Goblin Squad Member
|
@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.
Where are you getting the 12-15 number from? I know in the Kickstarter comments and dev blogs that the goal was for everyone to be useful so there wouldnt be the huge disconnect in pwer level from your WoW example, and that it would take approx 2.5 years before we would start seeing "Level 20". I am not aware of any dev posts that actually discuss the power difference between characters advancment and where a relative power spread may lie.
|
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 :)
Yet I wonder what the small guilds will do when ousted by the larger and more muscular. Move farther out? Find new lands to populate? Or band to gether with one another and become bigger and more muscular?
Or both? What recourse will any have?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Sorry I was off it was actually 6th - 10th.
Average
At some point, you move into the "normal" power curve of the game; what we've talked about being equivalent to the kind of power you typically see from about 6th level to about 10th level (what I call the "heroic adventuring" part of a Pathfinder tabletop RPG character's career).
This is where you find that the development of your character becomes a process of being very good at a wide range of activities. You'll be able to "catch up" to a character that's older than you in a given activity given a few months of dedicated play and training, but that older character will have the advantage of being very good at a variety of things, not just one thing.
|
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 :)
Yet I wonder what the small guilds will do when ousted by the larger and more muscular. Move farther out? Find new lands to populate? Or band to gether with one another and become bigger and more muscular?
Or both? What recourse will any have?
I think smaller guilds, ie chartered companys can retain some kind of autonomy while being part of a settlement or nation, but if not then they probably have to move.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I'd be happy if GW decides to fly low on the radar now the development roadmap is more or less planned and predominantly responds/updates the kickstarter backers/crowdforgers and anyone who is very interested in sandbox/pathfinder.
Those big cgi extravaganza trailers are the bane of mmorpg expectations imo. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yet I wonder what the small guilds will do when ousted by the larger and more muscular.
I agree with Aeioun Plainsweed above. I think many of the smaller guilds will have to settle for joining up with a larger guild in order to gain the advantages of Settlements and Player Nations. Ryan has said he expects there to be far more players who want to build and hold a Settlement than there are who are actually capable of doing so.
For what it's worth, The Seventh Veil is interested in sponsoring these smaller guilds, and we're dedicated to ensuring they retain as much autonomy as possible. Having free and prosperous people in your Settlement can only make it better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon
I also hope that running away scared is a valid combat tactic.
That is a good point... I hope when facing a very big threat (5 x 1 combat and stuff like that) we would just have a fair chance of running away and try to avoid the attack. Enemies could just pursuit, but running away should be granted as an option. Certain classes, like rogues and rangers, would stand a reasonable better chance to run away and avoid unfair and/or undesireable combat. Maybe even a skill or a group of skills could be created for this kind of strategy.
Robbers,for example, would need to have an organized position to prevent the players just running away from them, especially if the combat involves mounts. A good rider could just escape easier and use his riding skills to get rid of the attackers. As well as, a good runner or, in some cases a good climber could try to use the respective skills to escape.
Yes definitelly running away should be considered!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also hope that running away scared is a valid combat tactic.That is a good point... I hope when facing a very big threat (5 x 1 combat and stuff like that) we would just have a fair chance of running away and try to avoid the attack
I also think being able to flee combat is a very good idea :)
From What will combat be like?:
... In fact, I'd really like there to be a Flee ability that has a very high chance to disengage you from your current encounter (even PvP)...
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,
The most fun I EVER had playing LOTRO was farming, and look at all the people playing Farmville and Hempville on Facebook, don't tell me you can't get people to play farmers and other "simple folk" you just need an enjoyable system for doing it, at a price people are willing to pay
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This was a serious necro of an old thread. Does everything still apply? It's sounding more and more like Shadowbane to me.
One of the biggest threats to a game that has a large PvP focus is the exploits that can ruin combat. Having a way to record and capture data necessary to stop these exploits in a timely manner may just be what saves a game from a mass exodus.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ravenlute, most of the information in this thread has probably changed over time.
You can find a link to all of the official blogs, with a brief description of each, in the Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links list.
You can also find more up-to-date information at PFOFan.com.
And of course, if you have specific questions, feel free to ask. There are a lot of helpful people here who will be glad to try to answer them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really enjoy the idea of a world building sandbox MMO. Something where my friends and I can explore out into the world, battle monsters and build a grand kingdom with other players.
