RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In another thread, Ryan Dancey answered a concern with a clear answer that "PFO has a particular design in mind, and this is how it's going to be", which is not only fine, but good business sense to have a clear plan that you want to develop. However, it made it clear that the design goal made PFO not the game that many are looking for (and presumably, that it would be a game that different people are looking for.)
My question related to this is, what is the target market of players for PFO? Is it existing MMO players who want a particular type of game? is it existing PnP gamers who want a MMO that meets their needs? Is it a core of existing Paizo fans and Pathfinder RPG players who want a computer game that models their specific PnP game? Is it something else? Is it all of the above?
Quote from other thread for reference:
Ryan, does that mean that if you're a player who doesn't want PvP (most notibly, doesn't want to deal with other players attacking them) and you head off to the deep wilderness, far from towns, laws, etc, then you're simply SOL if someone attacks you? If so, then that is unfortunate.
Yes, that is what it means. You need to think about other players as being a part of the world just like wandering monsters. They're predators, and if you venture out alone you're the prey.
Massively Multiplayer games gain value and become a unique and distinctive kind of experience when they maximize human interaction. There are lots of ways to play sword & sorcery games by oneself. MMOs are not designed for that kind of experience. If you want an MMO where you don't have to worry about being attacked by other players that's what most theme park games have specialized in.
Pathfinder Online's sandbox design means that interactions with other players, sometimes via combat, will be an ever-present part of the experience.
There will be characters who will go alone into the wilderness to explore. Those explorers will always be in danger. That danger will often come from the knowledge that if they are detected by other players, they're probably going to die. But if the rewards for solo exploration are sufficient (both qualitative and quantitative), people will do it. I think those rewards will be sufficient.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope that PFO offers a much better experience for casual gamers than most MMOs. From what I've seen of most MMOs, there are significant portions of the game experience which are only really accessible to well-organized groups. Being that well organized is generally not possible for people who just like to log on for an hour or two at a time, two or three times a week, at varying times that can't be set in stone in advance. I know, because that's exactly my play style. Will players like me be able to engage in the full PFO experience, or will a regular party/guild be needed to undertake some activities?
Goblin Squad Member
|
We definitely want to support the gameplay for folks that would like to just adventure and experience the Pathfinder world. I reckon that this describes a lot of folks here, if only because the TTRPG world generally focuses in this direction. I want to make sure the game is fun from this perspective.
But at the same time, we aren't making World of Warcraft, and we want to get the best advantage from actually having thousands of real people playing together. We want the world to be alive, and you may need to pay attention to the other players around you and how they are shaping the world.
I'd say that all MMO's today are VERY casual and ANY new games today for that matter focus so much on being casual that they lose themselves in it.
It warms my heart to hear that this at least wont be a WoW-clone/cookie-cutter MMO...lets hope you stay true to that...
I'm going to make another thread about actually looking at how multiplayer goes in Neverwinter Nights...
We want the world to be alive, and you may need to pay attention to the other players around you and how they are shaping the world.
Although I am certain that there are plenty of people who prefer solo play, and I think they should be supported, that's not what I was really getting at. It's an RPG, so of course I want to interact with all of the other people in the "world." I just don't want to be forced to have a perfectly balanced group of a certain size just to be able to get anything done. Nor do I want it to be necessary to play daily just to keep up with "current events." I want to be able to pop online at arbitrary times and still be able to enjoy myself. In my book, that includes a lot of in-character interaction with other players.
In most other MMOs, getting anything done generally does require a well-balanced party of a certain size. Players have two choices on how to make that happen. One way is to form a guild and set regular times for everyone to log in and adventure together. For casual players, that's not possible, so instead you get this situation where people congregate in meat-markets to form impromptu adventuring parties, a process which is generally completely out of character because people are mostly concerned about getting the right mix of classes in their parties: "We need a rouge [sic]!"
What I'm looking for is this: as a casual gamer, when I have time to play I log in and go to some public hang out (tavern, guild-hall, a place where my character would spend his leisure time socializing), possibly associated with some sort of faction I'm a member of (not a players' guild, but an in-story faction). There, I interact with other characters in character. If I'm lucky, I run into some people I've befriended previously and we decide to go follow some new adventure hook together, forming a party because we like each other, not because we represent a correct cross-section of classes. If I don't meet anyone I know, I role-play in hopes of making new in-story friends to adventure with in the future, or if I'm really itching to go adventure now, I set out for some solo play.
