Hey everybody, let's pour cement in our sandbox!


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Notmyrealname wrote:
How about you people delay the NAP until 3 weeks after the tower war starts, maybe it will be ...fun?!

In order to train to about 10th level, we need to hold about 10 towers.

To hold approximately 10 towers, we need to have an open PvP window of about 120 hours per month.

I don't think there is anything on earth that I would enjoy doing for 120 hours a month. If there were something I enjoyed doing for 120 hours a month, it wouldn't be hanging around my computer waiting to see if someone feels like attacking during today's 4 hour window rather than tomorrow's.

If Goblinworks decided to drop the PvP window so that I only needed to spend maybe 30 hours a month waiting around in case someone attacks me instead of out exploring and fighting escalations, I still wouldn't like it, but I might tolerate it.

There is zero chance that I will find it "fun" to wait around every night to see if anyone is coming to take my tower. If, by agreeing with others, I can reduce the amount of time I have to spend waiting for a possible attack to a few hours a week, I'm going to take it. I do not need to wait three weeks to figure that out.

YMMV

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

“...to learn and not to do is really not to learn. To know and not to do is really not to know.”
― Stephen R. Covey,

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Notmyrealname wrote:

“...to learn and not to do is really not to learn. To know and not to do is really not to know.”

― Stephen R. Covey,

I've waited for lots of things in the past, some of which I enjoyed a whole lot more than defending a piece of internet real-estate. I've even stood watch during my navy time, when something might actually happen that matters.

I do, in fact, know that I will not enjoy waiting for anything for 4 hours every night that might not even happen and if it does happen, the consequences will be insignificant regardless of the outcome.

The War of towers has the possibility of being interesting for a few hours a week, at most. The un-NAP'd War of Towers has a high probability of being really boring for a large amount of the month.

Goblin Squad Member

9 people marked this as a favorite.

My thoughts...

- Political agreements and diplomacy are part of "meaningfull human interaction" not a block to it.

- It is natural that many political entities would seek meaningfull agreements that they see as advantangeous to them. Neglecting to do so would basicaly be hamstringing your own settlement and setting it up for failure.

- The situation so far is setup not that there will be no wars but that the wars which will be fought will be limited in nature so that the major power blocks don't destroy themselves in a futile effort to expand beyond their capacity support. In no way does this mean that such conflicts will be less meaningfull or provide less opportunity for PvP. Most of European history (which could be pretty bloody) actualy followed this model of conflict. If there wasn't an explicit agreement to do so, most settlements would likely follow this as a matter of internal strategy anyway...no major power really wants to overextend itself and leave itself vulnerable to getting torn apart. That would be bad strategy.

- The WoT is for a limited period of time anyway, a place holder for the more robust conflict systems to be initiated later.

- We have no idea what later entities to enter the game or non-aligned individuals will do anyway. I predict that we'll have no shortage of groups and individuals who have no interest in building settlements and preserving themselves as political entities and simply want to fight just to "see the world burn". They may do so despite the very severe penalties that the reputation system places upon them. Very few of those individuals would be participating on these boards now or would have backed the game in advance of it's opening... so we don't really know how many there will be. However, it may be that there will be so many that the existing political entities will have thier hands so full fending off the "savages" that they really have no time nor resources to expend on full scale wars against each other. We just don't know this, and the level of uncertainty about it is naturaly going to cause the initial power groups to be cautious in thier approach until they really know what the landscape looks like.

Goblin Squad Member

Very well said, GrumpyMel.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
- Political agreements and diplomacy are part of "meaningfull human interaction" not a block to it.

+1

Goblin Squad Member

All the people who want crazy pvp from the start: get together and make the Kill Everything team then go crazy on the NAP towers.

The NAP they sign doesn't stop you from playing how you want to.


@caldeathe

I don't think a WoT without NAP's would force anyone to spend 120 hours a month hanging around their computer waiting to see if someone feels like attacking their towers. I'm sure you could be out exploring and fighting escalations as much as you like.

If someone happened to attack your towers while you're out and about with your group, you would be presented with a meaningful choice: Is our current activity more valuable/entertaining than returning to defend our tower?

Also, if a daily PvP window of one hour is something you just might tolerate, how do you see yourself enjoying the game when the DI system and the proper settlement warfare is in place? I don't think your settlement will be able to provide advanced facilities with a one hour PvP window.

