
![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I'd just like to pipe in and say something. I've been in the game industry for around 16 years now. I've seen a lot of companies come and go, and worked for like 8 I think. In all that time, I haven't seen, or heard of, a game company as dedicated to making a game with a focus on building a true community (with the possible exception of Cyan, who I loved working for as a result). I've worked for good companies, and worked with people who cared about the games, but never for a company whose focus is so clearly on the quality of the game features and experience, or which has such a connection to the community and interest in making them (you) happy.
We are a TINY company for the scale of game we are trying to make. Our budget is a pittance compared to other games of this scale and complexity, even though it may seem like a lot of money. We are infinitely grateful for the money each of you has spent and your support, and doing everything we can to eek every iota out of that funding (as I sit here on hour 80 or so of working this week). All of that is so we can be sustainable and make this work for Pathfinder fans and a relatively focused online game community that we see as 'where it's at'.
Yes, I realize that none of you know me really, and that I work for Goblinworks, but seeing comments suggesting this team is trying to milk people for money hits a bit hard considering the reality I experience daily. I hope you will take it to heart that we are doing everything we can to make a company and game that can live on for many years and be a living and vibrant community. As part of that, we will do everything humanly possible to make sure the experience is balanced and not 'pay to win', because we believe that has a huge bearing on building on the quality of the community, and that is utterly key to us. However, as with any business, revenue is life blood, and gives us the ability to keep growing and building the world and features for all of you.
Thank you all for the support and input. Sorry I don't...
The amount of unforeseeables in a software project of this magnitude must be extreme. Software projects at the very least have to account for 50% more development time than originally planned as a rule. To be able to stick to your plan, on the amount of resources you have is admirable (great planning + long hours is probably the answer) considering you have a community that is constantly trying to change whatever it is you had planned to do (which of course sometimes it is for the better).
I'd ask people to have a little more respect for GW's capabilities. It's obvious to them that it is in their best interest not to make a Pay-to-Win game. The only people who like those, are usually those with enough money to spend. Those are relatively few. Ergo, you end up with a game with few players. No one wants to play a game with no players. I would think they have already thought this a long time ago.
GW needs to create a solid community and they are not going to jeopardize that by introducing obvious distortions to the game that are going to alienate that very thing they are trying to create.
So, core message is good work GW and I know you are smart enough to create a balanced game!

![]() |

> It's obvious to them that it is in their best interest not to make a Pay-to-Win game.
This is true. But it's also true that it is in their best interest to extract as much money from their players as the players are happy to pay. And, it's impossible to know exactly where the "happy to pay" line is without floating some ideas near the line and seeing which side the community comes down on.
So it's important that we as players honestly respond to the cash shop deals we see with "yes, I'd be happy to see that in my game" or "no, that looks too much like pay to win" so that Goblinworks gets good feedback and guidance so that they can design the next round of cash shop entries to more closely conform to our desires.
To me, right now, these new items look too much like pay-to-win UNLESS Goblinworks implements craftable structures of similar utility which can also occupy those 3 player-building slots per hex. If the only way to have more than one siege-class structure in a hex is to pull out your wallet, then there's a real and significant logistical and economic advantage to settlements whose players spend the cash.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

An honest way to make your evaluation known is to either buy or don't buy.
Posting hyperbole pronouncing a personal judgment is like a sensationalist 'news' program that encumbers carefully selected facts with colorfully judgmental commentary.
If it doesn't sell, the company will learn it is not favored by the community.
Posting hyperbolic negative commentary is too often destructively egoistic.

![]() |

Mike, thank you very much I appreciate your words, and I totally understand where you are coming from.
@ Pino, your prices are off a bit they are 50$ and 200$.
First, Taverns can never be destroyed as long as you pay your up keep, this is not so for Camps or Holdings. Second, they are persistent structures, no despawning.
Beyond this, they have more and better options than the above two combined, as well as interiors, back story, and a name. Also there are features of the Tavern that haven't been explained yet.
Well I was not logged in, so those are the 'retail' prices.
Taverns, small holdings, meh, it's happening, so I'm here to ask for balance.1) Make it cost some amount of in game resources to replace 'destroyed' small holdings.
2) Make all 'destroyable' bindpoints threadless.
ps
@Mike: don't take it too hard when we vent here. We want PFO to succeed too. Do what works, and when the boards get you down, do what I do, start whistling 'Sammy Small' :D

![]() |

Ryan Dancey wrote:Right now both are restricted to 1 per account.*sigh*
Any chance of changing that to 1 per Character? Otherwise, it just encourages folks who want to bypass that restriction to use multiple accounts.
This, of course, while annoying to some players, is not really a good reason for the developers to change it....