However I still don't understand exactly why PFO is taking some of that idea and then decided tethering it to an unregulated murder simulator was a grand idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really enjoy the idea of a world building sandbox MMO. Something where my friends and I can explore out into the world, battle monsters and build a grand kingdom with other players.
However I still don't understand exactly why PFO is taking some of that idea and then decided tethering it to an unregulated murder simulator was a grand idea.
"Endless" content is created by the player interaction, if the game mechanics are in balance, in which PVP is the core. Doesn't sandbox refer to player created content?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Endless" content is created by the player interaction, if the game mechanics are in balance, in which PVP is the core. Doesn't sandbox refer to player created content?I really enjoy the idea of a world building sandbox MMO. Something where my friends and I can explore out into the world, battle monsters and build a grand kingdom with other players.
However I still don't understand exactly why PFO is taking some of that idea and then decided tethering it to an unregulated murder simulator was a grand idea.
That is my understanding too, Aeioun. I am also curious as to what unregulated murder simulator Morgen refers to, as the open PvP is regulated by the flag system, NPC Marshal system, and the anti-griefing system(s). Did i miss a blog or forum post? If so, I'd like to read it, as it would be news I would want to know about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, well then a regulated murder simulator. Not exactly sure how that's better or what it's doing stuffed into what could have been an amazing sandbox world building game.
From what Ryan has blogged about, meaningful PvP, since it drives player storylines, is a part of PFO. It is, in effect, just another aspect of the sandbox design. Those who grief other players will be booted, but inter-player group dynamics and interactions between individual players are being well thought out, and is in keeping with the Pathfinder RPG lore. Since meaningless PvP will have restrictions, the game stays a world building game, just one with more danger than just a PvE element. I'm not normally a fan of PvP, and generally avoid it nearly 100% of the time in other MMO's, but the way Ryan has described it makes sense in this game's context.
If you haven't seen those posts, head over to Blog and check them out. They may change your mind, and the more players in this game the merrier :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was pleasantly surprised to read Ryan Dancey's update for several reasons. First, PFO was marketed as a sandbox MMORPG, and it sounds like Goblinworks is sticking to it's vision. Dancey is 100% correct in stating that PFO needs to be different to succeed. There are enough casual theme park MMORPGs out there. One of the main reasons SWTOR has not been a huge success is because there are too many MMORPGs with similar design philosophy out there. WoW players played SWTOR for a couple of months and went back to WoW. The last thing the MMORPG genre needs is yet another casual theme park MMO.
I'm not even a big PvPer. But I welcome a game world that offers true danger for the explorer. As a PF RPG player, a sandbox MMO will much more closely mirror the PnP experience than a casual PvE game. That's the way I view sandbox anyway. I played Darkfall for about 6 months and even though the game was brutal at times, some of my most memorable moments in decades of gaming came from my experiences there. The same can be said of UO. What I hope for in PFO is a modern UO.
So I really hope Goblinworks sticks to their vision and does not make yet another PvE centric MMO. Make PFO a living, breathing world with all the dangers inherent in any society. The gaming base will find a way of dealing with those who continually prey on the citizens.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, PFO really needs to be different to succeed. That is correct.
Making your game revolve entirely around PVP isn't in any way making your game different. That is making it as similar as possible to a huge pile of MMO's that have come out before you or are presently coming out.
It's a tired, worn out old concept that makes me sad to see GW having decided to cling to making yet another regulated murder simulator. :(
Sigh, the best of ideas...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I sincerely hope they stick to their guns and don't cave to the pressure of limiting dangerous player encounters. To me, this is a core pillar of what will make this both enjoyable and different than the other offerings in the MMO market. The systems in place for alignment, companies, settlements, etc. create a latticework in which the players will hopefully fill gaps and have meaningful interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person 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.
The exact opposite for me.... IMHO, EVE Online is the best MMO currently running and I hope PFO will be as good, if not better.
BTW, just logged out of EVE a minute ago... 50k+ players online, on one server!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, PFO really needs to be different to succeed. That is correct.
Making your game revolve entirely around PVP isn't in any way making your game different. That is making it as similar as possible to a huge pile of MMO's that have come out before you or are presently coming out.
It's a tired, worn out old concept that makes me sad to see GW having decided to cling to making yet another regulated murder simulator. :(
Sigh, the best of ideas...