The key to this whole scenario I described is that if I happen to be a Cavalier, and I run into my Fighter buddy and my Ranger buddy at the tavern, but none of my Rogue or Wizard or Cleric buddies happen to be online right then, we can still go out and adventure together successfully even though all three of us have very similar classes.
What I'm looking for is this: as a casual gamer, when I have time to play I log in and go to some public hang out ...
Pretty much ANY new game today can accomodate that.
World of Warcraft owes a great deal of its success for being so easy for the casual and single-player gamers.
Its more like an SP game where there just happends to be many others online.
Sure...we have this end-game thing...which is more complicated. The raids and such. I heard this actually could require some teamwork...still...I'm sure there is a way around or something else you can do that doesn't require that...
My question related to this is, what is the target market of players for PFO?
1) Is it existing MMO players who want a particular type of game?
2) is it existing PnP gamers who want a MMO that meets their needs?
3) Is it a core of existing Paizo fans and Pathfinder RPG players who want a computer game that models their specific PnP game?
4) Is it something else?
1) Really don't hope so...
2) Maybe...and hopefully...
3) Maybe...and hopefully...
4) Such players that play multiplayer computer RPG's but haven't found a good MMO that suits their style...
Just taking myself as an example here as I am a Neverwinter Nights 1 player who is looking for an MMO that doesn't make me puke...
Pretty much ANY new game today can accomodate that.
When quoting me, you cut off the very important second part of that sentence: a place where my character would go to socialize, and where I can role-play in character, not a meat-market where people look for random strangers of particular character classes so they can fill out all rolls needed to take on some dungeon.
World of Warcraft owes a great deal of its success for being so easy for the casual and single-player gamers.Its more like an SP game where there just happends to be many others online.
Clearly you and I are talking about two very different games called "World of Warcraft." Sure, casual and SP players can enjoy some aspects of the game, but significant parts of the experience are only possible with large, well-balanced, well-organized groups. That is exactly what I was talking about when I said that all aspects of PFO should be accessible to casual players as well as hard-core gamers.
Mookay...take any other game then...
DDO, LOTRO, the upcoming GW2...
To me it feels like everything is casual theese days...
By the way...you mean that all the 12 million subscribers on WoW are hardcore gamers? ...as they otherwise would miss out on the MAYOR part of the game right?
Mookay...take any other game then...
DDO, LOTRO, the upcoming GW2...
I really don't care whether or not those other games are as casual-friendly as you seem to believe (I doubt if they are). I want PFO to be an experience I can enjoy.
To me it feels like everything is casual theese days...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
When I say "casual," I don't mean "not a serious role-player," I mean, "someone who cannot dedicate significant time to the game on a predictable schedule."
By the way...you mean that all the 12 million subscribers on WoW are hardcore gamers? ...as they otherwise would miss out on the MAYOR part of the game right?
A lot of them are not hardcore gamers, and they do miss out on major elements of the game. Many of them don't care, but a lot of them are bothered by it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly...everything I've read and heard suggests to me that this game will basically a fantasy version of EVE online...which unfortunately holds no interest for me.
]
In my perfect world, Pathfinder Online will be to EVE Online what World of Warcraft was to EverQuest. That is, the game that came after the game that solved a lot of hard problems but left a path for development towards accessibility and fun.
As someone who not only played through the transition from EQ to WoW, but spent countless hours doing analysis of both games from a business perspective, I have a tremendous appreciation for what Blizzard accomplished. They did not make a "clone", they made an evolutionary step that changed the way people interacted with theme park MMO content.
I think there's an opportunity to do something similar for sand box MMOs too.
To answer the original question, my goal is to attract people who value the idea of an open world, persistent sandbox where the primary drivers of the experience are other players and their interactions. This is not going to be a game that has a big focus on solo play - although there will certainly be ways to play the game as a Lone Wolf. This is not going to be a game where the objective is to gear up the "perfect" party to solve a theme park puzzle - you'll have specialized characters aplenty, but no "best" option for being an adventurer.
I want to give players a rich set of tools and allow them to creatively use them to create a sword & sorcery world of exploration, development, adventure, and domination. And that's the audience I'm hoping to attract.
