MMO wish list


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 558 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Scott Betts wrote:
Runnetib wrote:
I wish that if/when I play this, it feels like I'm playing Pathfinder, not *enter MMO name here*.
This will depend entirely upon what your standard of "playing Pathfinder" is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you trying to imply that for you there's no difference in 'feel' when you plan *enter MMO name here* vs Pathfinder?

Goblin Squad Member

Daniel36 wrote:
You see, I am merely throwing around poorly conceived ideas simply to give the developers some food for thought.

The developers will more readily consume said food for thought if it isn't made of poorly-conceived ideas. If you really want to give the devs food for thought, take some time to think of some really fantastic ideas. Really think. Then ask yourself if there is anything seriously wrong with those ideas - anything that would make the idea a non-starter. Then, after you've wracked your brain for reasons your idea is bad, you will have ideas that are worth posting. They will be more feasible ideas, and they will stand a much better chance at actually influencing development.

Quote:
For one, and I think they want to implement a comparable feature, is the ability to build whatever you want,

This is sort of a broad statement, but I think you're probably referring to player-owned structures.

This is tough to do in most MMOs, because it's really hard to fill all of the empty space this feature necessitates with compelling content.

Quote:
and to hire NPC vendors to sell stuff you make.

Most MMOs have that; it's called an auction house. They are much more convenient than physical vendors that sell individual characters' goods.

Quote:
The latter may be implemented in one way or another in some MMOs, but player built houses (cities even) isn't something high on the list of most MMOs these days.

Because it takes a ton of development time and is tricky to do right.

To outline just one of the problems I'm discussing (and I'm sure there are others; I've never worked on an MMORPG, so my knowledge is limited):

If you have player-owned structures, you need somewhere to put them. If they will exist in the main game world (that is, not instanced), then you game world needs to be very big with lots of open space. Or it needs to be a little less big, if you decide to make player-owned structures very rare and hard to get. But as the game's lifetime increases, the number of player-owned structures will necessarily increase, so it has to be able to accommodate some projected level of player-owned structure population.

Some MMORPGs (Lord of the Rings Online, for example) get around this by instancing player-owned houses - you can "teleport" to the instanced neighborhood where your house is located, but it's simply one neighborhood among many other identical, equally instanced neighborhoods. This is a workable solution, but it has drawbacks - for one, player-owned structures have no visible impact on the actual game world. And I get the feeling it's not going to be an appealing solution to the versimilitude-uber-alles crowd.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

First, I have “honestly tried” multiple MMOs and have never truly enjoyed them. They include Guild Wars, WoW, DDO, LOTRO, and others. I have never played any MMO for more than, say, 6 months and, in general, never gotten a character past lvl 20. I am also not a fan of the concept of an “end game”. So, one could argue that I have limited experience with MMORPGs. Here is the reason why:

Most MMOs focus on being a Hero. But, I want to play an NPC. My most enjoyable characters in table-top were not the Conans or Archmages but rather those who take on the roles than no one else wants to play.
By that, I want to be able to play a “background” character that builds things…not just crafting powerful weapons. For example, I would love to play a mason in an MMO that builds bridges, a PC mage’s tower, city walls, docks for city shipyards, barricades for small towns, insanely large catapults during times of war…whatever. Basically, constructs that change the landscape, increase the functionality and mobility, and economy of the “world”.

Let me preface this list by saying that I understand that any MMO should have options to allow players to play the Hero…to be the strongest warrior or the stealthiest thief or the most powerful mage. That’s fine. But, this IS the wish list thread, so…the following are suggestions I believe will achieve what I would like to accomplish in my ideal PFO:

1 – Have a fully fleshed profession mechanic which is dependent upon player interaction. One which allows PCs with higher skill to “train” PCs with lower skill by giving them player-generated quests like “go build X things” or “collect X items” for some reward from the questgiver’s inventory. This could then develop into player created and controlled crafting guilds, have player-controlled apprentices, and a fully developed world and economy. These guilds could create compacts to work on joint projects or work against each other for limited resources and in-game job opportunities (provided by other players).

2 – Allow crafters to work together on big projects (like a wall, for
example). The more crafters work on a project, the less time it takes to complete. Furthermore, higher skilled crafters working on said project may reduce the project’s time by a greater rate than with less skill crafters. However, every PC working on the project gains the same amount of XP and XP gained from projects should not be dependent upon level or crafting skill.

3 – I also would like a record of what I build accessible to myself and other players. I would like a map which shows what I have built, where I have built it, and when that structure was built in an in-game timeline. If said structure was destroyed by PCs or monsters, then I would like some sort of notification which I could act upon so that I may go rebuild that structure. Ideally, there would also be a function which would cash the history of the structure - indicating when it was destroyed and when it was rebuilt and who preformed these tasks.

4 – I think that any structure created by a player should be modified by other players. If I build a wall, then others should have the opportunity to destroy it. However, I would suggest that structures should be demolished only during “quests”. If an evil PC wishes to destroy a wall then they would have to create a quest and gather followers (other PCs) to destroy said wall. Additional players could then turn the ruined structure into a player-created dungeon, or, the original crafter could choose to rebuild it, whatever comes first.

5 - This is a bit off topic, but allow player built roads. Also, these roads could have some sort of functionality. Say, a road built by skilled players can increase the movement speeds of other players who travel said road.

Goblin Squad Member

Runnetib wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Runnetib wrote:
I wish that if/when I play this, it feels like I'm playing Pathfinder, not *enter MMO name here*.
This will depend entirely upon what your standard of "playing Pathfinder" is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you trying to imply that for you there's no difference in 'feel' when you plan *enter MMO name here* vs Pathfinder?

