Goblin Squad Member
|
This is going to be a VERY small MMO compared to post-wow expectation, and appealing to a broad base is going to be crucial in keeping it alive.
WoW was the exception to the rule here, not the rule of thumb. MMOs before and since typically don't see numbers swell past a million. EverQuest was the single biggest western MMO of its time, it was a huge success in the industry and paved the way for so many other games to come. I think it topped out under 600k concurrent subscribers? EVE is supposed to be the only game that continues to see its user base grow year over year since its release and is sitting around 350k subs? (Btw Jiminy.. "defunct MMO's like EVE" ??? It's a modern day success story far more relavent to PFO than most others.)
WoW appealed to those in need of a new game and those who didn't realize they even wanted to game in the first place. It was the Wii of the MMO world. It was a great success story, but signs are pointing to that story slowly coming to a close, like the first of 20 endings to a LoTR movie.
I don't see how forced pvp and risking your hard-earned unthreaded goodies is going to appeal to a wide base. I am/was an MMO JUNKIE and this sounds horrific to me.
First, why would you risk your goodies? That seems either foolish, or tragically unfortunate in timing. If you're being careful, and smart about how you build your character, the likelihood of you getting ganked is not a lot higher than if you played PvE. You're much more likely to attract the attention of a wandering monster and die from that, but somehow that doesn't bother you as much? What you're actually likely to find is that the mentality of the bored WoW player that has turned you off of forced PvP (read: getting ganked) is going to be noticeably lacking. Be it for lack of population, the eventual breadth of the world, the nature of the penalties involved, the view of such actions by other players, the reactions of said players, the laws set forth in many hexes by said players or most importantly a topic I will get into shortly, the very nature of PvP is designed towards meaningful player conflict rather than a shallow gameplay loop forcefed to you by the devs leading towards very shallow conflict between players.
Second, being a junkie is not a thing to be proud of. Junkies tend to consume whatever they can get their hands on, this is a huge flag to those of us who have spent 5 or more years in a single game. This staying in a single game is much more likely to happen when you feel at home in the game, and feeling at home is typically the result of an unnatural affinity with the game itself, or more likely the community you become a part of. For people that grew up on MUDs and UO and EQ, you really got to know your community. In EQ we could eventually take part in cross-server general chatter (a thing Blizzard notably never allowed), but most of us still maintained a profound sense of the community we existed in. A big part of this was the design of the game itself, it was challenging. Few classes could solo effectively, and players that preferred to solo and played those classes STILL came to appreciate small pieces of that community. The rest of the players learned to rely on others and relationship building was a BIG DEAL. So my first thought is that you either haven't experienced this, or you haven't experienced it since, and it leaves a hole that no amount of cheap PvE content can replace.
Oddly enough, the communities on PvP servers for EQ were generally stronger even than the PvE servers. While at its heart conflict means people are disagreeing, it also plays a major factor in bringing people together. So sure, you may get yourself killed if you are you foolish about your actions and take the chances of death lightly, or if you simply have the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time; but you also have the chance to make stronger connections to other players and to spread roots in a community that you may eventually come to feel possessive of.
WoW broke a lot of records, but it also broke the community. I am profoundly thankful for the chance to take part in a world like this again where already, years before the game's actual release a community has begun to grow up around it. I can't wait to get started in game and see what kind of events turn up from nothing more than the actions and reactions of players alone. To work, as Draelin put it, towards my own goals and those I share with my companions, because that is the only way you're really going to appreciate what you have, instead of being dissatisfied with what you don't have.
If you decide to withdraw your support for this project, that's certainly up to you. This kind of experience truly may not be what you're looking for, but you won't know until you've seen it first hand. If you decide this is not up your alley, the smart thing to do would absolutely be yanking your support. That's not a threat to the rest of us, that's common sense. We will thank you for your wisdom in knowing yourself well enough to recognize that you will be unhappy and merely be spreading unhappiness around you and that you don't want to do this to others, or you just wanted to save your $100. Either way, that's respectable. I'm pretty sure if this community sees a mere hundred dollars standing between funding or not, a few thousand dollars will suddenly appear from everyone that can't bid fast enough to see this world come to fruition.
:deep breath:
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being: As Ryan says in the above linked presentation: The major difference between Theme Park and Sandbox is the Sandbox is primarly about player-player (meaningful) interaction, whereas Themepark builds crafted content for players to interact more with the "computer".
Avena I don't believe you understood what I was trying to point out. Perhaps I didn't write well enough.
