Goblin Squad Member
|
How is PFO conceptually different from Darkfall? My guild is all excited about the reboot of DF, and trying tio get me to buy into it, and I'm just not feeling it, but I had a hard time strongly supporting my feel.
I can think of some mechanical differences between the two, and limited vs. full loot, and time skilling vs. use skilling seem to be the biggest. But other parts seem somewhat comparable: player controlled territory/buildings, resource scarcity, crafting, etc.
I think the two things that stick out the most are that Clan vs. Clan violence seems to be the only social mechanic DF has thought through and implemented. Reputation, aligned as world-grounded (not faction based), contracts, and assassination, I think all add a huge layer of social complexity. I think the economic system envisaged here seems much more socially complex, really requiring the division of labor.
The other thing is that it looks like PvP is the point of DF, while social interaction seems to be the point of PFO (with PvP an inextricable part of that social interaction).
Any thoughts on this? How do you see the games as functionally different in gameplay experience?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I waited for Darkfall since 2005, and was there for all of open beta and launch. All I have to say is they really hit off the mark with the skills. During beta and all the way up to release we were under the impression that there would be skill caps, weither they were a hard cap (Only X skill points) or a soft cap (point degeneration to a max number with higher degeneration the more you exceed the max skillpoint number). But when the game launched there was so such cap, and you had stupid things like people AFK casting the level 1 mage spell into corners for hours.
In order to be competitive you had to invest alot of time into grinding to pick up a certain set of skills that were more or less required to be viable. I said no thanks, and left to wait for Mortal Online, which is 10 times the failure DF was (at least in my mind). Don't get me wrong I wish Aventurine the best, they brought something new to the MMO market before it's time.
Having gradual skill gain as opposed to grinding with no skillcap will be a monumentally better system. No more feeding through materials just to get your crafting up so you can be a self sufficient warrior archmage master-assassin. That will happen eventually in PFO, but the Merit Badge system helps keep somebody from being all of them at once if I'm not mistaken, which is sorely needed.
When you have the skills set up like DFO's, you can be the best of everything all at once. You may only be able to pack the gear for two playstyles but still it degrades from the game. The best part about MMOs is each player taking a specalized role that compliment and work off each other to overcome obstacles bigger than any individual. That's why I have more faith in PFO to deliver the MMO experience I'm looking for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
but the Merit Badge system helps keep somebody from being all of them at once if I'm not mistaken, which is sorely needed.
I believe it is the equipment system not the merit badge system that does that. There is nothing inherant in merit badges that prevents you from gaining all other badges (with the exception of capstones). Your attributes effect how fast you can train what skills.
The one thing ryan has implied as a likely limiting factor, is equipment itself. To which gear that makes you good at mellee will likely have penalties to spellcasting and vice versa, most likely weapons that can benefit from sneak attack will possibly not permit favored enemy or smite evil bonus's etc... as well changing gear will quite possibly not be a quick hotbar click.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The one thing ryan has implied as a likely limiting factor, is equipment itself.
Ryan also made it clear that it wasn't an absolute either/or thing.
Ideally all archetypes should have pre-requisite Gear to use the linked abilities which conflict with the Gear required for other archetypes. So if you want to cast arcane spells like a Wizard, you'll find that you have a Gear conflict with what you need to do melee damage like a Fighter. By "conflict" I don't mean "either/or", but penalties and failure chances, and speed reductions and such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any thoughts on this? How do you see the games as functionally different in gameplay experience?
1. Time based skilling
2. Archetypes3. The Crafting System
4. Territory control will be more detailed in Pathfinder.
5. The combat system will not be manual aim.
6. GW is a larger/better funded company than AV and will produce new content faster
7. The war system won't allow for abuses like GPS and Fallen Lords.
8. More/better quests.
9. No universal banks, portal networks, or bindstones, and localized goods. AKA meaningful trade.
I'm sure I could think of a lot more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Andius, those are mechanics, not functions.
So for example, I feel like a have a pretty good handle on the functional aspect of time based skilling: no need to macro in a corner, even increase in skills over time so there is parity based on time, etc. Functionally I think this means you're freed from grinding to be able to play different styles--the function of time-based skilling is to remove grinding.