I think Ryan said it revolves around an economic-engine in the mmo compared to the pnp combat-engine? Also he mentioned that a a whole lot of things which don't exist in the pnp rule-set will need to be developed for the mmorpg rule-set, things like settlements, politics etc (correct me if I make use of an erroneous eg, as I am unfamiliar with pnp - soon change when I get my shiny pdf... :) ).
What would you do without pvp or replace pvp? Remember combat scales well with 000's of players and also is very engaging form of interaction and against other players imo is a lot more interesting combat than AI mobs that stand around a map with no purpose. If you could offer an alternative that fits better I'm interested to hear? Or is it that pvp is a concern? In which case Ryan's answer in the Forbes interview is fairly good:
Forbes: I’ve heard readers express concerns over “non-consensual PvP.” How will you account for these players?
Ryan Dancey: Conflict is the beating heart of Pathfinder Online. Conflict is what drives the meaningful human interaction that we seek to create. Player vs. Player conflict is a core facet of that conflict. The players of most MMOs see PvP as a binary choice; either they are subjected to continuous unwanted hassle from players seeking to harass them, or they are protected from all PvP except in designated areas and at designated times. Many players have had really bad experiences with opponents who seek to inflict “grief” on their victims – attempting to ruin the game experience of others simply for their own amusement.
The widespread trend in MMOs is to gate all PvP content to shield the vast majority of the players from ever having to engage in it. We think this is unfortunate, and that PvP has a place in Pathfinder Online.
We think this is one of the places where we can truly innovate. We are working on offering a third choice – one that preserves the intense engagement and immersion that widespread PvP creates, while minimizing the effects of players who seek to inflict “grief” on others.
We have studied a lot of MMOs that offer PvP going all the way back to Ultima Online. Our conclusion is that there is no magic bullet which delivers a robust PvP experience while insuring against “griefers”. Our approach therefore is to use many different tactics working together in a “layered defense” against misbehavior. That approach includes things like making the consequences for attacking other characters quite steep, having a swift policy of intervening in the game when griefing is reported to our game moderators, and engaging with the community to avoid allowing the toxic bullying behavior that we see in many other games take root in Pathfinder Online.
We know a lot of players are skeptical of our ability to balance the competing agendas that PvP enables but I am confident that if those players give us a chance, we can change their minds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, I'm getting on the PFO bandwagon kinda late. One question though, is it really going to be subscription based?
-EDIT-
Nevermind, I found the interview that Ryan Dancey did with Forbes. This is gonna be interesting, I hope they do one of my favorite tabletops justice in an MMO format.
Welcome!
Here are the main collections of info. Enjoy!:
Community Greetings and Helpful reading
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, PFO really needs to be different to succeed. That is correct.
Making your game revolve entirely around PVP isn't in any way making your game different. That is making it as similar as possible to a huge pile of MMO's that have come out before you or are presently coming out.
It's a tired, worn out old concept that makes me sad to see GW having decided to cling to making yet another regulated murder simulator. :(
Sigh, the best of ideas...
@Morgen
Maybe PvP is what the rest of the game is designed around, but it might be instead that the game is actually designed around the tabletop RPG pathfinder. What if the game is not really being built entirely around PvP? Could you accept that or not? After all PvP may be just a side effect of the rest of the game. It is such a significant side effect, however, that it must be fully accounted for in the design. A 'sandbox' offers the player the liberty to do most anything, and that liberty is integral throughout the design. To remove part of that liberty just to make it so no player can resort to 'the last resort of diplomacy' violates the integrity of the game. Yet if you are going to not violate the integrity of the design you are going to have to have ways to handle PvP and all its collateral effects, and that takes planning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, PFO really needs to be different to succeed. That is correct.
Making your game revolve entirely around PVP isn't in any way making your game different. That is making it as similar as possible to a huge pile of MMO's that have come out before you or are presently coming out.
It's a tired, worn out old concept that makes me sad to see GW having decided to cling to making yet another regulated murder simulator. :(
Sigh, the best of ideas...
When I first heard about PFO I saw that it was PvP, my first thought after beta testing Mortal Online was "oh no, not another gank fest". I didn't read much and went on browsing different games. A few days later someone posted an inter that Ryan did. I clicked on it and read through it figuring I would at least hear what he had to say. The more I heard about it the more intrigued I became.