No, I'm saying that whether PFO feels like playing Pathfinder to you will depend entirely upon what it means to you to "play Pathfinder."

For instance, if "playing Pathfinder," to you, means rolling a d20 to attack, or arguing with the DM over the results of your Bluff check, or having Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, then PFO probably won't feel like "playing Pathfinder."

If "playing Pathfinder," to you, means adventuring in the world of the Pathfinder campaign setting, then PFO will probably feel like "playing Pathfinder."

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Scott Betts wrote:
Runnetib wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Runnetib wrote:
I wish that if/when I play this, it feels like I'm playing Pathfinder, not *enter MMO name here*.
This will depend entirely upon what your standard of "playing Pathfinder" is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you trying to imply that for you there's no difference in 'feel' when you plan *enter MMO name here* vs Pathfinder?

No, I'm saying that whether PFO feels like playing Pathfinder to you will depend entirely upon what it means to you to "play Pathfinder."

For instance, if "playing Pathfinder," to you, means rolling a d20 to attack, or arguing with the DM over the results of your Bluff check, or having Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, then PFO probably won't feel like "playing Pathfinder."

If "playing Pathfinder," to you, means adventuring in the world of the Pathfinder campaign setting, then PFO will probably feel like "playing Pathfinder."

Why is it based either on numerical stat value or the planet/campaign setting, and not, say, I don't know, clicking a mouse and mashing macro-ed buttons vs. a living breathing fantasy world? I don't want GolariWoW. I don't want RIFTer Kingdoms. I want to play Pathfinder, online, with a world full of other people who want to play Pathfinder, online.

Goblin Squad Member

Runnetib wrote:
Why is it based either on numerical stat value or the planet/campaign setting,

No, it was rules vs. setting.

If you want an online game with Pathfinder rules, you'll be disappointed.

If you want an online game in the Pathfinder setting, you'll probably be pleased.

Quote:
and not, say, I don't know, clicking a mouse and mashing macro-ed buttons

How, exactly, were you planning on interacting with your computer if not through a mouse and buttons?

Quote:
vs. a living breathing fantasy world?

You will never get this no matter how hard you try. Everything will be a disappointment.

Quote:
I don't want GolariWoW.

You're not getting GolariWoW, so I guess you can be happy about that?

Quote:
I want to play Pathfinder, online, with a world full of other people who want to play Pathfinder, online.

Right, but you still haven't made it clear what that means to you.

Liberty's Edge

I feel like reading the FAQ should be a requirement for coming here. I made the mistake of not doing enough research before I cam here, and it seems like many others do as well.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean Byram wrote:
I feel like reading the FAQ should be a requirement for coming here. I made the mistake of not doing enough research before I cam here, and it seems like many others do as well.

Maybe in a sticky at the top of the sub-forum?

Liberty's Edge

Jeez. That is a most excellent idea, sir. I hope someone who can do that sees that, and does that. I think it would solve a lot of problems.

Scarab Sages

After thinking about things overnight, and looking over some of my previous post, I have come up with a couple of ideas that I think could help the idea of a Sandbox -> Theme Park MMO hold well.

1) Safety HUBS. There NEED to be zones where characters CANNOT PvP. There is something to be said about always being on edge, ready for combat, but players will need a place to cool down and relax. I'm not just talking about guards, I'm talking about the total inability to PvP.

2) If you're going to have open world PvP, it needs to be quest oriented. More often than not, the best forms of PvP happen when there is a clear objective that pits two sides against each other where the victory objective doesn't necessarily entail total annihilation of the opposition, and questing seems like the way to make this happen. If you're looking for an interesting quest dynamic, consider this 3-fold bandit scenario:

Players can choose between 3 roles for this quest in-game: Merchants, Bandits, and Guards. The goal of the Bandits is to slay X number of merchants, and perhaps acquire Y number of goods from the caravan. The goal of the Guards is to stop the bandits, and the goal of the Merchants is to survive the onslaught of the bandits.

In this scenario, we would probably have event queues, or maybe even have the event started by a "merchant" character, with a 1-20 player limitation for Bandits and Guards, and perhaps a 1-10 player limit on merchants. In the case of too few people queuing for this event, a number of extra NPC allies could be added to balance out the teams. Most importantly, though, is that the rewards for LOSING the event would have to outweigh the rewards wandering the woods and assassinating random passersby. This would help entice people to work together in teams, play together, and, most importantly, reward them for doing so.

3) If suggestion 2 is to take place, we need a reason for it. Let's assume, for a moment, that a single town/city consists of 2 "zones": The Safety Zone, and the Expansion Zone.

The safety zone is the heart of the town, protected by high walls or some other defense, in which some basic elements of trade and goods production can occur. Such towns might even have access to some simple dungeons (sewers, graveyards, etc.) to provide the most basic resources for expansion, in keeping with the low-risk/low-reward philosophy.

The Expansion Zone would be where player housing and construction take place, and players would be capable of constructing more advanced structures for goods development and refinement (better forges, lumberyards, etc.). This, however, would be viable PvP territory, but is required for extensive goods production. The question then arises: How can we reward players for experiencing this content and then having it taken away from them? Two ideas come to mind:

3a - After a single structure has been built, rebuilding said structure consumes fewer resources than it did originally. In addition, players can erect defenses to protect their structures (think like a Tower Defense Game), such as archer towers manned by NPCs (or possibly PCs), pitfalls, spike fences, etc. This way, towns always have defenses, as well as a means of defending their property from brigands and bandits. IN FACT, if you introduced law enforcement, rather than weakening law-breakers, you could mark them, and then increase the abilities of those attacking law-breakers, allowing for "guarding" characters to more easily defend their towns. Perhaps such a buff could even be granted by a structure built by PCs, which would, in turn, make it a prime target by invading forces. Strategy involved? Yes, please.

