First Impressions


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

On the other hand, PFO isn't necessarily aiming for the 'majority'. Ryan made an interesting statement on a thread analyzing PFO's current marketing (the name of which I forget). Basically, he said that a lot of the people most MMOs market to aren't interested in games like PFO or EVE.

Speaking of which, how are EVE's graphics? I always got the impression they were pretty simple, considering everyone's a spaceship.

Goblin Squad Member

EVE tries very hard to be fancy and pretty, actually.


That's a good goal to have with these graphics. I was excited about this game but I probably won't play for long, or at all, as they are. But, perhaps they will improve. We'll have to wait and see

Goblin Squad Member

If the game is fun and offers something different they can't get elsewhere, people will play it.

CEO, Goblinworks

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The Tank mechanic is not having hit points and armor. It is having the ability to force enemies to attack the Tank. The Tank needs enough hit points and armor to survive being the focus of the enemy's attacks. If it can force the attacks and survive them, you inevitably produce the Trinity.

Once you introduce the ability to force an enemy into an illogical act (attacking the tank not the DPS), you have broken the need for the support or DPS to do anything other than optimize thier core function. If the designers don't assume maximum optimization, the encounter will either be too easy or utterly impossible. That is what creates the Trinity.

Don't make the Tank possible, you don't get the Trinity.

Goblin Squad Member

FMS Quietus wrote:
If the game is fun and offers something different they can't get elsewhere, people will play it.

I have to agree. Eye candy is great and attracts many at first but it is a poor substitute for good mechanics and innovation in longevity of enjoyment.

So the mechanics and innovations had better be great and come to fruition, for all of our sakes. ;)

CEO, Goblinworks

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Having graphics that are no better than 80% as good as AAA has no meaningful market effect. People who care about graphics will hate the product. Since we won't be anywhere close to 80% of AAA I can't worry about it. If it's a fatal flaw, it's an unfixable fatal flaw.


Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
FMS Quietus wrote:
If the game is fun and offers something different they can't get elsewhere, people will play it.

I have to agree. Eye candy is great and attracts many at first but it is a poor substitute for good mechanics and innovation in longevity of enjoyment.

So the mechanics and innovations had better be great and come to fruition, for all of our sakes. ;)

The MMO market is tough. It will take all of the above to achieve the goals they set out to achieve.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

The Tank mechanic is not having hit points and armor. It is having the ability to force enemies to attack the Tank. The Tank needs enough hit points and armor to survive being the focus of the enemy's attacks. If it can force the attacks and survive them, you inevitably produce the Trinity.

Once you introduce the ability to force an enemy into an illogical act (attacking the tank not the DPS), you have broken the need for the support or DPS to do anything other than optimize thier core function. If the designers don't assume maximum optimization, the encounter will either be too easy or utterly impossible. That is what creates the Trinity.

Don't make the Tank possible, you don't get the Trinity.

So PFO will not have Taunts?

Mobs will break off from one attacker and move onto whomever is dealing more dps?

Mob AI can't be tricked?

I can already see ways to get mobs to attack who we want them to, and when. This is simply by alternating who is dealing dps and when. When the ranged attackers deal too much dps, and draw attention, they kite and stop attacking, lead the mobs in a circle and bring them right into the blades and shields of the tanks again.

As long as you have mob AI that aggros to highest dps dealer, you will have kiting and pulling mobs back and forth like yo-yos.


And while we're at it, it's impossible to have meaningful player interactions! As long as you allow for PvP, you will have griefers and bullies overwhelming the entire game.

Making good AI that resists such tactics is one of Goblinworks's big goals. Let's not rule it out just yet.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

The Tank mechanic is not having hit points and armor. It is having the ability to force enemies to attack the Tank. The Tank needs enough hit points and armor to survive being the focus of the enemy's attacks. If it can force the attacks and survive them, you inevitably produce the Trinity.