Take some time and check out some blog posts, take a look at some of the interviews. They are making a game with PvP, but it won't be like Darkfall or Mortal online. The guys at GW are committed to making a game where senseless PK'ing won't be tolerated. Pathfinder will be totally different then the run of the mill MMOs being made today like Elder Scrolls online or SWTOR, theme park games that people play for a while then get tired of and go back to Wow. Give them a chance and check out their plans for PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, well then a regulated murder simulator. Not exactly sure how that's better or what it's doing stuffed into what could have been an amazing sandbox world building game.Are you giving this hyperbolic and misinformed statement in SPITE of the information already released on the GW blogs, dev post, and community shared information, or BECAUSE of the before mentioned sources of information that point to the contrary. I am not sure if are you deliberately trolling, or you are seriously concerned and not up to speed on what’s already been released…
That is more or less how I feel about Morgen's response. If you read the GW blogs over the last year, I just do not understand how you would come to that conclusion. Add in the dev posts/clarifications, and I really don't see it. But, alas, you can only lead them to water.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sometimes people are interested only in the consequences of their expectations, and simply disbelieve anything that is contrary to those expectations. It is belief-driven, and it is very hard to reason with beliefs.
Reminds me of a political or religious discussion with a dogmatic believer. It isn't conversation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dear Ryan Dancey
It is just not clear for me, and I believe many other players, if this game will or not be playable and enjoyable for people who do not like PvP at all or at least preffer the PvE aspects of MMOs than the PvP aspects.
My questions are:
Will it be possible to play just (or predominantly) in the secure areas , never or rarely adventuring in open PvP areas, and still having fun with the PvE aspects of the game?
Will it be possible to make profit (even that it will be probably lower and slower) and prosperate in this game without taking the higher risks of adventuring in the open PvP regions?
For many people that will be a very important and central question to be answered.
If the aswer is no, there will be a group of players that will simply not join the game as it will not be for them. If yes, this group of player will join the game and have fun just playing the PvE content.
Is the GW team able to answer those simple questions now, or they need to work a bit more in the game developpment to be able to have a clear answer?
<<Just a note: I myself enjoy PvP, although sometimes I just won´t be in the mood for PvPing and will preffer to just play some PvE. So this issue is not exaclty a big deal for me, but I fell like it is very critical for a part of the players posting here. However I have not seen they asking the right questions (and some of them are just making assumptions), so I decided to ask that for them>>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why do that?
Because we tried reasonable dialog and you told us we didn't know anything about game theory or are just wrong. You have made up your mind and you've got your funding and any complaints I've got aren't going to make any lick of difference in the end. Your going to take a concept I absolutely adore and want so much more of in video games (in game world building) and tether it to the thing I am the absolute worst at in MMO's (PVP).
You've decided that I can't play. You see some grand world with danger and excitement and a great need to be social and connect up with others to be safe. I see me being killed and looted at whatever whim anyone else has, eg a regulated murder simulator. My character formerly potential character being the murderie.
I got an excellent mini-adventurer path for Pathfinder out of my donation to a kickstarter. Not like I lost out on anything, I'll just be content with that and call it good. Good day sir.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is just not clear for me, and I believe many other players, if this game will or not be playable and enjoyable for people who do not like PvP at all or at least preffer the PvE aspects of MMOs than the PvP aspects.
My questions are:
Will it be possible to play just (or predominantly) in the secure areas , never or rarely adventuring in open PvP areas, and still having fun with the PvE aspects of the game?
Will it be possible to make profit (even that it will be probably lower and slower) and prosperate in this game without taking the higher risks of adventuring in the open PvP regions?
I know this was not directed at me, but I'm aware of a few suggested directions related to these questions (which may interest Morgan, coincidentally):
1. If you cannot tolerate your avatar being killed even once by another player, then the pvp is a problem, or this is a model that themepark mmorpgs cater to by splitting pve and pvp.
2. The pve content includes: The adventuring stuff: Dungeons, Escalations of mobs, resource prospecting, extracting and transport operations (eg hire guards to do the pvp for you). I believe specialisations might be called for to take on various types of mobs in pve also (not sure but think this is the case).
3. The Open PvP allows a risk/reward continuum/graduation: So you can venture to safer zones with much less risk but less reward/valuable resources, but still make profits. Conversely valuable resources will have high risk: Either higher frequency of pvp or higher danger of pvp.