3b - Set an occupation time limit. Say, for the first hour or so after an occupation has started, the invading force receives experience and loot while pillaging. After this limit has passed, these players receive absolutely no benefits from combat in this area for at least, say, 24 hours. This would help to reduce the incentive to grief, and with reduced numbers, a resistance group could easily force back the invading force, while gaining experience & loot, and the invading force would have no reason to continue its assault until it could once again gain benefits, leaving time for the villagers to rebuild and refortify, as well as continue gathering resources to send its heroes out into the wilds.

4) Heroes need to have objectives and benefits for discoveries in the wilderness. If I find a cool area of the game, I should get a significant amount of experience (quest-worthy), and possibly gain access to rare resources, depending on the area in question. In addition, a balanced group should contain combat & non-combat oriented characters to handle resource gathering. Additionally, I would advise that all players be able to revive fallen characters outside of battle, either by using a consumable resource (bandages, etc.), or by having a "heal" skill, that could bring the person back up with increasing amounts of HP/Mana/Whatever depending on your skill rank. In order to help prevent griefing, if pack size were limited, you could create a system that imposes a stacking debuff every 30 minutes or 1 hour in the wilderness, with one instance of the debuff being removed by consuming rations. I don't PERSONALLY like the idea of limiting adventuring time, but it DOES make an adventure a special event, when one isn't RAKING in experience and rewards from protecting merchants on their various missions and plundering nearby, lower-risk dungeons for materials and upgrades.

5) Combat needs to be fast-paced. If you want skill to be a major factor in how encounters go, the game MUST be fast-paced. Otherwise, gear becomes too much of an issue. For example, a warrior-type character should be able to slay a merchant-type in 3-4 uninterrupted swings. I say "uninterrupted" because merchants should have combat skills which revolve around self defense and, well, NOT dying. Throwing dirt, rocks, tripping people; all of these things should serve to keep combat active, engaging, and nail-biting.

6) Emphasize that the game has a strong emphasis on Grouping and PvP. I would hate to have someone grab the game thinking it's going to be a relatively traditional MMO and wander into it feeling unable to do ANYTHING (I'm looking at you FFXI).


Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
I wish MMO's would die a quick death.

Yay! Let's all wish for the death of something millions of people enjoy just because we personally don't find them enjoyable! It'll be fun!

Oooh, I wish all soap operas would die a quick death! Do I get to be edgy and non-mainstream now, too?

I never said Let's all wish for a death. I said I don't like MMO's and I wish they would die do you have a problem with that?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, long thread, so these may have been mentioned already...

- Allow thieves the tabletop utility of picking locks and disarming traps. This was one of the most exciting aspects of DDO, a pleasant departure from thievs/rogues in other games being "stabby stabby" all the time.

- Randomly generated dungeons, similar to what was introduced in EQ's Dungeons of Norrath expansion. End game content consisting of running the exact same handful dungeons over and over with the exact same monsters placed in the exact same locations is, well, boring.

- Some kind of system in place to limit the constant jumping around common in pretty much every MMO today. In PvP especially, if you are constantly hopping up and down, you should take some kind of hit - be it accuracy or stamina or something.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Runnetib wrote:
Why is it based either on numerical stat value or the planet/campaign setting,

No, it was rules vs. setting.

If you want an online game with Pathfinder rules, you'll be disappointed.

If you want an online game in the Pathfinder setting, you'll probably be pleased.

You focused on a very narrow set of rules there. Also, can I borrow the time machine that lets you know what Pathfinder Online will be? If you can jump into the future to know all these things already, I can jump ahead for some Powerball numbers. I'll give you a cut for use of your time machine...

Quote:

and not, say, I don't know, clicking a mouse and mashing macro-ed buttons

How, exactly, were you planning on interacting with your computer if not through a mouse and buttons?

With your extensive knowledge of all that is MMO, I'm sure you're just splitting the sentence here to push my (mouse) buttons...

Quote:

vs. a living breathing fantasy world?

You will never get this no matter how hard you try. Everything will be a disappointment.

I know, I'm not a programmer, nor in any capacity a member of Goblinworks. If only there were a Wish List thread where I could make requests for things I hope the game to be...

Quote:

I don't want GolariWoW.

You're not getting GolariWoW, so I guess you can be happy about that?

Apparently is HAS to be GolariWoW to be anything playable, based on what a lot of people are claiming. I wasn't aware so many people had a BS in MMOs.

Quote:

I want to play Pathfinder, online, with a world full of other people who want to play Pathfinder, online.

Right, but you still haven't made it clear what that means to you.

I think it is rather clear the different gameplay/playstyle inherent in Pathfinder vs the standard MMO. Then again, I do realize there are gamers out there who play Pathfinder as a PnP hack n' slash. Maybe that's where your confusion spawns.

*EDIT* and-->as

Goblin Squad Member

Wouldn't mind being able to hang out on my balcony, and snipe the occasional wolf or pig-poacher. ... NPCs that show up when you build the appropriate structure .... established no build areas for pathways ... limited paid upkeep time and if you are gone for a couple months NPCs move in (but hold your stuff for you)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another thing to mention is the simple keyboard/mouse combinations.

As a person with disabilities (I cannot use my left hand), DDO was near impossible for me because one needed to use two hands to play – aim with the mouse in one hand and run/use abilities with the keyboard in the other. I had to stop playing because I physically did not have the finger/hand dexterity to play the game.