I think the biggest threat to PFO having success is that it fails to attract enough players during EE. I share Guurzak's concern that the NAP's could turn into something permanent and lasting through the whole EE. IMO this would reduce the chance of the game succeeding. Hopefully GW will implement changes encouraging settlement warfare if they see that things get too stale.

Goblin Squad Member

I was under the impression that the PvP window was open on your particular tower until a certain time had passed OR you closed it with points before the allotted time passed. Meaning you don't have to stick around for the entire PvP window because you already won. Correct?

Goblin Squad Member

<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
I was under the impression that the PvP window was open until a certain time had passed OR you closed it with points before the allotted time passed. Meaning you don't have to stick around for the entire PvP window because you already won. Correct?

That is correct when the tower is being contested. When you own it, the PVP window is open (for whatever time) until someone takes it. It would be nice if you only had to repel attackers once per day, but that has not been stated. That might be gamed though.

That is how I understand it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fleksnes wrote:

@caldeathe

I don't think a WoT without NAP's would force anyone to spend 120 hours a month hanging around their computer waiting to see if someone feels like attacking their towers. I'm sure you could be out exploring and fighting escalations as much as you like.

If someone happened to attack your towers while you're out and about with your group, you would be presented with a meaningful choice: Is our current activity more valuable/entertaining than returning to defend our tower?

Also, if a daily PvP window of one hour is something you just might tolerate, how do you see yourself enjoying the game when the DI system and the proper settlement warfare is in place? I don't think your settlement will be able to provide advanced facilities with a one hour PvP window.

I think the biggest threat to PFO having success is that it fails to attract enough players during EE. I share Guurzak's concern that the NAP's could turn into something permanent and lasting through the whole EE. IMO this would reduce the chance of the game succeeding. Hopefully GW will implement changes encouraging settlement warfare if they see that things get too stale.

Some of that is true. If I had absolute control over my settlement, and nobody else depending on me, some more of that would be true. Instead I am one of many, and if we lose our tower, everyone in the settlement suffers for it.

By the time settlement conflict enters at the end of the Tower Wars, if my settlement hasn't increased in size sufficiently to defend our POIs then we will lose them and will probably deserve to do so. But even then, we are going to try to reduce the danger by trading with others and having NAPs that will reduce the value to our neighbours of attacking us. This is not different.

I am aware that people feel that this may cripple the game, and I acknowledge that it may be the case. If the Tower Wars NAP results in the game being shut down in a few months for lack of interest, it will affect me approximately the same amount as if I quit playing in a few months because constantly defending towers bores me. That is somewhat self-centered of me, and is a meaningful choice I am making.

You are entitled to make your own self-centered and meaningful choices, such as trying to convince me the NAP is a bad idea or quitting playing because there isn't enough PvP combat activity for you. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that one of us is wrong for wanting what we want.

Goblin Squad Member

+1 GrumpyMel

I've been trying to word my view on this debate for the last day or so and you have successfully encapsulated my thoughts far better than anything I was coming up with.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
That might be gamed though.

Arrange for your friends to attack you "a little bit", then they back off, you put the points in to "settle" that tower's ownership for the day, and you all go to the next tower and do the same thing. After all are safe, go out for pancakes.

Goblin Squad Member

Time will tell if the Tower NAP is a good idea or not. At this point I certainly don't know. GW stated that the whole point of the War of the Towers was to give people, especially those with an interest in PvP, something constructive to do. Obviously the active landrush player base will decide how it plays out. What concerns me is that with the announcement of EE Sept 15 date, a lot of commenters at Massively were already writing off PFO because they felt the EE participants would have too much of a head start on their characters for it to be worthwhile for them to trial the game at OE. I'm afraid a Tower NAP with a stated purpose to allow early settlements a "safe" time to maximise growth provides more justification in their attempts to dissuade players from later trying the game, or even pushing for a reset at the end of EE.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
That might be gamed though.
Arrange for your friends to attack you "a little bit", then they back off, you put the points in to "settle" that tower's ownership for the day, and you all go to the next tower and do the same thing. After all are safe, go out for pancakes.

I don't think that will work.