Suffice to say we are and were in agreement rather than disagreement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being: As Ryan says in the above linked presentation: The major difference between Theme Park and Sandbox is the Sandbox is primarly about player-player (meaningful) interaction, whereas Themepark builds crafted content for players to interact more with the "computer".Avena I don't believe you understood what I was trying to point out. Perhaps I didn't write well enough.
Suffice to say we are and were in agreement rather than disagreement.
My bad, I should have added "+" at the start ie in addition to what you say. :) ~ Varying the idea a) don't recreate previous mmorpgs b) don't recreate the big mistakes of those previous mmorpgs! - is really where I was going... ^_^
Second, being a junkie is not a thing to be proud of. Junkies tend to consume whatever they can get their hands on, this is a huge flag to those of us who have spent 5 or more years in a single game. This staying in a single game is much more likely to happen when you feel at home in the game, and feeling at home is typically the result of an unnatural affinity with the game itself, or more likely the community you become a part of. For people that grew up on MUDs and UO and EQ, you really got to know your community.
+1 The Themepark Model ended up using the "Grind Level Curve" of Exponential XP requirement per level -> Add Quantity (eg Trash Mobs, Filler Content, Random Loot Drops) to their mmorpg's total playing/subbing time (& keeping up with the Jones).
By adding sheer quantity in this way you dilute the quality - to increase the playing time and retention of player time. Secondly once players have chewed through all this content, the Raid-End-game comes in for these players to jump on the gear tread-mill with the Best Content in the game - the carrot after all those preceding hours of content (stick?), is generally the best design stuff. It sounds very Skinner Box to me.
By comparison with EVE the common dénouement (aside from ms .xls in space!) thrown at it is either: 1) It's steep learning curve = more like a 2nd job 2) I'll never be on a level with the vets - That said, the big thing about EVE to enjoy it: "Find a corp to join and it's a different game." I wonder what makes the community in EVE work or the community in UO even with pk'ing rife etc?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's mostly the realization that GW is making a game I do no want to play with a world I love playing in, and there is nothing I can do about it. I don't want them to stop making a pathfinder game. I just want them to make a game that is more appealing to me.-snip-
Q: If you were able to design PfO anyway you wish (ignoring the licencing restrictions for now) what would be your "dream version" of PfO in mmorpg clothes? What advantages and disadvantages (to different types of players) could you envision and how would it be different from the current vision, or, what are the top 5 major features or system of PfO design that you find least appealing/most appealing?
It's an interesting question to ask of any mmorpg tbh.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've been playing MMOs for many years. CoH, WoW, FF11, and many others. Most players DONT LIKE PvP. I do when the mood hits me right, but I dont always feel like dealing with the hassel. If you force all players to be potential PvP targets then you will alienate most of the MMO player base. If paizo only wants to cater to 5% of MMO players, that is there choice, but its that kind of choice that lead D&D4th addition to be the RPG powerhouse that it is today.
You are dealing with a VERY different situation. D&D wasn't a brand new entry to a market-place already oversaturated with offerings doing the same thing it was doing... offerings with vastly larger budgets and with upto 10+ years of name recognition (and content) over it...and with many of those new offerings FAILING financialy.
The point is if people want PVE Themepark focused MMO's they have litteraly HUNDREDS of quality options to chose from. Being entry #101 with a smaller budget then most and therefore much less content is not going to be a win for PFO.
When you are faced with an oversaturated market you look for an underserved portion of that market (i.e. a "niche") that most other competitors have avoided. That's business 101. The exact fact that it's Sandbox and that it is PvP and therefore percieved as a "niche" market that the existing (more well financed) competitors have ignored is EXACTLY what gives PFO a good chance for success. If they tried to compete with WoW, not only would PFO not be successfull, they wouldn't even get off the launch pad with financing in this climate.
Lets put it this way, say you want to get into the business of making baseball gloves and lets say, for the sake of arguement that 95% of the people buying baseball gloves need right handed gloves. Because of that, there are already 20 other companies selling baseball gloves, including ones that have been around for years and years, are well known and have pumped hundreds of millions into developing gloves. Are you better off being the 21st company selling right handed gloves, or the 1st and only company selling left handed ones? Try to think about that objectively.
