Goblin Squad Member
|
My point is that you can have all the same meaningful player interaction including pvp without the non consensual component. I'm not saying "this is how it should be in PFO too" just that I Can see the "I don't want to take part in non consensual pvp" without it meaning "there should be no pvp! Ever!"
There is one major hole in your argument, it requires all parties involved to basically create a treaty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I get where you're coming from, and you're right, most people can get better with practice but there are other reasons why sometimes pvp just isn't fun for some people. For example, on average I get a ping of 300ms to us servers. No amount of skill will compensate for the difference between a player who has a 20ms ping who knows what they're doing and a 300 ms ping who knows what he's doing. In pve it still matters, but it makes less of a difference, unless you get a real spike.
I had a friend on uo who was a great rper, had a good character, but his connection meant pvp was never really viable. He couldn't react fast enough, he didn't have a chance.
On a side note, I started to really lose interest in many mmos when they became so role orientated, you know "tank, dps, healer" that it became a game of statistics alone and all that mattered were "are your stats what we demand to make this encounter predictable"? Totally ruins the game for me. Give me variety! XD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point is that you can have all the same meaningful player interaction including pvp without the non consensual component. I'm not saying "this is how it should be in PFO too" just that I Can see the "I don't want to take part in non consensual pvp" without it meaning "there should be no pvp! Ever!"There is one major hole in your argument, it requires all parties involved to basically create a treaty.
It removes non consensual pvp, yes, which was the point, but that was also using the very limited uo mechanics. There are different ways to open up conflicts without just letting anyone attack anyone. But I'm not actually advocating any changes to the system, merely pointing out that there are alternatives to open world pvp to allow all sorts of personal and factional conflicts.
For example, on average I get a ping of 300ms to us servers. No amount of skill will compensate for the difference between a player who has a 20ms ping who knows what they're doing and a 300 ms ping who knows what he's doing.
On a side note, I started to really lose interest in many mmos when they became so role orientated, you know "tank, dps, healer" that it became a game of statistics alone and all that mattered were "are your stats what we demand to make this encounter predictable"? Totally ruins the game for me. Give me variety! XD
Ah, yeah, I admit I didn't think of ping -- probably because I've always been lucky enough to have good ping.
I got pretty bored of encounters being designed to be impossible unless you'd played the RNG lottery of the previous encounter "tier" too. I actually thought GW2 did a pretty good job of NOT doing this originally, but their new vertical progression can only end one way, unfortunately. Balance for top gear and make it unplayable for the undergeared; or balance for modest gear and make it a snooze for the fully geared.
That flipflop of Arenanet's really, really disappointed me. I could have lived with World vs. World being largely anonymous (though I disliked it) but I couldn't handle being put on a treadmill, too. /offtopic
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like aspects of guild wars 2, but actually gaining all your main abilities by about level 5 just made it uninteresting. Just do the same things over and over again for 50 levels with nothing else to do.
I like that they made combat "vague targeting" you still have a targeting system (dislike) but it will hit what it hits, and anything near it.
I thought that too about GW2 at first, but once you really get into builds their combat is actually pretty darn complex. Elementalists especially, with the right traits. You're juggling attunements for the skills they give AND buffs they give and trying to anticipate, during your long channels, if you expect your opponent to try to CC you or burst you down. Using proper attunement switches to combo to stack might. Swapping attunements and popping the right auras if you screwed up and end up flat of your back about to eat a huge burst. Not to mention swapping attunements at the last second of long channels to get that fury + extra might buff and and and ...
Yeah. I loved the game's combat. Just not the devs' flipflopping. Still waiting on a game company to have the cojones to stick with their design philosophy ... and I'm really hoping GW is that company, because I think their goals have a ton of potential! :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I played a Mesmer, I LIKE Chaos magic, it's fun having a bunch of random effects, I'd love to play a chaos mage in a game who's entire philosophy and power comes from uncertainty and randomness. But this is totally off topic.
Most of the Mesmer's abilities involve summoning a different flavour of illusion that essentially does the same thing holding different weapons (ok there's a LITTLE more to it) The other thing that really got to me was that there was a default dark red hair colour for humans that wasn't in the colour selection. It was the colour I wanted, but the human Mesmer didn't get that colour and couldn't.
But for combat I generally found that I didn't have many options without switching weapons, and even then the only real reason for that was because I was bored of the abilities I had been using, and I used the weapons I was using BECAUSE I liked those abilities better in the first place, so in the end it was kinda meh for me.
|
I appreciate your response, although we differ in our understanding of the facts of the case. For example, to the best of my understanding RIFT is a tiny game that's dying.
From my point of view as a Rift player, I can see that the game's population is growing.
The graph you linked is from MMO Data. They haven't updated their Rift estimates since Feb 2012.
- Added subscription / active account datapoints for WoW, EVE, SWTOR, WoW East and WoW West, Rift, LOTRO, Aion, SWG.
- Downgraded Rift accuracy rating from B to C.
Here's what the site ways about its C accuracy rating:
C rating – Some of the datapoints may come from official or other reliable sources, many of the datapoints come from estimates, third party sources, unclear official sources or other indirect information.