Once you introduce the ability to force an enemy into an illogical act (attacking the tank not the DPS), you have broken the need for the support or DPS to do anything other than optimize thier core function. If the designers don't assume maximum optimization, the encounter will either be too easy or utterly impossible. That is what creates the Trinity.

Don't make the Tank possible, you don't get the Trinity.

So PFO will not have Taunts?

Mobs will break off from one attacker and move onto whomever is dealing more dps?

Mob AI can't be tricked?

I can already see ways to get mobs to attack who we want them to, and when. This is simply by alternating who is dealing dps and when. When the ranged attackers deal too much dps, and draw attention, they kite and stop attacking, lead the mobs in a circle and bring them right into the blades and shields of the tanks again.

As long as you have mob AI that aggros to highest dps dealer, you will have kiting and pulling mobs back and forth like yo-yos.

Bludd they addressed this earlier in this thread.

Goblin Squad Member

jimibones83 wrote:
Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
FMS Quietus wrote:
If the game is fun and offers something different they can't get elsewhere, people will play it.

I have to agree. Eye candy is great and attracts many at first but it is a poor substitute for good mechanics and innovation in longevity of enjoyment.

So the mechanics and innovations had better be great and come to fruition, for all of our sakes. ;)

The MMO market is tough. It will take all of the above to achieve the goals they set out to achieve.

I believe that GW would want the market share of the "eye candy" crowd too if they can get them. If it is not in the budget to have the eye candy that crowd wants, then it simply isn't. Trying to do/be all things to all people is a mistake. A huge boom at the start and a nice swift or (if lucky) slow decline and millions wasted on graphics that never ended up keeping the players anyway.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other... <shrug>

For me, getting into a game with lots of cool new ideas and twists on older ones is the way to go. I am impressed with graphics too. They do fall into the background as I get deeper into the game though. There are sooo many games with terrific graphics yet limited or poor mechanics or end game walls that I don't play anymore.

I wonder why that is? I am not typically a "Newest Thing" lemming, so it must be that I eventually exhausted the other game's potentials, got fed up/bored with the mechanics, or the toxicity became tiresome.


Ryan Dancey wrote:
Having graphics that are no better than 80% as good as AAA has no meaningful market effect. People who care about graphics will hate the product. Since we won't be anywhere close to 80% of AAA I can't worry about it. If it's a fatal flaw, it's an unfixable fatal flaw.

I'm assuming you mean its unfixable on the PFO budget? Its a shame Paizo couldn't back it with the coin it deserved, but i imagine that it would be an enormous and also risky investment for a company that sells relics *cough* book to a small group of nerds like myself.

Goblin Squad Member

jimibones83 wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Having graphics that are no better than 80% as good as AAA has no meaningful market effect. People who care about graphics will hate the product. Since we won't be anywhere close to 80% of AAA I can't worry about it. If it's a fatal flaw, it's an unfixable fatal flaw.
I'm assuming you mean its unfixable on the PFO budget? Its a shame Paizo couldn't back it with the coin it deserved, but i imagine that it would be an enormous and also risky investment for such a company.

They did. They are modeling after EVE, which is focused on a steady growth. GW and Paizo don't *want* another AAA MMO, which has a nice boom, and then goes bust shortly thereafter. They want a steady slow growth, and they're doing it on a fairly tiny budget and have done an *incredible* amount of work in fairly little time.

Just because it isn't a big flashy AAA MMO, doesn't mean it isn't being backed in the manner it deserves.


The graphics wouldn't cause a bust afterword, thas caused by issues of boredom which this game has taken a serious attempt to resolve. In my opinion, graphics are what is needed to complete this awesome game.

EDITED, because my thoughts were jumbled the first time

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

I can already see ways to get mobs to attack who we want them to, and when. This is simply by alternating who is dealing dps and when. When the ranged attackers deal too much dps, and draw attention, they kite and stop attacking, lead the mobs in a circle and bring them right into the blades and shields of the tanks again.

As long as you have mob AI that aggros to highest dps dealer, you will have kiting and pulling mobs back and forth like yo-yos.

