Goblin Squad Member
|
Want to make a trillion dollars? Have PFO do these things...
1) Sandbox game where all useful equipment and settlements are crafted by players from collected resources and resources that drop as loot.
2) Open world PvP with safe zones and player created safe zones like the player created settlements or even player hideouts.
3) Player controlled territory in which settlements can become kingdoms where the best resources for the best crafting come from the best player kingdoms.
4) Great PvE. Great NPE expereince, plenty of random dungeons, and a big massive superdungeon/RAID that is added every 4-6 months. Players can spend in game resources and learn a crafting tree of skills that allow them to craft their own dungeons with puzzles, traps, story, player deposited loot. Make it pay to enter so dungeon crafters can try to turn a profit.
5) Achievement system that acknowledges a player's and guild accomplishments - world first for a few thousand different achievements covering every aspect of the game. Have an achievement point ranking system.
6) PvP ranking ladders.
7) A built in MOBA style PvP game with rankings and ladders.
Put all these things into PFO and watch the players and fans flock to you. I feel the next MMO that will eventually replace WoW will cover all these bases in one amazingly well integrated system.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting concept.
With all due respect, the goal of PFO has never been to compete with WoW. Theme park content can scale up very easily just by adding servers. Sandbox content does not scale happily that way; you can't just add more players by putting them in a copy of the game and have a similar experience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting concept.
With all due respect, the goal of PFO has never been to compete with WoW. Theme park content can scale up very easily just by adding servers. Sandbox content does not scale happily that way; you can't just add more players by putting them in a copy of the game and have a similar experience.
With all due respect, Dungeons and Raid content should be instanced so it doesn't affect the server. If too many players want to play then keep adding hexes which are instanced anyways I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect, Dungeons and Raid content should be instanced so it doesn't affect the server. If too many players want to play then keep adding hexes which are instanced anyways I think.Interesting concept.
With all due respect, the goal of PFO has never been to compete with WoW. Theme park content can scale up very easily just by adding servers. Sandbox content does not scale happily that way; you can't just add more players by putting them in a copy of the game and have a similar experience.
They may well instance dungeons, but doing so moves away from sandbox towards theme park, and makes for a "canned" experience = boring.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@OP: I dunno dude, I thought the magic number of items was 8 NOT 7! *winks*. It's a bit like a recipe, I'm not sure taking the "best ingredients" of one awesome dish and adding to another makes for a super-fusion dish that's part French, part Chinese and double the taste of both!
Here's what I see in very general terms. PFO is creating a world of kingdoms. This is finally creating a virtual world (in fantasy) where stories have a living background to be based in. So for sci-fi what EVE (space-ships) is doing with Dust (planet-FPS) or even PS2 may attempt with eg Land, Sea, Air options to conquer continents. And possibly one of the Titan projects will revolve around?
1)-4) make a lot of sense, but 5)-6) seem very arbitary however. 7) I understand that moba is popular but it seems to me because it takes the fantasy-combat and puts it in a very accessible team-system with strategy. Not sure that would work in a virtual world setting in such a defined "game" (I mean controlled conditions) eg the maps, the rules, the points, the champion swapping? I only played LoL for a day or 2 and did not really enjoy it, so not the best to comment on moba.
, the goal of PFO has never been to compete with WoW.I know some people don't want to be a billionaire....
More like some people want to actually get somewhere. A small farmer who seeks to compete with Walmart is not going to become a billionaire, he's going to get crushed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't even think Paizo is worth a billion dollars, although I'd like to think that in my mind (Great company.)
1) already being done
2) sounds like it's in.
3) done.
4) except that's why it's majorly sandbox. Those are theme park things, and that's why they cost so much. Although I am behind player-created dungeons/stories, that sounds like they will have it eventually. Not sure on paying, though (I think they said no to paying for separate areas. I could be wrong.)
5) I'm indifferent, but I don't think it'd have much place in a sandbox (conquerer a settlement? Quick, let's go to war!)
6) That could go with arenas, but I'm not really a big fan of ranking in ladders as all it seems to me is just "this build > everything else." Then again, that's me. I never liked where you HAVE to build this way or suck in PvP.