Last January was the low point in population for the game, for reasons I can expand on if you ask, but the population has been rising since February, except for a dip when GW2 came out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the risk of coming across as aggressive (which I don't mean to be), I always thought this was a copout. Sure, some people will be better at it than others, but anyone who actually puts in a little reading and lots of practice, and seeks advice from people who ARE good at it, can improve to the point of being at least better than average.
I wouldn't say it's a copout. I think shes telling the truth as she shes it, but what I would say is she are probably capable of more than she thinks. I am six foot seven in real life. Unfortunately what that translates to in video games is slow reflexes and sausage fingers.
I've always been held back by that limitation, even when I was a teenage gamer (Commonly called teenage twitch monkeys) I could never keep up with other player's reflexes.
I had to rely on game knowledge and inventive tactics to keep up. But I would say I ended up quite capable of keeping up with most players. There were some players I simply could never beat in a 1vs1 duel... and that is just how things are sometimes.
I took my knowledge, and tactics, and trained every incoming GL recruit how to fight. Personal training sessions that generally ranged from 1-4 hours where I took a complete newb and fought them over, and over, and over, until they managed to defeat me twice in a row at least once. Then I knew they were ready to wear the GL tag. Generally my students surpassed me in skill after they mastered the techniques I showed them. I took great pride in that fact.
I think what you need to succeed is proper training, practice, and determination. And if you are still terrible 1vs1 like me... try group vs group PVP. Someone can be terrible at one and great at the other.
Though I am talking twitch based games here though. I consider myself semi-godlike at tab target / ability bar based games. >:) That has as much to do with my hardware and hotkey setups as any real skill though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvP in PFO will be different than the PvP experiences you've had in other games.
As mentioned earlier, I hope that will be true, but can't really comment on that 'till we see it in action. My opinions on open-world PvP is based on the past 15 years of MMO design, not how PFO may or may not turn out in the future.
If they manage to make open-world PvP not-dumb, that's great. I'm not expecting miracles, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. What I'm doing here is just mentioning why I don't like open-world PvP in general. I think that's a valid opinion/concern, even if not everyone shares it.
As for Ryan spending a year talking about his ideas, that's great. I've followed those too. Perhaps I've turned into a bit of a cynic over the years, but if there's one thing Paul Barnett of WAR fame has taught me, it's that you can spend years discussing really sensible ideas... it doesn't mean the end product will be any different from everything else.
We'll see. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, that would be a way to loose money. As Ryan has explained many, many times, the investment costs far exceed the revenue potential.
So again, given are so hot to have a PVE version of this, can you think through and articulate a way to get what you want without GW going bankrupt?
If box-sales, subscriptions and micro-transactions isn't enough to break even, then GW will go bankrupt no matter what? I don't think I understand what you are trying to imply. What magical PvP-only revenue stream have I missed?
Then again, I'm also not "hot to have a PvE version of this", as you call it. GW can design their game however they want. But the argument that "if PvP was optional, GW will go bankrupt" is ridiculous. Even a not-as-successful-as-it-could-have-been game like SWTOR all but broke even on their development costs from pre-order box sales alone. I'm not expecting PFO to do that well no matter how it's designed, but I'm sure it will be profitable (if the end product is any good, of course, but let's not be silly-pessimistic).
I don't think that Slaunyeh or Chiassa, or really anybody who hasn't been following PFO closely for a while, will understand the context you're referencing.
I'm sure this is wasn't intended to come across quite as arrogantly as it did, but perhaps you can elaborate for those of us who haven't followed PFO close enough to understand the context.
(And, for the record, I subscribed to PFO news the day it was announced, I've followed their blogs (although I haven't memorized all of them), and backed backed the technology demo and the current kickstarter.)
So what's the context us new kids aren't grasping that's too complex to explain?
(And as mentioned above, I'm strongly in the "that sounds great, but let's wait and see how it actually turns out" crowd.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We believe strongly that there is an unmet need for a fantasy sandbox MMO where PvP is a significant component of the game.
(Disclaimer: sorry about the rapid-fire posting. Ya'll are darn prolific while I sleep!)
I believe that there is an unmet need for a fantasy sandbox MMO where PvP is an insignificant component of the game. ;)
And I get that PFO isn't it. I still wish that it was, even as I accept the realities. It's perhaps ironic that my two favourite RPGs to get an MMO (Pathfinder and Vampire the Masquerade) are both going the "sandbox MMO with a significant PvP focus" route. Blargh. I'll still give it a shot though. All MMOs have various build-in inconveniences, PvP is just another one of those. :)
Also, while I'm here, if I can just add on an unrelated issue how refreshing it is to see a developer with a realistic sense of scope. So many games 'fail' because they are somehow surprised that they can't match WoW's 15 million subscribers. This should not be a surprise to anyone. So, kudos!
I took my knowledge, and tactics, and trained every incoming GL recruit how to fight. Personal training sessions that generally ranged from 1-4 hours where I took a complete newb and fought them over, and over, and over, until they managed to defeat me twice in a row at least once. Then I knew they were ready to wear the GL tag. Generally my students surpassed me in skill after they mastered the techniques I showed them. I took great pride in that fact.
Please tell me this isn't a requirement for joining your guild! I've been quite impressed with the members I've talked to over the past week... but there's no way in hell I'm going to do something I find unpleasant and distasteful over, and over, and over... in a game I intend to play for fun!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what's the context us new kids aren't grasping that's too complex to explain?
