Rynnik's page

Pathfinder online is the best fantasy sandbox game on the market right now (okay, okay it isn't all that amazing to beat out Darkfall and Mortal but there you go) and it is getting better with each patch. There isn't a lot out there right now that is released and anywhere near this much fun.

Best way I can find to spend $15 a month.

I can't believe this thread is still going. Somebody call the dead horse guy.

I can't wait to necro it in a few months. lol

Try to act in good faith.

Good faith?

Like people from Phaeros trying to tell new players in general chat that there is not a war ongoing in the SE last night? Purposely putting new players who may NOT be aware of the ongoing situation in harms way for the sake of political posturing? THAT sort of good faith?

Because that is pretty lame and if Phaeros can't even set aside political perspective long enough to be honest and helpful with new players I don't want any of your brand of 'good faith'.

The Devs have stated that they were surprised by the fact that we weren't killing each other more than we are. That there was more resistance to PvP than they expected. That apparently most players are not in companies.

If you want to have more PvP in the game, you (or someone else) will have to find a way to get the players that are reluctant (or opposed) to join in PvP.

As you say in the top quoted sentence: 'The Devs have stated...' People will be seeing changes that bring more PvP into the game regardless of player reluctance or not.

Golgotha and obviously the Brighthaven Alliance will be ready for that. Will you?

But I call "Emperor's New Clothes" on anyone saying that PFO is currently in any kind of acceptable (even viable) state and my fear is that like so many MMOs before it, it will be dead inside a year of release.

Well come join Golgotha and find a bunch of people who are playing and enjoying this viable game and tell us how crazy we are. After the laughing calms down you may enjoy hanging out with us.

MVP is that FOR A SPECIFIC AUDIENCE. No one dictates that you need to be part of the niche that is going to support this but GW knows and expects its audience to be very small. That doesn't make it less viable. The game will get there... Maybe not to where it ever appeals to YOU, but who f*@+ing cares about that at the end of the day.

Rynnik wrote:

Bluddwolf, how did this game hurt you so deeply dude?

I think he wanted a murder simulator. He's been railing against every design element that was intended to curb that kind of thing for years.

To be fair that isn't what I hear him saying at all.

However seeing where PFO is

Where exactly? I am daily playing a very much alive and growing game.

You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

EvE Online launched in 2003/4 with graphics that were comparable to its time.

Nah, the graphics were often bemoaned by the community and were bad enough to be considered bad FOR the time.

And that is even with the considerations made for it being space which is much easier to deal with then a fantasy setting like Avena said! (Avena: PLEASE don't turn this into another perspective change thread. We read it. We get it. No one cares.)

If you start a race a half hour after everyone else, and you run at the same pace as they do, you will finish a half hour after they do. You will never make up that time or ground.

It is a race of one. Sounds like a great way to win first to me. :-P

The only EVE clone out there, Perpetuum, was also Sci-Fi. Fantasy EVE has been waiting for a proper realization for a long long time and finally GWs has the balls/capacity to actually accomplish it. No one else is even trying.

Al Smithy wrote:

... just don't have any confidence that GW knows what they're doing.

I wonder how many people said that about Ryan when he pushed the Open Game License.

Another good laugh is to look up the EVE forums from 2003 and see what people said about CCP back then on their boards.

I do know I have a lot more faith in GW then I do in nose picking armchair game devs and their grand visions.

to keep alive the game world or worse, their finances.

huh? Do you even log in?

Game isn't dead and GW isn't out of business. Do you just get off on throwing around empty doom and gloom about the game (addressed to the thread in general not Al in particular)?

Go away for 6 months and then check back on things if it has all gotten you down so much that you just can't help yourselves, but I for one will still be around then and look forward to celebrating the 10th anniversary of PFO with those who have a bit of patience with the implementation of their vision.

In EVE, and other "one Character per Account" games, you buy a month subscription for the Account and you can't swap that over to another Account halfway through.

You are right about EVE.

