So the community funds the project with two kickstarters and we still also have to pay to be in the beta?
Has any one at paizo or goblin works risked any of there money? I may end up eating that question, but it just seems like wth man, part of entrepreneurial endeavors is risk, and with the risk there is a chance for reward.
Its almost insulting to ask for more I think.
sorry if this post is late, I was just one catching up on the blog.
Well you don't "have" to contribute to the KS, nor do you "have" to pay for early access.
People choose to do both though. I paid to beta MO, was a mistake, but I did. I'll gladly pay for early access as there will be NO wipe between it and release.
You can just wait for release and the change to FtP, then play.
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the community funds the project with two kickstarters and we still also have to pay to be in the beta?
Has any one at paizo or goblin works risked any of there money? I may end up eating that question, but it just seems like wth man, part of entrepreneurial endeavors is risk, and with the risk there is a chance for reward.
Its almost insulting to ask for more I think.
sorry if this post is late, I was just one catching up on the blog.
Yep they have investors but are only budgeted for a few professionals. Whether the Kickstarter is successful or not the game will be produced. What this kickstarter will do is provide them enough funds to almost double the number of people working on it and ready for release sooner.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Triga, I initially felt very much the same way. There's actually a post somewhere lost in these forums about a little bit of a tirade I had about the whole thing, as I enjoy playing as a beta tester and have done so many times; I understand there's overhead and salaries and whatnot, but testers are literally helping build the game, so I seriously disliked the stance.
This link provides a lot of the insight that swung me. A quick and incomplete summary is that the game will not have all of the features planned, will have minimal bugs, and will mostly be used for creating the player-created content before the game can be considered ripe for release. This last part is particularly important since as a sandbox game, there won't be much else. It's definitely not for everyone - my roommate doesn't really care for world building stuff, so he doesn't intend to play at least until Open Enrollment and maybe not even then. Me, I'm the opposite - I love about 90% of the concepts set forth from GW so far, and the ones in that last 10% are simply ones I can't say I've heard enough on to decide.
CEO
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the community funds the project with two kickstarters and we still also have to pay to be in the beta?
Has any one at paizo or goblin works risked any of there money? I may end up eating that question, but it just seems like wth man, part of entrepreneurial endeavors is risk, and with the risk there is a chance for reward.
Its almost insulting to ask for more I think.
sorry if this post is late, I was just one catching up on the blog.
Yep. Quite a bit. And, yes, you are eating that question. I personally find it insulting that you would question my integrity like this. I have risked quite a bit to build Paizo and continue to do that with Goblinworks. Just read my blogs about building Paizo and then come back here and tell me I am not an entrepreneur. That I don't know about risk. Then I will accept your apology for what you said.
Lisa
|
CEO
|
I didn't even know there was a blog about building Paizo. Where can I find it?
You can find them under the Auntie Lisa's Story Hour tag here on paizo.com. For eleven straight months during our tenth anniversary last year I wrote about the struggles and triumphs and reasonings for what we have done every step along the way.
-Lisa
I didn't even know there was a blog about building Paizo. Where can I find it?You can find them under the Auntie Lisa's Story Hour tag here on paizo.com. For eleven straight months during our tenth anniversary last year I wrote about the struggles and triumphs and reasonings for what we have done every step along the way.
-Lisa
Lisa, thanks for the link! Reading about Paizo now. Wish I lived in Wa, working at Paizo sounds like a lot more fun then running a warehouse for a mop factory! (Something I've actually done) :p
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't even know there was a blog about building Paizo. Where can I find it?You can find them under the Auntie Lisa's Story Hour tag here on paizo.com. For eleven straight months during our tenth anniversary last year I wrote about the struggles and triumphs and reasonings for what we have done every step along the way.
-Lisa
Really interesting reading. Thank you for the link :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't even know there was a blog about building Paizo. Where can I find it?You can find them under the Auntie Lisa's Story Hour tag here on paizo.com. For eleven straight months during our tenth anniversary last year I wrote about the struggles and triumphs and reasonings for what we have done every step along the way.
-Lisa
thanks for the link
a pretty good advertisement for the Crowdforger Tabletop Experience tierI have one week left to win the lottery ;-)
From a player of online games, this quote from the latest blog entry was the most comforting..
We had hoped to release it in the later part of 2012, but it wasn't ready, and I don't like to release products before they are ready, even if that makes them late.
From being a beta tester, you watch game after game make this mistake over and over again. It would be so nice if that doesn't happen with PFO :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OpinionOrSatire, if you just do NOT want to PvP and refuse to partake in any activity that even might lead to it, it will be possible, but a large portion of the game will be inaccessible. You'll end up sitting in the NPC settlements where new players start and never leaving. There's not a terrible amount of information on what will be available in these settlements, but you can assume that you won't progress very far in anything without being able to get mid and high level training, and you might not see your friends that much, unless they come visit you.