There are 2 things that folks are just going to have to accept, it's going to be a sandbox...and it's going to have a strong PvP focus. That's part of GW core design principles for the game.... and they aren't going to change it....and frankly you wouldn't want them to change it at this point even if they were willing to, because universaly games that have scraped thier core design concepts at this stage of the game have turned out total disasters. As players, we have a REMARKABLE amount of input into shaping the game...more then I've ever seen with any other developer, EVER. However the one thing we aren't going to get them to change are thier core design goals for it, it's just a non-starter and it SHOULD BE a non-starter. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wish this game had FFA Open PvPThat would be too far and why Darkfall and others such as that (apart fom buggy performance) have been MORE niche than they could have been. The "PvP system" should be in balance with the other systems (Adventure, Exploration, Development, "Dominion") - not dominant, which makes those other gameplay styles retarded in their options for players: which is what a lot of players' expectations seem to hinge on.
Uh, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think I would have liked Darkfall. But that game's failures have nothing to do with FFA Open PvP.
The problem with other FFA Open PvP games is that griefing wasn't punished in a meaningful way. I'd rather punish griefing separately from RPKing. That's why I continued supporting the project when the bounty system was introduced a year ago (when it was a way to discourage PvP where new or casual players would be playing the game); I'm fine with that. There is nothing 'imbalanced' about allowing greater PvP challenges in hexes where there are greater PvE challenges. The veteran players going there know the risks.
But, this is recently turning out to be not that game. Which is my point, after all. I wanted 71gamer to see that there is no 'hardcore' PvP crowd here, ready to snatch all his goodies. The 'moderate' PvPers are not happy with their options here. The people that are pointing out the realities of the game to him are not PvP-hungry predators: They are the people that a month ago had the same concerns he had, but put in the time to find the important discussions and dev posts to get a better idea of how this game will work, and are now doing their best to convince others like themselves that 'yes, really, they are making it!'
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I may be very late to this point of the discussion.
Regarding the "risking your hard earned goodies": to rephrase what GrumpyMel said earlier, as they are drawing a lot if orientations from EvE Online the most appropriate comparison ( assuming you have appropriate equipment and all the right stuff tethered ) would be how the repair cost in WoW relates to your entire wealth.
At least that's the way it was in EvE and the potential loss of your ship and stuff fitted in it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For all of you that are saying that if people want a theme park game then they shouldn't bother with PFO, then recall that GW says on their home page "Pathfinder Online is a hybrid sandbox/theme park-style MMO". Increasingly ignoring the theme park aspects is upsetting people who already contributed money for a Kick Starter and are now seeing the aspects they were promised swept under the rug.
I also agree with WhiteMagus2000 and others that if PFO encourages PKing and griefing, then many subscribers will be driven away. If people want to do PvP, I think that is fine, but there should be a way to op-out. Wars will happen as factions fight for resources, but opting out of a war is easy, you just don't participate. Also, as settlements grow so do monster attacks against those settlements. Therefore resources will be removed without the needing for forced PvP or item destruction.
Sorry if it sounds like I am angry or anything, I just think it is a bad idea to force PvP on everyone, let players freely loot each other, and then destroy unlooted items (besides items that are both threaded and equipped). I add my voice to the many others who have been saying that if the PvE majority keep being ignored in favor of the PvP minority then I also intend to retract my Kick Starter pledge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exactly,
Taking everything you've earned and going out into the wilderness carrying/wearing it in PFO is kinda like emptying your bank accounts in Real Life going to Vegas and placing it all down on one spin of the roulette wheel. You are smarter then that in real life, why would you fall prey to it in a game?
You've got to realize coming in, it's not that type of game. If you've set the right expectations, you are likely to do fine....because we are all gamers here (at least if we've played Pathfinder PnP before), we are used to dealing with probabilties and risks vs rewards all the time. It really shouldn't be anything that foriegn to us in playing PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For all of you that are saying that if people want a theme park game then they shouldn't bother with PFO, then recall that GW says on their home page "Pathfinder Online is a hybrid sandbox/theme park-style MMO". Increasingly ignoring the theme park aspects is upsetting people who already contributed money for a Kick Starter and are now seeing the aspects they were promised swept under the rug.
I also agree with WhiteMagus2000 and others that if PFO encourages PKing and griefing, then many subscribers will be driven away. If people want to do PvP, I think that is fine, but there should be a way to op-out. Wars will happen as factions fight for resources, but opting out of a war is easy, you just don't participate. Also, as settlements grow so do monster attacks against those settlements. Therefore resources will be removed without the needing for forced PvP or item destruction.
