 000 MacGuffin/month, and there is 1000 different combinations to make a MacGuffin, you just have two make it so that the necessary resources just aren't there. People WILL, use crappy components, if they don't have anything else. Go play in Providence, seriously, you will know what means "do what you can with what you have".

In PFO, if there is a very limited unique top end resource in each region region under different powers, you will certainly see people adapt to their environment.

And you shouldn't underestimate the satisfaction of players in having the possibility to choose between using bones or wood to make a bow, even if there isn't any difference at all.

I know people who are still playing MUDs and other early MMO's that have a strong community and the players view it as a success. I think defining the "success" of a title varies quite differently among players, developers, financial backers, and the press/nonplayers. Even among players, opinions will vary because most people, when they are predicting success, are using a value system that really means "success to people just like me". Many of the statements declared authoritatively in this thread should really have IMHO after them, but then again, may not be that humble :)

Keeping a non-F2P model and getting all investment back is a good indicator.

Those with time but no money will be able to accomplish the same things as those with money but no time. The truly advantaged will be those with both. (those with neither won't play) But the people with both are going to use it to advantage regardless of whether there's an in-game mechanism. They will be organized, acquire mercenaries via PayPal, and provide high end accessories to their loyal supporters. All of that support outside the game.

That's life. I'd rather the devs get some of it, so it supports the game, rather than all of it going to Teamspeak and external Web resources. From my inexperienced perspective, I'd call it pay to compete.

The only problem with your argumentation is that your time is limited, but some people money isn't.

But again, don't take Andius' talk as an accusation, EvE's model is a pretty good one.

The winners are clearly not particularly the paying players, but in an imaginary war between two big blocks, equivalent in strategy and power, the one with more IRL money would be at a clear advantage, simply because they will have a little more juice in the engine. And that would be P2W. But it's a very hypothetic situation.

2) What you'd say if you could only say one honest thing to try to stop someone from trying PFO.

"Here's an alpha access, enjoy !"

@ Saith, It is the huge flaw of crowdforging and transparency.

I know of one game that actually failed because of a single individual who argued with the devs early on and then threw a tantrum and spent a year creating accounts under various names all over the web specifically to denigrate the game in every forum he could find in order to prove he was "right". He must have wasted 1000s of hours attempting to undermine the game just so he could say "I told you so" when it failed. I suspect he spent more time trying to undermine the game then some of the full time devs spent working on it :D

If one guy destroyed your game, it must have been pretty bad to begin with.

Ryan said something worth remembering often in another thread earlier today:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

We just have to keep reiterating the idea that people are seeing this game in Year 2 of a 5 year development cycle. Most people have never seen a game in this state before. It's so far out of context that they don't know how to evaluate it on its merits.

Yes, he said that, which is stupid.

Most people have never seen a game in this state before, because you don't make people pay for something in this state.

Seriously, if you want to promote this game, don't quote Ryan's BS excuses.

Queue Ryan saying something to the effect of "people who want to have fun are not really our target audience and we're fine with that."

The game is already a BIG success then.

Camels on highways too.

My opinion is very simple, I do not see what this game is offering, that is not already in and better, in an other game.

And I don't see the point of using the Pathfinder brand, since the world is basically a big no man's land to be conquered by the players. The references to Golarion tend more towards the Easter eggs, than an actual game setting.

When few people agree with your rants, it's far easier emotionally to just dismiss everyone else as fanboys, rather than come to grips with the fact that a lot of people just don't agree with you.

Well, seeing how this game is already a disappointment outside of the 10 or so PFO Crusaders flooding this forum, I would say we have very different definitions of "a lot of people".

Thank you all very much. Are there any premade gaming rigs you all recommend?

I have a big custom config, it cost me 1300Euros, without the screen, keyboard or anything, just the tower.

And my little brother ends up playing everything at maximum quality, with the 600euros tower I bought him at the supermarket.

So my advice would be to simply trust walmart, actually, if you just want to play everything for the four next years, and if you don't do photography or 3D modelling.

I'm not sure about those, as I cannot read closely his innermost soul, but I can affirm that he has twice complimented me for owning my own errors.

On the other end, most people in our T7V TS just told me to ignore you or to lie to you to make you shut up.

Audoucet makes a great point as well that while EE is being sold as "hey, it's NOT done, but you can see us make progress" - the price-point and fact that it's charging a subscription are going to look like a "head-start" to MANY people who will buy it, be shocked at the incomplete and buggy state, and word of mouth will bury any interest in PFO such that it will need to be renamed before a successful OE launch would be possible.