There will be plenty of options to minimize the risk but not entirely eliminate it. If you join the game once there are player settlements, you can find one that doesn't allow it and nest there as a non-adventurer. There is the chance (and possibly inevitability) that the settlement might be attacked by opposing player factions, but aside from that, you should be much, much safer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The few other games I trialed or investigated in the past that *claimed* to have a place for anti-PvP players really didn't. By that I mean that if you wanted to truly partake of the game, you *HAD* to invest significant time in PvP. They all had one or more features that severely limited the functionality of the game if you completely avoided PvP. Varying from game to game, you either couldn't complete key quests, reach higher levels of power/achievement, access key resources/items, join guilds, own property, or whatever esoterica that made game X a different or unique experience. In some cases, areas that were non-PvP could only be accessed by passing through a PvP area. In other words, for those that refuse to engage in these hostilities those areas were completely inaccessible.
- Quests aren't the focus of the game. In fact, you could be a quest-giver!
- If you wish to be a crafter, you can probably reach the peak of your craft without much risk.
- If you hire someone to collect the goods, you can get any resources you want.
- Guilds can be whatever you want. You'll likely be able to find one that is not for PvP easily.
If you want to go outside town, you'll have the risk of PvP. Some areas (Lands owned by The Empyrean Order or their Allies) will be pretty safe, but others will not. I'd give it a try. Seek out the Empyrean Order if you have trouble and we'll help you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@OpinionOrSatire
I'm with you man. However, the penalties for frequently ganking people are so severe I'm not as concerned as I normally would be.
When I hear "open pvp" I assume I'm going to get ganked everytime I leave town but in PfO it sounds like it might happen a few times a week as opposed to a few times an hour like other games.
The few other games I trialed or investigated in the past that *claimed* to have a place for anti-PvP players really didn't. By that I mean that if you wanted to truly partake of the game, you *HAD* to invest significant time in PvP. They all had one or more features that severely limited the functionality of the game if you completely avoided PvP. Varying from game to game, you either couldn't complete key quests, reach higher levels of power/achievement, access key resources/items, join guilds, own property, or whatever esoterica that made game X a different or unique experience. In some cases, areas that were non-PvP could only be accessed by passing through a PvP area. In other words, for those that refuse to engage in these hostilities those areas were completely inaccessible.
- Quests aren't the focus of the game. In fact, you could be a quest-giver!
- If you wish to be a crafter, you can probably reach the peak of your craft without much risk.
- If you hire someone to collect the goods, you can get any resources you want.
- Guilds can be whatever you want. You'll likely be able to find one that is not for PvP easily.
If you want to go outside town, you'll have the risk of PvP. Some areas (Lands owned by The Empyrean Order or their Allies) will be pretty safe, but others will not. I'd give it a try. Seek out the Empyrean Order if you have trouble and we'll help you.
Well said Drakhan.
I'm not a big PvP'er. But I started my online game experience in games that had pretty open PvP. I was able to avoid it most of the time. PFO will have lots to offer non PvP players. Every settlement will need crafters to turn raw materials into components, and crafters to take those,components and create items and commodities from them. I believe players can even open shops to buy and sell items. Join a good guild and you can even venture out into patrolled areas to enjoy PvE with a guild group, these areas should be fairly close to the settlements at first. But as a settlement grows, the "safe" areas should grow. The plans for mob escellations look very interesting and fun.
I think so many people are opposed to PvP because of other games. But PFO plans to change the chaotic ganker type PvP into something that'll have meaning. I urge you to read through the blogs, check out the videos that cover what they are planning. And give crowdforging a chance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you want to entirely avoid PvP, then I suggest crafting might be for you. You'll want to get to a player settlement, and then stay there while running your business. You would be setting contracts, meeting production orders, and investing in opportunities for growth. The Empyrean Order would love to have you aboard, crafter or otherwise. Check the Order out, see if we sound like your kind of people, and at least take the game for a spin. Hope to see you in the River Kingdoms!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The more I read, the more I read about PvP being a major focus of PFO.
...
It doesn't sound to me as if you have been reading for content so much as you have been reading for affirmation of your expectations.
PvP isn't a major focus of most of the game, but is the focus of the of the PvP part of it. The difference between relatively safe areas and the rest of the environment is that safe areas are to be heavily guarded.
If your participation depends on avoiding all possibility of PvP, then you will probably not prefer to play here. However, if you decide that an element of risk is acceptible where caution, preparation, and community are important counters to that risk then you might want to defer judgement until there is something to base that judgement upon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There will be AI driven PvE but that will still be within an environment where there is potential for players to attack other players. If you are in a group or near other players it should be reasonably safe because you can defend yourself and those you are with can also defend you.
Placing artificial restrictions on player interaction is antithetical to roleplay, but there will be disincentives for players murdering other players. Murderers and other criminals are barred from Lawful Good settlements. If you took up the role of a Lwful Good character you could work to exert lawful and good influence on the world outside the walls. You could be a force for justice and light. Were you unable to defend yourself and others then the evil would just mock you as powerless and rightly consider your philosophy empty and impotent.