Sorry if it sounds like I am angry or anything, I just think it is a bad idea to force PvP on everyone, let players freely loot each other, and then destroy unlooted items (besides items that are both threaded and equipped). I add my voice to the many others who have been saying that if the PvE majority keep being ignored in favor of the PvP minority then I also intend to retract my Kick Starter pledge.
Dude, that's kinda like saying that they should remove all contact from Football or you should be able to "op-out" if you want to do so. The game is designed around contact as a core mechanic. Even though there are positions (punter & kicker) which don't generaly get contacted and who the rest of the team usualy try to shield from contact, they STILL have some possibility of contact (in a fumble or broken play).... if they were totaly immune from contact then the game would fundementaly break...as those players could simply pickup the ball and run it into the endzone whenever they wanted to do so...and no one could stop them.
PvP is an assumption built into the core rule-set. It's what makes the game as a whole work. Now if you wanted to completely avoid PvP altogether, you COULD stay in the starter towns (which I believe are 100% PvP safe)....but you'd be missing a very large portion of the game. Outside of that, you can MITIGATE your odds of getting attacked by another player...but you can't completely avoid it, it's a mechanic built into the core rules of the game...without it, the game itself ceases to function.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As someone who played EvE Online and Ultima Online I have to say that while a threat of incoming PvP is there it's far from someone who is not the most powerful person in an area getting murdered all day, every day, all the time, forever!
The idea of a possible threat may be a strange one to get used to as someone coming from purely Themepark games but to agree once more with GrumpyMel is an essential part of the sandbox experience. On a side note: if it's possible to attack another player there is also room for players protecting other players.
It's mostly the realization that GW is making a game I do no want to play with a world I love playing in, and there is nothing I can do about it. I don't want them to stop making a pathfinder game. I just want them to make a game that is more appealing to me.-snip-Q: If you were able to design PfO anyway you wish (ignoring the licencing restrictions for now) what would be your "dream version" of PfO in mmorpg clothes? What advantages and disadvantages (to different types of players) could you envision and how would it be different from the current vision, or, what are the top 5 major features or system of PfO design that you find least appealing/most appealing?
It's an interesting question to ask of any mmorpg tbh.
I dislike the limited setting of only the river kingdoms, that's a very small sandbox its like a tardis on the outside very small but somehow big on the inside, I'd rather they do all of Avistan, then expand to the other continents.
Anything negative that a player can do to a player a npc monster can do that without griefing. PVP players will forever argue their gameplay will be more meaningful. Their way is better and should just except it or leave cause it ain't changing. This game Isn't for you its for us. this game may be set in a world you like but its mechanics is the way we like so deal with it.The game is looking more closely to eve than pathfinder. The name should be Pathfinder in name only. I wouldn't even be writing anything if it weren't on the pathfinder game and would have ignored this game from the beginning, but it's somehow pathfinder and that pinches a nerve.
The mechanics of magic is looking sad. Magic played a MAJOR role in the kingmaker game I was in. I was a druid I remember running around the kingdom once a year in game time increasing the crop growth. If like they said the game would be equivalent to lvls 5-12 then there would be flying, transformations, moving the earth, rain down lightning and fire and all that stuff but will be dumb down so there can be "meaningful" pvp and no unbalance sorta like I don't know 4th edition dnd. The mechanics of spell books looks horrid, doesn't explain any other magic user other than an alchemist, witch who uses a familiar and a magus. Doesn't explain sorcerer, bard, cleric, ranger, oracle, druid, and paladin magic which don't rely on spell books. which goes into there being no classes just Badges like in pokemon. So the entire core mechanics the first chapters of the core rulebook of the Pathfinder RPG is not there or any alternate version to go around "copy rights". I don't see anyone suing wow for using paladin, or rogue, or druid... You could still have a class system, without a lvl system. There would still be advancement with "skills" just that classes have other skills like "trained" skills other people could still do them but just not as good as that other guy, but you have skills you are good at that they aren't.
What I do like is that it's set in Golarion, I do like the ideas they have for PVE even though it is incredibly limited. I'm willing to except the losses of equipment. I'd even except limits of pvp to wars between kingdoms and guilds and towns because that is avoidable, but that's not going to happen because it will limit the pvp to groups and we know how they love that core mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dude, that's kinda like saying that they should remove all contact from Football or you should be able to "op-out" if you want to do so. The game is designed around contact as a core mechanic. Even though there are positions (punter & kicker) which don't generaly get contacted and who the rest of the team usualy try to shield from contact, they STILL have some possibility of contact (in a fumble or broken play).... if they were totaly immune from contact then the game would fundementaly break...as those players could simply pickup the ball and run it into the endzone whenever they wanted to do so...and no one could stop them.