I understand that multiple key combinations make the game more lifelike and combat strategies more intense. But, please keep the game easy to play from a sheer two-handed vs. one-handed point of view.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BinkyBo wrote:
Wouldn't mind being able to hang out on my balcony, and snipe the occasional wolf or pig-poacher. ... NPCs that show up when you build the appropriate structure .... established no build areas for pathways ... limited paid upkeep time and if you are gone for a couple months NPCs move in (but hold your stuff for you)

Cool idea. On the flip side, have guilds/factions which players can join to protect “no build zones”. This would be especial good for druids and rangers. “Who dares to enter this sacred forest?”

I think many small in-game and player created factions would bring life to the game. Each would have a different goal and they could have litte skermishes against each other. of course, this would have to be done on a PvP server.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You had some interesting ideas Davor, but I'd just like to point out that I really like the idea of potentially having sieges play out once in a while. Siege warfare can be a lot of fun in a roleplaying game (even though it really SUCKS IRL)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperSlayer wrote:
I never said Let's all wish for a death.

No, I did. Sarcastically. To make a point that you missed.

Quote:
I said I don't like MMO's and I wish they would die do you have a problem with that?

Yes. It's petty to wish for the end of something other people enjoy, especially when it's no skin off your back.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Runnetib wrote:
You focused on a very narrow set of rules there.

I focused on a few specific examples of rules that will not translate into the MMO, and expressly called them out as examples.

Quote:
Also, can I borrow the time machine that lets you know what Pathfinder Online will be?

Sure. I named it the "Read What The Development Team Posts 3000-a-tron."

Seriously.

They've said that the game isn't using the OGL. That means that a lot of the rules you associate with Pathfinder will not be in the game.

Quote:
If you can jump into the future to know all these things already, I can jump ahead for some Powerball numbers.

I'm not sure where this whole poor attempt at snark is coming from.

Quote:
With your extensive knowledge of all that is MMO, I'm sure you're just splitting the sentence here to push my (mouse) buttons...

Splitting the sentence proved a point - you're pushing for a "living breathing fantasy world" as opposed to "clicking a mouse and mashing macro-ed buttons," and my question to you was how you plan on interacting with your computer if you don't want a game where you click a mouse and push buttons? This thing isn't going to run on Kinect.

Quote:
I know, I'm not a programmer, nor in any capacity a member of Goblinworks. If only there were a Wish List thread where I could make requests for things I hope the game to be...

I'm suggesting that perhaps there are more realistic things you could wish for - things that stand a chance of influencing the design process. As opposed to things that the development team have already said will not happen.

Quote:
Apparently is HAS to be GolariWoW to be anything playable, based on what a lot of people are claiming. I wasn't aware so many people had a BS in MMOs.

I'm pretty sure that no one is claiming that.

What I think is happening is that a lot of people are asking for/demanding/clamoring for a lot of features that are simply not good ideas for any MMO. A lot of other people are explaining why those ideas are not good ideas (including Goblinworks employees), and that's getting the first group kind of upset. They think that if PFO doesn't have the features they're asking for, it will be just like WoW. They're wrong, of course. PFO is going to be very different from WoW, even just based on what we've been told by Goblinworks so far. I'm not sure why they continue to complain that it'll be a WoW clone, or deride anyone who pokes holes in their full-of-holes ideas as wanting nothing more than "GolariWoW," but that seems to be what's going on.

Quote:
I think it is rather clear the different gameplay/playstyle inherent in Pathfinder vs the standard MMO.

Right, but what does "playing Pathfinder" mean to you? You said that you want this to feel like playing Pathfinder. Are you able to break that down into something meaningful? Or did you just say it to say it?

Quote:
Then again, I do realize there are gamers out there who play Pathfinder as a PnP hack n' slash. Maybe that's where your confusion spawns.

No, it stems from your repeated refusal to explain what "playing Pathfinder" means to you. I'm trying to help you out, here.


Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
I never said Let's all wish for a death.

No, I did. Sarcastically. To make a point that you missed.

Quote:
I said I don't like MMO's and I wish they would die do you have a problem with that?
Yes. It's petty to wish for the end of something other people enjoy, especially when it's no skin off your back.

Nobody ever said the world was created to suit your needs. If you don't like what I write why don't you just ignore it because you're not going to change my mind about the subject.

Scarab Sages

kyrt-ryder wrote:
You had some interesting ideas Davor, but I'd just like to point out that I really like the idea of potentially having sieges play out once in a while. Siege warfare can be a lot of fun in a roleplaying game (even though it really SUCKS IRL)

I agree that a castle/city siege might be fun, but I think it'd need to be in a designated area as a special event. I don't deny that it'd be cool, just that the ability to siege would be regulated, otherwise it'd be the WORST form of griefing.

Liberty's Edge

I used to be on team "Keep PFO d20!" until I realized they had already decided they were going to use a system I was very happy with. Skill based is the way they're going.

It's also interesting to note that some people who hate "stereotypical MMO" systems (vagueness for everyone!) simply have problems with things that are minor details, development-wise. For example, if you were to remove the visual bar that shows you cooldown time on a melee attack, and simply make the animation for the attack itself slower, so that they can only do it so fast, they often don't have a problem with it. Give them some flimsy description like "You're heaving back for a stronger swing!" and they're content. This kind of distinction IMO is petty, but I guess we all have things we look for.

I can't really articulate what I look for in a game's mechanics, but it seems like I don't have to. What the team has said so far is pleasing to me.