Or you could stand up for what you believe and bring law to chaos and enlightenment to the ignorant.
It is rightly your call, but you should be well informed to make that call.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So far, I obviously find the more negative responses discouraging. Unfortunately, the more positive responses, given the circumstances of my planned membership, the devil in the details of the positive responses and my hopes/expectations of what a fun game should/could/would be, are also discouraging.
This has been discussed extensively already, and suffice it to say you're not alone. Some people have taken this as a deal-breaker and have backed out, and some of us are taking a 'let's wait and see how bad it will be' stance.
PFO have a good vision for "meaningful PvP" and while I don't have a huge amount of faith in the success of that vision (mostly because no one else has ever managed it) I'm still willing to give GW the benefit of the doubt and wait to see how it'll all turn out. If they do manage to pull it off, it'd be pretty awesome.
Who knows, the rest of the game could turn out to be fantastic. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm really not trying to be negative, but in all honesty if you are opposed to the possibility of any PvP play, then PfO will likely disappoint you.
I'm not a huge fan of PvP and generally much prefer cooperative play. I'm looking forward to PfO because the primary vision driving the game is that PvP should be meaningful. In other words, it should add to the narrative of the story we are playing out instead of being for the enjoyment of (only) one of the parties involved.
As an example: in my role as a member of the Green Cloaks in The Empyrean Order, suppose I am scouting a hex looking for a potential Iron Wood grove. I would think it was great if in the course of that activity I was attacked by a group of PC 'druids' who have dedicated themselves to protecting the land and wanted the location of their sacred grove kept secret. That is 'meaningful' PvP. We are both part of a larger story and are acting out our roles as players in that story.
If, on the other hand, I was a relative newbie traveling from The Seraph's Kiss to Fort Riverwatch and was attacked by 'bandits' for the lulz, then GW has failed to provide the environment in which PvP is meaningful. I don't think they'll let that happen, and there are a couple of groups forming who are quite serious about helping to keep PfO fun to play.
The penalty for killing someone 'illegally' is very high. Not only will there be an alignment shift, but victim has the right to put a bounty on the murder's head that allows selected people/groups to kill them on-sight without penalty. That bounty is then renewable in perpetuity. So if someone murders you (kills you in a place with legal protections), place a small bounty on their head and allow it to be taken by The Empyrean Order. It would be our honor to keep them out of civilized lands.
But if any PvP is anathema to you, then I'd suggest you won't find PfO a lot a fun. That's too bad, because we would have loved to get to know you and made you a part of our community! I think there will be a place for people who don't like PvP, but are willing to accept the possibility of occasional player-caused death in order to enjoy the more dynamic environment created by larger faction-level strife.
Either way, you might want to hold onto that Guild Forger pledge. I'll bet dollars to donuts that you could keep all the goodies related to Pathfinder (all the pdfs, minis, etc.) and sell the game with early access once the game is close to release for what you paid...if not more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-snip-
You've talked very politely and reasonably what you wish to see. Therefore I'm going to answer your question talking about what I wish to see: Players like you finding a niche that you enjoy in PfO.
But bear in mind it's not going to be predetermined; the idea that freedom is given to players in mmorpgs as the actors in the story is to allow all actors to find/choose the roles they wish to enjoy the most. If the tools and systems are in place then it's up to the players to make it happen and overcome the challenges to realise THEIR vision - which may not be the same as another's vision. ;)
The devs have said both these things quote-unquote:
1. If you wish to avoid or at least reduce the risk of pvp maximimally you can profitably do so crafting safely in town.
2. But equally the way mmorpgs have developed is that your avatar will expect to die. And if you cannot tolerate even a minimum risk of your avatar being bumped off by another player's avatar as opposed to a mob/AI NPC, then the game simply cannot accommodate such extreme preference.
One thing I notice about many themepark mmorpgs is the PR spiel to appease every player and reassure every player is said to be catered to (except breaking the toc/eula). I think this is a mistake of setting up unrealistic expectations. The devs have said if you wish to only experience PvE content there are many themepark mmorpgs that already do this. PfO is aiming as above to provide players with freedom to create their own goals in game. If pvp is a challenge for you to realise being a pacifist or other role related to peace or crafting (creating not destroying?): Why not accept that that challenge has potential meaning?
Yes, I consider many of these players/PCs mass murderers. The original intent of PvP was the excuse/argument that AI monsters weren't challenging enough. AI has advanced tremendously in the 1 to 2 DECADES since these games first appeared. The reason is far less valid now than it was then. Further, if the targets aren't remotely interested in the contest, possibly to the extent that they don't even defend themselves, where's the sport or challenge in that? All that remains is the taking of pleasure from causing pain to others and spreading chaos and misery. Hence, mass murderers.
To me, the whole point of AI monsters is to provide sufficient targets/opposition/challenge that people don't have to attack one another. It should never be necessary to attack other players.