Sadly...everything I've read and heard suggests to me that this game will basically a fantasy version of EVE online...which unfortunately holds no interest for me.]
In my perfect world, Pathfinder Online will be to EVE Online what World of Warcraft was to EverQuest. That is, the game that came after the game that solved a lot of hard problems but left a path for development towards accessibility and fun.
As someone who not only played through the transition from EQ to WoW, but spent countless hours doing analysis of both games from a business perspective, I have a tremendous appreciation for what Blizzard accomplished. They did not make a "clone", they made an evolutionary step that changed the way people interacted with theme park MMO content.
I think there's an opportunity to do something similar for sand box MMOs too.
To answer the original question, my goal is to attract people who value the idea of an open world, persistent sandbox where the primary drivers of the experience are other players and their interactions. This is not going to be a game that has a big focus on solo play - although there will certainly be ways to play the game as a Lone Wolf. This is not going to be a game where the objective is to gear up the "perfect" party to solve a theme park puzzle - you'll have specialized characters aplenty, but no "best" option for being an adventurer.
I want to give players a rich set of tools and allow them to creatively use them to create a sword & sorcery world of exploration, development, adventure, and domination. And that's the audience I'm hoping to attract.
Ryan would it be possible for a "Knowledge base" sticky with all of the Dev/GoblinWorks/RyanDancy posts for newcomers. Getting spammed with the same "I DONT LIKE ..." threads is getting a little tiresome.
Also as long as you don't add a 'caldari' race/class in, i have no problems with this game. Researching magic missile and arcane shield should not be an easy mode.
Senior Software Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan Dancey's posts are all here. You can get to similar pages for anyone else you want to follow by clicking on their avatar and then the Posts tab. There's also an RSS feed available for each person's posts on that page for easier mass stalking, err, following.
You can also hide threads by clicking the circle-with-slash widget. (There's a "show hidden threads" link at the top of the page to see threads you've removed.)
...the primary drivers of the experience are other players and their interactions...This is not going to be a game where the objective is to gear up the "perfect" party to solve a theme park puzzle - you'll have specialized characters aplenty, but no "best" option for being an adventurer...
That is more or less exactly what I was hoping to hear. Thank you very much.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Sadly...everything I've read and heard suggests to me that this game will basically a fantasy version of EVE online...which unfortunately holds no interest for me.]
In my perfect world, Pathfinder Online will be to EVE Online what World of Warcraft was to EverQuest. That is, the game that came after the game that solved a lot of hard problems but left a path for development towards accessibility and fun.
As someone who not only played through the transition from EQ to WoW, but spent countless hours doing analysis of both games from a business perspective, I have a tremendous appreciation for what Blizzard accomplished. They did not make a "clone", they made an evolutionary step that changed the way people interacted with theme park MMO content.
I think there's an opportunity to do something similar for sand box MMOs too.
To answer the original question, my goal is to attract people who value the idea of an open world, persistent sandbox where the primary drivers of the experience are other players and their interactions. This is not going to be a game that has a big focus on solo play - although there will certainly be ways to play the game as a Lone Wolf. This is not going to be a game where the objective is to gear up the "perfect" party to solve a theme park puzzle - you'll have specialized characters aplenty, but no "best" option for being an adventurer.
I want to give players a rich set of tools and allow them to creatively use them to create a sword & sorcery world of exploration, development, adventure, and domination. And that's the audience I'm hoping to attract.
Ryan, while I appreciate your answer, I don't know if it actually answers the question I was asking. I am curious who you think these players are, who want the game you describe. Obviously, a circular answer like you gave "the game is aimed at players who want to play the kind of game we're making" is 100% accurate, but it doesn't give a lot of insight as to who those players are in your view. While I think there's a lot of overlap, I'm very curious if you view the target market for PFO as MMO players who want something better/different than what's already on the market for MMOs, or more as pen and paper Pathfinder RPG players (and potentially other PnP RPG players) who are looking for an online experience to supplement their face to face RPG experiences.
Personally, I think these two groups have very different goals in what they want from a computer RPG in general and an MMO RPG more specifically. While I have my personal preferences, I realized that a) I may very well be in the minority of the overall potental player base, and b) I'm in an information gathering phase (which I hope will last until the game is launched), and don't want to color the answers and information I get by directly stating what I want. I'm happy to let you know exactly what I'm looking for, if you think that would be more helpful insight about developing the game (whether it be directly through a messageboard post of in a market research survey sent out to many.
