Goblin Squad Member
|
EDIT: Oh and I wouldn't expect to be payed for infiltrating a corp. The reason I haven't attempted it is because I have a mortgage to pay off and a family to feed. That is the only reason I mentioned payment.
Do like Riddic did, scam the gold of a lot of players and sell it to e-bay to pay the mortgage.
That is how infiltrating a corp and stealing the common property work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Out of curiosity, does anybody have experience in those MMOs where in game money is tradeable for real world money? They aren't common, but they do exist. The reason I ask is that I wonder...
If they had a chance to gain real money, would a PvPer take on the "tedium" of guarding trade routes and caravans?
Against the fun or raiding said caravan and selling the goods for real money?
I doubt it.
I think that there are legal ramification in that too. If the goods have an official real life value they can be taxed, are owned property and stealing or damaging them is a legally sanctionable act, so i think the game developers will stay as far as possible from that if they want a sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, you guys are delirious if you think this game will have open PvP.
We're just responding to what the team in charge of the game has said. As it currently stands, the plan is to have some form of open-world PvP. You could be very correct in that this plan won't survive the development process, but at this point even the dev team thinks it will be in the final game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, every time I hear someone posting in support of someone being able to grief, I am seeing them just saying, "Yeah, I totally want to play with these guys (I didn't listen to all 30+ minutes of such, so beyond the first part I can't speak to the content)." (Whether or not that group was successful, their mindset is still the one I see being promoted by a few people in this thread).
If you are saying right now that you want griefing in the game, I would really ask that you listen to that link because that is what I see a griefer as and what I see some of you trying to help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have one last point to make, before I am done with the subject. Even if you don't allow PvP there are ways to grief. Since the point of a griefer is to ruin someone else's fun, denying them the ability to kill will simply make them do it in other ways. For example, building structures in places designed to block areas. Or even just immersion breaking - building an open temple to Pazuzu in the middle of the city, for example.
The more you try to prevent griefing, the more options you must remove. Thus, the less sandbox-like the game gets.
There are ways to channel griefing, but I really don't think it should be prevented at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe that you missed the point of Ryan Dancey's post. Because griefers can abuse most everything, it doesn't mean all options should be allowed.
Griefing is not a resource to be channeled. They will do all they can to destroy the game and they will add nothing positive to the game.
Reading this thread, I see a horrible disaster (for myself) that I don't want to play in, but that a few people in this thread are trying to promote. Even the people who speak positively of the qualities of the game make me never want to play that game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that you missed the point of Ryan Dancey's post. Because griefers can abuse most everything, it doesn't mean all options should be allowed.
Griefing is not a resource to be channeled. They will do all they can to destroy the game and they will add nothing positive to the game.
Reading this thread, I see a horrible disaster (for myself) that I don't want to play in, but that a few people in this thread are trying to promote. Even the people who speak positively of the qualities of the game make me never want to play that game.
You're also seeing a thread for a game that has some poor design decisions. I'm all for open PvP and PKing (what most people on these boards seem to think is griefing.) I'm also all for having an area in the game where newer players can actually learn the ropes of a game before stepping out into the big bad world.
Honestly, all of this discussion is kind of a joke. If you stepped into a dungeon and ended up with 30 monster npc orcs swarming you and killing you, and end up taking all your stuff... you wouldn't complain. But if 30 PLAYERS do it: OMG GRIEFING. Should mobs also have consequences for griefing (aka: killing) you? It's just silly.
PS: Any statements made in this post using the word "you" are not aimed at the quoted post. Just people who think that PKing is griefing in general.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you stepped into a dungeon and ended up with 30 monster npc orcs swarming you and killing you, and end up taking all your stuff... you wouldn't complain. But if 30 PLAYERS do it: OMG GRIEFING. Should mobs also have consequences for griefing (aka: killing) you? It's just silly.Mobs don't set up asymmetric fights consciously. In fact, they cannot. This is incredibly basic and has been explained at least twice in this thread if you'd been paying attention.