I think it really requires more than just an understanding of the blogs, but also an understanding of previous Open World PVP games that have failed to address the issue of rampant Random Player Killing. That gives the the context in which to know how PFO is different.
In EVE Online, Mortal Online, and Darkfall, there is one thing in common. Alignment is used mainly as a mechanic to block you from re-entering safe areas. If you get a bad enough alignment you can no longer enter high security space, or lawful towns.
However many players simply do not care. They live entirely out of player run cities and structures. Their buddies don't care that they have a -5000 alignment, and player run cities offer better access to valuable resources and good PVP areas anyway. So why should they care about their alignment?
In Pathfinder Online the answer is that your alignment has a deeper meaning than blocking you from a town designed to help newbs get off their feet. Your alignment has consequences on how your player run city works. Want a temple of Ioemedae? Better make sure your organization's members abstain from evil actions. Accepting someone chaotic into your group? The upkeep cost of your town just went up.
These benefits and penalties provide reasons for hardened veterans who never go back to safe areas and live ENTIRELY out of player owned cities to give meaningful thought to their alignment choices. The freedom to do as whatever they wish, comes with a cost attached now.
The other thing to keep in mind is that in EVE, and Darkfall, most abuses of other player are met with the response of "That is how our game works. Get over it," or just dead silence. Goblinworks is taking a clear and hard stance against abusive behavior between players, and will even ban people for it. Finding creative ways to exploit game mechanics to ruin other player's experiences won't be considered cute here. It will be treated as a serious deal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I took my knowledge, and tactics, and trained every incoming GL recruit how to fight. Personal training sessions that generally ranged from 1-4 hours where I took a complete newb and fought them over, and over, and over, until they managed to defeat me twice in a row at least once. Then I knew they were ready to wear the GL tag. Generally my students surpassed me in skill after they mastered the techniques I showed them. I took great pride in that fact.Please tell me this isn't a requirement for joining your guild! I've been quite impressed with the members I've talked to over the past week... but there's no way in hell I'm going to do something I find unpleasant and distasteful over, and over, and over... in a game I intend to play for fun!
It will likely be a requirement either to get into our military or advance past a certain military rank (Which are separate from guild ranks and political ranks.) It will not be a requirement for militia members, and we do allow pacifists as well.
We were purely a military force on Freelancer. Here we are a nation, and there a lot of non-combat talents out there that will be extremely valuable to us. I won't turn anyone away who agrees with our goals and ideals, and is willing contribute to our organization and this community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what's the context us new kids aren't grasping that's too complex to explain?I think it really requires more than just an understanding of the blogs, but also an understanding of previous Open World PVP games that have failed to address the issue of rampant Random Player Killing. That gives the the context in which to know how PFO is different.
Oh, I understand that intent. I was trying to understand how PvP contains some kind of mystical revenue stream that is far superior to box sales/subscriptions/microtransactions and the only thing keeping GW afloat.
I guess I missed that post.
I feel that I've been saying this a lot lately, but I'm not really advocating that PFO should be a PvE game. But someone plain out asked me "if PFO was a PvE game, how would it make any money?" And, well, my basic assumption was: "the same way it will make money as a PvP game." Apparently, that assumption is fundamentally wrong.
(Also, I'm ignoring the underlying, and somewhat snarky, implication that 'if PFO was a PvE game, no one would play it, and hence GW wouldn't make any money' because that's pretty silly. You can make the same baseless prediction about the PvP direction of the game. Besides, it might not have been what Mbando meant.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what's the context us new kids aren't grasping that's too complex to explain?I think it really requires more than just an understanding of the blogs, but also an understanding of previous Open World PVP games that have failed to address the issue of rampant Random Player Killing. That gives the the context in which to know how PFO is different.Oh, I understand that intent. I was trying to understand how PvP contains some kind of mystical revenue stream that is far superior to box sales/subscriptions/microtransactions and the only thing keeping GW afloat.
I guess I missed that post.
I feel that I've been saying this a lot lately, but I'm not really advocating that PFO should be a PvE game. But someone plain out asked me "if PFO was a PvE game, how would it make any money?" And, well, my basic assumption was: "the same way it will make money as a PvP game." Apparently, that assumption is fundamentally wrong.
(Also, I'm ignoring the underlying, and somewhat snarky, implication that 'if PFO was a PvE game, no one would play it, and hence GW wouldn't make any money' because that's pretty silly. You can make the same baseless prediction about the PvP direction of the game. Besides, it might not have been what Mbando meant.)
I think he means that the devs would then have to create more PvE content, which takes a lot more time and money than just setting up systems and letting players have at it and create their own content.
Which is true if you ENTIRELY remove PVP. But if you just make it factional, (ie kingdoms, chartered companies and town based) the majority of the content stays the same. (I'm still not advocating this position)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think he means that the devs would then have to create more PvE content, which takes a lot more time and money than just setting up systems and letting players have at it and create their own content.
Which is true if you ENTIRELY remove PVP. But if you just make it factional, (ie kingdoms, chartered companies and town based) the majority of the content stays the same. (I'm still not advocating this position)
Ah, that's possible. Though, I think the 'make your own fun' is more contained in the 'sandbox' part than in the 'PvP' part. And yeah, no one is advocating entirely removing PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, that's possible. Though, I think the 'make your own fun' is more contained in the 'sandbox' part than in the 'PvP' part. And yeah, no one is advocating entirely removing PvP.I think he means that the devs would then have to create more PvE content, which takes a lot more time and money than just setting up systems and letting players have at it and create their own content.