I think I also understand the function of archetypes--instead of a game designed pressure to skill up a particular template to be competitive solo in PVP, there's a design pressure to stick within your archetype, and find your competitive advantage in synergistic grouping.
What are the functional implications of the other mechanics you've listed? Combat not being manual aim--what does that mean functionally for the game experience? Why is that important?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now wait Andius your forgetting this is pathfinder. after so long things like bags of holding and teleportation scrolls will come into effect not to mention things like portable shelter and rings of sustaninse. I mean yea sure it would not be wise to use a 2000G scroll to teleport 500G pile of 1000-libs of iron to X-crafters house. It is still there however.
That isn't exactly forgetfulness. There is no confirmation (though admittedly also no official denial either), of teleportation, bags of holding etc... in the game.
Yes this is pathfinder, but many of the goals they have for the game, are completely incompatible with rules as written pathfinder, and spell inclusion, adjustment etc... will result in some spells removed, and many changed, for the purpose of developing the game. Assuming something is going to be in the game entirely on the grounds that it is in the P&P game is a bad idea (though that doesn't necessarally make the converse a good idea). However transport industry is clearly described as something that will be a huge factor in the game, as a result, I would say it is almost a certainty that if it is even present, teleport will be drastically different than the tabletop equivalent, and I don't see it in ways that implies that the transport industry will only be to deliver things that are too cheap to be worth buying a scroll (or for a wizard to use a casting) for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that the biggest problem Adventurine has is that re-launching an MMO may be impossible.
We tried it with CCGs and it was impossible.
Re-launching a failed tabletop RPG seems impossible.
I think that games carry with them so much baggage that once you fail, you need to cut your losses, abandon that brand, and move on.
If Adventurine had done this I think they'd have a more smooth path to success, but I think they just couldn't bear to walk away from the world they built and the time they spent sculpting it.
So far I haven't seen anything that makes me think that they're targeting a different audience than they did the first time. A hardcore crowd with a PvP focus who want an element of player-skill in the combat system.
Why they think they'll end up with a different customer base this time around is mystifying.
Goblinworks Founder
|
I think the one to watch on failed MMO's being relaunched is Final Fantasy XIV Realm Reborn; least watching a game try to relaunch and see if it fails or succeeds where it failed.
Darkfall 2.0 is a fix to what they knew was wrong with the design of the first one and attempt to gather new people who wanted to try but were scared of the PvP aspect.
I played the first Darkfall and I'm not a huge PvP person, I like to do it sometimes just not the turn at every sound kind of game. I had a person turn gray and knock me away from loot just so he could get it, I was dodging people on horses as they threw fireballs at me; thrilling yes, but for a new person trying to start up it's not fun.
With Darkfall it's start at the beginning or find it hard later on to even begin as the Gankers were getting bored and looking for easy targets. So how do you fix this and try to gather new people; you reboot the game with slightly new graphics, a smaller world and that everyone begins at square one.
Though it seems nice they allow you to pick a role and then build on it, so not everyone was macroing spells to raise their skill level.
If you're one that doesn't mind dying a lot (PvP oriented game) and losing gear but hardly ever allowed to carry a fancy sword/armor as it will either be stolen or destroyed from use, (hate having a bow/staff fall apart during combat), you might like Darkfall 2.0.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The PvP emphasis is what kept me away from Darkfall. I haven't seen any indication that Pathfinder Online will share that emphasis.
Depends on exactly what you mean by "emphasis"...
PFO will definitely allow non-consensual PvP in most areas. You'll generally be safe (as I understand it) as a lowbie in the NPC Settlements and very close to them in the wilds. There are also some mechanics to discourage Griefing.
However, PvP will be a significant focus of the game, and you should expect to die to other players if you want to play the game fully.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The PvP emphasis is what kept me away from Darkfall. I haven't seen any indication that Pathfinder Online will share that emphasis.Depends on exactly what you mean by "emphasis"...
PFO will definitely allow non-consensual PvP in most areas. You'll generally be safe (as I understand it) as a lowbie in the NPC Settlements and very close to them in the wilds. There are also some mechanics to discourage Griefing.
However, PvP will be a significant focus of the game, and you should expect to die to other players if you want to play the game fully.
PvP will be a large focus in the game, but if Rainwhisper is referring to what I personally fear myself, is that PFO will share Darkfall's total emphasis on PvP.