7) This would be an entirely different game. Also, as interesting as a MOBA Pathfinder could be, it just doesn't make sense (why would a wizard use just 4 abilities?), and I don't think the community of those games is what Paizo wants. Plus, it would split up the community (and there's more upkeep involved.)
I don't think there will be instances in the typical sense. Dungeons will pop up randomly, but it won't be limited to one party: Another party could come into the same dungeon and run into the same party, and it could lead to: They team up to beat the bad guys, they duke it out because "we were here first", or some other thing ("Thanks for helping us all this way *gesture* *SHANK* we'll take the treasure from here! MUAHAHAHAHA!!")
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They may well instance dungeons, but doing so moves away from sandbox towards theme park, and makes for a "canned" experience = boring.
If you don't like instanced dungeons, you don't have to do them.
Allowing instance dungeons attracts a larger player base. All items are player made. Means more demand for player crafters. The drops in dungeons should only be crafting resources, so think of it is a harvesting mini-game if that makes you feel better about it. PFO can be a huge game one day or it can be a niche for a few eve players that want to play eve in a midevil setting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
More like some people want to actually get somewhere. A small farmer who seeks to compete with Walmart is not going to become a billionaire, he's going to get crushed., the goal of PFO has never been to compete with WoW.I know some people don't want to be a billionaire....
Sure for farming, but this is inventing a new product. Blizzard took EQ and made it better. At the time, no one thought EQ would ever lose its audience. Make PFO a sandbox with an amusement park and a MOBA with everything based upon rankings and leaderboards.
My concern is that GW is only making EVE set in the middle ages... if so this will be a tiny niche game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My concern is that GW is only making EVE set in the middle ages... if so this will be a tiny niche game.
That is EXACTLY the goal of PFO; to start out as a tiny niche game with a small core of players and a minimum viable game to which more players and additional systems are added to gradually over time. This smaller scale and target will allow GW to create the game and be successful while only having the tiny niche share. As more systems and players are added it will draw more players who are fed up with the limitations of WOW and other theme park games.
PFO Isn't a theme park and it isn't a MOBA. what it is a fantasy sandbox with a strong PVP element. It's fantasy eve but without the social commentary that CCP has used as a reason to allow the rampant griefing that is in Eve.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My concern is that GW is only making EVE set in the middle ages... if so this will be a tiny niche game.That is EXACTLY the goal of PFO; to start out as a tiny niche game with a small core of players and a minimum viable game to which more players and additional systems are added to gradually over time. This smaller scale and target will allow GW to create the game and be successful while only having the tiny niche share. As more systems and players are added it will draw more players who are fed up with the limitations of WOW and other theme park games.
PFO Isn't a theme park and it isn't a MOBA. what it is a fantasy sandbox with a strong PVP element. It's fantasy eve but without the social commentary that CCP has used as a reason to allow the rampant griefing that is in Eve.
Couldnt have said it better myself.
I dont want the numbers that are in WoW and other similar games. Those people come and go. I have played Eve on and off for 7 years. The only times Im off is when RL gets in the way of my gaming.
I want that for this. In fact I told a couple buddies of mine, PFO is Eve D&D, I cant wait.
My concern is that GW is only making EVE set in the middle ages... if so this will be a tiny niche game.
Considering the world-famous and paradigm-defining success of EVE, if GW can accomplish what EVE has, they will be wildly successful beyond the dreams of a tiny little tabletop RPG publisher in the boonies east of Seattle...
EQ1 had ~400k players at its very peak, but that was a short period of time. Through the period of EQ1's active life, it generally had a population between 150k and 220k.
EQ1 is considered one of the most wildly successful games ever created in terms of the profit it has generated relative to the cost of producing and maintaining it. It is because of EQ1's industry shattering success that we have the sorts of MMOs of today.
