Goblin Squad Member
|
That is a bad assumption.@Ryan, yes, I am making assumption based on EVE.
My assumption is that if a target can be attacked he can be killed if the attackers are determined enough, even in a high security area.
Ryan has been pretty clear elsewhere that they will probably have areas where it is impossible for new players especially to be killed by other players.
There are loopholes for things like Assassins being able to reach other characters even in "safe" areas, but I get the impression those are only going to be allowed against experienced players who have already ventured out into the wilds.
I believe it will literally be impossible to be ganked when you first start playing.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My concern is about player-driven plot. I'm worried that it will devolve into guilds fighting each other over territory and resources, which I don't find very compelling. I hope there is a way to incorporate ancient awakening powers, magical plagues, hidden artifacts, forbidden arcane rituals, and other fantasy plot elements. If players are going to be the bad guys they should be able to do bad-guy fantasy things, not just have "E" in their alignment area. I just don't see how that is possible with current game design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ryric,
I'm not sure if this is the kind of thing you're talking about, but this quote may speak to your concern.
From Your Pathfinder Online Character:
Pathfinder Online is going to focus primarily on the kinds of classic adventure content that the tabletop game features at moderate levels—exploring dangerous areas and confronting monsters and villains that are scary and dangerous, but not challenging cosmic horrors or universe-destroyers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvP isn't restricted. Ryan and crew have always made it clear, you can attack people just about anywhere. And there will be consequences for every action. The game is Free PvP, it isn't Free From Consequences PvP.
PvP is restricted in that there are mechanical consequences for your actions.
I have never personally experienced an MMO with restrictions such as those that are being designed for PFO, and I don't think any game that has advertised itself as being "Open FFA PvP" has such consequences. This is why I made my post.
People are posting their qualms with Open PvP as it has been experienced up to this point, but that is very different than the PvP that PFO has, in which the choice a player makes whether or not to PvP is heavily influenced by other game mechanics. It is no longer simply a personal question of 'Can I win?' and 'Am I willing to deal with the consequences that other players may enact on me?'
At no point did I say you could not PvP nearly everywhere. However, if there are more places where NPC super-boss marshalls will automatically kill you, it functionally creates more non-PvP space. The odd vendetta notwithstanding. If you must, replace the word "restrictions" with the word "consequences" or something similarly appropriate in my previous post ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Nihimon, that clarification is useful. Let me explain a bit more. I've read that PFO is targetting the "feel" of about level 7-12. Here's a partial, somewhat cliche list of things villains do at those levels:
Kidnap people for ransom
participate in the slave trade
raise armies to attack peaceful areas
try to summon/control more powerful entities
try to become undead/lyncanthropic
rule an area with an iron fist
ally with evil humanoids/giants/undead/etc
run a thieves' guild/network of bandits
trade in evil items/forbidden knowledge
kill people for money
Some of those things seem very doable with the PFO model, some not so much. For example, can it be possible to keep prisoners/captives?
I'm assuming that there will be computer-controlled monsters - can you negotiate with them?
Can a bad guy do bad guy things that don't involve directly attacking other people (but good guys will still want to stop)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For those saying this game has no original ideas I would encourage you to read the GW blog again. Off the top of my head I can list:
1. A bounty system where you can choose who is allowed to collect on it.
2. A contract system that allows alignment shift based off player interactions.
3. Unit formation. A PVP system designed for major battles where marching in formation and working together gives massive benefits.None of these features have been seen before in any MMO I am aware of, and the third is sure to really distinguish this game from any existing MMO.
Darkfall had nice ideas like that too. They didn't need to ask for $1,000,000 from a kickstarter and the original Darkfall failed and shut down. Fingers crossed for Unholy Wars but, if everyone bought games off of the pre alpha proposed feature list, we'd all own a great deal of worthless games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ryric, that's a really useful list for this discussion. As I was first reading over it, I had the impression that everything on it was doable in PFO. Having read your questions, I see that I "interpreted" some of them.
... can it be possible to keep prisoners/captives?
Long-term? Probably not, although we've suggested exactly that. Short-term? Well, it will definitely be possible to "capture" a character or a group by defeating them and putting yourself in a position to either loot their husks or not. I fully expect that the victors will be able to negotiate with their captives.
... computer-controlled monsters - can you negotiate with them?
I suppose this falls in with "ally with evil humanoids/giants/undead/etc". I really don't know. However, I expect that the systems described in Live Through This might very well be applicable.