Darkfall took the form of a quake style RPG with almost everything else taking a back seat. On the bright side, Eve Online is largely a PvP game, but one with strong emphasis in player crafting, economies and other unique areas. Lets hope PFO takes this path other than the all encompassing 'pew pew' path of the sword wielding rocket jumping fragster.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm looking forward to DF unholy wars.
For:
1. Full loot: Nothing quite like it, if you like demon souls or dark souls then this is the system for you as it makes surviving really gratifying and killing other players rewarding as you get there gear! (note getting a basic set in DF wasnt hard)
2. PVP: The battles were huge when the game first launched. Yes there were some problems, but if you got past that (normally by disabling the sound lol) the fights were amazing and epic
3. Huge world. I did like DF's world, the only thing that sucked was the PVE was bad. Not sure how it will be in the reboot.
4. Alot of freedom but not alot of sand.
Pathfinder online:
1. The sandbox experience: I loved SWG and I feel pathfinder will be somewhat Similar to it. Owning a house, building a city, harvesting etc.
2. Exploration: What i'm really hoping for is a land I can constantly explore.
3. Enjoyable PVE and PVP.
4. Fun crafting system (Hopefully like SWG's)
5. The eve mechanic's they want to bring into pathfinder. I think thats awesome.
I really hope DF unholy wars fixes the mistakes they made in the first one. But I feel pathfinder will have more of the sandboxy type things I want from a game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seemingly small things can mean a lot.
I was interested in Darkfall but as soon as I heard use based skill-training I wouldn't touch that game with a 10'-pole. No capped skills is just the nail in the coffin.
These two things mean:
- grind 24/7 for ever and ever
- if you don't do you are royally screwed
No, thanks.
A relaunch will be pointless, you do not get a second chance in this market where a plethora of new games release every month. A "this time we got it right" does simply not work in such an environment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So far:
- PVP vs. Sandlot: DF looks like a PvP game, built from the ground up to be primarily about PvP, while PFO aims to be a sandbox game that PvP is part of
- Grind: By having time skilling, PFO has made a break with grinding. Even if there is a mechanical nod to this in DF, if there is a margianl advantage to grinding, then people will still grind
- 3.5 Schema: While this is being adapted for MMO play, I'm still seeing a lot of 3.5 concepts that are dear to my heart, e.g. an abstraction of rounds, core abilities like power attack or detect evil, daily abilities like rages or spells. That's not good or bad, just very much to my preference.
- Tactics: PFO wants to make tactics a design aspect of massed combat, whereas I don't think there's any such thing in DF. No doubt smart players will discover tactics, but as I understand it, the designers haven't put in abstractions of tactical aspects of combat.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get the sense that Darkfall is all that interested in simulating a player-driven economic system, whereas the economy of Pathfinder Online is central to the game design.
Darkfall seems like a game where you craft to get stuff for yourself and your buddies, not where you craft as a primary mode of play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan: That's pretty important to me as well. I think the whole philosophy is the opposite for my interests. I don't want things like economics, the environment, explorations, diplomacy, etc to be an adjunct in support of the main point of PvP. I want player conflict to be an adjunct to the larger goal of building a world to play in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan: That's pretty important to me as well. I think the whole philosophy is the opposite for my interests. I don't want things like economics, the environment, explorations, diplomacy, etc to be an adjunct in support of the main point of PvP. I want player conflict to be an adjunct to the larger goal of building a world to play in.
Seconded, from my understanding, all other mechanics are a road to get to PVP in darkfall, while PFO it sounds like settlement building is the goal, and you could use diplomatic, economic or militaristic means to obtain it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Darkfall team was only capable perhaps of delivering a single faceted, PvP centric game (and I'd argue it barely managed that).
I think the most important thing learnt from Darkfall is that resources must be managed in order to deliver on a range of functional and inter connected systems, regardless of their complexity.
Darkfall tried to establish a twitch based, first person combat system built within a single massive server complete with epic sieges; this was all on top of attempting a fully armed sandbox feature set of a player driven economy, player housing & cities, skill based progression system etc.
UO still for me hands down wins on a true sandbox delivery of a wide range of functional features, features which were often in many cases (fishing) extremely simple in their programming.