Mobs are still dumb. They've already said that the mob AI hasn't been tweaked yet. Mobs don't know how to intelligently use their abilities. They don't have variability and intelligence in target tracking. So, right now, they go "Hey! This dude attacked me first. Let's attack him!"

Let them get systems in and give the mobs some books on military strategy and then revisit the conversation and tell them if their AI still sucks.

CEO, Goblinworks

The AI is going to be stupid and simple for a long time. We plan to invest as little into PvE as necessary. Crowdforging will define "necessary".


I'm glad people are happy, I'm just saying I wish there would have been more money to do it better. Graphics are important enough to a lot of people to cause them not to play it, which sucks because it sounds like a great game

CEO, Goblinworks

I find it a bit laughable that anyone thinks Paizo isn't "all-in" on supporting Goblinworks. Without their continuous support we would not be operating.


I'm not saying they're not all in, just that I doubt they had 50 million dollars to fund a new style of videogame. I don't see what's laughable about that

I do believe someone posted a review by a gamesite that made that claim though.

Goblin Squad Member

jimibones83 wrote:
I'm not saying they're not all in, just that I doubt they had 50 million dollars to fund a new style of videogame. I don't see what's laughable about that

Multiply that by 3 to 5 (or more) and you're looking at a AAA MMO budget.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
jimibones83 wrote:

The graphics wouldn't cause a bust afterword, thas caused by issues of boredom which this game has taken a serious attempt to resolve. In my opinion, graphics are what is needed to complete this awesome game.

EDITED, because my thoughts were jumbled the first time

If they can build slowly and in a stable manner, to a product that has sustainable long term playability, the money might come for the graphics. Not that I would mind if investment went into even better game play rather than graphics. That will be their call.

It is too bad that they don't/didn't have that kind of funding in their original plan. A plan that fit what they wanted to do AND the budget is what you get. You ask for increased risk in amount loss with unlimited or massive budgets. You can also easily lose that "lean and hungry" edge with too much money to start.

How many BIG things started in garages or breakfast nooks with no budgets? :)


^thats basically all I was saying as well

Goblin Squad Member

Better graphics also mean more issues with tons of players on the screen at once. Kind of an issue when dealing with a PVP game.

Goblin Squad Member

jimibones83 wrote:
^thats basically all I was saying as well

No offense meant. Just posting thoughts and discussing. You wouldn't be here and polite (as you are) if you weren't a fan too. :)


He called my Core Rulebook a relic! I'll have you know it's in the prime of its life!

*Cradles battered, spineless textbook, fondling the brown paperback book jacket fashioned to protect its weak, frail frame*


Lol, no no. I just meant that books are not as popular as they use to be 30 years ago

Goblin Squad Member

The big difference between MMO and TT is perms-death. I am not say make this perms-death. In MMO, if the Tank is killed, he just comes back as a tank. Or if does not get resurrected, the remaining team queues up for a new tank. They will use who they find, while the Tank grinds back up. Not their worry.

In PF TT, when the Tank is killed he comes back as a wimp, to supported by the rest of the team. so level 1 tank, level 5 Wizard and level 6 rogue and cleric. THat cleric needs to be more than the healer (though I have seen DnD 4th edition TT players get really irate if cleric does spell which aids the attack and reduces damage instead of waiting and doing heals ate end of interaction). Many of 4th edition players seem to apply trinity to TT play and may have come to DnD from MMO or game stations. RP is extraneous and upsets them.

Goblin Squad Member

Lam wrote:

Many of 4th edition players seem to apply trinity to TT play and may have come to DnD from MMO or game stations. RP is extraneous and upsets them.

Which is EXACTLY why my friends and I abandoned our once-beloved D&D for Pathfinder. 4E D&D wasn't roleplaying anymore, it was WOW on a table.

Goblin Squad Member

Great graphics might lure in some new players but won't keep them in the game. In my experience, those that focus more on graphics instead of gameplay, often move from game to game regularly. They aren't the type to stick to a game for an extended period of time.