I don't understand why MMOs have to embrace tribalism to the extent that there is no alternative to open hostility, except for the less than 1% of the population I personally know. Why do people call MMOs social gaming when they are seemingly designed to focus on antisocial behaviour?
I guess I'll wait a while to see if I can get a more official answer and/or explanation, but at the moment I am losing faith and rapidly.
I play mmorpgs and AI is insufficient imo. The reason it's popular is because it's controlled content -> Expected outcomes usually defined as good because devs can design the correct challenge/activity for players, and unexpected outcomes are usually negative in terms of the game being balanced challenge: Players want control in games. The reason PvE works is because the challenge can be controlled to fit different ranges of player skill/experience levels - eg the beginners in the starter levels and the 1337 in the raids at end-game: But even there there is still drop-off of players who a) find it too hard and b) find it too easy even at end-game.
PvP in themepark mmorpgs is often split into pve content and pvp content (eg arenas for gameplay skill-challenge) and zones (for mass pvp so context can be involved eg rallying numbers, attacking strategic locations in an army eg castles and siege etc).
Pve Content is expensive and players say Quote Ryan Dancey: "Screw it, tell me where the rats are and I will kill them!" content that is too finite for a lot of players (for mmorpgs).
This is where pvp systems such as the above arenas or zones excel as being open-ended systems for players to interact (fight each other).
So why does PfO integrate pvp+pve? It adds complexity and conflict that leads to a range of goals for players which in turn drives the economy and provides more roles for other players: More roles which are meaningful to all roles. The more types of different roles that actually materialise, the more social players can be because the higher the range of interactions possible with different motivations and communication required eg create a functioning & running infrastructures that interact in the game and between different groups of players.
Another way to look at the system possibly: PvE acts as a resource faucet and PvP acts as a major resource sink as well as being more complex interaction between players than between players and the computer, which is what mmorpgs are all about afterall?
====
To sum: Use the info available to derive your own conclusions, but I hope to see players with different motivations and visions in game.
TL;DR (obligatory for wot!): PaizoCon Pathfinder Online Presentation - by Ryan Dancey
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TL;DR (obligatory for wot!): PaizoCon Pathfinder Online Presentation - by Ryan Dancey
Speaking of that, I strongly disagree that the themepark vs. sandbox split is the same as the PvE vs. PvP split.
A themepark is about following a linear game progression to the end of the game. It has nothing to do with whether you're killing PC or NPC goblins.
A sandbox game is about freedom of choice and no clear 'game end'. No matter whether you're being murdered by PC or NPC goblins while you go about your business.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've seen a fair amount of "PVP? NO WAY!" outlook coming into this.
I look at it like this: If you have friends that view "planking" as fun. And anytime you're invited out to have some "fun" .. pretty soon you're going to be wary of the term. It will take someone else doing something completely different to help you redefine "fun".
Same with PvP. We've generally been conditioned to view PvP as the meaningless assault and killing of whoever in theme park games. There's no point to it (except that it's fun for the attacker, and some of the defenders who enjoy that kind of thing .. and the occasional who gets a raid target first), but it's there, constantly telling us that this is what PvP is. UO itself actually provided a fair degree of context from what I've seen as to the actions between players. It was a gankfest, but for those in the right position, it definitely had the context necessary to provide meaning. We also have games like attempted spiritual successors to UO where the point of the game is essentially PvP. Systems are designed around PvP to provide the meaning to the conflict, as the conflict itself is still without meaning other than.. they're on the other side.
There are no sides in PFO or perhaps I should say, there are always all sides, you can freely change who you associate with. It is not designed around PvP as an end to the means, and it will still embody some of the more desirable traits of a theme park style MMO. If there will always be players who seek to actively engage in PvP, well you can hire some of them to keep it off of your back as much as possible. You're not as likely to be attacked (particularly as LG) at random due to the consequences of going Criminal (nevermind the bounties and all that). For the most part it sounds like the realm is shaping up to generally be more of a TN to LG outlook. That directly impacts the atmosphere these Evil players would be facing just for stepping out of their home hex. You have a chance to directly influence the way this realm is shaped.
So ask yourself, are you content with the run of the mill, no possible player interference, style of gameplay that other games offer. If you are, why are you not still playing those? If you are, are you here solely because of the PF name? Is that enough of a reason for you to look at trying something new? Is it possible that in the vacuum that is created when allowing players the choice of actions they have never experienced, that you can carve out a niche for yourself to play not just how you want, but more how you want than if you were deprived these choices? Lastly, are you willing to give up that choice just to take choice away from other players?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TL;DR (obligatory for wot!): PaizoCon Pathfinder Online Presentation - by Ryan DanceySpeaking of that, I strongly disagree that the themepark vs. sandbox split is the same as the PvE vs. PvP split.
That is not what I understand from the presentation or my own conception of sandbox or themepark at all. I think you're narrowing down what is being said to mean "only" that, possibly?
PvE and PvP are primarly 2 different ways of catagorising player combat vs player combat; and player combat vs computer "combat". The fact is Themeparks invariably hinge on players killing mobs, which I think Ryan says in the presentation, is generally true?