But the devs who create dungeons sometimes do. So are the developers of the game griefing now? All you're doing is adding conditions onto the griefing, so let's change it a bit. You die to 1 orc or you die to 1 player. What's the difference?
And no, I didn't bother to read every single post in the thread. The majority that I did happen to read were all about how unfair getting killed by players was, blah blah blah whine whine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mobs don't set up asymmetric fights consciously. In fact, they cannot. This is incredibly basic and has been explained at least twice in this thread if you'd been paying attention.
This statement shows a poor understand of the capabilities of modern rule-based systems. For example, from another upcoming MMO called Origins of Malu:
Ever been stalked by a creature in a mmorpg... having it watch you and study you waiting for the right time to attack? Origins of Malu has dynamic and engaging gameplay with an AI that adapts and learns from the player
And before you argue on the basis of the "consciously" part, be sure you can define what that means...because scholars/philosophers have been trying to no avail to do that for all of recorded human history. And I say this from the perspective of an AI developer IRL.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe some sort of Karma-meter that goes down with unprovoked assault - with the exception of duels and maybe deep wilds. With negative Karma increasing death penalties (and possibly other penalties, like, worse reaction from certain NPCs - those possessing ability to detect evil/high empathy, etc.)? Unless some other MMO already tested that method and found unworkable (none I known of).
Very much this. Start whacking non-hostile NPCs and PCs for no other reason than to take their stuff and teabag the remains, the game will keep track of it and eventually you'll reach a level where an NPC will figure out who is on this rampage, either through witnessing your actions or through magical divinations, alert the authorities and you can kiss your ass goodbye. Welcome to become Bandit #125872628 in the forrest.
That said, I am looking forward to 'Bandit Clans' of Players, but not so much the looting and taking of my stuff. Or rather, I'd prefer to see a gold hit and a loss of a minor magical item rather than coming back to my corpse to find it stripped bare and covered in whatever humiliating stuff the other players have scrounged.
Knowing my luck I'll come back to find my burly Half-Orc lying dead on the ground in a wedding dress with a dead goat next to him....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they have any sense, they don't. PVE challenges are designed to be able to be defeated by whatever sort of players that pass the "You must be this high to ride" sign on the content, be that sign in the documentation, the patch notes, or literally outside of the dungeon. Devs just don't make dungeons that are "lol you can't beat this" outside of "Jimbo's MUD 'n Stuff" any more.
So, perhaps the new and improved approach would be to build the world, create behaviors for the creatures in your world, and release them to create their own balance, including populating dungeons. If it does not balance as you like, you rethink and tweak the behaviors until it does. Then you release players into this to do as they wish. This is easily doable with modern tech/programming...but I apologize, I just realized I am way off topic for this thread.
Goblinworks Founder
|
I wish there was a consequence for people griefing this thread.
Seriously, A Man in Black, if you continue regurgitating the same verbal bile it doesn't change our minds, it is just a bully tactic. It is no different from a journalist that asks questions and cuts people off before they can answer. You are no less a bully than the so called gangs you talk of.
We heard you the first time. Not all of us agree. Now go away and find someone else to bully please.
I was actually enjoying the discussion on these message boards until you showed up. Do you have this effect on many people?
Stop bullying Man in Black just because you don't agree with him, thanks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is not how AI design works. You don't grow an MMO world by turning the mobs loose and letting them find a natural balance, heh. That'd be neat if you could, though, wouldn't it?
The AI design is specifying the rules of each type of entity. World creation is releasing this into the world to act upon those rules. Sorry if I was unclear...and yes, I think that would be cool, and probably the best way to go. The best part is that players will interact with the world and upset these balances, often with unpredictable consequences.