![]() |

So it's important that we as players honestly respond to the cash shop deals we see with "yes, I'd be happy to see that in my game" or "no, that looks too much like pay to win" so that Goblinworks gets good feedback and guidance so that they can design the next round of cash shop entries to more closely conform to our desires.
True, to an extent.
Goblinworks has been incredibly clear that there will be items in the cash shop with in-game mechanical effects. Responding to every new offering by ranting that the only things that should be in the cash shop are "cosmetics" is in no way useful feedback.
To me, right now, these new items look too much like pay-to-win UNLESS...
Perhaps, instead of leading with "looks like pay-to-win" and then qualifying with "UNLESS <x>", the community might be better served if you were to lead with the fact that Goblinworks has, very consistently for years, committed to <x>, and that these offerings are, in fact, already consistent with that commitment.

![]() |

As each character is notionally an independent 'person' in game, with differing goals, alignment, settlement and company membership, I'd echo the question of whether the restriction could be shifted to 1 per character. However, at this time are we going to be limited to one character per account as we enter EE? If that is the case, one per account and one per character is the same, right now, and the restriction can be shifted later.

![]() |

@Nihimon
At one per character, it is the same as having more than one per character because you could log in and set one, then log on to your other character and use it. Then when its gone, use your the one on another of your characters.
Only in a few cases. At least one of my characters will reside in a different settlement and be at odds with the other. There is no case where they will be able to benefit from sharing anything in game.

<Kabal> Pexx |

Honestly I don't think it's an argument of a cash shop item having an in game effect. It's an argument of a craftable item having the same in game effect of a cash shop item.
Basically trading time for money which is fine. But having an exclusive item that does something above and beyond what a craftable item can do that is where I start to shutter.

![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

The plan is for Outposts and Points of Interest to be a superset of the functionality of Smallholdings. Those structures have not been designed yet - their subsystems remain in flux. But in some configurations, Outposts and/or Points of Interest will do everything Smallholdings do, and more. Those structures will be built by player characters no not be premium items.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

If you want PFO to succeed, there needs to be items like these in the game. Period.
I challenge anyone to create a single server game that can survive and prosper with only a $15/mo subscription and a shop full of fluff items.
There is a large untapped mass of gamers: People who don't want to spend 40 hours a week grinding out cash. A lot of these people are more than willing to pay a higher price, to not have to spend as much time in the game, and stay competitive both functionally and mechanically.
There are two things I want to never see, and believe GW will never put in the shop:
1. Items of equal or more power (in magnitude not function) to those that require Max crafting skills.
2. A way to speed up XP generation.
Everything else is fair game. I don't care if they create a magical box that disguises its self as a tree and acts as a fully functioning settlement, that sells for $20,000.
It will get annoying if these items don't have a high price point, otherwise they become will get spammed. And because they have a high price point, people will always cry about them.

![]() |

@Nihimon
At one per character, it is the same as having more than one per character because you could log in and set one, then log on to your other character and use it. Then when its gone, use your the one on another of your characters.
And how is that effectively different if those characters are on different accounts?
Limiting anything to "per Account" just means it can be easily bypassed by getting another account, which won't be any more difficult than getting another character.

![]() |

There are two things I want to never see, and believe GW will never put in the shop:
1. Items of equal or more power (in magnitude not function) to those that require Max crafting skills.
2. A way to speed up XP generation.
I would extend #2 to all the systems that operate over time. If you can speed up your Crafting queue with cash shop items, that's bad.