EVE has only grown and is over 500k today. And EVE is roughly a year older than WoW (which was launched in late 2004). And CCP (EVE's developer) is doing so well that the government of Iceland begged them to not move their offices because the national economy would be wrecked. Granted Iceland is a small country. But that's still a country-scale economic phenomenon we're talking about. EVE's in-game economy (since you can buy in-game currency with real-world cash) has been valued higher than a great many real-world countries. You can google the current stats yourself.
With Blizzard's success popularizing the genre, a more accessible, less grindy, less tedious version of EVE is all but guaranteed to make a mint. And Goblinworks (Paizo) is only shooting for roughly 100k-200k players. In fact, they're taking steps to limit the growth rate of the game to safeguard themselves from the real possibility that they'll be so popular they literally won't be able to keep the game online... By targeting a smaller population, they are pulling a very clever maneuver which will limit the risk and the startup finances required.
200k players may not sound like a lot when Blizzard brags about millions (they're counting every expired trial account and Chinese farmer ever), but "Tiny niche game" is perhaps a tad... uninformed.
Just so you know... The town where Paizo's offices are has a total population of 56,000.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFO Isn't a theme park and it isn't a MOBA. what it is a fantasy sandbox with a strong PVP element. It's fantasy eve but without the social commentary that CCP has used as a reason to allow the rampant griefing that is in Eve.
The impression I get from other EVE players is that most of them migrate to EVE precisely because CCP allows the behavior you would call "griefing".
Griefing is only "a thing" in MMOs with a population that has a false sense of security and an unenforceable sense of etiquette. So the term just doesn't apply to EVE. EVE players know that it's all PvP all the time and that the economy is "fair game" since... the economy is the game.
Griefing is what happens when so-called "carebears" (a derogatory term, I believe) are forced to share a world with PvPers while under the impression that environment (the game) is "supposed to be for 'them'" (the carebears).
If that makes any sense at all. Good lord, these antihistamines are nuts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didnt play Eve for the griefing, I played it becouse it was a sandbox with some great PVP (and some long hours waiting to pvp.)
Eve is a pure PVP game. There is no environment for carebears (Pure PVE Players.) You have no security, low security, and high security space. High security space is the safest space to do your thing, but is by no means completely safe.
If you know the game mechanics then you will only have a small level of griefing to worry about. I was only high security ganked once while hauling some good loot to Jita and hit autopilot. Believe me, it was the last time too. Most other griefing that goes on, is mainly ninja salvaging. Someone scans you down in a mission, comes in and salvages your wrecks, takes an item or two so he is flagged to you, then hopes you shoot at him... Then he can go grab his pvp ship and come back to attack you.
If you know how to do it right, you can kill the griefer and send him packing.
I dont think PFO is going to allow this with instanced dungeons, no pvp unless you flag in cities, and open world pvp. That will limit the Eve griefing and keep some of the carebears around.
There are going to be two different types of dungeons, according the GW blog. The 'Superdungeon' which will have multiple entrances and will support multiple groups inside of it simultaneously(leading to cooperation or pvp - you pick) and instanced dungeons, only available to the first person(or group) to find it.
They were VERY specific about that. First come, first serve for the smaller dungeons. Instanced, so no outside interference. Once cleared, the dungeon goes away forever. Most of the time.
As to the OP's list, I'm fairly certain the first 4 are already in the game(or already planned to be in there). 5 shouldn't be difficult to do. 6 is something I'm indifferent to, though I can see both pros and cons. 7... I honestly hope not. I've played League of Legends since S1, still play a few times a week... but I would prefer the two genres be kept separate. They have already discussed a system for large scale battles that I like the sound of MUCH better than trying something MOBAish.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whole lot of cool stuff based upon what Ryan and GW Devs have written
Totally agree with you! Ryan has said at least twice now that this game is aimed at a small, highly dedicated player base - niche market. He has also said nothing that Blizzard has done will be in PfO. I am afraid so many people, raised on post WoW MMO's think that theme-park style is the only way to go. MUDs, MOO's and games like Eve, are more in line with what a sandbox game is designed to be - player oriented and player content heavy. Paizo and GW aren't out to make billions or trillions, they are out to make a profit while providing a small, hard-core gamer population happy.