Sometimes it would be simple consequences such as when you hunt out all the small game, the predators will be forced to either get more aggressive, or migrate. But, those predators might move into something bigger's territory...inadvertently making some big mob attack the nearest town.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You were perfectly clear. That is simply impractical, since it's reliant on a whole swarm of far too many far-too-complex AI actors. An ecological simulation like you're talking about that could be manipulated but not trivially gamed would be an award-winning accomplishment, and that's without all of the overhead of all the other stuff they've promised!The AI design is specifying the rules of each type of entity. World creation is releasing this into the world to act upon those rules. Sorry if I was unclear...and yes, I think that would be the best way to go. The best part is that players will interact with the world and upset these balances, often with unpredictable consequences.
Sometimes it would be simple consequences such as when you hunt out all the small game, the predators will be forced to either get more aggressive, or migrate. But, those predators might move into something bigger's territory...inadvertently making some big mob attack the nearest town.
It was award-winning, it is called MASSIVE. And I am only suggesting what I think would be the best approach. This is why I also argue that there should only be one world broken into servers roughly based upon the number of agents (all "movable" parts of the world including PCs would be an agent) within a geographic region. It is not impractical just because it has not been done before.
But, this is only my suggestion...designing and programming each individual agent by hand is not much more practical and they usually end up being randomly (and sometimes illogically) created and placed. We can move to a new topic about AI if you want me to continue this discussion, we are hijacking this thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that you missed the point of Ryan Dancey's post. Because griefers can abuse most everything, it doesn't mean all options should be allowed.
Griefing is not a resource to be channeled. They will do all they can to destroy the game and they will add nothing positive to the game.
Reading this thread, I see a horrible disaster (for myself) that I don't want to play in, but that a few people in this thread are trying to promote. Even the people who speak positively of the qualities of the game make me never want to play that game.
You're also seeing a thread for a game that has some poor design decisions. I'm all for open PvP and PKing (what most people on these boards seem to think is griefing.) I'm also all for having an area in the game where newer players can actually learn the ropes of a game before stepping out into the big bad world.
Honestly, all of this discussion is kind of a joke. If you stepped into a dungeon and ended up with 30 monster npc orcs swarming you and killing you, and end up taking all your stuff... you wouldn't complain. But if 30 PLAYERS do it: OMG GRIEFING. Should mobs also have consequences for griefing (aka: killing) you? It's just silly.
PS: Any statements made in this post using the word "you" are not aimed at the quoted post. Just people who think that PKing is griefing in general.
They are working off a poor definition of griefing. I would even say that most of the people making that mistake of equating griefing with any sort of player character killing are those proposing completely open PvP and not the people opposed to it.
If I walked into a "typical" dungeon and 30 npc orcs attacked me, I would likely complain. Unless it were obviously intended to do that I would report it as a bug because that is almost certainly not the intended behavior in any reasonable game that I have played.
The 30 players however are intelligent and have the sole purpose of making me (and anyone else that crosses their path) suffer. The ultimate goal of a griefer isn't killing a character, it is making the player quit the game out of frustration. Griefers remove other players fun from the game until they are the only ones left.
It was from that perspective that I approached this thread and it is why I find pretty much every countermeasure suggested to be levied against potential griefers as lacking.
Those who wish to destroy this game should be ejected from it as quickly as possible. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when I say that griefers are intent on destroying the game that they are playing. Their presence will never enhance a game and treating them as actual players that should be catered to is a mistake to me.
I'm not arguing in this thread because it is pro-PvP (like others might imply), but I argue in this thread because it is pro-griefing. It tries to maintain a place in the world for the person who wants to grief other players and that is (because of the griefer's nature) is a horrible miscalculation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am still waiting for some other guy definition of what "griefing" is and where it start, in particular Elth definition, seeing how he was screaming against the off topic arguments.
Without a an even tentative definition of where normal play end griefing start we will run in circles as the word, per se, don't define anything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would say griefing is entirely subjective. Since we attribute motives to peoples actions, unless in a previous agreed upon confrontation, a victim attributes negative intention to any action taken by another which makes them loose something, be it time, energy, experience, gear, etc (and including fun).