![]() |

I probably shouldn't post at the end of extremely long days, but thanks for listening to my rant and the supportive comments. I did indeed have a Mountain Dew actually, to my own detriment I'm sure.
I totally appreciate the feedback on how people perceive the items, and we want to hear if it seems unbalanced. I was mostly just trying to give you a view from the development floor for similar reasons. It always helps to have multiple vantage points.
I don't expect people to be nice... years of game development definitely beats you into submission on that front. The standard is *don't read the comments*, but we need to, and want to, so that doesn't work. However, I think we're trying to do something different, and at at least in this forum, I think it can be a more cooperative atmosphere and produce a better game and community.
That being said, it's the internet ;)

![]() |
Limiting anything to "per Account" just means it can be easily bypassed by getting another account, which won't be any more difficult than getting another character.
You only need to spend additional $50 per new account and $15/month to have second item of same kind. Many of us will have 2-3 accounts if this game will be interesting enough, but I doubt that many of us will have 5-6. But who knows?
And just my opinion. For me $50/$200 and limit of one per account is a way to limit usability of premium items if they will lean even slightly to "pay-to-win" side. Right now I can imagine some very powerful uses for these things, but in a few months their value will be about on par with what we will craft by ourselves.

![]() |

I probably shouldn't post at the end of extremely long days, but thanks for listening to my rant and the supportive comments. I did indeed have a Mountain Dew actually, to my own detriment I'm sure.
I totally appreciate the feedback on how people perceive the items, and we want to hear if it seems unbalanced. I was mostly just trying to give you a view from the development floor for similar reasons. It always helps to have multiple vantage points.
I don't expect people to be nice... years of game development definitely beats you into submission on that front. The standard is *don't read the comments*, but we need to, and want to, so that doesn't work. However, I think we're trying to do something different, and at at least in this forum, I think it can be a more cooperative atmosphere and produce a better game and community.
That being said, it's the internet ;)
Your post was actually really appreciated by me. I feel it was important because people have seen things from this industry that doesn't have the same mindset. Being open and honest is smart. It reduces drama and leads to productive conversations. Please don't censor yourself in the future. I hope the rest of the team doesn't as well.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The issue of one per account is a limiting factor. It is essentially saying there's a $180 annual upkeep cost ($15/mo times 12 months). We are dipping our toes into this water very, very carefully. We can always increase the value of an item but it is very, very hard to decrease that value. Being limited to 1 per account now means that we are artificially limiting demand. Of course over time if we see that we don't need to do that, for whatever reasons, we can change that limit or remove it altogether. But if we started with no limit and then we determined it was in the best interests of the game to impose a limit, it would be either manifestly unfair to the people who bought the item when there was no limit to have a limit imposed, or to people who bought the item after the limit was imposed to play with people who had been grandfathered in under an older policy.
So for now, it's 1 per account. Actually, there's some debate inside the development team if it should have been EITHER one Base Camp OR one Smallholding per account, but that debate happened after we put the items in the store so we are not going to change that policy now. It's one of each per account.

![]() |

these offerings are, in fact, already consistent with that commitment.
That's the core of my disagreement and concern, because I don't believe this is the case based on information currently available.
To offer an extreme example, you cannot say that a +6 sword is just a convenience improvement over a +5 sword, just because both swords do the same amount of damage if you swing the +5 a little longer. Speed matters. Time is the only game currency that really counts, and doing the same work in less time means pulling ahead of your competitors.
So if the ability to deploy both a shrine POI for uncursing/cures and a power-regen cash shop building in the same hex means that I have a time advantage over a competing settlement which has to choose one or the other, then I have indeed paid to win. If you argue that I can have a shrine and campfires, then I'll respond that there's a time cost to gathering the resources for all those campfires which is presumably much less than the time cost to get bulk goods to maintain the smallhold.
I guess the distinction I'm trying to draw is between "I worked less than you did to get the same capability", which I'm totally fine with, versus "I will always have to work less than you now that I have made this purchase of a cash-shop-only capability", which I'm not.
With all that said, I'm not at all opposed to these items being for sale, and if I gave that impression then I was not communicating well. What I am opposed to is the lack of comparable player-made items. PoIs and Outposts are not comparable items because they go in different slots from the player buildings: Once your hex has a PoI and 2 Outposts, you then have 3 more building slots which could offer other, additional benefits and, as far as we know, can only be filled from the cash shop.
What I would like, and what I would expect based on Ryan's example of the cash-shop unicorn mount, is for there to be craftable structures which can go into those extra 3 building slots which perform similar functions to the cash shop items.