PvP could be expanded in definiton to mean player vs player in resource capture, land capture or other forms of conflict and dispute other than combat I think is often worth mentioning: As said a FFA-pvp game with an open-world may not be very "high" in sandbox", but invariably a sandbox is open-world et al.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So ask yourself, are you content with the run of the mill, no possible player interference, style of gameplay that other games offer. If you are, why are you not still playing those?
Because NCSoft murdered it. :(
Also because I'm capable of enjoying more than one game at a time (crazy, I know). And also because I like the idea of sandbox games. But mostly because I think GW have a fantastic vision, and while I have my doubts about the feasibility of it, I want to give them all the tools they need to try to realize it.
If a game is designed so that you die every time you meet a goblin, unless you bring a full team, then it's just not a very good game. Themepark or sandbox.
I don't really care if the goblin is a PC or an NPC.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Here is the HUGE thing to consider. If you remove PvP from a sandbox game that has minimal PvE content what are you going to do in the game aside from craft?
PvP creates the risk/reward atmosphere that will make the game interesting and meaningful and I truelly believe Goblinworks intends to minimize and possibly eliminate the ganking situation.
You have to think PvP is more than people running around ganking people, PvP also includes warfare, territory control between kingdoms, bounty hunting, etc, etc.
I'm n ot a huge PvPer but when I played theme-park MMOs I always went on a the PvP servers because the risk of player interaction made the reward of succeeding that much more interesting. Of course, with theme-park after you get max level you aren't doing quests and content so all you are facing are scripted bots with little to no randomness and then it always lost the appeal because there was no longer any risk in what I was doing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So ask yourself, are you content with the run of the mill, no possible player interference, style of gameplay that other games offer. If you are, why are you not still playing those?Because NCSoft murdered it. :(
Also because I'm capable of enjoying more than one game at a time (crazy, I know). And also because I like the idea of sandbox games. But mostly because I think GW have a fantastic vision, and while I have my doubts about the feasibility of it, I want to give them all the tools they need to try to realize it.
If a game is designed so that you die every time you meet a goblin, unless you bring a full team, then it's just not a very good game. Themepark or sandbox.
I don't really care if the goblin is a PC or an NPC.
The worst are those chief boars that look identical to the low level boars that "you" used to slaughter with a stroke of your vorpal sword and suddenly they are unstoppable monsters! ;)
That said, I'd like to see mobs in PfO actually act in groups for their own safety and ability to bring down larger prey (PC's) than they'd normally be able to take on (eg forest rabbits...). And ideally other groups migrate and attack when joined with other groups - not dotted out in bread-crumb fashion ready for heroes to hue down every 50m... .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is not what I understand from the presentation or my own conception of sandbox or themepark at all. I think you're narrowing down what is being said to mean "only" that, possibly?
It's the first thing that's being said, when explaining the difference between sandbox and themepark. And it's the part of the presentation I disagreed with. The rest was perfectly reasonable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is the HUGE thing to consider. If you remove PvP from a sandbox game that has minimal PvE content what are you going to do in the game aside from craft?
This is a really old discussion, and it essentially boils down to: No one is advocating removing PvP.
But are you really saying that the majority of content in a sandbox game is running around the wilderness ganking people who don't want to fight you? Because that's content I could do without. I might be incredible naive, but I'd assume that PvP is most fun when you're fighting people who enjoy fighting back.
You could have all the "meaningful player interaction" (which is, to date, the dumbest term for PvP :p) you could want, even if PvP was restricted to faction conflicts, bounty hunting, trading, etc.
Also, no one is demanding that GW should change their design philosophy at this point. Some of us just disagree that you couldn't design a sandbox game without forced PvP. The alternative to forcing PvP on people, would be to design a system that's so good that people would want to take part of it on their own.
Disclaimer: When I say 'no one' want these things, I'm obviously lying. I'm sure someone, somewhere, would like GW to change their design philosophy at this point. What I'm really saying is that I'm not doing either of those things, and neither are most of the posters in previous discussions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is not what I understand from the presentation or my own conception of sandbox or themepark at all. I think you're narrowing down what is being said to mean "only" that, possibly?It's the first thing that's being said, when explaining the difference between sandbox and themepark. And it's the part of the presentation I disagreed with. The rest was perfectly reasonable.
Ah found it. Yeah it's not strictly true, maybe shorthand for highlighting the big difference in the big themeparks would be a good way of putting it. IE most people think of quests -> kill mob -> reward which is PvE, which is often biggest part of themepark mmorpgs.
I think these diagrams are very simple but useful way of representing mmorpgs MMORPG games in Venn diagrams
Edit: Just above comment conversation: Yes another way to look at it: There are pragmatic reasons why PvP is integrated into PfO. As my large wot explains PvP tacked onto themeparks often allows replayability or breaks from PvE that players enjoy the variable scenarios that emerge - hence it's standard to develop Themeparks with PvP as an option in some form.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think these diagrams are very simple but useful way of representing mmorpgs MMORPG games in Venn diagrams
There's PvE in EVE? o.O Much must have changed since I last played!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
there are some missions you can do. The game doesnt focus on that, but its there for folks who want to do it.