PvP is an assumption built into the core rule-set. It's what makes the game as a whole work. Now if you wanted to completely avoid PvP altogether, you COULD stay in the starter towns (which I believe are 100% PvP safe)....but you'd be missing a very large portion of the game. Outside of that, you can MITIGATE your odds of getting attacked by another player...but you can't completely avoid it, it's a mechanic built into the core rules of the game...without it, the game itself ceases to function.
I'm quoting this because it is probably the best metaphor I've seen yet for why non-consensual PvP is in PFO and how players can largely avoid it.
Kickers and punters are an integral part of the team, and they can win games. If they are a factor in the outcome of the game, they can't expect to opt-out. The only difference is that 1/4 of your team will be punters (crafters, merchants, etc), and another 1/4 will be kickers (PvE adventurers, explorers, etc). The other half will not mind PvP when it comes their way or actively seek it out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also agree with WhiteMagus2000 and others that if PFO encourages PKing and griefing, then many subscribers will be driven away. If people want to do PvP, I think that is fine, but there should be a way to op-out. Wars will happen as factions fight for resources, but opting out of a war is easy, you just don't participate.
The first two sentences will not be possible in PFO. The last will be.
. I add my voice to the many others who have been saying that if the PvE majority keep being ignored in favor of the PvP minority then I also intend to retract my Kick Starter pledge.
As I tried to explain in one of my above posts, the PvP minority is indeed unhappy with the game. The PvE majority have gotten what they wish. The people that are trying to explain why your initial reaction to PvP in PFO is wrong are the PvEers that have been here for several weeks or months and have a good idea of how the game is being designed. If you take the time to read through some of the several massive threads on PvP, you can see several people raising concerns in the first few pages, and in the last few pages trying to show others like them why they need not be so concerned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Uh, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think I would have liked Darkfall. But that game's failures have nothing to do with FFA Open PvP.
The problem with other FFA Open PvP games is that griefing wasn't punished in a meaningful way. I'd rather punish griefing separately from RPKing. That's why I continued supporting the project when the bounty system was introduced a year ago (when it was a way to discourage PvP where new or casual players would be playing the game); I'm fine with that. There is nothing 'imbalanced' about allowing greater PvP challenges in hexes where there are greater PvE challenges. The veteran players going there know the risks.
But, this is recently turning out to be not that game. Which is my point, after all. I wanted 71gamer to see that there is no 'hardcore' PvP crowd here, ready to snatch all his goodies. The 'moderate' PvPers are not happy with their options here. The people that are pointing out the realities of the game to him are not PvP-hungry predators: They are the people that a month ago had the same concerns he had, but put in the time to find the important discussions and dev posts to get a better idea of how this game will work, and are now doing their best to convince others like themselves that 'yes, really, they are making it!'
Getting ahead of myself: I did not mean FFA pvp is no good, just that implementing FFA pvp without it getting out of control (eg UO) is challenging and demonstrably so.
PvP with based on many contingencies as per PfO, should help the proportions of Bartle types - fingers-x.
It won't be like stepping outside a towns gate puts you in the arms of hordes of Pkers. The lands around towns will likely be well patrolled by NPCs and any suspicious
Characters lurking behind trees will likely be well broadcast through town.
With the narrowing of the level disparity, meaning a level 10 won't be able to slash through 5 level 2s like they can in other games, PvE players stand a better chance of being able to flee a battle if that's what they wish to do. Or gang up on the attacker causing Them to flee. After all, so long as the area has laws against criminal acts, a player that attacks another will automatically be flagged as a criminal allowing anyone to attack them without penalty.
I am the farthest from a PvPer as you can get, but recall well the sense of realism that it can bring to a game having grown up playing games like Drakkar and UO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dude, that's kinda like saying that they should remove all contact from Football or you should be able to "op-out" if you want to do so. The game is designed around contact as a core mechanic. Even though there are positions (punter & kicker) which don't generaly get contacted and who the rest of the team usualy try to shield from contact, they STILL have some possibility of contact (in a fumble or broken play).... if they were totaly immune from contact then the game would fundementaly break...as those players could simply pickup the ball and run it into the endzone whenever they wanted to do so...and no one could stop them.