While I am sure Soldack has good intentions, all of the things he has proposed are theme-park (this thread and the MOBA thread), and thus fall outside the vision for what PfO should be, as held by Paizo and GW, as well as the majority of the KS backers. While interesting ideas, they belong in a different game. PfO isn't looking to compete with WoW or all its clones. It seeks to be innovated and both Paizo and GW understand that the appeal will be felt only by a small number of players and are quite happy with that fact.
Soldack, there are other MMO's on Kickstarter, ones who may want to be theme-park, and would likely welcome your ideas. Perhaps you should speak to them? Your ideas, as I noted, are good ones, just PfO isn't the venue for them. If you really wish to see your ideas in a game, they may be better able to assist you in that. Good luck! :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No PVP statistics etc, thanks. Arena rankings/ladders, maybe. Achievement: not too sure about them either, aren't they like merit badges.
An arena where everyone can go and see matches for free(like the colosseum) or participate and fight for money or bet on winner and an invisible wall to separates spectators. That would be a cool place to hang out and spend time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My concern is that GW is only making EVE set in the middle ages... if so this will be a tiny niche game.
Consider your concern confirmed but add that Ryan and most of the people here would disagree with you about the word "tiny".
EvE certainly is a niche game, but the niche is far from tiny.
Totally agree with you! Ryan has said at least twice now that this game is aimed at a small, highly dedicated player base - niche market. He has also said nothing that Blizzard has done will be in PfO. I am afraid so many people, raised on post WoW MMO's think that theme-park style is the only way to go. MUDs, MOO's and games like Eve, are more in line with what a sandbox game is designed to be - player oriented and player content heavy. Paizo and GW aren't out to make billions or trillions, they are out to make a profit while providing a small, hard-core gamer population happy.
While I am sure Soldack has good intentions, all of the things he has proposed are theme-park (this thread and the MOBA thread), and thus fall outside the vision for what PfO should be, as held by Paizo and GW, as well as the majority of the KS backers. While interesting ideas, they belong in a different game. PfO isn't looking to compete with WoW or all its clones. It seeks to be innovated and both Paizo and GW understand that the appeal will be felt only by a small number of players and are quite happy with that fact.
Soldack, there are other MMO's on Kickstarter, ones who may want to be theme-park, and would likely welcome your ideas. Perhaps you should speak to them? Your ideas, as I noted, are good ones, just PfO isn't the venue for them. If you really wish to see your ideas in a game, they may be better able to assist you in that. Good luck! :)
+1! Well said.
The OP might want to take another look at Wow. I'm fairly sure they have an arena where players can use their little vanity pets to battle. I believe they even have rankings and all that, which sounds just like the sort of MOBA you were wanting. I'm sure by now they have tons of little critters that can be bought. It's worth a shot to try out.d
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know about billions, and certainly not trillions, but you have one thing that is counter productive and another you missed.
1. Kill Boards encourage griefing, alt farming, friend farming, and random noob player killing.
2. Allow for 3rd party, multi device skill queue. I don't meen to just allow us to view our skill queue on another device, but actually to be able to set a new skill.
If Paizo / GW marketed this App it would sell to every subscriber to PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Two words - "Scope Creep"
It's what kills projects and companies. Trying to do too many things at the same time within the same project just becomes unmanageable. Especialy when you've got limited resources to work with.
PFO has a specific target audience in mind, with a specific set of features that they are building upon (slowly) to satisfy that audience. Most of your features wouldn't appeal to that audience or the game they want to play.
I think you are really talking about maybe 2-3 different games on top of this one. Each one may be potentialy popular in it's own right but conflating them together in the same product and trying to do them all at the same time is a project killer.
PFO is already a VERY, VERY ambitious project in it's own right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Two words - "Scope Creep"
It's what kills projects and companies. Trying to do too many things at the same time within the same project just becomes unmanageable.
Having some good amusement park content improves the sandbox. In EVE they have the PvE wormholes and Sansa invasion.
Adding a separate game genre, like MOBA (the most popular and profitable computer gaming in the world) is similar to EVE adding DUST a first-person shooter to their game...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that DUST is an entirely seperate product, produced by an entirely seperate project team and long after CCP was financialy stable with EVE.