Meaningful player interaction is not only pvp. Its distributing resources so that either 1) you have to travel all over the place to gather, or you trade with others to get resources not near you. Its putting in a system that encourages people to interact together, for example making sure crafters are relevant and always have work.
Its making sure that players force the action in the game, in this case, building settlements and player nations. So instead of NPC nation and NPC town. Its Therebegold guild's settlement which is part of a PC nation made up with four other settlements.
Its about people who want to craft, being able to be master crafters and having a demand for what they do. Its about those gatherers who want to explore and gather resources having a market, its about that player who doesnt care about crafting, doesnt care about gathering, but wants to be political. Hey if he is good he can start a company and eventually be the king of a player nation. Hmmm you know what, i want to be in politics but i dont want to be a leader....what can i do? I know ill be a diplomat for that politician and i helped build this nation. I set up trade agreements with that other nation. I ended the war by convincing another player nation to join our side and help us fight off the invaders.
... Loosing faith...
I fear your looking at this from the perspective of Wow with Full PvP, and that's just not what Goblinworks is wanting to create. To prevent that they are introducing many safeguards that together will eliminate what you fear, that hordes of gankers will be lined up outside of town with the sole intent of killing You.
In PFO, as in Eve there will be areas with laws and there will be lawless areas. It will be easy to know if your entering a lawless area. In areas with laws there will be NPC guards that will come to the aid of someone who's being attacked. I returned to Eve a few months ago and in all that time I've never been attacked by another player. Why? Because I don't have to venture into lawless areas to play the game and gankers lose if they attack players in areas with laws against that sort of thing.
Another mechanism they created is the narrowed level gap. In Wow a 10th level player can slay a 5th level player at will because they are so much more powerful. That will not happen in PFO. So a ganker cannot run in and kill you quickly then run away. This, among many other mechanisms will go a long way to preventing what you fear.
If your a crafter you won't be standing around for days waiting for someone to sell you material. Again this isn't Wow. In PFO crafters will be needed and loved because the items they produce will be needed. They have said that the best gear will be player made, not found in dungeons. And NPCs won't have better or cheaper gear then the crafters can produce. If I'm understanding it correctly the settlements will have a say in what the vendors buy and sell. They are seeking to Create a vibrant economy that relies on the goods and materials that players gather and craft, not the static auction economy you see in other games.
Despite all I, and others have said PFO might not be the game for you. But would it hurt to wait and see? If they are able to make the game they have outlined, there will be a place for players like you.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
But are you really saying that the majority of content in a sandbox game is running around the wilderness ganking people who don't want to fight you? Because that's content I could do without. I might be incredible naive, but I'd assume that PvP is most fun when you're fighting people who enjoy fighting back.
That's why I said PvP isn't just ganking it is also warfare, territory control, bounties, etc and that GW seems to want to reduce or eliminate ganking :)
My question is aside from crafting, *if* there wasn't PvP (ie wars, territory control, bounties, ambushes, etc) what content do you think there is going to be, when they've specifically noted there will be minimal PvE? This is an honest question, because there might be something there, but I'm just not seeing it.
Of course, there is the escalation monster events that will be PvE content, but there won't be quests or anything like that. They have also mentioned *modules* in the far, far future that will be PvE type content, but that is a ways out.
The whole point I think is that they want meaningful player interaction without it being farmville. If there isn't PvP, yes you can have meaningful player interaction (around crafting and economy) but you lose out on things like territory control, bounty hunting and a lot of other player driven story and content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My question is aside from crafting, *if* there wasn't PvP (ie wars, territory control, bounties, ambushes, etc) what content do you think there is going to be, when they've specifically noted there will be minimal PvE? This is an honest question, because there might be something there, but I'm just not seeing it.
Meanwhile, my honest question is, why should "oh, look, I got 'meaningful player interacted' on my way to the neighbouring city" be content? At best it's really bad content. IF I want to fight you, or wage a war with you, I will. If I'm not interested in fighting you, why do I have to sit at my computer and watch you tea bag me for however long it takes to respawn? Sure, I can go make a sandwich while you kill me, but it's not enhancing my game experience in any way.
Even if perfectly legal, I guess I just don't see the fascination with killing people who are not interested in fighting you.
But are you really saying that the majority of content in a sandbox game is running around the wilderness ganking people who don't want to fight you? Because that's content I could do without. I might be incredible naive, but I'd assume that PvP is most fun when you're fighting people who enjoy fighting back.That's why I said PvP isn't just ganking it is also warfare, territory control, bounties, etc and that GW seems to want to reduce or eliminate ganking :)
My question is aside from crafting, *if* there wasn't PvP (ie wars, territory control, bounties, ambushes, etc) what content do you think there is going to be, when they've specifically noted there will be minimal PvE? This is an honest question, because there might be something there, but I'm just not seeing it.