I'm also curious how much of the game design goals are shaped by your preferences and direct experience in the marketplace vs. what potential players say they want or are asking for. One of the advantages of a market research driven approach is that it lets you get insight into people who don't actively play MMOs but would like to find a MMO that "fixes" their problems with the current games on the market. If you base your plans only on MMO players, you miss out on the unserved market that aren't using the entire category of products.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think about 30% of the MMO player community wants a game that is primarily a sandbox. That's my primary audience. That figure is derived from market research I have read.
To put some numbers on that:
The MMO market is projected to be a $14 billion segment by 2015, growing at a compound annual growth of 12.8%.
The market in the West for subscription & microtransaction MMO is more than 18 million players. I reasonably estimate that at least 7 million of them are paying a full-price (i.e. $15/mo) subscription. So that defines the minimum size of our target market as at least 2.1 million potential players.
I think there's a very high overlap between people who play tabletop RPGs and people who play MMOs, so by extension, there should be a similar percentage of Pathfinder tabletop gamers who want that kind of game. That's a logical extrapolation based on no data.
I think the earliest adopters will be people from the hardcore Pathfinder community, plus the people who REALLY want a successful fantasy sandbox MMO and are paying attention to us from day one. I think the middle term audience will be comprised of folks who shift from an existing MMO to us because they prefer a sandbox vs. a themepark, or they find their existing sandbox unsatisfying. If there is a long term audience that is bigger than that is unknowable at this time, but possibly exists. The only way to determine that is to build a great fantasy sandbox MMO and see what happens.
The overall game design is driven by my direct experience in the market, combined with all the market research data I have read, and with discussions with hundreds (maybe thousands) of players of both tabletop and MMOs. My opinion is that it has the best chance to do what we're attempting which is to address a clear need/gap in the market for a meaningfully large number of prospective players, and has a sustainable long term business model based on a rational estimate of how many of those prospects can be converted to playing players.
We are not trying to make a digital version of the tabletop game. We are trying to make a specific kind of experience that leverages the tremendous value created by Paizo with the Pathfinder intellectual property. We did not start with a blank sheet of paper. We started with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and talked about how we would need to change it to meet the unique needs of the MMO platform, specifically the sandbox MMO platform. I think that start point and heritage will be sufficient to draw in fans of the Pathfinder RPG as well as fans of the world of Golarion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Darwinism, I think the market is littered with the dead games who all pursued a very specific strategy: Make a theme park MMO that targeted people who like playing World of Warcraft.
I'm reasonably certain that doing that over and over and expecting a different result was not an effective use of time, money or talent.
On the other hand, the only big effort to release a fantasy sandbox MMO (Darkfall) resulted in a game that was so popular that a wave of signups crashed its billing system and it never recovered from having too many people trying to play it simultaneously when it was brand new. That tells me there's an unserved market available for such a product - and it also reinforces lessons I already learned at CCP about how important it is to manage the growth of a sandbox vs. the "big bang" of a theme park.
The team of folks who will build this game will all be proven experts in their fields. We already have more working on the game than we've disclosed because we're not ready yet to talk about who those people are. One of the nice things about coming to market after a bunch of other companies tried & failed to beat World of Warcraft is that there are lots and lots of trained pros looking for a new project.
Differentiation, segmentation, awareness and brand building are my specialties. I'm not worried at all about being able to let the right people know the Pathfinder Online story. We'll have no problem standing out from the crowd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's interesting, considering Paizo's main draw is their "theme park" elements. The Adventure Paths and Modules that people are always impressed by. The thing that got me excited about PFO is the possibility of enjoying an AP as a player rather than as a GM.
The second thing was the idea of adding to the world, by being able to craft my own modules. Since that's such a big part of the tabletop experience and would offer a huge point of difference from other games on the market. Content, good, meaningful content that adds to the narrative of the character is hard to find.
Just my $0.02, and my imagination running away from me.
What I'm getting from the beginning of this thread is that the plan is for this MMO to have non-consensual PvP.