Can a bad guy do bad guy things that don't involve directly attacking other people (but good guys will still want to stop)?
Well, it depends on what you think falls in the scope of "directly attacking other people". Is an attack on their Harvesting Campsite a direct attack? There will definitely be attacks on Trade Caravans that disrupt the economic plans of those who weren't actually guarding the transport. And it will certainly be possible to make material contributions to "bad" organizations that help those organizations fight the "good guys" without you directly attacking them.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kidnap people for ransom
No
participate in the slave trade
Maybe; but slaves would likely be "common folk" - i.e. sims, not characters with avatars.
raise armies to attack peaceful areas
Absolutely.
try to summon/control more powerful entities
Unquestioned.
try to become undead/lyncanthropic
Long term almost certain, short term prioritized by Crowdforging.
rule an area with an iron fist
A core premise of the design.
ally with evil humanoids/giants/undead/etc
We are building this assumption into the game.
run a thieves' guild/network of bandits
This is much more of a meta-game activity than something that requires in-game mechanical support.
"Thieving" likely won't mean what it means in the tabletop game. We can't let you break into someone's house and steal their stuff, or randomly pick-pocket someone for value, or it will destroy the game.
Ambushing someone moving from place to place to ransom/steal their cargo? That's a big 10-4 good buddy.
trade in evil items/forbidden knowledge
Yup.
kill people for money
Constantly.
For example, can it be possible to keep prisoners/captives?
No. That's a non-starter.
I'm assuming that there will be computer-controlled monsters - can you negotiate with them?
Unlikely. Otherwise it will become a scripted and abused tactic.
Can a bad guy do bad guy things that don't involve directly attacking other people (but good guys will still want to stop)?
Yes absolutely. In fact we've had this idea for a long time that a LOT of what happens within one Settlement is against the ethos of and has consequences for other Settlements which creates natural conflict between them.
We want you to be pissed off at those guys on the other side of the mountain and be constantly trying to blow them up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kidnap people for ransomNo
participate in the slave tradeMaybe; but slaves would likely be "common folk" - i.e. sims, not characters with avatars.
raise armies to attack peaceful areasAbsolutely.
try to summon/control more powerful entitiesUnquestioned.
try to become undead/lyncanthropicLong term almost certain, short term prioritized by Crowdforging.
rule an area with an iron fistA core premise of the design.
ally with evil humanoids/giants/undead/etcWe are building this assumption into the game.
run a thieves' guild/network of banditsThis is much more of a meta-game activity than something that requires in-game mechanical support.
"Thieving" likely won't mean what it means in the tabletop game. We can't let you break into someone's house and steal their stuff, or randomly pick-pocket someone for value, or it will destroy the game.
Ambushing someone moving from place to place to ransom/steal their cargo? That's a big 10-4 good buddy.
trade in evil items/forbidden knowledgeYup.
kill people for moneyConstantly.
For example, can it be possible to keep prisoners/captives?No. That's a non-starter.
I'm assuming that there will be computer-controlled monsters - can you negotiate with them?Unlikely. Otherwise it will become a scripted and abused tactic.
Can a bad guy do bad guy things that don't involve directly attacking other people (but good guys will still want to stop)?Yes absolutely. In fact we've had this idea for a long time that a LOT of what happens within one Settlement is against the ethos of and has consequences for other Settlements which creates natural conflict between them.
We want you to be pissed off...
I got so excited reading this, I wet my pants.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can a bad guy do bad guy things that don't involve directly attacking other people (but good guys will still want to stop)?
Shadow-Haven is a community of bad guys who won't be doing a lot of overt nasty stuff to attract the attention of the good-aligned settlements. Thankfully there are some more overt evil groups forming up which can hopefully take some of the heat off of us.
- try to summon/control more powerful entities
- try to become undead/lyncanthropic
- ally with evil humanoids/giants/undead/etc
- trade in evil items/forbidden knowledge
- kill people for money
Pretty much everything mentioned above is on our agenda, and I'm sure more will crop up over time. As such I'm sure some settlement out there will eventually try and destroy us. Which will make for fun encounters.
Slave trade in the River Kingdoms is a death wish for the slavemasters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
ally with evil humanoids/giants/undead/etcWe are building this assumption into the game.
I'm assuming that there will be computer-controlled monsters - can you negotiate with them?Unlikely. Otherwise it will become a scripted and abused tactic.