Restated, griefing starts when we decide someone someone is out to take something from us. At which point we declare that person a griefer.
I will post my thoughts here as I did in the other thread, as I would like to see some feedback on it.
Certain number of Social Karma points are required to use certain nice gear, or low Social Karma causes lowered capabilities.
PvP is open
When about to attack someone PvP, you declare war on their faction (click button, select dropdown, or what have you), you can now attack them without losing Social Karma.
When you declare war, it is for 24 (or more as required) hours, and during that time you may be attacked by anyone of that faction without them losing Social Karma.
The countdown for how long you are at war begins after your last attack of someone of that faction.
Attacking someone either greycon or without declaring war on their faction (to include NPC's) loses Social Karma points, and the loss can be greater by the difference in level (not that they said it will be level based, but there has to be some way to establish how much more powerful someone is. Maybe their total skill value.)
Will this remove griefing, no, but it will make it a lot harder for the griefers to succeed if all they are able to use is the lowest of gear, or have diminished combat capabilities.
I would say griefing is entirely subjective. Since we attribute motives to peoples actions, unless in a previous agreed upon confrontation, a victim attributes negative intention to any action taken by another which makes them loose something, be it time, energy, experience, gear, etc (and including fun).
Restated, griefing starts when we decide someone someone is out to take something from us. At which point we declare that person a griefer.
This is actually really close to describing what "troll" means on the internet, too!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is actually really close to describing what "troll" means on the internet, too!I would say griefing is entirely subjective. Since we attribute motives to peoples actions, unless in a previous agreed upon confrontation, a victim attributes negative intention to any action taken by another which makes them loose something, be it time, energy, experience, gear, etc (and including fun).
Restated, griefing starts when we decide someone someone is out to take something from us. At which point we declare that person a griefer.
And I have felt griefed a few times today...lol. But, it is actually a really good point, how do we enable a web community to police itself from full-time trolls?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's my understanding that, in WoW, when you drop something, it's gone forever.
So step 1: Any item that hits the ground is destroyed.
Gandalf: "The One Ring must be taken to Mount Doom, to be unmade in the fires of its own making. Only then will the Dark Lord's power be broken."
Frodo: "Or...I could just ...put it on the floor. Over there. Job done."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, all of this discussion is kind of a joke. If you stepped into a dungeon and ended up with 30 monster npc orcs swarming you and killing you, and end up taking all your stuff... you wouldn't complain. But if 30 PLAYERS do it: OMG GRIEFING. Should mobs also have consequences for griefing (aka: killing) you? It's just silly.
Emphasis mine.
Yes! I would be FURIOUS if I got killed and had all of my hard-work taken away in an instant! The thing is, in the example you provided, it wouldn't be the orcs griefing me... it would be the devs.
Now, in a dungeon environment where encounters are designed to be challenging, failure means you get back up and try again, using different tactics, a different party makeup, w/e. It exists for the sole purpose of providing you with a challenge to overcome.
Griefers do not. Griefers exist to ruin the entertainment a person is getting from a game. Now, it's true that not all Open PvP players are griefers, but the system, as it exists, does not have any significant means with which to punish griefers. The griefer has already won. His goal is to make you miserable. If he has accomplished this task, he wins. If he fails, he still has a whole game world to explore, so he still wins.
This is why so many people are arguing against the game INHERENTLY being an Open PvP experience. No matter what kind of limitations you impose, there are going to be people who grief. It's just an inherent aspect of the system. Sure, some people LOVE being in that kind of environment. Others don't. Wouldn't you rather have a game that can cater to both, rather than one or the other?
This is why flagging and PvP zones work so well, as well as why PvP servers work so well.