![]() |

Personally, I won't be making MTX purchases for future delivery unless I suspect the price to increase. There's no way I'd ever pay a total of $250 on purely cosmetic items, and I don't think that with the desired population there's a way to justify spending artist time creating cosmetic MTX items- there's no price point that would generate enough revenue to pay the additional artist required, and slowing down the production of universal assets is a Bad Idea.
Frankly, I think that in the short term, the designer and artist time for the Smallholding will exceed the revenue generated. After six months or more, they will probably be profitable.
Math: three developers spending a day discussing the subject costs about $1000, concept art and the art pipeline for a new building costs about $2000, programmer time to implement costs about $500 on the margin (including QA). $3500 total upfront cost, and little revenue until October- so future earnings have to be discounted. CC processing eats another 5% or so of purchase cost.
Even assuming no marginal costs, that's about 30 safeholds that need to be sold just to recoup costs. Many of the moderate spenders who would normally be the target of this upsell are probably saturated right now. I think that the biggest market segment left is resellers, and they can't even begin to sell them ingame until groups who don't have big spenders in them accumulate enough coin- and the groups likely to accumulate coin early on are the ones that I suspect are less likely to want a safehold.
My prediction is that there won't be many more MTX for over $100, not because of uproar, but because they aren't good business decisions. I sincerely hope my uninformed analysis is wrong. (For example, I could be several orders of magnitude too high with my estimate of costs, or too low regarding prompt sales).

![]() |

What I would like, and what I would expect based on Ryan's example of the cash-shop unicorn mount, is for there to be craftable structures which can go into those extra 3 building slots which perform similar functions to the cash shop items.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought we already learned that there are various craftable items that will provide all the mechanical benefits the cash shop items offer, and that they won't be limited to 3 per hex, and that crafters will have an entire month to get them onto the market (or into their Settlement's hands) before the cash shop items are available.

![]() |

You miss my point that time savings and resource savings are a mechanical benefit.
Even if every mechanical effect that can be gained from a smallholding can also be created with a combination of campfires, buried chests, and [craftable bind points], the fact that I have to spend (arbitrary number) 5% of my productive time generating the resources to acquire an ongoing supply of those items means that the smallholding purchaser has put me at a permanent 5% logistical disadvantage, which will never go away unless I pull out my wallet too.

![]() |

You miss my point that time savings and resource savings are a mechanical benefit.
If that's the defining characteristic, then how can anything with any mechanical benefit ever be acceptably offered in the cash shop?
If you're of the opinion that the cash shop should only sell cosmetic items, that's fine, but it's not useful feedback when we've known for years that the cash shop will offer items with mechanical benefits.

![]() |

Mechanical benefit is to broad of term to use, and to open to personal definition.
You give $$ so you don't have to spend as much time in game doing things. Players who spend more money don't have to work as hard. That is the model that works, and almost every MMO is using it.
Until GW puts an item in that is more powerful than anything created in-game, they have not broken their word.
To clarify. A More powerful item is one that grants a single property that is higher magnitude. Like giving superior storage space, or a higher damage stat, or an extra keyword slot.

![]() |

You miss my point that time savings and resource savings are a mechanical benefit.
Even if every mechanical effect that can be gained from a smallholding can also be created with a combination of campfires, buried chests, and [craftable bind points], the fact that I have to spend (arbitrary number) 5% of my productive time generating the resources to acquire an ongoing supply of those items means that the smallholding purchaser has put me at a permanent 5% logistical disadvantage, which will never go away unless I pull out my wallet too.
At $200, the smallhold costs about what it would cost to get a new $100 EE character, with 3 months subscription time, and buy time for another 6 months at $15/mo. My internal calculation might be: will a second character that I use for 9 months provide more benefit than a smallhold? Or should I get one of those EE Month 2 characters at $50 and add 10 months to it?
As long as people can have multiple characters, they will be able to buy some advantage (if they choose to run their characters that way). GW has pretty much told us that they won't limit multiple characters. In my mind, there's not a lot of difference between the advantages from a second character or something like the base camp. The exact benefits may vary, but they both provide advantages.
(I likely won't buy a second character or the smallhold for quite some time, but I'm fine with the option being there for others).