Heck, it's not even playable on the same platform (PC's) as I understand it.
Nothing wrong with a company trying to expand it's product offerings once it's well established....or to grow a mature product in ways that fit that product well.
ALOT wrong with setting out to cram too many vastly different things into the same product at the outset. That's usualy a recipie for disaster even with vast amounts of resources to throw at a product/project. With limited resources, it's a way to be dead in the water before you even get to the starting gate...i.e. "Scope Creep".
Let them build the game they want to build and are planning to build, for the target audience they have planned to attract. Once they've done so and are cash flow positive, they can see how it makes sense to expand thier product/product line from there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm still unclear as to how its PFO? (The 'P' being Pathfinder) When my group plays Pathfinder, we dont hunt and kill other adventurers or invite other parties to come "duel" at the table. The constant harping on PVP is making me edgy about the actual 'fantasy adventure' part of it all. I mean, it all sounds well and good, but an EVE style game will become a haven for EVE style players...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm still unclear as to how its PFO? (The 'P' being Pathfinder) When my group plays Pathfinder, we dont hunt and kill other adventurers or invite other parties to come "duel" at the table. The constant harping on PVP is making me edgy about the actual 'fantasy adventure' part of it all. I mean, it all sounds well and good, but an EVE style game will become a haven for EVE style players...
Think of it this way: Every game world in D&D and Pathfinder has many, many adventurers in it, even if your GM never has them cross your path. Their goals differ from your personal ones and the ones your party might have. Some may even have the totally opposite goal in mind. Your party is out to stop a mad wizard from using an artifact, while a separate party of adventurers want that artifact used, or to be able to use it themselves. A good GM will have you cross their path and they become rivals, but not all GM's do this, especially newer ones. Many GM's just focus on the group they have in front of them and ignore NPC adventurers. PfO is full of those other adventurers.
So in PfO, you actually see all the other adventurers and adventuring parties, and all the various goals might end up with you and someone else either vying for the same thing, or seeking to do the opposite of the other's goal. Therefore, PvP exists. Parties and individuals are of every alignment and thus their goals will often conflict with the goals of others. Bandit players want coin and goods they can sell, while lawful characters want to stop them. Each sees themselves doing what is right for themselves. Maybe the bandit grew up so poor he/she wants never to go hungry again, while the Lawful character grew up in such a strict environment that he/she sees breaking any laws as leading to anarchy. They end up confronting one another and one lives and one gets sent to the closest bind point they are bound. It is all about the interplay of the characters.
GW and Paizo have stated they want PvP to be meaningful - not someone just killing people for fun and to cause misery (systems will be in place to ban those that do so).
Also PfO isn't a port of PFRPG. PFRPG is covered under the WotC OGL, but GW and PfO are not party to that agreement, so things will be very different in PfO than a table top game. The Goblinworks Blog has many more details - read up on them and how some things have changed over time to fit the reality of both the community's ideas and the coding needed to make a game. :) Also Nihimon, one of our fellow backers, has extensive knowledge on all things PfO and keeps many threads in this forum up to date. Perhaps he could post up a few links to some of Ryan's and the Dev's postings for you. Oh Archivist Nihimon, your serves are needed ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not sure if you're up for a long read, Maccabee... press on brave adventurer!
I'm still unclear as to how its PFO? (The 'P' being Pathfinder) When my group plays Pathfinder, we dont hunt and kill other adventurers or invite other parties to come "duel" at the table. The constant harping on PVP is making me edgy about the actual 'fantasy adventure' part of it all. I mean, it all sounds well and good, but an EVE style game will become a haven for EVE style players...
1) Q: What makes PFO Pathfinder?
This has been brought up a good number of times, so I'll just add a very condensed summary that's not authoritative or complete. It needs to be clear also why it varies in some dramatic ways also:
- The lore and setting and design team are all Pathfinder through and through, you'll find. Eg are the 2 dev blogs by Rich Baker (Designing Thornkeep, Darkness on the Edge of Town). So that continuity is perhaps most in the spirit of keeping to Pathfinder, I believe.