Which is true if you ENTIRELY remove PVP. But if you just make it factional, (ie kingdoms, chartered companies and town based) the majority of the content stays the same. (I'm still not advocating this position)
I agree with you, I can't see how removing the ability to attack random people- which is already going to put that person at a disadvantage, while at the same time annoying the victim- and is the only really "con consensual pvp" part affects any of the main mechanisms being designed. You can still war over towns, you can still build and control, you can still flag people for doing things to link them with a pvp situation (such as healing a combatant during a fight). It doesn't actually require any content they aren't already making.
But just to reiterate (in case someone reading THIS post hasn't read the rest- and I really wouldn't blame them)- I'm still perfectly happy to see how the current system works. If it works as intended, griefing will be even less fun for the griefer than it is for the victim.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But just to reiterate (in case someone reading THIS post hasn't read the rest- and I really wouldn't blame them)- I'm still perfectly happy to see how the current system works. If it works as intended, griefing will be even less fun for the griefer than it is for the victim.
And I am very interested in seeing how this will turn out! As I like to say, "Diplomacy is the art of reaching a compromise that no one is happy with", and having seen PvPers complain about the consequences of PvP, perhaps GW really are on to something here. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel that I've been saying this a lot lately, but I'm not really advocating that PFO should be a PvE game. But someone plain out asked me "if PFO was a PvE game, how would it make any money?" And, well, my basic assumption was: "the same way it will make money as a PvP game." Apparently, that assumption is fundamentally wrong.
That is not the greatest wording of the question, and I understand the source of your confusion. Another way to word it would be how would they make any PROFITS.
The source of revenue isn't the problem. It's cost vs. income.
Basically in a PVE centered game, the content is generally quests, raids, etc. These require A LOT of work to build. They have to give rewards for each quest that give you reasons to partake in them. Create the storyline, all the dialogue, map out the dungeon, build a model for the boss, and give him interesting abilities that make the encounter exciting in some way.
The other and more sandboxy approach they can take is give players the option to build together and roleplay together without conflict. There are some major problems with this though, that I ran into consistently on Wurm Online PVE servers. All the prime territory is already claimed. Generally by inactive players which means you can either wait until their claims rot away, or just go find second rate places to build. Also there is one thing that will draw people away from existing PVE sandbox games. Fluff. Tons and tons of fluff. A super detailed crafting system. A great emote system. A huge range of character customization options, outfits, and things to build. Basically tools that can be used to roleplay, because there are games out there that offer these things, so PFO needs to offer something more enticing in return. These are all valid things that I actually hope to see in PFO at some point. But in order to be successful PFO would need to offer A LOT of this stuff on release, which means a high cost to launch the game.
PVP is quite simply cheap content. The wars of Freelancer I remember so fondly were fought on a game that was released early and with multiplayer thrown is as an afterthought and thus had SERIOUS balance issues. 95% of us all used the same ship and most our weapons configurations were slight variations of the same basic setup. That isn't what I remember. I remember raging battles above Planet New Berlin. Slipping my freighter full of niobium past enemy blockades. Rallying other factions to support my cause. Driving away would-be griefers from our territory (Which was where new players started the game.)I remember the alliances, and the betrayals, reveling in victory, and rallying to come back from a defeat. All Goblinworks has to give us, for us to really start diving into a working combat system, a few abilities and weapons, and ways in which / reasons to work with and compete against other players. Then they can add in more quests and other types of content as time goes on. If the community is interesting enough then people will stick around.
This allows them to release with a lower budget, in a shorter timeframe. That is very good for Goblinworks because they don't have the funding to create a very good game that revolves entirely around PVE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But just to reiterate (in case someone reading THIS post hasn't read the rest- and I really wouldn't blame them)- I'm still perfectly happy to see how the current system works. If it works as intended, griefing will be even less fun for the griefer than it is for the victim.And I am very interested in seeing how this will turn out! As I like to say, "Diplomacy is the art of reaching a compromise that no one is happy with", and having seen PvPers complain about the consequences of PvP, perhaps GW really are on to something here. :)
My biggest gripe with open world PVP systems (which are often coupled with full loot systems) is that it works off this naive philosophy of "risk vs reward", but for the people romping around killing everyone there IS no risk, but they get the benefit of all everyone's work by looting them, while simultaneously making it even more difficult for those people they kill to get into a position where their skills and equipment are up to facing them- it's kinda like the WoW South Park episode where the kids have to kill pigs for weeks in a safe zone just so they can get to a point where they can face the killer, but that doesn't actually work in real games because you wouldn't gain anything off something that much lower than you.
So I'm cautiously optimistic about this proposed system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We believe strongly that there is an unmet need for a fantasy sandbox MMO where PvP is a significant component of the game.I believe that there is an unmet need for a fantasy sandbox MMO where PvP is an insignificant component of the game. ;)
Sure, I think anyone would agree with you here. The thing is if the game is geared towards player interaction making up a large part of the content, the game will take a lot less time to develop and a lot less time to push out new content (areas). Scripted content is just not necessary in a sandbox game. I am personally completely sick of scripted encounters, it can never compare to interaction with real human beings. But if you have no scripted encounters, and no pvp, you're really limiting the potential of player interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, I understand that intent. I was trying to understand how PvP contains some kind of mystical revenue stream that is far superior to box sales/subscriptions/microtransactions and the only thing keeping GW afloat.