Also, someone seriously needs to sticky the FAQ.

EDIT:

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Siege warfare can be a lot of fun in a roleplaying game (even though it really SUCKS IRL)

What? Sieges are awesome IRL.

Goblin Squad Member

SuperSlayer wrote:
Nobody ever said the world was created to suit your needs.

You're absolutely right.

Quote:
If you don't like what I write why don't you just ignore it because you're not going to change my mind about the subject.

That's a shame. Wanting to destroy things that other people enjoy just because you yourself are incapable of enjoying them is a pretty sad outlook on life.

Maybe you should take some of your own advice - the world wasn't created to suit your needs.


Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
Nobody ever said the world was created to suit your needs.

You're absolutely right.

Quote:
If you don't like what I write why don't you just ignore it because you're not going to change my mind about the subject.

That's a shame. Wanting to destroy things that other people enjoy just because you yourself are incapable of enjoying them is a pretty sad outlook on life.

Maybe you should take some of your own advice - the world wasn't created to suit your needs.

No but I'm allowed to have my opinion and when someone has their own opinion I don't give them s*~! about it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperSlayer wrote:
No but I'm allowed to have my opinion

...but it's probably best expressed in another thread which isn't about things you'd like to see in a game you hate and won't ever play.

Goblin Squad Member

SuperSlayer wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
Nobody ever said the world was created to suit your needs.

You're absolutely right.

Quote:
If you don't like what I write why don't you just ignore it because you're not going to change my mind about the subject.

That's a shame. Wanting to destroy things that other people enjoy just because you yourself are incapable of enjoying them is a pretty sad outlook on life.

Maybe you should take some of your own advice - the world wasn't created to suit your needs.

No but I'm allowed to have my opinion and when someone has their own opinion I don't give them s!!$ about it.

Actually, I think you would give them crap about their opinion if it was an opinion that mattered to you. For instance, if you were a member of a minority ethnicity and you met someone who held the opinion that members of the ethnicity are sub-human, you probably would take exception to their opinion. Now, we're talking about video games, which obviously are on a different scale of offensive opinions than racism, but the principle still applies. If someone holds an opinion that I consider harmful, unethical, petty, or unhealthy, I will and do give them crap about it.


SuperSlayer wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
Nobody ever said the world was created to suit your needs.

You're absolutely right.

Quote:
If you don't like what I write why don't you just ignore it because you're not going to change my mind about the subject.

That's a shame. Wanting to destroy things that other people enjoy just because you yourself are incapable of enjoying them is a pretty sad outlook on life.

Maybe you should take some of your own advice - the world wasn't created to suit your needs.

No but I'm allowed to have my opinion and when someone has their own opinion I don't give them s+%$ about it.

Apparently you do. After all, he was simply expressing his opinion of your opinion. Isn't he allowed to have an opinion on something?


Scott Betts wrote:

Splitting the sentence proved a point - you're pushing for a "living breathing fantasy world" as opposed to "clicking a mouse and mashing macro-ed buttons," and my question to you was how you plan on interacting with your computer if you don't want a game where you click a mouse and push buttons? This thing isn't going to run on Kinect.

Clearly he intends to interact with the computer via a VR helmet :P

Quote:
What I think is happening is that a lot of people are asking for/demanding/clamoring for a lot of features that are simply not good ideas for any MMO. A lot of other people are explaining why those ideas are not good ideas (including Goblinworks employees), and that's getting the first group kind of upset.

Interestingly enough, from my perspective it seems that the Goblinworks employees taking a fairly middleground approach to all this. There are cases where they agree with the 'explainers' as you put it, other cases where they agree with the 'clamoring' crowd, and yet other cases where their posts indicate a middling between the two sides on the issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean Byram wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Siege warfare can be a lot of fun in a roleplaying game (even though it really SUCKS IRL)
What? Sieges are awesome IRL.

Not to me. I certainly would rather not have to fight while food (and sometimes water) is running out, and potentially be pushed into cannibalism just to survive.

In an RPG though, the loss of those resources, the effect on moral, the desperate push to break off the attackers, the prayers that the carrier pigeons you released to call for help made it and allies come to your rescue, those are all very cool aspects to what could be some awesome gameplay.

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Not my thread. That's Kit (great, now I'm going to get confused with him too. I was already occasionally confused with Kirth xD)

Huh? What did I do now? Sorry was not paying attention...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1. I want the game to look like WAR's illustrations animated!

2. The crafting system should be Pathfinder's Crafting System, including being able to fail and accidentally create cursed items. In addition, I want to have choices of 1 special item per magic item created that will be needed to craft it. If you want to create a +3 flaming short sword, you might need essence of an elemental, salamander or fire giant. The +3 weapon would require you to go to location X (or can be made by alchemists), to get the oils and such to enhance it.

Also, I want to be able to make my own poisons.

3. I want the game to feel like Pathfinder, DDO failed because it doesn't feel like D&D, Never Winter succeeded because it WAS D&D!! I'm leery of the skill based system, as it could break the feel of the game.

4. I would like to see different servers with different play styles on it. (Sorta Like the old EQ PvP Servers. 4 servers, 3 different rule-sets)

A Free-for-all server would have PvP turned on everywhere!!...
A Heroic Server, no evil classes, no pvp.
A Frontier Server, no PvP in cities, but outside towns it becomes a free-for-all...watch out for those bandits.
Fast Play, Slow Play, Normal Play, Realistic, Epic, etc all allow more styles. Imagine the Epic server where monsters are all a lot tougher, meaning guilds and grouping tend to be more difficult. 10pt buy, 15pt buy, 20pt buy and 25 pt buy servers would be fun additions also, though I'm not sure your vision would work with that...Heck maybe have skill based and level based servers???