- The general attributes and feel of working within a class/role option with familiar if different named skills is inherited from Pathfinder even if modifications are taken. Ie again it's design team working closely with Paizo but with 'MMORPG' and 'Sandbox' 'Computer Video Game' in mind.
- Major changes:
i) Pathfinder PnP revolves around a small PARTY of adventurers (ie the table human-human interaction with a GM and using a TBC system with TT materials). This aspect of ADVENTURE is one of the FOUR pillars of PFO, which adds:
- Exploration
- Development
- Dominion
ii) A ton could be said about this which can't be easily summarised. But the 4th pillar especially is similar to the high-level EVE territorial warfare. This is intended to feedback into the sense of atmosphere and adventure that party of adventurers may feel while out looking for quests and dungeons to interact with and take back to their affiliated or friendly settlements.
iii) Ok the big changes:
a) Bandits along the road might be other players, and even notorious infamous, dangerous groups might prowl the wilds, also players. So there is OPEN PVP but gradated. Again more on the blogs. The problem of other games is they are more accurately FFA pvp and end up being major gameplay combat-pvp ganking only. So PFO aims to INNOVATE in this space.
b) PFO is Real-Time as opposed to Turn-Based combat
c) The GM is replaced by computer code running calculations and data transfer.
d) Many many other players simultaneously playing. ie 000's and up.
2) Q: Why does PFO keep being mentioned as similar to EVE?
As the Pathfinder stuff has roots with the design people in Paizo so the MMORPG stuff has roots with the dev staff of Ryan and Mark where they learnt some striking things about that game's design. The 3 design pillars of EVE Online:
- Player Interaction
- Player Goals
- Player Conflict
- Similarities therefore that derive from this high-level consideration:
i) Domination Pillar (aka Territorial Settlement level)
ii) Virtual Economy underpinning everything else in the game
iii) Contracts and Flags to underpin more variable types of player-player interaction.
iv) Skill-Progression and value of characters over time
v) Emergent Story
These are seen in the design blogs.
=
So to summarise, I think a GM can create the current context that allows a few players to be immersed in the moment and along a character trajectory and developing story. But for that to replicate in mmorpg, the whole map needs creating, player-player interactions and analytics of these need to be high and conducive to drive changes at high-level onwards eg changes in the state of politics, trade, wars, what alliances and dangerous monsters are in a particular part of the map (a hex in pfo) and much more. EVE is a useful yardstick because of it's undoubted success and longevity so it bears comparison.
3) Q: "...but an EVE style game will become a haven for EVE style players [?]"
There's 2 reasons this is over-reported or equally warrants as much discussion and consternation as suggested:
1) Open PvP in most other mmorpgs has been designed along the lines of devolving or being FFA pvp for a select niche that enjoy that. EVE has a culture of free-for-all which is very different from most protective of the player mmorpgs. I think that distinction is both a market and a standard bearer for embracing pvp anyway anyhow. CCP took their cues from UO, apparently. This is not to say that PFO has to adopt that culture, and equally there is a good chance that players could evolve their direction of online mmo cultural and social norms...
2) PvP can easily lead to anti-social behavior as a meta-game for people online who don't wish to play the game. The trick is to innovate pvp. A lot of high budget mmorpgs simply can't take that risk to innovate so have deemed it impossible. So this is indeed a risky move by GW, but as the above points, there are good reason to integrate PvP if it can be maintained as gameplay and not griefing, which also solves a whole load of problems of themepark mmorpgs. I guess the opposite of conflict might be creation and what sort of opportunities for players to create, might balance the pvp?
disclaimer: Most of the above is culled (99%) from online refs, and is not any of my original thinking, but hopefully it's a quick and very dirty summary to address this relationship between PFO and EVE. A good thing imo as there's much data to be used and much improvements or adaptations that can be made and much more to learn no doubt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm still unclear as to how its PFO? (The 'P' being Pathfinder) When my group plays Pathfinder, we dont hunt and kill other adventurers or invite other parties to come "duel" at the table. The constant harping on PVP is making me edgy about the actual 'fantasy adventure' part of it all. I mean, it all sounds well and good, but an EVE style game will become a haven for EVE style players...