PvP adds the human element, uncertainty. You can't predict exactly what someone is going to do. It doesn't create some magical revenue stream, it greatly cuts down on development costs. When other humans are involved things don't get 'old' nearly as quickly. Look at FPS games, their online crowd is huge. There is probably more area, and dialogue in SW:TOR than there is in the last 10 years of online FPS games combined, excluding their campaigns.
By putting PvP into the sandbox, GW doesn't have to have as harsh of regulations or upkeep, the building sites don't belong to the quickest and super-rich, they belong to the resourceful and intelligent. The PvP adds value to traded goods by increasing risk which increases the gap between the worst and the best gear.
The bottom line is, the larger the human element, the less work the devs have to do.
I'll also add that fully open PvP is the only way to combat 'PvE griefers', spammers, and scammers. There are always rules to be bent, and open PvP lets the community take a stand against the rule benders. Goblinworks could spend a ton of time making a exploit-proof, grief-proof system, or they can put the law in the hands of the players, and nudge us in the right direction, so after early enrollment the players more or less set the social contract for the game, and breach of contract results in early(and constant) termination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We believe strongly that there is an unmet need for a fantasy sandbox MMO where PvP is a significant component of the game.I believe that there is an unmet need for a fantasy sandbox MMO where PvP is an insignificant component of the game. ;)
I full agree with both of you. There is a need for a great fantasy sandbox with PVP as a major feature, and a great fantasy sanbox that focuses purely on the PVE aspect of things.
Both are very valid projects that would generate a highly enthusiastic community.
Unfortunately people wanting the later, GoblinWorks wants to deliver the former. I don't think you want truly GW to make your game even if they are willing though. They chose a game styles this way because that is what they are passionate about designing.
What you need is a development team truly passionate about the game you want to play. Unfortunately for you that isn't GW, so you will have to keep waiting.
In the meantime though, I would love to show you why I am so passionately in favor of this model of game. I think if you experience Open World PVP the way it is meant to be, that it just might change what you want from your MMOs, and make you as passionate about this game as I am.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I appreciate your response, although we differ in our understanding of the facts of the case. For example, to the best of my understanding RIFT is a tiny game that's dying.
From my point of view as a Rift player, I can see that the game's population is growing.
The graph you linked is from MMO Data. They haven't updated their Rift estimates since Feb 2012.
- Added subscription / active account datapoints for WoW, EVE, SWTOR, WoW East and WoW West, Rift, LOTRO, Aion, SWG.
- Downgraded Rift accuracy rating from B to C.Here's what the site ways about its C accuracy rating:
C rating – Some of the datapoints may come from official or other reliable sources, many of the datapoints come from estimates, third party sources, unclear official sources or other indirect information.Last January was the low point in population for the game, for reasons I can expand on if you ask, but the population has been rising since February, except for a dip when GW2 came out.
I'd be very interested to see better, more accurate figures, not just for RIFT, but for the PVE Themepark market as a whole. To the best of my understanding, WoW is doing well, and nobody else is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, fun thread
I thought I'd throw in my 2cp, as someone who was initially HORRIFIED about the non-consensual PvP aspect of PFO (and went on to flame a thread about about it to my eternal shame). I have since moderated my stance, and I am backing the new beta, even deciding whether it is feasible to bump my $100 to $200 to get the dead tree collectibles
I think the major disconnect between the two factions is perception. Each side has a different idea of what PvP means. As someone who still loathes PvP, I understand the feelings of the PvE crowd. I hate being killed by PCs. I've never had a good time when I've done PvP. A lot of it has to do with my play style, a lot of it has to do with my temperment.
However, I have faith in Paizo, and by extension GW. They haven't let me down when I've put my faith in them before, and I've rewarded them with thousands of dollars of my disposable income. When they said they could build adventures (and eventually a new RPG) that reflected my desires, I converted my Dragon and Dungeon subscriptions and said "go for it! You might fail, but I want you to at least try!"
That's where I am at here. I love MMORPGs. Maybe not as much as the sixty-hour-a-week crowd, but I love them nonetheless. I love Pathfinder, and I think my faith in Paizo and their corporate vision was well founded. I also love Ryan Dancey (in a platonic kinda fashion). If it wasn't for the OGL, I'd likely not be playing TTRPGs now. We likely wouldn't even be discussing GW because Paizo wouldn't exist in its current form.
So, do I have reservations about PvP? Oh, you betcha. Words can't express how frustrating and disgusting I have found that sort of interaction in the past. Can I swallow this revulsion and trust that GW and Paizo can deliver on their promise that PFO won't become "Gankfest the Greifening?" The answer at the end of the day is Yes. I trust in their dedication and passion for gaming. I trust they will shepherd this game along through its birth pangs and deliver a gaming experience we haven't seen before. If not, as many have pointed out, there are plenty of theme park MMORPGS to patronize. Heck, I'm grognardy enough to still consider EQ1 my favorite, and despite its age and dropping population there is still new content coming out (Reign of Fear-11/12)
In short, my PvE brethren, I hope you can put aside your revulsion of PvP and give PFO an honest chance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To add to Andius' explanation with an illustrative example, from an analysis of SWtOR from Forbes.