Another factor that GW is using for PFO is building the community small and expanding from there. I think this route will allow the community to grow steadily instead of getting huge spikes of new players only to lose most of them in a month or so.

If PFO can remain in the black each year and that margin of black continues to grow slowly each year, then that will be a success.

Goblin Squad Member

Shaibes wrote:
Lam wrote:

Many of 4th edition players seem to apply trinity to TT play and may have come to DnD from MMO or game stations. RP is extraneous and upsets them.

Which is EXACTLY why my friends and I abandoned our once-beloved D&D for Pathfinder. 4E D&D wasn't roleplaying anymore, it was WOW on a table.

I felt the same way and have said as much many times over.

Goblin Squad Member

Ravenlute wrote:
Shaibes wrote:
Lam wrote:

Many of 4th edition players seem to apply trinity to TT play and may have come to DnD from MMO or game stations. RP is extraneous and upsets them.

Which is EXACTLY why my friends and I abandoned our once-beloved D&D for Pathfinder. 4E D&D wasn't roleplaying anymore, it was WOW on a table.
I felt the same way and have said as much many times over.

I gave 4E D&D a try and played it for about a year. But stopped. To me it felt like all the classes were just the same with different skins. Plus the usual problems with 4E as well. Felt more like I was playing a WOW-clone in TT form.

Goblin Squad Member

Ooo, it's this where we jump on 4E with stupid ass things like "It's not roleplaying", ignoring that all 4E did was present the same design targets that previous editions had to the actual player?

The Trinity has existed in D&D for a lot longer than 4E.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Morbis wrote:

Ooo, it's this where we jump on 4E with stupid ass things like "It's not roleplaying", ignoring that all 4E did was present the same design targets that previous editions had to the actual player?

The Trinity has existed in D&D for a lot longer than 4E.

Roleplaying has nothing to do with it. But with previous editions, the Trinity was more an option instead of a requirement.

Goblin Squad Member

Sigh. Bard and Ranger were in AD&D for a loong time. They are not exactly trinity-like, it seems. Wizards are nor exactly DPS glass cannons - they were also buffers/debuffers and logistic experts. Clerics with all their spheres were wildly different one from another. And Barbarians were (and are) not only "tanks" but the burst-damage horrors as well. And as there was much more in TT games than bashing heads (can't say about 1st ed. - I'm in just from AD&D 2nd ed.). And there was way less insta-heals with the onset time of the potions.
In TT games I've played tanks many times but they were not useless barrels of hp with starnge habit of getting in the way of attacks, but guys who were dealing so much damage that any enemy with Int 3+ tried to kill his ASAP, before my char will paste them all on the battlemat :)

Goblin Squad Member

Marlagram wrote:
And as there was much more in TT games than bashing heads (can't say about 1st ed. - I'm in just from AD&D 2nd ed.)

Not really much difference between 1E and 2E. The two big differences would be 2E provided more options due to more printed material and 2E introduced the Kits which was the predecessor of Prestige Classes in 3E.

Goblin Squad Member

I've seen info on bow feats/skills for the Fighter role but anyone have the info on bow feats/skills for the Rogue role?

Goblin Squad Member

Banesama wrote:
Gol Morbis wrote:

Ooo, it's this where we jump on 4E with stupid ass things like "It's not roleplaying", ignoring that all 4E did was present the same design targets that previous editions had to the actual player?

The Trinity has existed in D&D for a lot longer than 4E.

Roleplaying has nothing to do with it. But with previous editions, the Trinity was more an option instead of a requirement.

4E and 3.5E are extremely close in their requirement for a Trinity like setup. You can play 4E without a Leader. As long as you have a GM willing to go to the same lengths that a 3.5E GM is (Healing potions, adjusting adventure lengths accordingly), then a 4E group can do just as well. In fact, the system has inherent support for that kind of play in the Healing Surge mechanic.

Defenders make the best tanks, but some of the Strikers can do just as well (Ranger tank go!). Strikers make the best killer-of-things, but many of the other roles can do just as well (Hello Warlord!). Leaders make the best “I support my team”, but plenty of the other roles can adjust around not having one (Yay Healing Surges!).