Different servers allow for different play styles.

5. I want dynamic dungeon play. When I step into a dungeon instance with character A, the layout might be the same, but the monsters will be different, also having certain monsters roam their dungeons, be nocturnal or diurnal, so if you enter during the day, it will matter. Instance the hell out of the game if you need to. I personally don't like heading into a dungeon, fighting my way to the location I'm heading only to find someone camping the boss.

6. I want travel to have random encounters, Do the Pulpy overland travel redline for long distance trips, but have random encounters during the trip.

7. Rest, Put a rest button, you rest to recover your spells, have chances for random encounters for them also. Please don't do rest shrines like DDO...that isn't D&D.

I'm sure I'll think of more later.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperSlayer wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
I wish MMO's would die a quick death.

Yay! Let's all wish for the death of something millions of people enjoy just because we personally don't find them enjoyable! It'll be fun!

Oooh, I wish all soap operas would die a quick death! Do I get to be edgy and non-mainstream now, too?

I never said Let's all wish for a death. I said I don't like MMO's and I wish they would die do you have a problem with that?

Then you don't need to add negativity to an MMO thread that's hunting for ideas do you?


Another thing I'd love to see, in the realm of character customization, is hairstyles for females that actually extend to at least the waist, and preferably the knees or ankles. This may not be realistic for adventuring, but not everyone is a front-line fighter--or in PFO's case, an adventurer character at all. And it is actually period-accurate for the middle ages.

Goblin Squad Member

Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
Instance the hell out of the game if you need to. I personally don't like heading into a dungeon, fighting my way to the location I'm heading only to find someone camping the boss.

You don't need to instance every dungeon in the game to ensure you get to kill the boss for your quest. You can instance quests just fine to ensure that you get your own boss come the time.

Instancing every aspect of dungeons ensures that you make the game a multiplayer game every single time you intend to kill anything in a dungeon. Why turn an MMORPG into Diablo when you have...Diablo? There are advantages to persistence too you know. Sure instances were invented to solve a problem, but there are now alternatives to solving these problems.

Dungeons are just as important as cities or any other in game area. It hurts me almost as much as instancing a city.

Goblin Squad Member

I respect everyone right to their own opinions and definitely expect the devs will not go my way on this. I am just insuring an alternate voice is posted here too because I actually prefer no instancing. And if a legendary dragon is killed, and its treasure taken...it is dead and the treasure gone...but now a group more powerful than the dragon has the items of uberness the dragon once guarded. If you can find out who, you can know where to go to get them for yourself.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KitNyx wrote:
I respect everyone right to their own opinions and definitely expect the devs will not go my way on this. I am just insuring an alternate voice is posted here too because I actually prefer no instancing. And if a legendary dragon is killed, and its treasure taken...it is dead and the treasure gone...but now a group more powerful than the dragon has the items of uberness the dragon once guarded. If you can find out who, you can know where to go to get them for yourself.

Nothings more of a killer for me than the fact that thousand of people ran around World of Warcraft with the Hand of Ragnaros...How many hands did he have?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ansha wrote:
Another thing I'd love to see, in the realm of character customization, is hairstyles for females that actually extend to at least the waist, and preferably the knees or ankles. This may not be realistic for adventuring, but not everyone is a front-line fighter--or in PFO's case, an adventurer character at all. And it is actually period-accurate for the middle ages.

With the exception of noblewomen I would have to disagree (though I don't exactly have a degree in such matters, so I can't say so with absolute certainty.)

Having hair down to the knees (or even the butt) is EXTREMELY prohibitive to actually doing any manual labor (such as dozens of chores that need to be done around the house.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ansha wrote:
Another thing I'd love to see, in the realm of character customization, is hairstyles for females that actually extend to at least the waist, and preferably the knees or ankles. This may not be realistic for adventuring, but not everyone is a front-line fighter--or in PFO's case, an adventurer character at all. And it is actually period-accurate for the middle ages.

With the exception of noblewomen I would have to disagree (though I don't exactly have a degree in such matters, so I can't say so with absolute certainty.)

Having hair down to the knees (or even the butt) is EXTREMELY prohibitive to actually doing any manual labor (such as dozens of chores that need to be done around the house.)

This is a really silly subject to get into a debate over, but nonetheless it's on my wish list.

"From the time of the Roman Empire until the Middle Ages, most women grew their hair as long as it would naturally grow." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairstyle)

From the same article, even working-class women wore their hair as long as it would naturally grow--it was in the complexity of the hairstyle that lower- differed from upper-class.

"The maximum hair length that is possible to reach is about 15 cm for infants (below the age of 1), about 60 cm for children (below the age of 13), and generally 100 cm for adults. Documentation for decrease of the maximum length with age cannot be found in the literature. Some individuals can reach excessive lengths. Lengths greater than 150 cm are frequently observed in long hair contests.[14] Xie Qiuping had the longest documented hair in the world, measuring 5.627 m (18 ft 5.54 in) in May 2004.[15]...

"In the European middle ages, shorter hair often signified servitude and peasantry, while long hair was often attributed to freemen, such as the Germanic Goths and Merovingians." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_hair)


Coldman wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
I respect everyone right to their own opinions and definitely expect the devs will not go my way on this. I am just insuring an alternate voice is posted here too because I actually prefer no instancing. And if a legendary dragon is killed, and its treasure taken...it is dead and the treasure gone...but now a group more powerful than the dragon has the items of uberness the dragon once guarded. If you can find out who, you can know where to go to get them for yourself.
Nothings more of a killer for me than the fact that thousand of people ran around World of Warcraft with the Hand of Ragnaros...How many hands did he have?