4. There's also the whole NPC Alliances situation which I think will be developed over time and various options go with that.
5. One of the example of being almost pvp free was iirc if you enjoy crafting or trading (playing the markets) ie a very low-combat role. But to be clear, combat between players is very important part of the gameplay and result in various types of encounters and consequences (ie flags).
=
It sounds to me, therefore, that you (anyone) can specialise in PvE (perhaps killing undead things eg) so long as you have a network of players to do other actions and you work out how much risk you expose to (which kingdoms are friendly etc) and don't mind the odd chance of being thrown into some pvp combat either directly or indirectly.
As said, the PvE faucet is key part of the PvP sink. Both depend on each other and I don't see why some players should not be able to majority enjoy PvE so long as they realise/accept they are also a part of the sink at times?
=
Your going to take a concept I absolutely adore and want so much more of in video games (in game world building) and tether it to the thing I am the absolute worst at in MMO's (PVP).
Can you explain what you mean by "world-building": Do you mean "world-building lore and backstory or do you mean sandbox world-building: Shaping a land/area in game eg creating a settlement with a theme/aesthetic and a mission objective and a way of interacting with other players??
To me, it sounds like those are more or less possible even with Open PvP... I could be wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what I gathered following the info here and in the blogs, there wont' be PVP points or currency earned just from killing others that will be spent on desirable gear or other things (example: DKP or AP). This should make random killing a lot less attractive when coupled with the penalties and the fact that it is not full loot PVP. Please correct me if I am wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea is to make it cost something for an attacker to engage someone, whether it's alignment, flagging, and the likelihood of retaliation for doing so.
It's not a FFA gank fest, or at least it shouldn't be if these systems are well thought out and executed.
I played EVE for a year or so, hardly ever leaving high security space and I enjoyed it. I would imagine that folks who choose not to engage in pvp (either by direct engagement or by entering an area in which they are not protected) would have the choice to spend their time in NPC-protected areas. Again, another cost-benefit; the benefit being guaranteed protection from other players, and the cost likely being limited access to crafting materials, high level structures, etc.
This also creates the perfect opportunity to pay someone to take dangerous tasks on for you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I gathered following the info here and in the blogs, there wont' be PVP points or currency earned just from killing others that will be spent on desirable gear or other things (example: DKP or AP). This should make random killing a lot less attractive when coupled with the penalties and the fact that it is not full loot PVP. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Good point, this shows to me that this game is not as PvP-directed as many other I've seen around. PvP still an important part of it but may not be a goal.
Also, unless I missunderstood,there will be a good set of possibilities to PvE-directed players. Maybe players that don´t want PvP will miss some possibilities of high profit and player-to-player interactions, but they will be able to have fun, make profit, build stuff inside the good-aligned settlements (maybe npc settlements too), trade, craft (even if they need to buy stuff instead of gathering, what would imply some risk) etc. So unless you cannot bear being killed ocasionally (I would say rarelly if you develop correctly a defensive gameplay style) people may be, as we use to say here in Brasil, "making a seastorm over a watter cup".
I still need some GW's team background info about that, to be sure I'm not mistaken. But in my point of view, at least some of that complaining players may be surprised by the final produtc, and will conclude in the end that, if they work the right stratergies and maybe associate with other players with different gameplay styles (as, for example, paying other to transport stuff, exchanging products they craft for materials other players gather in risky areas etc). They may still have a nice experience playing PFO.
Actually, that would be quite chalenging and rewarding playing in a PvP-risk environment being able to rarely get engaged in PvP as you work the right strategies.
So, as I see now, unless you intend to be a lonewolf it will not be impossible to play PFO in a "low PvP risk" gameplay style, just by associating with the right players and working the right derfensive strategies.
From what I gathered following the info here and in the blogs, there wont' be PVP points or currency earned just from killing others that will be spent on desirable gear or other things (example: DKP or AP). This should make random killing a lot less attractive when coupled with the penalties and the fact that it is not full loot PVP. Please correct me if I am wrong.Good point, this shows to me that this game is not as PvP-directed as many other I've seen around. PvP still an important part of it but may not be a goal.