If 4E is a game that requires a Trinity, then 3.5E (and Pathfinder in kind) is just as bad.

Quote:
In TT games I've played tanks many times but they were not useless barrels of hp with starnge habit of getting in the way of attacks, but guys who were dealing so much damage that any enemy with Int 3+ tried to kill his ASAP, before my char will paste them all on the battlemat :)

That's nice? Not sure what it has to do with a discussion about the Trinity? In the largest Trinity MMORPG the tanks have a tendency to do massive amounts of damage. In 4E the Defenders literally tank people by being the scariest MoFos on the mat, pulling aggro by their CC and their potential to damage you down if you step out of line.

Quote:
Sigh. Bard and Ranger were in AD&D for a loong time. They are not exactly trinity-like, it seems. Wizards are nor exactly DPS glass cannons - they were also buffers/debuffers and logistic experts. Clerics with all their spheres were wildly different one from another. And Barbarians were (and are) not only "tanks" but the burst-damage horrors as well. And as there was much more in TT games than bashing heads (can't say about 1st ed. - I'm in just from AD&D 2nd ed.). And there was way less insta-heals with the onset time of the potions.

The existence of hybrid classes, or roles outside of the standard Tank/DPS/Healer, does not exclude the potential for a Trinity-esque environment to appear. The Trinity arises when it is the most obviously optimal solution to a problem. It doesn't even need to actually be the most optimal solution, it just has to appear that way to the layman. Which is it does in the majority of D&D-type games (including 2E).

And you are aware that all the examples you give for why AD&D doesn't have a Trinity label apply equally well to 4E, right? As in, I can literally take each of your examples, close to word for word, and attach them to other games.

Quote:
And as there was much more in TT games than bashing heads (can't say about 1st ed. - I'm in just from AD&D 2nd ed.)

You ever talked with any of the old grognard crew that played in the Original Group? They might have a giggle at you saying that.

Goblin Squad Member

@Morbis
I must put my foot in my mouth - this thread is not the proper place to discuss such things. We can PM each other if you wish.

Goblin Squad Member

When Gamepro or MmoRpg or any of those other highly read gaming magazine / websites put out their review and scores, it does PFO little good to have;

Game Play: 7.5
Graphics: 4.0

Now if they can hit a 7.0 across the board, that is something that is highly marketable.

Goblin Squad Member

And that is one of many flaws in those reviews. What might be one person's 4.0 might be the next person's 7.0. I personally never take those reviews seriously even though I read them sometimes. Also many so called 'professional' reviews are hmm... what would be the right word... "sponsored" by certain biased groups.

Plus I don't hold a person's view very highly if they think graphics are more important than game play when it comes to games. That is a little bit self-centered of me, but it has proven on many occasions to be the better course.

Goblin Squad Member

Banesama wrote:

And that is one of many flaws in those reviews. What might be one person's 4.0 might be the next person's 7.0. I personally never take those reviews seriously even though I read them sometimes. Also many so called 'professional' reviews are hmm... what would be the right word... "sponsored" by certain biased groups.

Plus I don't hold a person's view very highly if they think graphics are more important than game play when it comes to games. That is a little bit self-centered of me, but it has proven on many occasions to be the better course.

I'm not saying graphics are more important, just that graphics are the first thing people see.

You can be as dismissive as you wish with those reviews, and I agree sometimes they are biased and or premature. However, many gamers do pay attention to them (10's of thousands at least) and those ratings should not be shrugged off. Trust me, if by some stretch of imagination GamePro (or some other) rated PFO a 9.0, Paizo and Goblin Works would run their mouths dry telling every man, woman and child they met.

It would be somewhat encouraging if Ryan or one of the Devs would at least say "These are the graphics of the Alpha build, and there will be some improvement before OE."