Regardless of how "realistic" people may want the game to be, the fact of the matter is that getting your stuff stolen isn't fun. Losing and facing a death penalty isn't fun (when it was out of your control... yes, even in dungeons). You worked hard to get where you are. To have it all taken in an instant is not a good way to keep people playing the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point of my post is this: Most people seem to be confusing the difference between PKing (ie: someone comes along and kills you) and griefing (someone comes along and kills you for hours on end). I think the lines are a bit confused here at times. Now, it doesn't matter what system you choose to implement. Hell, remove PvP entirely. Griefing exists in every single game ever. Just in different ways. Those who wish to grief will do so. Regardless of systems, or penalties.
I guess a big part of what surprises me with some of these arguments also is those who worry about dying and losing all of their stuff. You play Pathfinder. If your character dies in a bad spot, if your party can't rescue you, if you're forced to reroll... You've just lost all your stuff. Does that mean you stop playing Pathfinder?
|
|
I guess a big part of what surprises me with some of these arguments also is those who worry about dying and losing all of their stuff. You play Pathfinder. If your character dies in a bad spot, if your party can't rescue you, if you're forced to reroll... You've just lost all your stuff. Does that mean you stop playing Pathfinder?
When a player dies in Pathfinder, it generally has one of three causes:
1) The player did something stupid.
2) The player rolled poorly/ the DM rolled well.
3) The DM accidently/purposefully killed the players through poor encounter planning.
You'll notice that each of these incidences involve a single player, or the DM (read, Dev). There is no interference from another player. But there's another catch:
When you reroll, you get to reroll at the same level as the party, or close to it.
How would it feel if you got to level 10 with your party, everything was going great, and then in one series of bad rolls, your character died, and you had to go back to LEVEL 1? Do you really think your buddies are going to abandon their current characters (who they also spent a great deal of time on) just because one person died?
The same statement holds true for gear. I don't know a single DM that would require a person who rerolled his character to start at level 10 with 1st level gear. Can you imagine how painful it would be to rack up all the money's worth of gear you had on you at level 10? It would be painstaking, and frankly, a waste of time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As it is inspired by EVE, you probably lose most of your stuff if you die. What isn't destroyed will stay there for a few hours, then disappear.
The key is that against NPC, if you go and take a challenge that is too hard, you have a decent chance to escape. They don't pursue you too far, they don't play to destroy you.
And then the error was mine to have chose a excessively hard adversary.
if a player attack me to kill me it is almost granted that he will do all he can to maximize the damage.
I suppose (and hope if PVP is common) that, as it is EVE inspired, a larger part of of our capabilities will be skill dependant and not gear dependant.
Replacing my gear will cost hours or days of grinding or some real life cash, training the skills can require weeks or months. Losing skills is way harder in EVE.
On the other hand, one of the mantras in EVE is: "don't use anything you can't replace".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess a big part of what surprises me with some of these arguments also is those who worry about dying and losing all of their stuff. You play Pathfinder. If your character dies in a bad spot, if your party can't rescue you, if you're forced to reroll... You've just lost all your stuff. Does that mean you stop playing Pathfinder?When a player dies in Pathfinder, it generally has one of three causes:
1) The player did something stupid.
2) The player rolled poorly/ the DM rolled well.
3) The DM accidently/purposefully killed the players through poor encounter planning.You'll notice that each of these incidences involve a single player, or the DM (read, Dev). There is no interference from another player. But there's another catch:
When you reroll, you get to reroll at the same level as the party, or close to it.
How would it feel if you got to level 10 with your party, everything was going great, and then in one series of bad rolls, your character died, and you had to go back to LEVEL 1? Do you really think your buddies are going to abandon their current characters (who they also spent a great deal of time on) just because one person died?
The same statement holds true for gear. I don't know a single DM that would require a person who rerolled his character to start at level 10 with 1st level gear. Can you imagine how painful it would be to rack up all the money's worth of gear you had on you at level 10? It would be painstaking, and frankly, a waste of time.