Arguably the definitive characteristics that differentiate sandbox game from themepark games is player liberty and interplayer content.
One of the most sensitive issues with liberty among human beings is the drive to compete.
Combine the two and you find that interplayer conflict is the necessary result.
The consequence is that for the whole to work well interplayer conflict must be fully analyzed, regulatory measures for that conflict must be positioned, and the whole must be integrated with the balance of the tools of the sandbox that will be provided for us.
PvP is given so much attention because it requires so much attention to do well while still providing a practical emulation of Pathfinder as expressed in tabletop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm still unclear as to how its PFO? (The 'P' being Pathfinder) When my group plays Pathfinder, we dont hunt and kill other adventurers or invite other parties to come "duel" at the table. The constant harping on PVP is making me edgy about the actual 'fantasy adventure' part of it all. I mean, it all sounds well and good, but an EVE style game will become a haven for EVE style players...
I think that's a fairly reasonable sentiment and you certainly won't be the only one to express it. I, personaly, think the Pathfinder Online MMO experience is going to be deeply contrasted from the Pathfinder the PnP game experience in many important aspects. That's just my own subjective feeling. Every individual is going to have thier own expectations of what really makes something X, what the essence and important points are.
That being said, I am still hopefull that PFO will be a fun and entertaining experience. They could have named it Clackety-Clack Online for all I care....it's not really the "P" that has the draw for me (although I am a big time PnP role-playing fan) but alot of the description of whats going to be in PFO.
I also strongly hope and expect that it will NOT be overly much like EVE. (IMO) EVE with Elves would be a dismal failure and I don't think the Dev's are really trying to build that despite thier background. In every good game (IMO) the mechanics have to fit the subject matter well. EVE works as a Sci-Fi game where the players are, essentialy, spaceships in some distopean future. It wouldn't work at all where the players are individual characters in a traditional High Fantasy setting. Nor would it really work if it were an Old West game or a modern shooter game. The mechanics would have to be so drasticaly altered as to make it an entirely different game altogether. That is what I hope and expect will happen here.
The Dev's, given thier background, will undoubtedly take some of thier knowledge about what works well in MMO's and Sandbox games and FFA PvP games, etc that they learned from thier experience in EVE and apply it here....but I very seriously doubt they are going to be remaking the same game with a different skin.
Having some good amusement park content improves the sandbox. In EVE they have the PvE wormholes and Sansa invasion.
Adding a separate game genre, like MOBA (the most popular and profitable computer gaming in the world) is similar to EVE adding DUST a first-person shooter to their game...
The current MOBAs were created from the ground up to be just mobas. That's all they had to be and it's all they will ever be. It's already an entire self-contained genre, so adding it to an MMO is just bound to be disastrous without quintupling the cost of the project.
EVE has been around for a decade now -- and they have been working on DUST for a very long while using the guaranteed revenue stream provided by the break-out success of EVE... GW has no guaranteed revenue stream, they're using, essentially, a lump sum loaned to them by some financial institution -- which means their total available cash is clearly defined and limited. They have to ensure that the investment will be profitable as-is before expanding what they will allocate those funds to.
GW's PFO project is fundamentally unlike EVE is currently or any of the MOBAs at any time during their production. Unless you think the MOBAs would have been easily able to successfully include MMO hybridizations midway through their design process...
[...] when Blizzard brags about millions (they're counting every expired trial account and Chinese farmer ever) [...]Those millions are concurrent subscribers, meaning 'how many people payed us to play last month' (could be averaged over a few months). WoW bashing has gotten really boring, even when it's accurate...
Citation needed.
An "active account" is not necessarily a paid subscriber, and Chinese farmers use paid accounts very often -- is a gold farmer really a player?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding a separate game genre, like MOBA (the most popular and profitable computer gaming in the world) is similar to EVE adding DUST a first-person shooter to their game...
EVE had (has) a succesful space-combat game. PFO doesn't exist yet. Try suggesting a spin-off game in 5 years.