Every game I've played with this approach has led to nothing but a corpse/spawn-camping gankfest led by the highly immature. I think that it took Ultima Online about a month to degrade to that state with no one following any of the storyline. In fact, I would describe Ultima Online as a sandbox MMO with story elements and it led to my becoming so frustrated from being killed repeatedly while attempting to learn the game that I refused to play another MMO for 5 years.
Everyone will be paying with the intention of enjoying the game. For many, being slaughtered repeatedly in a virtual rendition of "Lord of the Flies" isn't worth paying for.
How do you intend to keep the game fun for those who don't find non-consensual PvP enjoyable? Are they just not your target audience?
I personally liked the mechanism used by DAoC . . . or a Team vs. Team environment.
Fair enough. I have one other question; EVE Online is a game that is known for having players drive almost every aspect of it. Unfortunately that has resulted in it being renowned for organized griefing. Goons are probably the best known group, but in every MMO with player-driven X/Y/Z, people rapidly reach the top and it's nearly impossible to unseat them because of the bonuses you get by being at the top. This can easily result in stagnation, where people at the top stay at the top because they're at the top and people who want...Darwinism, I think the market is littered with the dead games who all pursued a very specific strategy: Make a theme park MMO that targeted people who like playing World of Warcraft.
I'm reasonably certain that doing that over and over and expecting a different result was not an effective use of time, money or talent.
On the other hand, the only big effort to release a fantasy sandbox MMO (Darkfall) resulted in a game that was so popular that a wave of signups crashed its billing system and it never recovered from having too many people trying to play it simultaneously when it was brand new. That tells me there's an unserved market available for such a product - and it also reinforces lessons I already learned at CCP about how important it is to manage the growth of a sandbox vs. the "big bang" of a theme park.
The team of folks who will build this game will all be proven experts in their fields. We already have more working on the game than we've disclosed because we're not ready yet to talk about who those people are. One of the nice things about coming to market after a bunch of other companies tried & failed to beat World of Warcraft is that there are lots and lots of trained pros looking for a new project.
Differentiation, segmentation, awareness and brand building are my specialties. I'm not worried at all about being able to let the right people know the Pathfinder Online story. We'll have no problem standing out from the crowd.
The answer to both of our questions will determine whether or not I follow this project any further on a personal basis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my point of view, the issue I have with MMOs of any stripe really is that it strips away the idea that you're the hero in the campaign. When you play a paper RPG with friends, the idea is that you and your party are a rare group of people who gain fame and fortune in a world largely made up of mundane, every day folk (sure there are other heroes and powerful villains in that game world, as well as powerful creatures, but they are largely outnumbered by average folk). In that world, you are the exception. In an MMO, every player wants to be the hero and wants to be the center of the story, the problem is no one really is because it's all a level playing field. You don't run into the simple farmer, the shepherd, the blacksmith or the innkeeper. The only people you run into are wizards, rangers, thieves, knights, clerics and all the variations in between, but really the only thing separating you from them is the amount of time they played compared to how long you have played. The sense of individuality that face to face role playing brings to the table is unique, and no MMO will be able replicate that, at least none that I have seen so far. Don't get me wrong though. I would love to see Paizo and Goblinworks succeed in this endeavour though.
Interesting comments. It'll be fun to see how things develop.
|
I think there's a very high overlap between people who play tabletop RPGs and people who play MMOs, so by extension, there should be a similar percentage of Pathfinder tabletop gamers who want that kind of game. That's a logical extrapolation based on no data.
My gut - there is a larger proportion of MMO players that also play RPGs than RPG players that also play MMOs. Older RPG players are less likely to be regular MMO players. Pathfinder players tend to be slightly older than those who play other games. That's my experience in the UK, anyhow. So I'd try and firm that extrapolation up with some data.
I echo Chucks concerns, however I concede that the larger proportion of your available market might be younger gamers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(Also, if your playing against the Environment you're still competing, whether there's a Player or an AI :P)
But if I'm playing vs the environment I choose the terms of engagement to suit what I find enjoyable. In forced, and I do specify forced here, PvP someone else gets to make that choice, and they're deliberately doing it to ruin my enjoyment.
In my perfect world, Pathfinder Online will be to EVE Online what World of Warcraft was to EverQuest.
So how much will monocles cost in Pathfinder Online?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(Also, if your playing against the Environment you're still competing, whether there's a Player or an AI :P)But if I'm playing vs the environment I choose the terms of engagement to suit what I find enjoyable. In forced, and I do specify forced here, PvP someone else gets to make that choice, and they're deliberately doing it to ruin my enjoyment.