The Development Costs are Too Damn High
Overlooking every other point on this list, SWTOR could have been a big success if it simply cost less to make. We may never get any official figures from EA/Bioware, but production cost estimates for the game are between $200 and $300 million, with marketing at least another $100M past that. It’s very likely to be the most expensive game ever made.
500,000 subscribers has been said to the “break even” point for the game, though it’s not clear over what time frame that number is required. Six months? Ten years? But now subs have dipped below a million, and PAID subs will likely be even less now that the game is free to everyone under level 50.
This was simply too ambitious of a project with too much money poured into it. No game should cost $400M to make, no matter how epic in scope it’s supposed to be. If you’re spending that much, you’re doing something wrong, and of course you shouldn’t be surprised if your game is deemed a failure. District 9, a great film, might have been considered a flop had it cost $200M to make rather than $20M. With costs that obscenely high, it’s hard to feel like SWTOR ever had a chance at being a huge success.
SWtOR's failure has nothing to do with the quality or commitment. Bioware is as good as it gets in the gaming industry. Everything they publish is high quality, fully polished and developed, and they never skimp or do their customers wrong. SWtOR isn't dying because of insufficient investment in any part of the design, development or implementation. You can't get a bigger bankroll than that, and it's not like they blew that money on perks for programmers.
It's failing because they perfectly implemented the wrong model: investing $Xm in PVE, themepark content in the hopes that they could get enough subscribers, and hold them long enough to be able to afford to make more content before the subscribers chew through it and cancel their subs.
In the real world that model is unworkable. So if GW tries to make a Golarian flavored version of that model they'll fail absolutely and totally, because whether it's Star Wars, or Battlestar Galactica, or Forgotten Realms, or Golarion, or Middle Earth yaddah-yaddah-yaddah, the IP setting, the quality of development, and the implementation will be meaningless. Because no matter how fast you run, if you are running in the wrong direction, you're not going to get to your destination.
So GW has to do something different, and as Valkenr has pointed out, a sandbox model where players provide the content is a plausible "something different." So that's why this project is going to have PVP, no matter what.
The question isn't "Should PFO have PvP?" The question is "what should PVP conflict look like in PFO?" That's a question you newer posters can usefully help answer. In fact, because many of you are wary about PvP, if you could take your hands off your ears long enough to listen, get why this is happening, you're in excellent position to offer constructive input.
Stop with the "I hate PVP" flounce posts, and start thinking through how PvP can be best and most meaningfully structured. We need you're constructive engagement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But if you have no scripted encounters, and no pvp, you're really limiting the potential of player interaction.
I hope you guys realize that no one (that I've seen anyway, I'm sure there's someone somewhere) is advocating for "no pvp". When I say PvE, I really mean "non-forced PvP". It's really rare to find a PvE game/server/whatever that doesn't have the option to engage in PvP if that's your fancy. There are even games where PvP is the primary focus but still manage to deliver a satisfactory experience for people who don't enjoy that kind of "player interaction".
What I'm seeing people here saying is "oh, there is forced PvP, but we will make it so difficult that no one will force it on you unless they have a very good reason. Or are jerks that don't care about the consequences." That's cool. So PFO is basically a PvE game with an unusual pvp flag mechanic. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the meantime though, I would love to show you why I am so passionately in favor of this model of game. I think if you experience Open World PVP the way it is meant to be, that it just might change what you want from your MMOs, and make you as passionate about this game as I am.
I don't know how it's meant to be, I only know how it has usually turned out. And we have yet to see if PFO will turn out 'how it's meant to be'. But what are you suggesting?
Anyway. This might get a bit personal, but let me try to explain why I generally don't care for PvP:
See, I'm a really really competitive person. I hate losing. It can upset me for days! I also have, at best, a few hours a night to play games. Roughly everyone in the world will be better at this game than me because the effort it takes to get really competitive in games like this, are efforts that I don't really have time for, and also don't particular enjoy.
So yeah. Everyone will be able to beat me up. And it will upset me. A lot. A lot more than I'd readily like to admit. I don't really need a game to upset me like that, though, so I find it much easier to just not take part. If you attack me, I'll just ignore you. Maybe you take the hint and leave, or maybe you kill me and leave. Either way, same result, none of the stress.
It's also why I find mass PvP (like the castle sieges in Warhammer Online) more tolerable. I can hide somewhere and chuck arrows at people and convince myself that it's not only my fault when we lose. Which will inevitably will. I'm like a bad luck mascot. :p
But, speaking of castle sieges in WAR, that raises another issue. I don't have a lot of time to play on week days. I don't want to sit down, spend two hours running around looking for anything going on. I just want to log in, do some fun stuff, and log off. And preferably not be in a bad mood when I log off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the biggest concern is that every company says they will have systems in place to limit griefing and they either have not been successful at it or they went overboard and made pvp not-fun.
I think this whole topic should be shelved until we see if GW can hit that sweet spot.
I'm not a fan of pvp but I am convinced that GW is serious about limiting griefing and we'll just have to wait and see what they come up with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SWtOR's failure has nothing to do with the quality or commitment. Bioware is as good as it gets in the gaming industry.