Finally calmed down enough to give this a second read. What is the difference between these two options. How can we do the first but not the second?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Finally calmed down enough to give this a second read. What is the difference between these two options. How can we do the first but not the second?ally with evil humanoids/giants/undead/etcWe are building this assumption into the game.
I'm assuming that there will be computer-controlled monsters - can you negotiate with them?Unlikely. Otherwise it will become a scripted and abused tactic.
Ally with: feed the goblins, send them gold, kill their foes, and you won't be massacred by them.
Negotiate: memorize the right conversation options to get your goal.
One takes in game effort, the other just cheapens the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is the difference between these two options. How can we do the first but not the second?ally with evil humanoids/giants/undead/etc
I'm assuming that there will be computer-controlled monsters - can you negotiate with them?
I believe the difference revolves around the highlighted word.
In the first option, your Reputation score determines your relationship. In the second, your "negotiation" determines that.
I read Ryan's response as saying they probably wouldn't have scripted conversations where, if you chose the "right" responses, you would have successfully negotiated with them.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of system that allowed you to temporarily modify your Reputation with a group, either through spells or abilities (Bluff, Charm, etc.). I'm not sure if that qualifies as "negotiation" though.
(( I see Alexander_Damocles already said basically the same thing. ))
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Actually typing out that list and thinking about specifics helped me realize that a lot of that stuff could be done.
Some more thoughts/clarifications:
When I spoke of keeping prisoners, I was thinking of NPCs/sims, not other players. Being forced to effectively not play your character would be very unfun.
With regard to allying with monsters/talking to them, I wasn't thinking of "pick conversation option1, then 3, then 1 to make him your friend" but more along the lines of something like Fallout new vegas' reputation system, where NPC factions like or dislike you based on your previous choices and eventually otherwise hostile factions become friendly.
It would be nice that after doing enough favors for the Glorgh tribe of orcs that they would be friendly and might come to your aid if you're attacked in their area. Of course, doing those favors may make you wanted in civilized lands.
Anyway, I am reassured that there can be plotlines other than "I take your stuff/land."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Too bad kidnapping for ransom is a 'no'. That would be fun, like typical pirates. But I can see how that would be difficult to do and wouldn't be feasible for PCs.
Players could do this via RP. Otherwise if you were to acquire a prized possesion of another player you could ransom that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll throw my 2 cents in, here.
I ponied up for the first Kickstarter, but I'm waiting this time around. I was a little underwhelmed by the in game graphics from the demo, but hey, it's a tech demo, not a finished product. I get that.
My thing is, they had the first kickstarter to make something that they could pitch to investors. Mission accomplished! Great job, and it sounds like they did in fact gain some investors. I think it's a little unreasonable to continue to ask the fan community to continue to fund a project this large and expensive, and that is so far from completion, without some better rewards.
I guess I'm just waiting to see how this develops. With other kickstarters I've funded, there's been more instant gratification involved. There was nothing in this kickstarter that just made me say "HOLY CRAP zomg, gotta give my money NOW!" I don't know if it's even possible, but I'm kind of hoping they sweeten the deal.
I'm not saying I won't fund this, but I'm definitely in "wait and see" mode.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Kevin
What kind of rewards are you wanting?
Hmm. . . in game STUFF. Not necessarily extra gear, land, faster xp gain or anything of that nature, but flavor/fluff. I think it would be cool if there was an in-game story reward that had some kind of visibility for those that went in at certain levels of funding.
I understand the balancing act the devs have to play with making enticing rewards versus having a certain niche of players with an unfair advantage. It's difficult. That being said, Paizo and Goblinworks employ some of the most creative people in the gaming industry, so I don't think it's beyond them to come up with some rewards that emphasize the rich setting we'll be playing in. The Tech Demo kickstarter rewards seemed to revolve around this concept, but the rewards from this kickstarter are just a little. . . mechanical. It seems like someone took about 10 minutes to figure out what we'd get for contributing.
Maybe that's judging them a little harshly, but Paizo has set my expectations for Pathfinder related products pretty freaking high. That's a good thing!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Possibly one of the things that surprised me was the suddenness of the kickstarter. I think it's generally a good idea to broadcast the intention and build some positive lead into and awareness so an initial spike is ready with an outpouring of positive vibes on day 1. That is possibly one of the reasons for some ambivalent responses? For me it did not really give me time to access my financial situation which is personally controversial given I received Goblin Squad already, and the pledges are to be blunt "expensive" despite totally awesome sauce - and the time of year.