Of course, there is the escalation monster events that will be PvE content, but there won't be quests or anything like that. They have also mentioned *modules* in the far, far future that will be PvE type content, but that is a ways out.
The whole point I think is that they want meaningful player interaction without it being farmville. If there isn't PvP, yes you can have meaningful player interaction (around crafting and economy) but you lose out on things like territory control, bounty hunting and a lot of other player driven story and content.
While there won't be quests like NPCs with ! over their heads, there will be plenty of quests in the form of player to player contracts. Crafters needing X material, people wanting this or that mob band taken out so they can go in to harvest, or construct a building. Even players needing guards and scouts to help them transport goods to other areas, or from gathering nodes back to a settlement. I think there will be plenty to occupy players who don't want to PvP.
With that being said, I personally am looking forward to what GW plans for PvP are like. I think it'll be interesting to see what a non griefer PvP environment looks like.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Meanwhile, my honest question is, why should "oh, look, I got 'meaningful player interacted' on my way to the neighbouring city" be content? At best it's really bad content. IF I want to fight you, or wage a war with you, I will. If I'm not interested in fighting you, why do I have to sit at my computer and watch you tea bag me for however long it takes to respawn? Sure, I can go make a sandwich while you kill me, but it's not enhancing my game experience in any way.Even if perfectly legal, I guess I just don't see the fascination with killing people who are not interested in fighting you.
To answer your question, you don't have to deal with that content directly. You can fast-travel (with a chance of an ambush, but even then you can simply run away rather then fight). If you are actually walking between zones, bring friends, use stealth, hire a guard etc (all meaningful interactions) to avoid PvP. Just because their is a risk of PvP doesn't mean it has to or will occur every single time you leave a settlement.
Especially with a number of the guilds that are forming that specifically seem intent on routing out ambush spots and making safe trade roads etc.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
While there won't be quests like NPCs with ! over their heads, there will be plenty of quests in the form of player to player contracts. Crafters needing X material, people wanting this or that mob band taken out so they can go in to harvest, or construct a building. Even players needing guards and scouts to help them transport goods to other areas, or from gathering nodes back to a settlement. I think there will be plenty to occupy players who don't want to PvP.With that being said, I personally am looking forward to what GW plans for PvP are like. I think it'll be interesting to see what a non griefer PvP environment...
Yeah I completely agree there will be player generated quests but what is going to drive players to request other people to do things rather than do it themselves. (Also just to note, all the stuff you mentioned still revolves around crafting :D )
1) Time - Maybe they don't have the time to do it themselves and would rather focus on what they are doing.
2) Risk - They don't want to take on the risk because they are either risk adverse or their not built to handle the risk
In the second case, PvP is a large part of that risk, so again PvP is driving meaningful player interaction by having crafters make work for adventurers who can handle the risk of PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just because their is a risk of PvP doesn't mean it has to or will occur every single time you leave a settlement.
Of course not, and that's why I'm taking a "wait and see" stance. Every game I've ever played (slight exaggeration) has failed at this, so I'm not expecting the PFO miracle to happen, but I'm willing to put real money on the line on the off chance that it does.
Either way, I'm still not accepting the argument that you couldn't design a good sandbox game without non-consensual PvP, if that was your design goal.
While there won't be quests like NPCs with ! over their heads, there will be plenty of quests in the form of player to player contracts. Crafters needing X material, people wanting this or that mob band taken out so they can go in to harvest, or construct a building. Even players needing guards and scouts to help them transport goods to other areas, or from gathering nodes back to a settlement. I think there will be plenty to occupy players who don't want to PvP.With that being said, I personally am looking forward to what GW plans for PvP are like. I think it'll be interesting to see what a non griefer PvP environment...
Yeah I completely agree there will be player generated quests but what is going to drive players to request other people to do things rather than do it themselves. (Also just to note, all the stuff you mentioned still revolves around crafting :D )
1) Time - Maybe they don't have the time to do it themselves and would rather focus on what they are doing.
2) Risk - They don't want to take on the risk because they are either risk adverse or their not built to handle the riskIn the second case, PvP is a large part of that risk, so again PvP is driving meaningful player interaction by having crafters make work for adventurers who can handle the risk of PvP.
All true <grin>. I see crafting as a linchpin to the whole economy. Even if your not a crafter and not a PvPer, I think there will be many opportunities for you to have fun and enjoy the game without much chance of getting ganked. I base that on early games I've played, as well as games like Eve which has a contract system similar to what they want to do with PFO (PFOs system sounds a lot better, more complex then Eve's system)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2) Risk - They don't want to take on the risk because they are either risk adverse or their not built to handle the risk
In the second case, PvP is a large part of that risk, so again PvP is driving meaningful player interaction by having crafters make work for adventurers who can handle the risk of PvP.