So if a game where to utilize a better AI it would not be enjoyable? And if a game did use AIs which could learn and/or plan and coordinate, then them trying to kill your character would equal trying to ruin your enjoyment?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if a game where to utilize a better AI it would not be enjoyable? And if a game did use AIs which could learn and/or plan and coordinate, then them trying to kill your character would equal trying to ruin your enjoyment?
I call strawman. You know perfectly well I'm specifically referring to the kind of griefers who try to spoil other people's fun for 'Lulz'. When you have an actual counterargument, please present it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I call strawman. You know perfectly well I'm specifically referring to the kind of griefers who try to spoil other people's fun for 'Lulz'. When you have an actual counterargument, please present it.So if a game where to utilize a better AI it would not be enjoyable? And if a game did use AIs which could learn and/or plan and coordinate, then them trying to kill your character would equal trying to ruin your enjoyment?
You know, you keep saying that my arguments are misrepresenting your position...as for a counterargument...
But if I'm playing vs the environment I choose the terms of engagement to suit what I find enjoyable. In forced, and I do specify forced here, PvP someone else gets to make that choice, and they're deliberately doing it to ruin my enjoyment.
First, how do you know they are acting with the motive you suggest? I am forced to assume you are just making assumptions about their motives, and hence you are just lashing out at players acting in a way that inhibits your fun, by making pejorative accusations about their intent and identity; using over-generalization to place anyone who upsets you into "gankers" or "griefers".
Second, your environment is everything outside your character. What is the difference between "forced" PvE via an AI mob that is smart enough to track you until you are alone and then attacks, or "forced" PvP via a PC who does the same? If you had a smart enough AI there would be no difference. Think this is unrealistic? Look at the features of an upcoming game called "Origins of Malu". In one play test, the tester had a predator mob track him for hours at a distance only to attack when the situation was more suitable to insure the mob would win.
Therefore, by your definition, I must assume that you would also place these "enhanced" AIs into the griefer and ganker category. I was trying to clarify if I was right and if you would be asking the devs to make their AIs more stupid so you can enjoy the game on your "terms of engagement".
So please, clarify where I am misrepresenting your opinion? You stated you wanted the game on your terms or it is not enjoyable. If it is not enjoyable then whatever removed the condition you want, was obviously out to do so ONLY to remove your enjoyment. I do not understand or agree with your artificial distinctions between different parts of the environment that allow you to attribute an intent you cannot verify or have not proven, for the simple reason that the environment responded to your presence in a way that you obviously did not expect or like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know, you keep saying that my arguments are misrepresenting your position...as for a counterargument...I call strawman. You know perfectly well I'm specifically referring to the kind of griefers who try to spoil other people's fun for 'Lulz'. When you have an actual counterargument, please present it.So if a game where to utilize a better AI it would not be enjoyable? And if a game did use AIs which could learn and/or plan and coordinate, then them trying to kill your character would equal trying to ruin your enjoyment?
Well, if I do explicitly specify my problem is not with AI but with player behaviour, then suggesting that improved AI is an issue is ignoring what I'm saying to try to force me into agreeing with the strawman you constructed. If that wasn't your intent you could have read my post and responded to what I actually said.
But if I'm playing vs the environment I choose the terms of engagement to suit what I find enjoyable. In forced, and I do specify forced here, PvP someone else gets to make that choice, and they're deliberately doing it to ruin my enjoyment.First, how do you know they are acting with the motive you suggest? I am forced to assume you are just making assumptions about their motives, and hence you are just lashing out at players acting in a way that inhibits your fun, by making pejorative accusations about their intent and identity; using over-generalization to place anyone who upsets you into "gankers" or "griefers".
I think the burden of proof is on your end. If someone forces me into a combat I don't want because they can do so, how do you conclude that they are NOT trying to ruin MY enjoyment? Please explain, because so far you're coming across as saying that if I'm allowed to play how I'd enjoy to, without forced PvP, it's going to spoil your fun.
Or more bluntly, it seems to me like you're saying that being unable to harass me would ruin your game.
Why is your enjoyment in having the ability to ruin my fun more important than my having the right not to be attacked by you if I don't want to be?