That is all adjustable, but for other people at a less enthused stage of interest, maybe less so and it's also more difficult for early backers to promote such a proposition if they already had a minor committee meeting on whether to back or wait and see. That all explained, I would never allow myself to feel "underwhelmed" over a good thing, if not for me, then it's for someone else to be happy about.
@kevin: I'm sure updates of that sort are planned, but they depend on momentum and success breeding more success I suspect, hence it's very early for such?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Possibly one of the things that surprised me was the suddenness of the kickstarter. I think it's generally a good idea to broadcast the intention and build some positive lead into and awareness so an initial spike is ready with an outpouring of positive vibes on day 1. That is possibly one of the reasons for some ambivalent responses? For me it did not really give me time to access my financial situation which is personally controversial given I received Goblin Squad already, and the pledges are to be blunt "expensive" despite totally awesome sauce - and the time of year.
Every major announcement/step forward is going to be full of negativity, and revive the same discussions. I'm guessing 98% of the Pathfinder RPG players will not like PFO. My experience so far tells me that a very small portion of the PnP community enjoys PvP. Everyone want's a pathfinder game, but this pathfinder game is not for everyone.
I wouldn't say the pledges are expensive, you can get the game for a little over 40% off the usual release price of a game, and an the crowdforger level is basically a collectors edition with the best value I have ever seen, usually you get some art, a soundtrack and an in-game item or two, GW is giving all of that plus 4 months of game time and early game access with guaranteed positions in line.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Too bad kidnapping for ransom is a 'no'. That would be fun, like typical pirates. But I can see how that would be difficult to do and wouldn't be feasible for PCs.
I believe you can sort of do this by killing them and then ransoming the right to loot there corpse back to them, otherwise you get a few items from there bag and the rest goes bye bye.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. I'm guessing 98% of the Pathfinder RPG players will not like PFO.
2. My experience so far tells me that a very small portion of the PnP community enjoys PvP.
3. Everyone want's a pathfinder game, but this pathfinder game is not for everyone.
I'd like to address each of these seperately.
1. I think 98% won't give it a chance because its not Pathfinder, but I think far more then 2% would like it if they tried
2. They don't like griefing, ganking and everything else that pvp has been in every other mmo they've tried, and sadly to say despite everyones best efforts and I do beleive the devs will do everything they can to stop abuses it WILL be part of this game.
3. Everyone wants Pathfinder the RPG PnP computer game and thats not what this is.
I'll be blunt, my biggest gripe is that this is called Pathfinder Online.
It is not Pathfinder. It is a game set in the pathfinder universe that had a demo using some of the iconic graphics from the PnP game.
The skill system is not pathfinder, the leveling method is not pathfinder, pvp is not pathfinder, the entire focus of the game is NOT pathfinder.
Thats not to say this won't be a great game, I wouldn't have pledged if I didn't think it would be, but it is NOT and never will be Pathfinder Online.
Honestly selling this to people through paizo & reaper is a mistake. The adds SHOULD be going to eve onlines customers
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. I'm guessing 98% of the Pathfinder RPG players will not like PFO.
2. My experience so far tells me that a very small portion of the PnP community enjoys PvP.
3. Everyone want's a pathfinder game, but this pathfinder game is not for everyone.
I'd like to address each of these seperately.
1. I think 98% won't give it a chance because its not Pathfinder, but I think far more then 2% would like it if they tried
2. They don't like griefing, ganking and everything else that pvp has been in every other mmo they've tried, and sadly to say despite everyones best efforts and I do beleive the devs will do everything they can to stop abuses it WILL be part of this game.
3. Everyone wants Pathfinder the RPG PnP computer game and thats not what this is.
I'll be blunt, my biggest gripe is that this is called Pathfinder Online.
It is not Pathfinder. It is a game set in the pathfinder universe that had a demo using some of the iconic graphics from the PnP game.
The skill system is not pathfinder, the leveling method is not pathfinder, pvp is not pathfinder, the entire focus of the game is NOT pathfinder.
Thats not to say this won't be a great game, I wouldn't have pledged if I didn't think it would be, but it is NOT and never will be Pathfinder Online.
Honestly selling this to people through paizo & reaper is a mistake. The adds SHOULD be going to eve onlines customers
Good points, Summersnow, I think if more people from a pnp background try PfO, given the design intent is mostly successful, there's more chance than might be supposed they will enjoy it (that's also a prediction). It's also a self-fulfilling-prediction: The more "social" the game is the more chance it'll be a conducive environment. I agree in some respects PfO could be marketed at EvE players, but atst, their culture as far as I am aware, brings some of it's own baggage which I think would be ok later in the game's development, but not as much initially, is a guess?