Also, unless I missunderstood,there will be a good set of possibilities to PvE-directed players. Maybe players that don´t want PvP will miss some possibilities of high profit and player-to-player interactions, but they will be able to have fun, make profit, build stuff inside the good-aligned settlements (maybe npc settlements too), trade, craft (even if they need to buy stuff instead of gathering, what would imply some risk) etc. So unless you cannot bear being killed ocasionally (I would say rarelly if you develop correctly a defensive gameplay style) people may be, as we use to say here in Brasil, "making a seastorm over a watter cup".
I still need some GW's team background info about that, to be sure I'm not mistaken. But in my point of view, at least some of that complaining players may be surprised by the final produtc, and will conclude in the end that, if they work the right stratergies and maybe associate with other players with different gameplay styles (as, for example, paying other to transport stuff, exchanging products they craft for materials other players gather in risky areas etc). They may still have a nice experience playing PFO.
Actually, that would be quite chalenging and rewarding playing in a PvP-risk environment being able to rarely get engaged in PvP as you work the right strategies.
So, as I see now, unless you intend to be a lonewolf it will not be impossible to play PFO in a "low PvP risk" gameplay style, just by...
Exactly right LordDaeron. Players who only want to PvE will be needed by settlements to keep the population of mobs down, due to the escalation mechanic described in a blog post and video. It's obvious from his latest post that Morgen is letting his fear of PvP prevent him from fully understanding how GW is making PVP in PFO different then PvP in say Darkfall. With a reduced level gap it eliminates the ability for a player to easily one shot another, even if one player is 5 "levels" above another they won't be able to just slay the lower lev character at will like they can in other games. This opens the door for the lower level player to use a stun, root or other distraction mechanic and escape the encounter. With all the penalties that GW is adding to prevent ganking there just won't be people lined up laying in wait for the obvlivious traveler like happens in other games. Just having 1 other person along will go a long way toward preventing most PK'ers from jumping you. But again, some people are so fearful of traditional PvP that they can't imagine it would ever be different.
We get a number of people who come here and eventually overcome their past negative experiences with PvP enough to see that GW is actually doing something different. I was one such visitor who took the time to understand Ryan's vision and I dare say that now I'm as excited about PFO as he is. :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm hoping to see crafters and the like be able to do their work decently in safe areas, just at a cost. The more adventurous harvesters can risk life and limb gathering rare materials in the wilderness, and ship it into, say, Fort Inevitable. At a pretty mark up, of course.
Though I want to say they've said the best crafting will take buildings in player settlements, I believe.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will it be possible to play just (or predominantly) in the secure areas , never or rarely adventuring in open PvP areas, and still having fun with the PvE aspects of the game?
There will be people who will never leave a Settlement and will have "fun with the game".
There will be people who will choose to engage exclusively with the safest PvE content, and will have "fun with the game".
Just like in EVE Online.
Will it be possible to make profit (even that it will be probably lower and slower) and prosperate in this game without taking the higher risks of adventuring in the open PvP regions?
The richest players in the game will likely be people who never leave Settlements, and make their profits through careful buying and selling on the markets.
There will be people who make extraordinarily large amounts of money by carefully harvesting resources and engaging with PvE content in the safest parts of the game.
Just like in EVE Online.
If the aswer is no, there will be a group of players that will simply not join the game as it will not be for them. If yes, this group of player will join the game and have fun just playing the PvE content.
Most people who currently play MMOs will not like Pathfinder Online. In comparison to the companies spending more than $100 million a shot giving them PvE-focused, safe MMO experiences, Patfhinder Online will not compare favorably.
That's ok. Those people are not our target market. Our target market are people who want to play a game with an emphasis on maximizing meaningful human interaction, and a high degree of persistence of player actions in the game world. There are more than enough such players to meet our business model goals several times over.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan, thanx for this very clear response to the questions posted. I makes me rather happy, as I prefer crafting, and PvE. Though I don't mind PvP at all, heck I know I going to be killed by players a few times along the way, when exploring or trying to rarer materials. I might take part in the occasion PvP event myself. I tend to be a solo player, and having decent opportunities to PvE and making profit from crafting is good for me.
Now only need a client to play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our target market are people who want to play a game with an emphasis on maximizing meaningful human interaction, and a high degree of persistence of player actions in the game world. There are more than enough such players to meet our business model goals several times over.
RyanD
This is the main reason I am invested (literally and figuratively) in PFO. The other is Golarion.