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Banesama wrote:

And that is one of many flaws in those reviews. What might be one person's 4.0 might be the next person's 7.0. I personally never take those reviews seriously even though I read them sometimes. Also many so called 'professional' reviews are hmm... what would be the right word... "sponsored" by certain biased groups.

Plus I don't hold a person's view very highly if they think graphics are more important than game play when it comes to games. That is a little bit self-centered of me, but it has proven on many occasions to be the better course.

I'm not saying graphics are more important, just that graphics are the first thing people see.

You can be as dismissive as you wish with those reviews, and I agree sometimes they are biased and or premature. However, many gamers do pay attention to them (10's of thousands at least) and those ratings should not be shrugged off. Trust me, if by some stretch of imagination GamePro (or some other) rated PFO a 9.0, Paizo and Goblin Works would run their mouths dry telling every man, woman and child they met.

It would be somewhat encouraging if Ryan or one of the Devs would at least say "These are the graphics of the Alpha build, and there will be some improvement before OE."

To clarify...what are you referring to when you discuss graphics?

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

In a world with Minecraft, I'm not sure people care as much about graphics as this thread implies.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

...

It would be somewhat encouraging if Ryan or one of the Devs would at least say "These are the graphics of the Alpha build, and there will be some improvement before OE."

I think they did just that in this blog:

goblinworks blog of June 4th wrote:

1: Alpha Test means the game is not even Minimum Yet

This is an Alpha Test. The game is not at "Minimum Viable Product" level yet. We are still working on every aspect of the game and everything - graphics, game systems, mechanics, UI, etc. will be steadily improving.
2: Alpha Test means limited accessibility
When we begin the Alpha Test the server will only be available for limited times and days. We will publish a schedule each week of when the server will be on line. As we move closer to Early Enrollment we'll expand the times the server is up, until we reach a 24x7 availability.
3: Alpha Test implies restarts and rollbacks
We expect that we will find show-stopping bugs, potential exploits, errors, and other game-breaking problems that will cause us to restart the servers and roll back to earlier conditions. Nothing in Alpha is permanent. It will all be wiped prior to the start of Early Enrollment. So it's important to note that even if things go completely haywire, there will be no persistent implications for the game.

[EDIT] damn link..., added quote

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

So PFO will not have Taunts?

Mobs will break off from one attacker and move onto whomever is dealing more dps?

Mob AI can't be tricked?

I can already see ways to get mobs to attack who we want them to, and when. This is simply by alternating who is dealing dps and when. When the ranged attackers deal too much dps, and draw attention, they kite and stop attacking, lead the mobs in a circle and bring them right into the blades and shields of the tanks again.

As long as you have mob AI that aggros to highest dps dealer, you will have kiting and pulling mobs back and forth like yo-yos.

/target weakest AC.

And I prefere bad and simpler graphics, than very advanced ones. The more the graphics are evolved, the more they seem "unreal", just like a very simple manga character, seems more alive, than a wax sculpture.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


I'm not saying that the trinity is or was ideal, and I hope character skills sets are not ask cookie-cutter. I was simply arguing against the notion that the trinity did not exist in D&D / AD&D. It was perhaps created there.

The trinity is like "plan A" in tabletop. But at least half of the encounters and half the monsters in the MM are designed to turn "plan A" on its head. That's why a min-maxed, uber specialist is just as likely to be a hero as a goat in table top.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Avari wrote:
That's why a min-maxed, uber specialist is just as likely to be a hero as a goat in table top.

Are you implying that my satyr paladin is less than heroic? HOW DARE YOU?!

Goblin Squad Member

Tanks in Trinity MMOs: "You will ignore my friends and just hit me!"

Tanks in Tabletops: "Oh, please stop hitting the cleric, please stop hitting the cleric, please stop hitting the cleric...."

[edit:] This is why tabletop tanks have skills to reposition, disarm, destroy weapons/armor, and a wide variety of other things. Because they can't control who the big bad guy wants to hit and need ways to otherwise change the tide of the fight.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

And then came the 4th, the evil one, introducing aggro mechanisms in D&D.

151 to 200 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / First Impressions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.