He had to keep forging new ones every time the newest raid group on the block beat him up and took his old mace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KitNyx wrote:
And if a legendary dragon is killed, and its treasure taken...it is dead and the treasure gone...but now a group more powerful than the dragon has the items of uberness the dragon once guarded. If you can find out who, you can know where to go to get them for yourself.

If you have a player base of any decent size this is going to end more in frustration and hurt feelings than anything else, especially if some goons get their hands on them. Not to mention power creep - add more encounters like that later, chances are the people with "items of uberness" are going to have an easier time grabbing later items before anyone else and everyone else will have a harder time getting them. Or they could just log out, forever.

Also, it would require designers and programmers investing time and effort into designing a dragon encounter they think is fun (and the associated treasure), only for one group ever to enjoy the experience of killing them and taking their stuff. Your closing thoughts as a designer would be "man, I wish more people got to have fun with that dragon and his stuff."

It's an interesting idea but there are a lot of problems you'd have to address. There's a reason Ragnaros could be punched in the face for his hammer every week.


A statement of the obvious:
There has been much discussion on this board, and, on whether leveling in PFO will/should be skill based, class based, or some combo thereof.

Someone else on another thread suggested that there are three types of RP styles: The adventurer (warriors and wizards), Thieves, and Merchants (noncombat PCs and crafters).

Now, what if, during character creation, we were allowed to choose between these three character types? And, these character types were fundamentally different on how they leveled. Adventures would level as a standard class-based system, Merchants would be skill-based, and thieves would be some combination thereof.

The trick would be to make everything comparable. Each would have to be fun, have an integrated part of the world, and be able to improve at the same rate.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

In another thread someone mentioned the idea of a Player poisoning the Water supply of a town, and thus dynamically generating a situation wherein other players would try to fix the problem. (As a for instance).

If this is the direction dynamic content generation is going to take. I'd like the ability for players to recruit monsters to guard objectives. Core Rule Book Races vs Core Rule Book Races isn't as fun for me as Core Rulebook races vs Goblins, Minotaurs etc.

Goblin Squad Member

Ettin wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
And if a legendary dragon is killed, and its treasure taken...it is dead and the treasure gone...but now a group more powerful than the dragon has the items of uberness the dragon once guarded. If you can find out who, you can know where to go to get them for yourself.

If you have a player base of any decent size this is going to end more in frustration and hurt feelings than anything else, especially if some goons get their hands on them. Not to mention power creep - add more encounters like that later, chances are the people with "items of uberness" are going to have an easier time grabbing later items before anyone else and everyone else will have a harder time getting them. Or they could just log out, forever.

Also, it would require designers and programmers investing time and effort into designing a dragon encounter they think is fun (and the associated treasure), only for one group ever to enjoy the experience of killing them and taking their stuff. Your closing thoughts as a designer would be "man, I wish more people got to have fun with that dragon and his stuff."

It's an interesting idea but there are a lot of problems you'd have to address. There's a reason Ragnaros could be punched in the face for his hammer every week.

Your arguing your point within the confines of conventional theme park MMOs, to what this game claims to differ from.

Who's to say that said dragon or 'Ragnaros' boss should not be attempted as a nation/alliance/server wide task than that of a raid or guild? Lineage 2 is an example of this (Antharas). Plans would be made and the server would come together to fight the evil that threatens them and it could take many attempts and only be attempted once in a given period of time of days, weeks or months. This makes more sense than a hundred groups killing it 100 unique times, then farming it? In the case of Lineage 2, downing Antharas was more a matter of prestige than anything else. He dropped ALOT of stuff, but nothing but what was required by the players as their average optimum gear which they could obtain elsewhere. The hook was wealth and fame, what's wrong with that?

For the record, Antharas was far more epic than anything in World of Warcraft >.<

Who's to say such a villain would drop an item of uberness to which he would then dominate? Why not a rare treasure or some other value? Gold? Even if one did acquire such an item, PFO will exist under partial or full loot systems, where would he take it and where would he go with this one single unique item that the whole server would happily gang bang him for? I don't see a place in this game for a seriously overpowered weapon given what Ryan and Mark have said thus far.

As I said earlier, thinking outside of the box, a wealth of alternatives exist to provide everyone a slice of the pie, without giving everyone their own identical pie.


LibraryRPGamer wrote:

A statement of the obvious:

There has been much discussion on this board, and, on whether leveling in PFO will/should be skill based, class based, or some combo thereof.

Someone else on another thread suggested that there are three types of RP styles: The adventurer (warriors and wizards), Thieves, and Merchants (noncombat PCs and crafters).

Now, what if, during character creation, we were allowed to choose between these three character types? And, these character types were fundamentally different on how they leveled. Adventures would level as a standard class-based system, Merchants would be skill-based, and thieves would be some combination thereof.

The trick would be to make everything comparable. Each would have to be fun, have an integrated part of the world, and be able to improve at the same rate.

What about people who fall into more than one category, though? For example, the old warrior who, his journeys done, retires to become the mayor of a village... but always keeps his axe ready in case that village is threatened? The thief who, during the course of a burglary, overhears a plot to end the world, and decides to act to stop it? The greedy tavern owner who picks his customers' pockets when they are too drunk to notice?


Coldman wrote:
Your arguing your point within the confines of conventional theme park MMOs, to what this game claims to differ from.

The only time I referenced a theme park MMO is in response to your post. Everything else was in more general terms.