I disagree completely that it is not "Pathfinder Online". Warhammer Online was Warhammer: It may not have been either FRPG or TT-Wargame - but it was Warhammer-mmofied in one direction online; it was DAOC-ified + WoW which mostly translated in mmorpg terms into a Themepark with Realm v Realm PvP as it's trump card and it's serious nod to Warhammer of "oo's vs 00's" (Unfortunately Gamebryo engine could not match that marketing line). It was still Warhammer Online from the lore, the art, the classes, the mobs & setting and I really enjoyed seeing that for about 6 months. But as with many themeparks, the nagging feeling after the peak and crash of subs, that it's all going down hill with server merges and lots of general disappointed expectations (from wow, daoc, warhammer and other players) even if you enjoy the game that atmosphere is corrosive to your enjoyment imo. But what it failed to do was sustain a "war is everywhere" tagline: Class imbalances, 2-faction server population slide dynamics, Public Quest rewards which were less useful than RvR rewards and factions avoiding each other. It became too much game (eg levels, loot, zerg) and not enough simulation imo.
I think EvE and PfO approach have a better chance to realise an online translation much more based on the freedom of interaction between many many players (the real deal with online). I'd like to see devs control some mobs/monsters from time to time and coordinate more "brains behind pve" for the adventure aspect of a party of a few friends during an exploration of the world map. PfO can be an awesome game for pve inclined players, if that is the content for some and the context is the wars going on in background of pvp kingdoms that forges the world-building that interacts with players in a complex bunch of feedbacks. We'll have to see. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is this game "not Pathfinder"?
You can't do an MMO like you do a P&P, thats just like it.
Superficially, leveling up in PFO and in WoW seems to have more in common than skilling up in PFO - until you realise that in Pathfinder you have a plethora of choices to make (just like in PFO) and in WoW you have almost none!
The second big argument is always about PvP. It is caused by people who insist that everything played by the GM in Pathfinder must be an NPC mob in PFO - which I find stupid. Most of the NPCs in Pathfinder are way way too clever to be portrayed by a scripted boring NPC. My BBEG is not some boring repetitive NPC, my BBEG is player n who has archieved Lichdom somehow and commands a lot of other players who want to raze our settlement.
THAT is an NPC like in Pathfinder.
So no, PFO will likely be much more like Pathfinder than a level based themepark ever could!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kidnap people for ransomNo
For example, can it be possible to keep prisoners/captives?No. That's a non-starter.
What about NPCs? Could a bandit raid capture npcs from town and ransom them back? What about "event" style rescues of NPCs in lairs? So in that manor some evil necromancer NPC is holding someone from the local town hostage and there's bonus rewards for rescuing her (or she could die)... that sort of thing?
I'm assuming that there will be computer-controlled monsters - can you negotiate with them?Unlikely. Otherwise it will become a scripted and abused tactic.
What about as a factional system? It could work as protection rackets. The local village is trading with the local orc tribe to keep the orcs from attacking them. This individual is an outcast, and has gained the trust of a lizardman tribe and so he's essentially living with them for protection. Since these things can be DESTROYED I don't think it would really be abused too much. One group would leave them alone and be left alone, probably harming their reputation with their neighbours a bit (but not necessarily), other groups will then come in and destroy the npc faction.
Of course if that village then STOPS bribing the local orc settlement, the orcs might then take a special interest in trying to destroy them.I think it would have to be somethign that requires a fair bit of maintenence to remain in good standing with them.
It could also open interesting opportunities for those that ARE willing to work with the mob groups, perhaps if a settlement gets big they could hire some of them as npc escorts, as I'm assuming you can with town npcs.
Perhaps others, such as a necromancer cult in a tower, would accept you in exchange for powerful artifacts or the like. Kind of like just allowing mechanisms to create player run questing essentially.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is everyone so against risk? The fact that nothing you do in current MMO's matters is why many of us are attracted to PFO. Without a risk, the rewards are negligible. If I build a mighty city with walls/towers and what not, and then it never gets attacked and my settlement never has to put up a fight against bandits, then why have a town? I want to have a settlement. I want my settlement to be so popular that people are fast traveling to and from, so that bandits are then encouraged to set up hidey holes. I want to police around my town to root out those bandits to keep my lands profitable. I want my settlement to join the others that are of my alignment in a glorious alliance to crush those who made the mistake of dwelling on the other side of the damn river and pissing in my stream. How does this not sound fun? Most of the risk is negated by having sieges require siege equipment (assuming a high cost so aggressor risks something, or perhaps having to own a settlement to declare war, therefore opening yourself up to invasion) and on a personal level by having a few random items in your INVENTORY lootable rather then a full loot game.