That is actually a good idea, but the other way around. To call EE something like "Pathfinder : The Prequel", and OE "Pathfinder Online". That is kinda what LiF did with "LiF:YO". You know clearly that you are not buying PFO, but PFP.

Early Enrollment is not for the masses. It's for fans who understand it's going to be incomplete and buggy, but who want to support the development anyway.

That is the goal, yes, but the problem is perception.

EE access is 100$ with 3 months of game time. A classic MMO is 60$ with 1 month, you can add 30$ for the 2 additional months, and you get 90$. So 100$ is really not a "big" price, at least, not enough in my opinion to discourage the base client to play the game.

For GW's strategy to work, there must be hype for the OE. Not the EE. But how do you create hype, for a totally arbitrary date ? At the first interest for PFO, the classic player will just buy EE. Or EE2, which is cheap.

If only backers could play the game, well that is something else, there will be indeed an "opening" date. But while indeed, EE shouldn't be for the masses, there is absolutely nothing enforcing that now. Especially because most people will see the incentive of XP, to play before OE.

Will they be wrong ? Yeah, probably. Will they do it anyway ? ... Probably.

I don't understand the expectation that Early Enrollment should be as stable as a fully released, big-budget MMO with a large staff.

Because people will be charged at the same price of a AAA game, maybe.

Normal people don't have expectations based on the budget of the seller, they have expectations based on the price they pay, compared to the quality of the product.

There is a minority of "militant" clients, who will support the product anyway, for various reasons, but that's not the norm.

That's why there isn't a lot of employments in France you know. People want to "buy French", but French is too expensive, so they buy German.

idk mate I'm pretty over yourself

Great, who are you again ?

Well you can't really have it both ways. Either the XP doesn't have enough value, and you should delay joining until the play is worth while, or the XP does have enough value, in which case you should pay starting on day one and be content to start playing when it's entertaining, or the XP and play together don't have enough value and there's no point worrying about it.

I'm sure that you just convinced thousands of people that the game is great. You should open a marketing agency with Decius.

You have the limited-time ability to buy XP for your OE character. Simply pay the subscription fee and whenever you decide the game is ready you will have accumulated as much XP as anyone else. Plus, since you won't have to "waste" any on short-term optimizations like having to pick up several refining skills for achievement points or needing gathering skills to support early economy development.

"Pay without playing". Good advice Decius, you should try marketing.

Was just writing this, but Auduocet typed better and faster. This has been a phenomenon for some time, and is, to me, neither good nor bad.

To be fair, Dragon NaturallySpeaking typed faster.

I guess the definition of fanboi is basically:

1. Anybody who actually took to heart what Goblinworks has been saying for the last 2.5 years about what EE was going to be like.

2. Dares to enjoy the game that is exactly in the state GW told us it would be at during this stage.

3. Nope that's it. Just 1 & 2 makes you a rabid fanboi eating out of Ryan hands.

I do consider it fanboyism, when someone starts a specific thread here, because a random guy criticised the game on a random forum. Or when people seem to get it personal, when you criticise the game. For example when Being tell you to shut your yap because you vaguely criticised something.

Avari, Cheatle... You are satisfied with the game and that's okay with me, but you're not in a stupid dogmatic stance. Sadly, it is not the case of everyone.

About that. I'm not sure if you're the "ex-member" Andius was alluding to recently, but in case it isn't obvious to you, and because you're ignoring all my attempts to reach you privately, I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to let everyone know that you've been suspended until you participate in a conversation with the Stewards.

I was going to answer you the other day, but I ended up seeing your stupid comment about immortality, so I just gave up. But yeah, if it wasn't obvious enough for you, I ain't T7V anymore.

How are you entitled to a refund?

Well, you know, everyone isn't from the USA, and in Europ, consumers ARE protected. We have such a thing called "abusive clause", which basically gives 0 value to most of the video games contracts.

And concerning PFO, I could lawfully get a refound for my EE access and anything outside my alpha access and the KS. basically, I can ask for a refund for everything that's not delivered.

I don't have time and energy to lose doing that to get back 150 bucks, but I could.

It's easy to be right when the only voices that matter are the ones that agree with you.

Are you talking to Ryan ? You're obviously talking to Ryan.

Crappy type box. Be happy you are not handicapped and need to use Windows virtual keyboard or Dragon NaturallySpeaking.