Focus on delivering as many polished, simple systems as possible and spend the next ten years building upon them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Darkfall was fun for a little while, but it was ultimately a little bit shallow.
Not in terms of systems, as Darkfall had some, (from my limited time spent there), reasonably complex combat mechanics, but in overall design.
Combat, especially PVP combat was 95% of the game.
PFO seems to have much much more than that. It really seems to have more of an Fantasy EVE feel to it.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
I think the biggest problem with Darkfall is that the world was too big. They re-did the art at last twice because the industry standard bypassed their first version while they were still building the game.
If they had not made "a huge world" a part of their design I think they'd have been better off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the biggest problem with Darkfall is that the world was too big. They re-did the art at last twice because the industry standard bypassed their first version while they were still building the game.
If they had not made "a huge world" a part of their design I think they'd have been better off.
I would have said "Too empty", but I agree, as they languished in "Coming Soon" territory for so long most people thought the whole thing was vaporware.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think player density is a huge issue in MMOs. On EQ my server (Povar) you were swimming in other players--the cave is (I think it was) East Commons became a kind of ad hoc marketplace, and I really loved that while the only content might have been grinding, you always had a dense group of people to grind with. The expansions left behind huge areas that were empty, so that new players were utterly alone.
When I ran A Land Far Away we tried to mitigate that by creating reasons for players of different levels to interact and be in the same social space, obvious stuff like hubs, abstracting out the "fun" parts of Cormyr to make the physical play space smaller, quest design, etc. I think it generally worked, at least better than a giant, "accurate" map of the Heartlands of the FR.
I think here in PFO by starting out with a small physical space you can achieve social density. I hope over time as the terrain expands over time socio-political interactions create local density that is organic and meaningful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also in Sandboxes "empty" territory is something that many players will seek because it means that you can exploit that territory without much competition.
I would love to find "the secret valley" in PFO that includes some nice resources and a dungeon and noone knows about it for quite some time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also in Sandboxes "empty" territory is something that many players will seek because it means that you can exploit that territory without much competition.
I would love to find "the secret valley" in PFO that includes some nice resources and a dungeon and noone knows about it for quite some time.
Creating 'secret' valleys is relatively easy given the correct adjustments on how that area can be accessed.
I.E, suppose fast travel exists between central hubs on the map; perhaps players have the ability to mark areas and fast travel between them with a long cooldown on their 'fast travel' ability. A secret area or valley would remain scarce if it simply existed in an area which required the longest time to arrive to, and return from. Obviously this system is broken if a player spends 15 minutes running there and can then simply fast travel back with a spell or hearthstone.
UO had something similar to this with the lost lands after the Age of Shadows exansion. UO had fast travel for pretty much every character using marked runes and recall spells, allowing players to move to and from wherever they pleased with ease. The lost lands however had to be accessed via tunnels and secret entrances on the mainland and, once inside, one could not simply recall out of the lost lands as recalling was not permitted in the land mass. This allowed for a player to work his way deep into the lost lands and visit scarce locations which remained relatively scarce.
A system which enforced similar effects in PFO would be a really great idea as playing in such remote areas definitely added something extra to the game.
Another interesting idea might be that, say in a preexistant abondoned mine or quarry and given sufficient mining of the area, secret dungeons or caverns could be excavated for a temporary time. Perhaps an evil lurks inside which requires a portion of the server to band together and slaughter it, at which time the battle causes a tremor which demolished and reseals the entrance. I've always dreamed that players could find and defeat such unique enemies, gain a unique trophy of some sort for no other use than boasting rights and to carve a real sense of insular history within the game (Prays for the ability to run a PFO museum).
|
I get to go find and recover artifacts for the museum, and I think I will call myself Mindiana Jones. :)
+1 on the hard to get to secret places, the sort of places for explorers to discover. Definately have fast travel as hub to hub (Though I would be happy without fast travel at all, I don't see how it helps anything in a sandbox)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully PFO can find the right balance between having players spread too thin and having too small of a map.