An Online world focused on social interactions, not solo play, with tangible rewards and consequences. Love the concept.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I see is combination of WoW and EVE.
I see it more like, Mix equal parts WoW + EVE + Minecraft season with Pathfinder Adaptation then serve to the community. I throw Minecraft in there as it seems like players will be able to create and build where they like, I worry a little bit about players trying to build everywhere and eventually there being no wilderness left, that or there only being X number of "settlement sites" so you have to fight over having those spots. It will be an interesting balancing act to say the least. I also worry about building an Inn and then having it burned to the ground while on a camping trip or something.
|
Every major announcement/step forward is going to be full of negativity, and revive the same discussions. I'm guessing 98% of the Pathfinder RPG players will not like PFO. My experience so far tells me that a very small portion of the PnP community enjoys PvP. Everyone want's a pathfinder game, but this pathfinder game is not for everyone.
I gotta be honest if 98% of the Pathfinder RPG players can't get behind this then I don't see the game having much of a chance.
Let's look at facts, according to Kicktraq they're barely on track to make their million. That's with the spike from the big announcement yesterday regarding print products. I personal have my doubts if they'll make it, barring some new huge announcements outside of the book and flip-mats. (Though I tell ya I think they'd help themselves a bit by offering a pack with all that *and* the miniatures!) ;p
Now, while it's true they have funding to get the game made in the first place, I would wonder how feasible the project would be if you can't convince Paizo fans to get behind it en masse. Mind you, this is the same community who spends $400 on new boxes of miniatures every six months! We all know Paizo has a very strong and loyal fanbase, and if that fanbase can't get behind funding the kickstarter I, were I an an investor in the project, would have serious doubts about it. I've my suspicion that the kickstarter also serves to see if the demand for this game is as strong as GW suspects.
I'd love to see it work out, I was wishing more for something such as a NWN game, but Lisa said in another thread that's a no-go due to legal issues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, while it's true they have funding to get the game made in the first place, I would wonder how feasible the project would be if you can't convince Paizo fans to get behind it en masse. Mind you, this is the same community who spends $400 on new boxes of miniatures every six months! We all know Paizo has a very strong and loyal fanbase, and if that fanbase can't get behind funding the kickstarter I, were I an an investor in the project, would have serious doubts about it. I've my suspicion that the kickstarter also serves to see if the demand for this game is as strong as GW suspects.
To be fair, I think the design they are going for has the potential to draw a great deal of interest from outside the core Paizo fans, as well. It's a new MMO with a relatively unique design, it's not a "Pathfinder Online for Pathfinder players". I'm sure they want us all to play, but I also think that 'MMO players' is the target audience.
There should be a significant market for "games that aren't just like WoW", so I hope people will take notice of what GW are doing here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those interesting in learning more about the setting I encourage you to purchase the Inner Sea World Guide, and should probably bookmark the Pathfinder Wiki. Awesome setting!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would also recommend Pathfinder Chronicles: Guide to the River Kingdoms (PFRPG) . I bought it and have enjoyed learning more about the world in which PFO will be set.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is everyone so against risk?Because they want to be able to control every aspect of their experience. And apparently dying to a strong NPC is better than dying to a strong Player. I guess they hate it when people get any inkling of satisfaction out of their misfortune.
I think the bigger issue is that in PvE all players face the same risks. In PfOs system there is less risk for those that get all their loot off the backs of other players.
I'm not concerned. Paizo was wise enough not to take this on themselves, so if this game does tank, it can't take Pathfinder down with it.
As for the game itself -- seems pretty meh, but I'll give it a serious look when when/if it is released.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah fair enough I assumed most the early backers were already pathfinder faithful :). Lets hope the funding comes together I am curious what this game will look like, truth be told I was always sorta interested in sandbox
Nope--many of us, mus self included--had little or no familiarity with Pathfinder. We're looking for a game centered on meaningful social interaction. In my specific case, I'm looking for something like UO, except not designed to make pathological behavior the norm. Given that Ryan can articulate a plausible critique of the (lack of) design features in UO that caused that kind of anti-social behavior, I expect GW to be able to design something that works well.