PvP is an assumption built into the core rule-set. It's what makes the game as a whole work. Now if you wanted to completely avoid PvP altogether, you COULD stay in the starter towns (which I believe are 100% PvP safe)....but you'd be missing a very large portion of the game. Outside of that, you can MITIGATE your odds of getting attacked by another player...but you can't completely avoid it, it's a mechanic built into the core rules of the game...without it, the game itself ceases to function.
I'm quoting this because it is probably the best metaphor I've seen yet for why non-consensual PvP is in PFO and how players can largely avoid it.
Kickers and punters are an integral part of the team, and they can win games. If they are a factor in the outcome of the game, they can't expect to opt-out. The only difference is that 1/4 of your team will be punters (crafters, merchants, etc), and another 1/4 will be kickers (PvE adventurers, explorers, etc). The other half will not mind PvP when it comes their way or actively seek it out.
Well said on both accounts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am all for the idea of threading and player looting. It also supports my wish that PFO is less item centric then you average MMO.
I believe that most of the player base will grow to appreciate a combat system where there is some risk. They will also grow to realize that a character,s skills are more important than the items that he is carrying. I always wished the combat in an MMO would be based on the following:
1. Character Skills / Skill Sets
2. Player skill in actual game play or in building the best skill sets
3. Gear
Think of Conan, he could take out half the city guard with the leg of a bar stool. It is not the weapon but the skill of who wields it.
Back to looting.... Without player looting, this game will fail in the same areas that others fail. It will become a gear grind.
I am all for the idea of threading and player looting. It also supports my wish that PFO is less item centric then you average MMO.
I believe that most of the player base will grow to appreciate a combat system where there is some risk. They will also grow to realize that a character,s skills are more important than the items that he is carrying. I always wished the combat in an MMO would be based on the following:
1. Character Skills / Skill Sets
2. Player skill in actual game play or in building the best skill sets
3. GearThink of Conan, he could take out half the city guard with the leg of a bar stool. It is not the weapon but the skill of who wields it.
Back to looting.... Without player looting, this game will fail in the same areas that others fail. It will become a gear grind.
That's why I fled Wow years ago when the level cap was L60. It took no time for me to grow bored trying to collect these sets of gear that just didn't interest me in the least. And standing around IF, woo fun.
Combat where terrain is a factor in your effectiveness will be great. Especially in larger engagements. More like Total War. I envision morale playing part in battles with NPC forces as well, enabling your group to rout a enemy band of humanoids causing them to flee in terror :) to take your example of Conan, remember in the first movie Conan has a sword and little else when he's set upon by a pack of wolves. He retreats until he's at the top of a small hillock, then turns to face the pack having the higher ground. In the next scene we see him clad in wolf skin venturing forth on the road. :)
And skills that do more then just give you another hot keyed ability to mash during the auto-attack cycle. Won't that be cool!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a person is dead set on his interpretation of the game there is little point to arguing with him. It gets to a point where it is clearly not about about reasons. It is about feelings.
The game starts in River Kingdoms. If successful it may surely grow larger. I doubt that is a bona fide issue.
His real issue appears to be with what he believes is a betrayal of the core rules, even though under the open gaming license they cannot legally put those core rules into a computer game. If contract law is irrelevant to him, then his issue is not a matter of reasoning, but emotion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
meh, I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well into text. Your point is precisely what I was trying to convey.
Hah, I get it now. ;)
GrumpyMel made several great points about the nature of the game. It also sounds kind of like Draelin has a very firm idea of what anything Pathfinder should include and resemble, as any hardcore fan can attest, it's easy to be let down by your interest making a transition to another medium. Book/Comic Book movies demonstrate this admirably.
I still have people tell me that they liked the Green Lantern movie, which instantly makes me rage. I haven't killed anybody yet, and fortunately I only invested ~$30 in that theater trip.
If this game is shaping up to be a huge let down, you can totally walk away. Or you can put in your $35 to go see a movie that you know you'll probably hate, but have to find out for sure. Except, this $35 gets your voice heard in the making of that movie, so maybe it won't turn out so bad after all. I've seen the reps specifically mentioning people's names in reference to suggestions, like the replacement for the Capstone system (which btw seems to promote a better multi-class solution, which is closer to the core books, right?) ;)
If you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, literally.. you're probably going to remain disappointed. But seriously, if you think you're going to be unhappy no matter what, I don't think anyone can blame you for not wanting to take part in it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just think it is a bad idea to force PvP on everyone...
A lot of people had that same reaction, and gradually came around not only to understanding why Ryan has decided to build a game that includes non-consensual PvP, but to actually accepting that it's the correct decision.