![]() |

Guurzak wrote:You miss my point that time savings and resource savings are a mechanical benefit.If that's the defining characteristic, then how can anything with any mechanical benefit ever be acceptably offered in the cash shop?
If you're of the opinion that the cash shop should only sell cosmetic items, that's fine, but it's not useful feedback when we've known for years that the cash shop will offer items with mechanical benefits.
Two scenarios:
1) I spent 4 hours of game time earning the coin to buy a player-made item. You spent $20 in the cash shop for an item that gives you the same mechanical effect. At this point, we are playing on even terms.
2) I spend 4 hours of game time every week procuring consumables needed to sustain my playstyle. You spent $200 one time to permanently eliminate the need for those consumables. At this point, we are no longer playing on even terms: your game time is and will continue to be more productive than mine.
I have no problem with cash shop items offering mechanical benefits. Where I have a problem is with cash shop items offering lasting advantage.

![]() |

@ Guurzak
You would be right on your second point, BUT, these lasting advantages cost x amount in upkeep, meaning that we will be closer to equal footing in BOTH maintaining our respective playstyles. Oh, and it might cost more if my small holding is damaged repeatedly driving up the costs of keeping it functioning. If it deactivates, then I am SOL for a month, while you have the skill to create stuff in game and keep on sustaining your play style (now I have to buy from you).

![]() |

@Guurzak
Ah, if it is destroyed. I can understand that concern. It will be an interesting balance issue of: Does the 30day wait balance this? Is the 30 day wait to restore it better than just building a new one now? Or, do you keep the cash shop smallholding in reserve in case your resource made holding is destroyed? It is something to think about.

![]() |

Low level healing potions will be available in the cash shop. That's a scenario 1 product: once acquired, the player is no better off than if he had acquired them any other way.
As far as we know, there will not be a permanent item which grants unlimited low-level heals on a 5-minute cooldown in the cash shop. That would be a scenario 2 product, which makes him permanently better off than anyone who didn't make the same purchase.

![]() |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

I think you guys have now entered the realm of needing to agree to disagree. You all make great points and there is merit to both sides of the argument. This is a decision we've made after a lot of consideration about how it will affect the game and we'll just have to see what happens in actual play. I do not think it will be a materially significant effect. If we are wrong, we'll make adjustments.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Brother, I doubt it will take that long before players are fighting over smallholding space. But the playable area will be expanding while we are going about our business. We are unlikely to run out of room any time soon.
Fights over smallholding space probably will erupt sooner than we run out of spaces, because all spaces are not created equal (some will have access to more valuable resources, for instance), and because the placement of some smallholdings will be seen as an act of aggression.

![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Hey Ryan,
Is the plan to eventually make the smallhold building have an interior? If so, would you also consider selling skins of that smallhold, so that one could have a wizard tower, a rogue secret lair, a small dwarfhold, an elven tree holding, etc...
It would certainly make the smallhold more appealing to me, and if the cost of the skin would be somewhat reasonable (200$ for the smallhold, maybe $50-100 for the skin?)

![]() |

...cash shop items for less than $50.
Given that Ryan wants to allow folks to spend as much money on PFO as they're comfortable with (or yes, for some folks already, a bit more), it's easy to believe the cash shop will have a wide variety of prices. I imagine it'll take quite some time for them to experiment their way into the right mix of goods, services, and costs, though.

![]() |

Hey Ryan,
Is the plan to eventually make the smallhold building have an interior? If so, would you also consider selling skins of that smallhold, so that one could have a wizard tower, a rogue secret lair, a small dwarfhold, an elven tree holding, etc...
It would certainly make the smallhold more appealing to me, and if the cost of the skin would be somewhat reasonable (200$ for the smallhold, maybe $50-100 for the skin?)
I think you are on the ball.
=
On another note I think what was said about understanding your purchase decision via more information of what you are buying (as it works in game) is probably a good idea (Avari iirc made this point well).

![]() |

I am just looking to see what else will appear in the Cash Shop in the near future so I can plan my gaming budget. I am already planning on having a handful of characters at the start (four total I think) so there's about $60 a month. Other than that I want to see where any extra gaming funds would go, so I'll hold off until I see some sort of projections on future items and services available.

![]() |

KarlBob wrote:...cash shop items for less than $50.Given that Ryan wants to allow folks to spend as much money on PFO as they're comfortable with (or yes, for some folks already, a bit more), it's easy to believe the cash shop will have a wide variety of prices. I imagine it'll take quite some time for them to experiment their way into the right mix of goods, services, and costs, though.
I'm not too worried about "as much as they're comfortable with and more", I'm wondering about "as little as they want."
Some games start their cash shop menu at a couple of bucks. Others start high and get higher. (*cough* Incarna *cough*)