That's right. SWtOR's failure had everything to do with making a game that, down to practically every system, was a direct copy of WoW. There was hardly a creative thought anywhere (really, they didn't even bother coming up with a better word for speeder bikes than 'mounts'. C'mon!). And the few unique systems they did come up with, were horrible (space combat, I'm looking at you).
If SWtOR had come out in 2004 along with WoW, I'm sure the two would have pretty much shared the MMO market today. But SWtOR was released seven years late. Everyone are sick and tired of WoW clones by now.
(Also, as much as it pains me to say, I think the story focus was a mistake. MMOs are very much about making your character your own, the more focus there is on a pre-written story, the more you end up playing some Bioware writer's character, rather than your own character.)
It's also worth noting that SWtOR more or less brought home it's entire production cost in initial box sales alone, so I think it's a failure only in the sense that it wasn't a license for Bioware and EA to print their own money, the way WoW is to Blizzard.
Edit to add: While the development costs of SWtOR may have been too high, it was also the only really credible attack on WoW's supremacy. At the time of SWtOR's development, it was common knowledge, that it wasn't really possible to release a competition to WoW, because players expected newly released games to match the quality and content of WoW. Which was clearly unrealistic. That, I think, was SWtOR's aim, and I think they hit that mark. Turns out, however, that common knowledge was wrong. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the end of the day, it really comes down to developers and publishers realizing that "umpteen million subscribers" is not a realistic goal. In 2004, 300,000 players was a very successful game. It still is. People really need to remember this, and forget trying to make the next multi-billion player game.
GW acknowledge this and that alone is reason enough for me to offer them my full support.
But, uhm, that was a slight tangent. Sorry. Carry on!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have read this whole thread and the last few comments about SWTOR and the reason of failing are pretty simple.
1) It's a themepark, and that means that the content that is out there is generated by the devs. However, the content that was generated was flawed and filled with bugs (ilum, NM encounters not generating the proper loot, bosses being bugged etc). That is one of the main reasons SWTOR failed.
2) Ir was hyped as the new messaih of gaming with the voice over, the content etc. It failed to live up to that and now it is going into F2P.
The reason why GW says that Theme park MMO's are ending their life cycle is correct. Games need to put something up to keep people interested and sure there is a good healthy score that goes around and raid 3 times a week in the known themepark mmo's (like WoW, RIFT etc). But you are running a scripted event. I left WoW after 5 years of dedicated raiding and being in a top guild that was competing. In the end it gets boring and it gets boring fast. I am also an former 9 year veteran of Eve Online and in that game with the pvp, the diplomacy, the ruleset etc I have had the most fun. Nothing get's your blood running when you are entering a zone and have no clue if you will make it out.
A famous quote from eve is: Don't fly what you cannot afford (basically saying, if you cannot rebuy your ship when you lose it, don't even fly it) and I am sure this will be the same for PFO.
Also on a sidenote, with the fact that there are going to be player run cities it means that there will be self moderation done by those guilds, you will see them patroling the forest to protect their property and defend their vasals etc (just like with Eve and their player run systems). And the further from civiliation you go, the harsher it will be. Sure if PF we are all made out as heroes fighting the greater good, but take a step back and think about how it is for real with settlements, think all cities and countries were made by heroes? no they will always be on the lookout for bandits, other people trying to overthrow it etc. It adds to the gameplay and that is what GW is trying to do, add another layer of gameplay to the setting.
As for those wanting to explore, that can always be done, just be smart, play it careful and don't go wandering around and think you are safe. In Eve Online there are still explorers that are discovering things and selling them. You can be that person as well in the River Kingdoms!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is true if you ENTIRELY remove PVP. But if you just make it factional, (ie kingdoms, chartered companies and town based) the majority of the content stays the same.
I don't think non-consensual Factional PvP would be any more appealing than non-consensual PvP to those who believe a PvE server is the right choice.
One thing that I think we will see will be that PFO will be very challenging for a player to solo. Most stories i hear of people getting ganked in games revolves around a scenario of a player exploring or travelling and along comes a more powerful character or group and kills them. Travelling in groups will become the norm for those who desire safety.
I believe that there will be chances for players to adventure by themselves, put the fact of an open pvp ruleset will make it a much more dangerous and challenging proposition. At the very least it will keep people on their toes.
Just because you encounter someone in the wild does not mean they are your enemy. They could potentially be an ally or new trading partner.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@strockrodan, I had the same thoughts initially, which was why I had resolved myself to joining a Guild and trying to ensure I had a group of people that I could do dangerous thing with.
However, the more I read and think about PFO, I think there will be plenty of opportunity for players to Explore as a solo player, or in a very small group.
One thing to keep in mind is that in most Theme Park MMOs, the vast majority of your time (until end-game) is spent doing quests. That won't be the case in PFO, so there won't be a strong reason pushing you out into the world by yourself in order to "level up".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, the more I read and think about PFO, I think there will be plenty of opportunity for players to Explore as a solo player, or in a very small group.
I hope that will be true. With the game aiming at a relatively small player base, stretched across a vast number of time zones, having too much "required" grouping would make it fairly difficult to get anything done for anyone with limited playtime.