I very much hope you stick around. There are some informative threads in the Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links list, especially Ryan's post on griefing.
For everyone person like you that posts these questions on the forums, there are probably 10 more who are thinking the same thing, but don't post. I encourage you to continue asking questions, for the benefit of everyone who's uncomfortable with the Open PvP nature of PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For those concerned about open world, non consensual pvp I hope to provide a bit of relief. It has been my experience that just because they can, does not always translate into they will.
The same concerns you have to be attacked without provocation, many will be reluctant to because you are an unknown entity. The would be attacker will never truly know the risk vs reward factor, but with the criminal flags and bounties they will know there is at least a moderate risk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Discussion thread for new blog entry Goblinworks Blog: Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves
Curious to see people's thoughts on highwaymen and ransoms.
My understanding is that there will be wagons / caravans of wagons to transport materials in bulk. These will make a sweat target for bandits / highwaymen. Some of these convoys will be protected by Player characters.
If faced with overwhelming force and offered life vs a ransom or toll fee, what should be the game mechanic for such an event?
This scenario assumes that no one has been killed on the defender's side, merely subdued and offered a way out alive.
As always, ransoms only work when they are honored.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This scenario assumes that no one has been killed on the defender's side, merely subdued and offered a way out alive.
IIR, non-lethal damage is not in the works at this time. I VERY very very much hope that they DO add it, as this opens a great number of opportunities for exactly the kind of situation you describe, as well as a way for Good aligned individuals to drub annoying folk without taking faction hits (laws regarding violence permitting). Precautions would need to be made though, as one would still be responsible for helping another die if they leave them unconscious for a passing kobold/bandit.
It would be nice if the game recognized the difference between lethal and subdual damage and treated their penalties differently in respect to the severity of violence being inflicted. For a person who regularly does Good deeds, but has low tolerance for jackassery this could be a solution that does not involve sliding into Neutral or worse.
The caravan scenario allows for no one to die, but certainly shouldn't preclude Criminal flags being handed out once an actual theft occurs. Perhaps a 6 second combat-breakable loot click, much like husks, but with a warning about the Criminal / Thief nature of what you're about to do at the start, that allows you to assume control of the wagon. (Though I maintain looting a husk should carry stiffer penalties than the mere murder of the player and perhaps carry the same warning if this changes to be so.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@All - there will be secure storage for your stuff. You'll only risk what you take beyond the gates of your Settlement.
Cool, I was only expecting the 100% secure banking to exist in the NPC towns.
Would there be a separate bank in each place (not 'Kundarak' banking)?Wouldn't banked items in a player-built settlement be subject to loss if the bank itself were destroyed?
@All - the world of Pathfinder has lots of magic travel options. When the time is right and the economics make sense I expect we'll use them to allow you to experience lots of Golarion.
So that would be something like DDO, except the entire RK would take the place of Stormreach?
Would the various remote locations be the skymetal-purchased modules, and if so, does buying them once unlock them permanently, or would you have to rebuy them each time?|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really? You don't like the idea of a dragon running rampant off in the wilderness, killing unfortunate souls that pass by, until finally a group gets together and take it down, just to find that it had hoarded a huge pile of loot?
That's how a lot of dragon hoards get created, actually. I know I've heard of games where a party found the dragon that had wiped the previous party, and the loot was all there.
Maybe if just getting a kill simply added to the amount of gear/coinage it dropped?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually it's not that I'm against that idea so much as the fact that most of a what a husk has is lost when looted by anyone other than its owner. ;) That would be a LOT of lost valuables, angry players and /ragequit'ing.
Players are far more likely to be accepting of a dragon showing up one day and attacking settlements, draining resources or even coins and hauling them off, only for it to all eventually be recovered on defeat by the now rich party that claims the reward of everyone else's money. But only in the way that you can be accepting of having your riches jacked with the chance of a lottery-winner sized recovery, when your other option is your crap is gone and you might maybe only ever get a couple pieces of it back along with whatever other crap is randomly looted.
Mechanically you may as well just randomly delete items from people's inventories, as that's how it would likely be viewed.
I can see that. Perhaps a special type of looting where it takes a few items but does not set the flags to destroy stuff?
Or, as I said earlier, maybe just add a variable percentage number to the loot it drops based on how many people it's killed.