Personally before the huge population dip... I actually think that the Darkfall Player spread was fine. You could sometimes go out for hours without seeing anyone. But that is largely because as a newb in an Open World PVP game I actively sought areas that I would not run into many other players. If you wanted to see other players it was a matter of going to any city or hamlet run by either players or NPCs. You would always find newbs in the starter towns, and 90% of the time you went into a player city someone would show up. Especially if you started draining their resource nodes. I actually was really big into stealing from mines of Random Player Killer(RPK) clans (AKA pretty much everyone in Darkfall) and it I got in and drained a mine that hadn't been harvested in the last hour without people showing up to stop me... I was very lucky.
When I played Mortal Online... I was a tamer and the first thing I did once I got good enough at taming to capture desert horse of a good speed (Desert horses were the fastest) is ride across the world. When I arrived at the other side of the world in a matter of 5-15 minutes... I felt disappointed.
In Darkfall not counting oceans I think it took half an hour to an hour to ride across the map. When I decided to move GL from elflands to dwarflands and all the online members mounted up and rode with me in a group of about 15 or so... It actually felt like a semi-epic journey.
I really hope Pathfinder Online can capture the feeling of the world being huge, while not being empty. They really need to:
1. Don't make mounts or any other form of transportation too fast. Quick travel is not important / not desirable in a sandbox. Maybe even consider making it harmful to mounts to ride them faster than a trot for extended periods of time.
2. Create reasons for players to congregate in certain areas, such as competition over the source of a rare resource and trade hubs.
3. Don't make the world TOO small. It doesn't need to be Darkfall big on release, but I would leave room for A LOT of fairly unpopulated areas. For one thing if you don't, it will make things too vicious in an Open World PVP game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As someone considering playing a ranger type, the whole 'discovering lost paths' and 'guiding others through the mountains' type of play would make for an interesting concept.
I have seriously no idea how you would implement that though.
Someone was discussing SWG rangers being useful for finding things in that game, so maybe there are to be found a few pointers in that game's (old) implementation; but with a suitable refinement for Pathfinder?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As someone considering playing a ranger type, the whole 'discovering lost paths' and 'guiding others through the mountains' type of play would make for an interesting concept.
I have seriously no idea how you would implement that though.
Simples. When entering vast marshlands/swamps, endless deserts, thick forests or towering mountain ranges, your minimap/compass doesn't work lol.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Simples. When entering vast marshlands/swamps, endless deserts, thick forests or towering mountain ranges, your minimap/compass doesn't work lol.As someone considering playing a ranger type, the whole 'discovering lost paths' and 'guiding others through the mountains' type of play would make for an interesting concept.
I have seriously no idea how you would implement that though.
That actually could work extremely well. I could imagine going through marshland with thick undergrowth, a shroud of fog, and your maps disabled. Having someone along with the skills to allow their maps to work in that area... would be invaluable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or maybe the range of your minimap is affected? So if you have no wilderness skills (i.e. very low level) you might have next to nothing on your mini-map, and have to labor through rough terrain until you find that pass, path, etc (and likely have to backtrack a lot). But if you have many ranks in wilderness survival your mini-map expands proportionately, and you can do a good job figuring out from the lay of the land which way to go to get through those mountains, out of the swamp, etc.
|
|
I think if you are going to have a mini map at all then making it's range and utility based on skills and abilities is best.
Untrained folks might not have a minimap, just a compass of questionable accuracy, then badges in survival would grant 30' minimap range and more accurate compass, then increased range with further badges, then the Track feat/ability would allow you to see tracks of recent creatures on the minimap/ground.
|
|
And just how is it cheating? What kind of real advantage can a minimap give in PvP?
And how is putting legitimate skill time in all in one legitimate place, cheating?
Edit: This isn't exactly extra abilitiy buttons, this is a minimap, the most worthless piece of UI except for very minor uses, generally only usefull to account for limited field of view and a compass for those who have no navigation ability whatsoever. (And a game is shown to be good practice to improve that, until one starts cheating by looking at a minimap and compass)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And just how is it cheating? What kind of real advantage can a minimap give in PvP?
And how is putting skill time in all in one place cheating?
If without 3rd party programs the interface syncs them up all the time, then no it is not cheating. If it requires someone to use a 3rd party program, then it is unstoppable cheating. Knowing the locations of your enemies is a huge tactical advantage, maybe not so much in tiny FFA things, but in war, where setting up pincers, avoiding ambushes etc... it is a huge deal. Expecting little usefulness in a minimap, is like saying that fog of war is an insignificant feature in an RTS game.