In all of those situations, you're still dead. Your original stuff and character gone. All of that hard work gone. It doesn't matter who killed you. You're dead. End of story. In every game I've played, and in the games I run, I don't hand players things. People die? They come back a few levels below the rest of the party and with far less than they previously had. It's just the way it works. There's not a revolving door of 10th level adventurers ready at hand so a party full of people can do whatever silliness they wish.
I guess it comes down to personal preference at this point. I'd rather play a game where there's some sort of risk involved. Most people voicing their opinions so far would rather not. Simple as that.
|
|
In all of those situations, you're still dead. Your original stuff and character gone. All of that hard work gone. It doesn't matter who killed you. You're dead. End of story. In every game I've played, and in the games I run, I don't hand players things. People die? They come back a few levels below the rest of the party and with far less than they previously had. It's just the way it works. There's not a revolving door of 10th level adventurers ready at hand so a party full of...
But in all of those instances you are still capable of playing the game with your friends and remaining (at least somewhat) competitive. The real life equivalent of permanent death would be playing at a game table, randomly dying, and then being told that you can't come back to the game table until you're as good as everyone else. Your friends can come visit you, but only if they feel like pitying you.
And if a DM really did that, no one would ever play with him again.
|
It's my understanding that, in WoW, when you drop something, it's gone forever.
So step 1: Any item that hits the ground is destroyed.
Gandalf: "The One Ring must be taken to Mount Doom, to be unmade in the fires of its own making. Only then will the Dark Lord's power be broken."
Frodo: "Or...I could just ...put it on the floor. Over there. Job done."
I lol'd.
So if there was some kind of permadeath, BUT...
You could make a new character with the same, or almost the same, amount of skills as the old one, and
You get some kind of resurrection shop and an amount of money equal to, or nearly equal to, the replacement value of the items you were carrying,
Would it be a bad thing?
Indeed, if it was exactly equal, some players might WANT to die, just to "reset" their character's skills and equipment! Can you imagine the face of a griefer who started getting thank you messages? :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all of those situations, you're still dead. Your original stuff and character gone. All of that hard work gone. It doesn't matter who killed you. You're dead. End of story. In every game I've played, and in the games I run, I don't hand players things. People die? They come back a few levels below the rest of the party and with far less than they previously had. It's just the way it works. There's not a revolving door of 10th level adventurers ready at hand so a party full of...But in all of those instances you are still capable of playing the game with your friends and remaining (at least somewhat) competitive. The real life equivalent of permanent death would be playing at a game table, randomly dying, and then being told that you can't come back to the game table until you're as good as everyone else. Your friends can come visit you, but only if they feel like pitying you.
And if a DM really did that, no one would ever play with him again.
And players, if they did so lose items when they died, would need to learn to keep some things by the wayside so if they did die they aren't totally without means. I'm assuming that most people won't carry every single possession that own with them at all times. You'll still have your character and all of your skills and abilities. You just wouldn't have the same gear. Thinking on it some more though, this discussion is fairly moot without knowing the importance of gear in the game.
But as I stated before, the system you seem to be promoting is the revolving door of no risk. You can die infinite times without any form of penalty or thought. Climb the highest cliff in the game just to jump off of it. Fight to the bottom of a dungeon and die... oh well, no big deal. If that's the sort of system you enjoy, more power to you. Almost every MMO out there currently caters to that style. I'd still rather have some sort of penalty for death. Even if you just have to pay to insure your items.
Once UO introduced gear that had stats that mattered on them, they introduced the insurance system. Basically, you pay a set amount per item that you wish to insure. If you die, that money comes straight out of your bank, but your gear remains on your character instead of on your corpse. The only things that ended up on most people's corpses were potions, reagents and clothes. I'd even be content with a system like that. But dying and then suddenly appearing again, fully capable of combat again with in seconds? No thanks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Almost every MMO out there currently caters to that style. I'd still rather have some sort of penalty for death.