Second, your environment is everything outside your character. What is the difference between "forced" PvE via an AI mob that is smart enough to track you until you are alone and then attacks, or "forced" PvP via a PC who does the same? If you had a smart enough AI there would be no difference. Think this is unrealistic? Look at the features of an upcoming game called "Origins of Malu". In one play test, the tester had a predator mob track him for hours at a distance only to attack when the situation was more suitable to insure the mob would win.
Therefore, by your definition, I must assume that you would also place these "enhanced" AIs into the griefer and ganker category. I was trying to clarify if I was right and if you would be asking the devs to make their AIs more stupid...
Intent. That's what it boils down to. The AI is doing what it's programmed to if it tries to kill me, and it only does so if I put myself into a position that triggers its actions. If it's got great tactics, so be it.
Forcing someone into PvP has all the initiative on the part of the aggressor. The victim has no choice. It's kill or, much more likely, be killed. It's not a case of a player testing themselves against the AI voluntarily, it's someone else deliberately forcing them into a situation they didn't want. And yes, if they're being forced into it, I do think the most likely intent of the PvPer is to spoil another player's enjoyment of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always liked PnP RP games and especially the Forgotten Realms campaign setting and I think Golarion catches the feel of that. I've also played Pathfinder PnP and something in the fantasy setting appeals to me more than any scifi setting, a lot more.
I'm also a fan of PVP, free PVP and I'm therefore intrigued by an open world PVP experience. Best PVP experience I've had is in WoW prior to wotlk.
What I'm expecting of PFO: game mechanics and combat that bring meaningful open world PVP experience and a nice community that works together to overcome trouble with their force in numbers and cooperation. Mostly meaningful means to me that neither side is overpowered.
But if I'm playing vs the environment I choose the terms of engagement to suit what I find enjoyable. In forced, and I do specify forced here, PvP someone else gets to make that choice, and they're deliberately doing it to ruin my enjoyment.
As an eve player myself though not one of those that kills for the sake of it, merely when I can make a profit from it I think the answer is no one is forcing non consensual pvp on you, logging on to the game is consent to pvp.
Sorry to say but in a sandbox game with a player driven economy you need pvp of all sorts. PVP isn't just a player killing a player it is found in the market and all other player actions. Everything you do affects other players.
For declaration of intent I will be joining a good alignement community, Pax Aeturnum so it is reasonable to claim I am not joining the game merely to kill everything that moves. Undoubtedly there will be those that do but I think it won't be as many as you think. The majority of eve players aren't in fact "if it moves shoot it" types as over 60% of characters never leave high sec
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mostly meaningful means to me that neither side is overpowered.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "side", but the open PvP in PFO will not be factional. I expect the vast majority of PvP battles will be fairly one-sided - after all, you generally won't attack unless you believe you have the forces necessary to succeed.
I've always been intrigued by RP-PvP servers, but being hopelessly overpowered by anyone 5 levels higher than me in most Theme Parks really wasn't fun. And Arena- or Battleground-based PvP always left me cold; it just doesn't have the same sense of danger as trekking through the wilderness with a wagon full of silks and spices, hoping you're not beset upon by bandits :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon
If you have a good fight, both sides get scars, that means no one is left unscarred even though one side dies. If you get my meaning. It means that the fight is tough for both sides and both sides have to fight equally for their lives. The opposite of this would be the other side not even breaking a sweat.
By sides I just mean the people and characters that are trying to kill each other in PVP.
I hope game mechanics can bring this kind of balance to PVP in PFO.
In WoW for example imo, nowadays you need addons and macros to even have a change in PVP and that's really not my tale.
I also hope that running away scared is a valid combat tactic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Aeioun Plainsweed, that's kind of what I thought you meant, and I just wanted to point out that most PvP combat in PFO won't really be balanced. It's not going to be Arena- or Battleground-based, so there's very little chance there will be an even number of players on each side, much less that those players have relatively even "levels".
It's a significant change from most MMOs, and I think some people might come into PFO with default expectations set by those other games, so I try to point out these kinds of things - hopefully without being too pedantic :)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Aeion Plainsweed Unless you are referring to balanced as far as power curve in which case the power curve will be more narrow so there won't be quite as huge of a spread between a level 1 player and a level 80 player. Most players will be between level 12-15.