More detail on the system: in EVE you designate any one of the three character slots available to the account as the one that accumulates skill points (EVE's xp) and can play any of those characters at anytime without having an effect on that skillpoint acquisition (as long as you maintain an active subscription for the account). I could solely play on my hauler character while another character on the account is the one 'leveling'. The option for character advancement is completely separate and independent from character usage on the account, and training is controlled independently from playing. It is possible to waste the advancement your subscription grants you by not having a character training at all (although the game gives you big warnings if you do this).

Not stating this as a contradiction - just a clarification for using EVE online as an example (and deliberately skipping past the option to have multiple characters on the account training at the same time etc).

First post time, after hearing about Pathfinder Online and reading through the blogs and a few of these threads. I am currently playing EVE and Darkfall and I have played quite a few themepark titles as well in the last 10 years.

---

I personally hope that this game will actually be able to properly leverage the third point Ryan Dancey mentioned in his original post here. Namely:

3: Social Engineering - the humans who play within the game can act to enforce certain norms of behavior by providing and withholding access to shared community resources in response to character behavior.

Shared community resources is the key to that phrase in my opinion. Pathfinder needs to have emphasis and reward based on social behaviours in order to curb the anti-social ones. I am really hoping killers NEED the resources and outputs of crafters and gatherers, and those folks need the protection of killers. If the same skill set of 'killing stuff' is viable for PvP and can resource a character from killing things in a PvE context then I don't think it will work out. MMO's often but should not have 'guilds' or 'corporations' of people who enjoy doing the same in game activity - I believe this is poor design and a problem in many current games. I really hope there is a pressure to form groups of people who work together while enjoying DIFFERENT parts of the game.

Rather then some of the concerns and whines about pvp in this thread I hope everyone considers embracing pvp within some context. What I am trying to say is that instead of:

Seasoned PvE Explorer gets ganked by new griefer.

Griefer says, "Hur, U suk, go play WOW noob because I just pwned you."

Carebear says, "You will be sorry because I am from an awesome guild that will hunt you/GMs are going to ban you/an invincible NPC paladin has been dispatched and is going to kill you."

Griefer, "Cry moar carebear".

Carebear, "Whaaaaa, I am going to unsub."

I hope to see:

Seasoned PvE Explorer gets killed by a pvper new to the game.

PvPer says, "Hur, U suk, go play WOW noob because I just pwned you."

Pathfinder Vet says, "That was an impressive kill. You know my guild, red dagger industries, is really in need of killers right now. We are in a forever war with the Unholy Empire and they are driving us back. Someone like you would be a great addition."

PvPer, "Huh, what, seriously?"

Pathfinder Vet, "Yah! The fights will be a lot tougher then killing me but there will be lots of them. In exchange for killing our enemies we will give you some of the best equipment in game and can teach a few tips and tricks."

PvPer, "That sounds pretty good actually. I was really hoping to get some good stuff off your corpse, I really don't want to have to grind mobs for gear."

Pathfinder Vet, "Well you are welcome to the set of farming gear I had on me, but we can do better then that. I hope you take my offer seriously though, I can speak up for you and it shouldn't be hard to get you a trial slot with us. Think about it anyways."

PvPer, "I will definitely think about it! This pathfinder game is really awesome."

PvPer goes and joins the Unholy Empire because they provide better gear and free beer and ends up killing the carebear Pathfinder Vet over and over in the future. :D

What I am trying to say with that little narrative is that I personally think PvP needs to be an accepted part of the game on every level for everyone. You don't need to LIKE it but you have to accept, leverage and understand it.

This comes at a cost of course and the consequence is that people who want to play Pathfinder Online solo and casual will not like this game. Solo should be a hard mode option for the hardcore few. Having to do everything yourself should be next to impossible and that type of gameplay should be very challenging and risky. There isn't really a way to cater to a risk adverse explorer who wants to do their own thing in the Pathfinder Online world not dealing with negative player interaction without completely compromising the pressures that will cause people to band together.

The last issue of course is the blobbing concern. If people working together is synergistic and productive then more is always better and in a very short time there will only be a few huge entities and this is a balance issue the developers will have to put a lot of thought into combating. Beyond a certain point additional people in an organization will have to 'cost' more (in some fashion) then any possible gain could be. Not an easy challenge to address.