But I have to tell you, I think my goblin cart-racing game is going to have priority, not to mention Andoren vs. Cheliax Halfling Women's Volleyball.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dwarf Tossing?
Oh and, In my useless opinion, any game that does not develop a decent pvp side is a short lived game. It annoys me to no end when games call themselves MMO's and never really develop pvp.
For instance:
Star Wars the Old Republic... driven as a Republic vs Empire game with great story and multiplayer. PVP is dull and drab. So you have this great conflict that the players are only in at the PVE level. PVP combat is arena based with nothing of use outside the arena.
Thats why Eve shines in PVP and continued long time player retention game.
Players have a massive field of combat that they control and can manipulate.
I think thats the side PFO is trying to capture.
Another example:
Neverwinter... I dont know if anyone has played the bets, but I turned it off once I entered the city. Bad Bad game. Besides that. Why make a MMO with limited PVP... You can just play Neverwinter Nights, better character classes, mulitplayer, and I think better graphics LOL.
On an final note.
PFO is as much (or more so) about gamers making a game for gamers to enjoy as it is about money.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Adding a separate game genre, like MOBA (the most popular and profitable computer gaming in the world) is similar to EVE adding DUST a first-person shooter to their game...EVE had (has) a succesful space-combat game. PFO doesn't exist yet. Try suggesting a spin-off game in 5 years.
But I have to tell you, I think my goblin cart-racing game is going to have priority, not to mention Andoren vs. Cheliax Halfling Women's Volleyball.
Too good. :)
Another example:
Neverwinter... I dont know if anyone has played the bets, but I turned it off once I entered the city. Bad Bad game. Besides that. Why make a MMO with limited PVP... You can just play Neverwinter Nights, better character classes, mulitplayer, and I think better graphics LOL.
I was totally unimpressed. 4e rules really suck, no wonder Paizo decided not to adopt them for PF. The locked in classes are just lame, as are the limits on how many abilities you can use on our bar. Gameplay, single player and a small bit of instanced PvP is all I tried, was like watching paint dry! You either mow down enemies with ease, or you get slaughtered in seconds, there's no middle ground. The PvP is equally boring. Reminded me of the dull Wow style instances, there's a pretty big level gap as well. It reminded me yet again why I left the world of theme park games. The game is even more linear then normal. The way they designed the game, you can only go along one path, I think all characters are stuck following the same path, taking the same quests and fighting the same mobs.
The only possible redeeming quality is the Foundry. It seems really cool but I've not been able to mess with it much. Watching some videos it seems really well designed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For a low budget MMO pvp is really the only way to go since they dont have the resources to make content that pve requires. (Nobody does, thats the problem with the themepark model)
GW has given many reasons why pvp is a better model than pve and they all sound valid. However, its not like they really have a choice. This model is the only option for them given their resources.
Citation: http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?id=2847816
An active account is someone who is either a paid subscriber or someone who accessed the game through a cybercafe (the cyber cafes pay them on a model which i don't know). It does include gold farmers, which is a nontrivial number of accounts - but they're paying. That means revenue approximately equal to [a little less than] to subscription fee times 'active accounts'.My point was that it doesn't include trial accounts and expired subscriptions. The numbers may be slightly inflated versus actual players but its by a relatively small margin.
Praise Boccob. Some source.
My cynical side is still more than willing to lop off a good 20% at least. Counting computer cafes and holiday gift cards (press release was 23rd of Dec.) alone is surely a fairly significant fraction. Gold farmers are another solid chunk. All those various slices of the pie do add up. My point being that a single number doesn't tell you much about the health of the game, the happiness of the playerbase, or the demographics of that playerbase (i.e., log-in frequency/durations, content consumption, disruptive players who receive punitive actions, etc. etc.).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Activision Blizzard is a publicly traded company.
I don't think publishing fraudulent data about things like revenue streams is something they casually do.
This is America, y'know, land of the civil lawsuit.
Gold farmers are just as contributing towards Blizzard's bottom line as any other paying player...
When Blizzard is 'bragging' about paying customers it is about the money.