Do you know why that is? Because it sells.
Let's face it: It would be cool to have a game that was incredibly realistic in its portrayal of death. And yeah, an action title with very limited character progression might be able to pull it off.
But this is a risk for Paizo, and they need their first video game out of the gate to sell well. If they want it to sell well, they need the game to be fun and engaging, not realistic.
There is a time and a place for innovation. Right now we should worry about making the game fun.
And that's not to say that there isn't room for both. There are several modern video games that are fun and innovative. They're the game changers... the movers and shakers... the games that change the face of the entire industry.
But they're almost ALWAYS big budget titles. If Paizo has the funds to procure a huge development team for the project, I might think it was worth taking some risks. I just don't see it.
*On another note: Insuring items. What does this accomplish? Do I have to go get every new piece of gear I find insured? And, if every player is just going to do it anyways, why not just remove it from the game? It's an extra layer of coding that, essentially, contributes nothing to the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Almost every MMO out there currently caters to that style. I'd still rather have some sort of penalty for death.Do you know why that is? Because it sells.
Let's face it: It would be cool to have a game that was incredibly realistic in its portrayal of death. And yeah, an action title with very limited character progression might be able to pull it off.
But this is a risk for Paizo, and they need their first video game out of the gate to sell well. If they want it to sell well, they need the game to be fun and engaging, not realistic.
There is a time and a place for innovation. Right now we should worry about making the game fun.
And that's not to say that there isn't room for both. There are several modern video games that are fun and innovative. They're the game changers... the movers and shakers... the games that change the face of the entire industry.
But they're almost ALWAYS big budget titles. If Paizo has the funds to procure a huge development team for the project, I might think it was worth taking some risks. I just don't see it.
*On another note: Insuring items. What does this accomplish? Do I have to go get every new piece of gear I find insured? And, if every player is just going to do it anyways, why not just remove it from the game? It's an extra layer of coding that, essentially, contributes nothing to the game.
I'll go down the list here. Yes, it sells. It's pretty obvious that it does. WoW and soon TOR are perfect examples. They cater to the lowest common denominator. They make sure that a 5 year old can sit down, smash some buttons, and have gratification.
I think it's been made blatantly obvious that what we find fun and engaging are on total opposite ends of the spectrum.
From what has been stated by Goblinworks so far, they're already straying away from the generic MMO that's available today. The skill system alone is a deviation from the hugely popular norm.
You speak of games that change the face of the industry. The last MMO to do that was World of Warcraft. And it only changed the industry in that it made MMOs hugely popular and paved the way for countless failed attempts to emulate it. There's room for many different types of MMOs out there. If all Goblinworks was looking for was profit, the formula is pretty plain to see. It's currently dominating the MMO market. But it seems that's not their plan. Plans can change, sure. But I hope not. The market doesn't need WoW clone #86.
Ultimately, for Paizo's and Goblinworks' sake, I want the game to be successful. But if it's a rehash of the big titles currently on the market, I want no part of it.
As to your other note, insurance does accomplish something. You have to work to actually keep your gear. You can't just acquire items and then endlessly die and keep all of your precious shinies safe. You have to actually put the work in to earn money and keep your things safe. But again, moot point until equipment is hashed out. And as I've been sitting here typing this, I'm laughing at the fact that we're arguing points that may not even matter in a couple years when the game is actually being developed. Hah.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Once UO introduced gear that had stats that mattered on them, they introduced the insurance system. Basically, you pay a set amount per item that you wish to insure. If you die, that money comes straight out of your bank, but your gear remains on your character instead of on your corpse. The only things that ended up on most people's corpses were potions, reagents and clothes. I'd even be content with a system like that. But dying and then suddenly appearing again, fully capable of combat again with in seconds? No thanks.
Yes, a magic automatic fantasy insurance system is much more immersive and realistic than a magic automatic fantasy resurrection system!