PvP isn't a risk to me. It's a temporary setback. An inconvenience. It's like walking along, and suddenly the server randomly selects you for a 30 minute timeout. It's not a risk, it's a random force of nature that slows you down for a bit, and momentarily keeps you from having a good time with whatever it was you were doing.
You can't force me to PvP, even in a non-consensual PvP situation. The only thing you can do is make everything take slightly longer, and be a bit more bothersome, than it otherwise would. How that is good content is still beyond me. It's very much like that EQ feature Ryan was talking about where you had to sit for 10 minutes after every fight to recover. It's a meaningless inconvenience. But if the rest of the game is good, I can accept any number of meaningless inconveniences.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Either way, I'm still not accepting the argument that you couldn't design a good sandbox game without non-consensual PvP, if that was your design goal.
I completely agree if your design goal was to not have PvP you could build a sandbox around it, however I don't see there being a lot of content past it being a hyper advanced farmville (IE you build houses and settlements and craft stuff for people) as soon as you start adding in all the combat aspects of quests and dungeons with no player created conflict it starts turning into a theme-park instead of a sandbox, or at best a hybrid.
Of course I could be missing something, but from my POV to have a MMO sandbox you need player driven conflict.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Either way, I'm still not accepting the argument that you couldn't design a good sandbox game without non-consensual PvP, if that was your design goal.I completely agree if your design goal was to not have PvP you could build a sandbox around it, however I don't see there being a lot of content past it being a hyper advanced farmville (IE you build houses and settlements and craft stuff for people) as soon as you start adding in all the combat aspects of quests and dungeons with no player created conflict it starts turning into a theme-park instead of a sandbox, or at best a hybrid.
Of course I could be missing something, but from my POV to have a MMO sandbox you need player driven conflict.
I think it should also be added that the issue is not whether you could create a sandbox sans PvP, sure, you can. More to the point, is creating a sandbox with the particular type of dynamic that a PvP element can bring - the unique sense of danger, and added meaningful weight to decisions, stronger community ties, etc. You can create a sandbox sans-PvP, but you cannot create a sandbox sans-PvP that incorporates the unique qualities that PvP can bring to the table.
Perhaps someone in the future can do it, but regardless that is not GW's vision for PFO. Here's hoping they stick to the design vision they have provided!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I completely agree if your design goal was to not have PvP you could build a sandbox around it, however I don't see there being a lot of content past it being a hyper advanced farmville (IE you build houses and settlements and craft stuff for people) as soon as you start adding in all the combat aspects of quests and dungeons with no player created conflict it starts turning into a theme-park instead of a sandbox, or at best a hybrid.
Of course I could be missing something, but from my POV to have a MMO sandbox you need player driven conflict.
Again, the only difference in content between that game and the non-consensual PvP game, is the random meaningless ganking in the wilderness. Is that "content" really so significant? You can still have your conflict. Your warfare. Your armoured patrols. The only thing you can't do, is murder me when I don't want to fight you.
The "risk" of PvP isn't a threat. I don't live in constant fear of you suddenly popping out behind a tree and kill me. If you do, I'll just sigh, mutter "oh grow up" under my breath, respawn and continue on my way. That's the meaningful part, of 'meaningful player interaction'. It's only a meaningful (read: fun) conflict if both sides are interested.
In short: I don't want to PvP you. More to the point, I'm not going to fight you, and there's nothing you can do to make me. Whatcha gonna do about it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I completely agree if your design goal was to not have PvP you could build a sandbox around it, however I don't see there being a lot of content past it being a hyper advanced farmville (IE you build houses and settlements and craft stuff for people) as soon as you start adding in all the combat aspects of quests and dungeons with no player created conflict it starts turning into a theme-park instead of a sandbox, or at best a hybrid.
Of course I could be missing something, but from my POV to have a MMO sandbox you need player driven conflict.
Again, the only difference in content between that game and the non-consensual PvP game, is the random meaningless ganking in the wilderness. Is that "content" really so significant? You can still have your conflict. Your warfare. Your armoured patrols. The only thing you can't do, is murder me when I don't want to fight you.
The "risk" of PvP isn't a threat. I don't live in constant fear of you suddenly popping out behind a tree and kill me. If you do, I'll just sigh, mutter "oh grow up" under my breath, respawn and continue on my way. That's the meaningful part, of 'meaningful player interaction'. It's only a meaningful (read: fun) conflict if both sides are interested.
In short: I don't want to PvP you. More to the point, I'm not going to fight you, and there's nothing you can do to make me. Whatcha gonna do about it?
Random and meaningless, sure, but that is most assuredly not all that offers. Purposeful and meaningful can also be part of the equation, and in fact what GW is shooting for as a major part of the design. The GW blogs that refer to the pvp dynamic outline much of this design.
Ultimately, if someone isn't interested in playing the game, then, naturally they don't have to play, and probably shouldn't. If someone refuses to accept the game design, and then doesn't look for ways to utilize that design to play in an a positive and awesome fashion, then they probably won't have fun, nor will they be a positive element of the community, methinks.
It is really the same situation with a PnP group.