Natural 20, strawman trap disabled, if you don't want to talk about theme parks don't bring them up.

Quote:
Who's to say that said dragon or 'Ragnaros' boss should not be attempted as a server wide thing than that of a raid or guild? Lineage 2 did this...ish. Plans would be made and the server would come together to fight the evil that threatens them and would be something that might take many attempts and take a considerable period of time. This makes more sense than a hundred groups killing it 100 unique times, then farming it?

People who still miss out: Anyone who isn't online at the time, anyone who joins the game afterward, anyone who is around but unable to participate for any number of reasons, anyone who has net trouble and times out halfway through... I don't think most of them are going to accept "Well, it just makes sense that you don't get to experience this cool encounter in full."

Quote:
Who's to say such a villain would drop an item of uberness to which he would then dominate?

The post I was replying to! But yes, not making it an item with a gameplay effect would help a little. It's still going to cause a lot of problems, but power creep isn't one of them.

Quote:
Even if one did acquire such an item, PFO will exist under partial or full loot systems, where would he take it and where would he go with this one single unique item that the whole server would happily gang bang him for?

And that is why you are going to end up with frustration and hurt feelings.

EDIT: Also: What if someone grabs the item and logs out just to keep people from getting it? You could have a timer or something where if you don't log in for X time the item re-appears somewhere in the world and vanishes from his inventory, but what if he logs in for a few brief seconds every once in a while to stop that? What if he isn't griefing, just on vacation?

GMs could probably handle that, though. I mean, if it's a cool unique item, they should keep an eye on it, right?

Quote:
I don't see a place in this game for a seriously overpowered weapon given what Ryan and Mark have said thus far.

Me either! I liked the idea of gold most.

Goblin Squad Member

Well, I have played the traditional system and had many fun times so I will not say it is "bad"...but I would eventually like to see an MMO world in which a unique item is *cough* unique? And while character rebirth/respawn obviously has precedent (say what happens to PCs when they die) I would like to an NPC that keeps dieing in the same spot in the same manner go find a new hideout or change their tactics after getting beat the x'th time. Just saying...


Derek Vande Brake wrote:
LibraryRPGamer wrote:

A statement of the obvious:

There has been much discussion on this board, and, on whether leveling in PFO will/should be skill based, class based, or some combo thereof.

Someone else on another thread suggested that there are three types of RP styles: The adventurer (warriors and wizards), Thieves, and Merchants (noncombat PCs and crafters).

Now, what if, during character creation, we were allowed to choose between these three character types? And, these character types were fundamentally different on how they leveled. Adventures would level as a standard class-based system, Merchants would be skill-based, and thieves would be some combination thereof.

The trick would be to make everything comparable. Each would have to be fun, have an integrated part of the world, and be able to improve at the same rate.

What about people who fall into more than one category, though? For example, the old warrior who, his journeys done, retires to become the mayor of a village... but always keeps his axe ready in case that village is threatened? The thief who, during the course of a burglary, overhears a plot to end the world, and decides to act to stop it? The greedy tavern owner who picks his customers' pockets when they are too drunk to notice?

Hmmm…interesting point, Derek. Great examples. I suppose there could be some sort of cross class system between the three types. But, by the time you implement that, then every character could possibly be a hybrid – and that would defeat the purpose.

Perhaps access to certain Merchant skills or Adventurer abilities could be gained via quests or structured RP encounters. If you think about it, the social and organizational skills are not natural to a warrior, so that character would have to have some sort of training or another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I think the best opition is to design it in the vein of NeverWinter Nights, the bioware game that is. What do I mean by that, I mean the following:

1.) have a toolset that allows one flexiblity and customization, especially with scripts. This will allow the players to create custom content for their modules(see below)

2.) allow player hosted modules. The NWN modules could be nearly anything. I have seen some based in homebrewed settings, various places in the Forgotten Realms, and even my current server of Ravenloft: prisoners in the mists. These are player ran, made, and controlled.

3.) allow a Game Master Client for the GMs; this goes with the previous mentioned things. This allows a GM to do what he/she needs to in order to run a module for his/her server/friends.

Goblin Squad Member

herkles1 wrote:

Personally, I think the best opition is to design it in the vein of NeverWinter Nights, the bioware game that is. What do I mean by that, I mean the following:

1.) have a toolset that allows one flexiblity and customization, especially with scripts. This will allow the players to create custom content for their modules(see below)

2.) allow player hosted modules. The NWN modules could be nearly anything. I have seen some based in homebrewed settings, various places in the Forgotten Realms, and even my current server of Ravenloft: prisoners in the mists. These are player ran, made, and controlled.

3.) allow a Game Master Client for the GMs; this goes with the previous mentioned things. This allows a GM to do what he/she needs to in order to run a module for his/her server/friends.

+1 for Ravenloft POTM. I'm there as soon as GOG.com resend my CD key.

I'd very much love for PFO to offer players this freedom but it wouldn't be easy to do in an MMORPG. It's not a bad thing however, we might just have to think bigger!

Goblin Squad Member

Coldman wrote:
Your arguing your point within the confines of conventional theme park MMOs, to what this game claims to differ from.

I don't see how that in any way addresses the valid concerns he notes.

A really compelling item is unique in appearance and mechanics. Lots of people are going to want the same item. Putting exactly one of that "unique" item into the game and letting all the players squabble over it is a good way to disenfranchise players. Allowing anyone who accomplishes a certain task (or set of tasks) access to that "unique" item and simply making the concession that it's not actually unique is going to make a lot more people happy.

151 to 200 of 558 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / MMO wish list All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.