I could get behind such a idea, it seems realistic and gives incentive to those who have lost battles to a group or single mob to try and defeat that enemy. It would add to RP within settlements too. Imagine "that Orc chieftain killed three people yesterday! That makes 10 he's killed. He has a horde of loot in his lair, I saw it right before he nailed me!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They could also maybe get a little stronger with each kill, to represent them actually being a harder foe (since they're going around killing people). This could deter sending waves of cannon fodder to increase an enemy's loot, then just owning it and collecting the heightened spoils. It probably would need a cap, but it could be high.
Actually, that would fit thematically well with the escalation that'll occur with hexes. Combining the two could have some interesting effects.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Vendis I would very much like such a mechanic for some specific types of monsters.
I don't see why it should be any different when an NPC loots you in this way from when a PC does. In fact, I thought a lot of the issues people had with PvP was that a person was profitting from their misery; they didn't mind losing their stuff to a computer, as it would just be another non-discriminatory, challenging game mechanic at that point.
I wouldn't mind if some of the restrictions you mentioned were placed on it if there were a good reason to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They could also maybe get a little stronger with each kill...
That's a really good idea, but you need something better than "each kill" or griefers will simply send wave after wave of throwaway alts against them to make them super-powerful. The Fibonacci sequences is great for this kind of thing, and shows up in nature in things like the growth of sea shells.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am still of the opinion that the unthreaded belongings of adventurers who fall unrecovered in a dungeon should still be there for following parties or the corpse runs of the fallen.
That will be the case, from what we have been told so far. Looting the husk of a player that you did not have 'rights' to (by killing said player) will give a player the 'thief' flag. I believe I got that from the latest blog, Gypsies etc.
Though I expect husks to have a timer of a couple to a few days that they will remain in the world, as otherwise the world could be cluttered with them. Also, remember that many dungeons will only be available to the person/group that found them first, so I would expect the corpse to be lost when that type of dungeon despawns.
EDIT: I just realized you might simply be arguing for the status quo over this new 'horde' system. As I see it, only a few types of monsters (dragons are the only one I know of in Pathfinder lore specifically) would do this. Players would understand the risks involved when engaging these types of monsters.
In regards to the Escalation system, maybe orcs/goblins would only start hoarding player loot if they were left alone to build up to a certain level of development.
At any rate, I don't expect there to be one type of monster in every hex/dungeon that is a hoarder. Perhaps this increased PvE risk will only be found in some (again, not all) of the wilderness areas where veterans already expect to find greater PvE risks.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I am still of the opinion that the unthreaded belongings of adventurers who fall unrecovered in a dungeon should still be there for following parties or the corpse runs of the fallen.
While I agree with this, it would be pretty cool if the goblins that just killed you looted *some* of your gear to use, ala better weapons and or armor.
Would definitely add a whole new level or realism. Of course, all under the assumption it would be possible for the engine to handle NPC's changing their equipment/loot table dynamically.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I expect husks to have a timer of a couple to a few days...Really? I would expect it to be much shorter than that; perhaps on the order of 4-8 hours.
Well, iirc it was 48 hours in Everquest. Of course, that was a much different situation, since it was a themepark in which there was no other way for your gear to be lost (and so gear had a lot of value), and you lost EVERYTHING, rather than keeping select parts.
If it were only several hours, it would kind of suck to die right before you had to log, since you would lose everything you were carrying. Especially if you were AFK because you got an emergency call and had to deal with that for the next several hours, or if you were just fighting your way to a safe place to log out but died due to some terrible RNG.
I would be fine with 24-48 hours; but the shorter you make the timespan, the harder you make dying on casual players. These players might already hate the idea of spending some of their limited playtime dying.
These players might already hate the idea of spending some of their limited playtime dying.
Oh they do, many have been quite vocal about it <grin>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Vendis Fantastic idea regarding growth in strength. As this could actually be an escalation and not merely use the mechanics of such it would already have organic growth.
What I think would add to the amazing is if it were a more random worldwide kind of event that could coexist with or in fact co-op an escalation in progress. Possibly to the same goal of taking over the hex, or more Smaug-like in establishing a horde with little regard for the inhabitants of the hex but growing no less powerful over time.
Whether they are horders or destroyers could be determined by the monster type. Dragon hordes, storm giant destroys.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Corpses laying around is messy for the players and the system. Satisfy everyone at once by giving a day or two to find your corpse and then let monsters loot it as a means of system cleanup. Enterprising players might sit on a soon to expire corpse and wait for these loot monsters to come to them ;) Obviously this would have to be addressed somehow, to get the corpse gone and avoid any kind of exploitation, but it's simple enough to have beetles consume the thing if the looter can't do its job.