A game where I could realistically only leave town on Saturday nights would not be a game I'd be playing for long. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Slaunyeh: I wouldn't worry about timezones. PFO is following the samce concept as Eve Online with 1 server, that means that in your timezone there will be plenty of people to play with. Just find a guild to suit your needs and timezone and you are good. And you can still go out solo then :)
So, here's an interesting question to diverge a little bit from the current trends.
Lee and Stephen's little video about PVP was interesting, and a bit reassuring on some (not quite all, but some) levels.
But my question is: If things start heading the way GoblinWorks didn't intend for them to go, how much is it willing to compromise on The Vision (tm) for the sake of playability?
Let's say things slowly start developing as more people get in, and it starts becoming apparent that an overly significant proportion of people truly do just want to become murderous scum, to the point where the wilderness does devolve into "Quake with swords".
Is GW willing to start jacking up the penalties more and more to start cutting down on the number of players who choose this route? What if people continue to ignore the punishments or choose to live with them, and there are not enough player groups either interested or willing to stop them? Is GW prepared to take the step of making the act of being an unrepentant murderer carry punishments significant enough to actually render a character nearly unplayable if the number of players interested in playing on the "good" side of the coin proves to be too small to combat roving gangs of murderers?
PVP is only meaningful human interaction as long as there's a point to it. Someone sneaking up from stealth, murdering me, and teabagging my corpse before running off to find the next person isn't "meaningful interaction", and I'm a bit curious to find out whether GW is prepared to take drastic action, up to and including compromising on original design principles, if this does become the "norm" in the game.
And just to clarify, to make super clear on what I'm talking about, I'm not referring about changes "right now". My questions pertain strictly to the realm of "What if it doesn't work in practice like you envisioned it on paper?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But my question is: If things start heading the way GoblinWorks didn't intend for them to go, how much is it willing to compromise on The Vision (tm) for the sake of playability?
I think this question is best answered with "they will do what has to be done".
It is logically impossible to plan for the unknown, after all.
@Robb: As long as the Empyrean Order is around, there will at least be one organization combatting the darkness. And we aren't the only ones.
I know there will be groups around. That's not my point.
My concern comes from recent experiences in SWTOR, and before that other games, where the amount of people who "want to play the bad guy" vastly exceeds the number of people who "want to play on the side of good". My concern isn't that groups like yours will be out there, it's "are they prepared to do what is necessary if they outnumber you 4:1?"
@MicMan: I'm not necessarily asking them to have a plan, or anything like that. What my question is is more seeking to understand if, despite best efforts, it continues to be nothing more than a gank-fest, is GW prepared to implement punishments harsh enough to actually make people think twice about engaging in that, even if it means they have to compromise on their vision because it is proving to be incompatible with how people are playing the game?
I'm actually more worried that it will end up the opposite.
Edit: And that is mostly due to the punishments/inconveniences planned to be put in place.
I really don't think we have enough information to formulate any opinion or projection based on that. My personal experiences tell me there are more than enough people who are willing to be jerks just to be jerks, no matter the cost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is true if you ENTIRELY remove PVP. But if you just make it factional, (ie kingdoms, chartered companies and town based) the majority of the content stays the same.I don't think non-consensual Factional PvP would be any more appealing than non-consensual PvP to those who believe a PvE server is the right choice.
But to the people talking about it in the last few days, that is pretty much what they have been advocating, not a full pve content, no pvp world. What people don't realize is for a lot of people it comes down to "let someone else do the fighting, I'll go explore the dungeons and keep the local Orc population down. Remember that pve content is spawned by the quality of the town on the hex- it is in the pve'ers interest to work with a town to improve it, thus getting involved in the community without having pvp forced on them. If they want to take part, they want it to be in a controlled manner, they can join a warring faction. If they decide they don't like it or if they're just getting ganked by a better faction, they can also just leave the faction and still enjoy the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I withdrew my kickstarter pledge due to threads like these. If the pro PVP community is going to be so hostile from the start, I don't even want to know how it is going to be in game.
Some of us just want to explore and craft. Maybe even kill a couple of goblins. If this game is going to be implemented as is, its going to be a griefers paradise. This game either needs consensual PVP or a separate PVE server. I am not paying to be someone else content. Sorry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I withdrew my kickstarter pledge due to threads like these. If the pro PVP community is going to be so hostile from the start, I don't even want to know how it is going to be in game.
Some of us just want to explore and craft. Maybe even kill a couple of goblins. If this game is going to be implemented as is, its going to be a griefers paradise. This game either needs consensual PVP or a separate PVE server. I am not paying to be someone else content. Sorry.
Well, it's your money, and if you don't want to pledge, you shouldn't, but I would still recommend keeping an eye on the game and see how the system pans out, I am cautiously optimistic, I don't think it will be a griefer's paradise,but if that's how it turns out, I will lose interest quickly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I withdrew my kickstarter pledge due to threads like these. If the pro PVP community is going to be so hostile from the start, I don't even want to know how it is going to be in game.
I think very few of the pro PVP crowd are hostile. Don't pay attention to a vocal few. Because of all the penalties associated with PVP griefing behavior, I believe you will see a far larger number of players being helpful and fighting off griefers than you have ever seen in any other game. Sorry you let a few sway your decision in what will be a fantastic game, hope you will rejoin us after release!