Just because they say it, does not mean its a smart idea. Especially now.

You forget ! GW are very experienced professionals, they know better. They even know better than CCP, who totally failed EvE. They will obviously have more players.

This is Alpha, the lesson has yet to begin.

Please be patient and try to be optimistic, it's not too late for the game you dreamed about to become a reality. You seem to want this game to fail before it can fabricate; I don't understand your outlook.

Saiph, for me, being optimistic would be that grinding will disappear.

I know it will, because that's such an obvious design flaw, that it can't stay. But I've had enough with Ryan's attitude, and the fanboy-inquisition.

Anyway, I gave my account to Cheatle, at least I'll have one good souvenir from this community.

I'm hesitating on selling my DT account or just offering it to Xeen or Andius just for the lol.

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.

The devs have said they don't want to use the rate of XP gain by itself to constrain growth.

Except they DO. I don't care what they say, that's what it is, they just add a second layer with grind. they are using two different systems meant to the same objective, by getting the inconvenient of both, without any advantages for anyone. That's bad design.

Think of it like being forced to take some Math even if you're a Liberal Arts Major. You may not like it, and you may think it's stupid, and you may not ever even use it, but you have to take it to get the degree.

I don't know in your country, but in mine, we don't do maths when we are studying arts.

And it's a game, not real life.

Any suggestions how they could enforce power-growth regulation more appropriately? You do understand why that is important I assume.

The problem is you don't understand that it's not.

The power-growth is regulated by the distribution of XP over time. It's not a problem in EvE, I don't see why it would be a problem here.

Achievements - I understand the concerns, but I disagree with what you're asking for. This kind of gating is something we've known about from the very beginning. I would ask you to seriously consider whether your request that PvPers never have to engage in PvE is any different from someone else's request that PvEers never have to engage in PvP. Everyone is going to have to deal with constraints they'd rather not have to deal with, but those constraints are a large part of what makes the game work.

Kickstarter frontpage :

"1. No Grinding- Pathfinder Online uses a skill training system like that of EVE Online. You train skills by choosing what skill you want to train and allowing the time required to elapse. You don't train any faster by farming mobs or spamming your abilities than you do exploring the world, role playing with your friends, or even being offline. You will need to complete certain achievements to complete a skill and open up new avenues of training."

No grinding. In bold.

It was obvious that "you will need to complete certain achievements" meant meaningful achievements, quality achievement, NOT achievements based on grinding.

That was THE, argument that made me support the game. I am ok with having to craft the best tier 1 axe possible as an achievement to access tier, but I am not okay with having to craft 10 axes. Just as I am okay with having to kill big elite world boss Y to get more stamina or whatever, but I am not okay with having to kill 250 goblins, no way.

Which is an indication of your problem. You do not value what you ignore not because it isn't there, but because you ignore it. You do not value what I have been saying. Without reading them, you have decided that my words aren't worth your time in the same way that PFO achievements aren't worth the time it takes to achieve them, thus proving my point.

Achievements are a metric regulating abilities. The regulation of player abilities is either something you don't value, or you don't think that regulation will be beneficial to the game. If it is the former then that says something about your values. If it is the latter then what would you replace achievements with?

I did read you, but you don't say anything, you are just making general empty statements while listening to yourself, in a weird attempt to look "wise".

And Being. My values ? Man, being old doesn't give you any kind of authority on the account of values. Especially since you are a relativist.

If you see any kind of worth in killing 200 goblins, good for you. I already did it in hundreds of games, and I am very sorry to say, but the highlight of PFO is not, the combat gameplay.

If you want to be guided in your gameplay, I have no problem with GW rewarding you with a pink goblin pet or a "King of Kills" title, but I am myself more interested in the sandbox aspect of the game.

Some people do enjoy farming, mindlessly and for hours, whether the rest of us understand and empathise or not. That we are different does not make their personal values wrong, or sad, really.

Mmh, yeah, totally does.

(I skipped the rest of your post, since you essentially don't say anything)

The grindiness is already an issue, when you consider you have to kill hundreds or even a thousand or more of lowly mobs, just to achieve the lower levels of the roles (ie Rogue 7+).

That grindiness helps lead to that "soulless" feeling, just as end game that is nothing more than a gear grind, or having to raid through the same dungeons over and over again.

I haven't changed my opinion, I think that the actual achievements system will not stay part of the game. I still think that it was a very very bad design choice.