If you own a Tower, I think it will be "vulnerable" for the entire duration of your PvP window. it's been suggested that there will probably be a short window to re-capture it after someone else takes it, but I don't think doing so will close that particular Tower's PvP Window if your actual PvP Window is still open.

It will probably be the case that "the best defense is a good offense". You'll need to be able to punish the Settlement that accepts a Tower that you feel is "yours".

Goblin Squad Member

<Kabal> Daeglin> wrote:
... a lot of commenters at Massively were already writing off PFO because they felt the EE participants would have too much of a head start on their characters for it to be worthwhile for them to trial the game at OE.

If a head start results in a meaningful long-term advantage, then the game is doomed to failure. It doesn't matter if it's the head start that the Month 1 Early Enrollees have over the Open Enrollees, or the head start that those who join up in year 7 have over the folks who join up in year 9. Ryan has spoken at length about this problem, so I'm fairly confident it won't pan out. Really, it's a perception problem that will likely only be solved when players see that a head start doesn't mean a long-term advantage.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
...Really, it's a perception problem that will likely only be solved when players see that a head start doesn't mean a long-term advantage.

I've never played EVE, but I had heard that it was possible to start playing a character any time and still be effective. I was hoping at the time that someone would use that to refute the concerns at Massively, but felt that I lacked the experience to draw the comparison to PFO. Given that, maybe the addition of the Tower NAP would only concern those wishing to start a new settlement at OE.

Goblin Squad Member

The devs could add more to the game that we haven't considered and that might change everyone's opinion ,so even if we think we are right it may not matter when the changes come .The game as we see it now may not be the game we are playing in 2 months, depends on what systems get in and how far they are in their development.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
If you own a Tower, I think it will be "vulnerable" for the entire duration of your PvP window. it's been suggested that there will probably be a short window to re-capture it after someone else takes it, but I don't think doing so will close that particular Tower's PvP Window if your actual PvP Window is still open.

My impression from the relevant Gobbocast was just the opposite, that we will indeed be able to close the windows on our own towers by going out and standing in the claim box. I also don't think there's any reclaim window (other than waiting for the new owner's window to open the next day); once there's a successful claim that tower is off the table for the day.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
If you own a Tower, I think it will be "vulnerable" for the entire duration of your PvP window. it's been suggested that there will probably be a short window to re-capture it after someone else takes it, but I don't think doing so will close that particular Tower's PvP Window if your actual PvP Window is still open.
My impression from the relevant Gobbocast was just the opposite, that we will indeed be able to close the windows on our own towers by going out and standing in the claim box. I also don't think there's any reclaim window (other than waiting for the new owner's window to open the next day); once there's a successful claim that tower is off the table for the day.

My understanding is that the presence of Defenders (Characters who belong to the Company that owns the Tower) only reduces other Companies' "capture points", and doesn't actually apply any "capture points" toward the owning Company.

Goblin Squad Member

That is my understanding as well. They had not determined yet whether capturing a tower would be based on capture points first past the mark, closing the window early, or possessing the necessary capture points at the natural close of the pvp window.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, god, are you using "capture point" to refer to a point-based system for capturing, rather than to a set of locations that can be captured?

*Brain explodes*

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think of the location as a Corral for the attackers to mosey into. :D

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
<Kabal> Daeglin wrote:
I think of the location as a Corral for the attackers to mosey into. :D

I'm O.K. with that :)

Goblin Squad Member

Here's the relevant portion of the video: YouTube - Episode 16: Low Place Like Home @26:55

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. There will be conflict in PFO, it's in the game design and GW has many tools at their disposal to force us if we are playing too nice for their liking (close the faucets). I doubt they will need to resort to that. Gamer nature is much worse than human nature and human nature is pretty awful.

2. The insurmountable head start for EE players is pure bogus. Most of the groups dominating EVE didn't join til after 3 years or more.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
T7V Avari wrote:

1. There will be conflict in PFO, it's in the game design and GW has many tools at their disposal to force us if we are playing too nice for their liking (close the faucets). I doubt they will need to resort to that. Gamer nature is much worse than human nature and human nature is pretty awful.

2. The insurmountable head start for EE players is pure bogus. Most of the groups dominating EVE didn't join til after 3 years or more.

One of the larger active corps in EVE is BNI and they were started by a new player less than 2 years ago.

That does not stop 3 week old players whining on the forums that its unfair they cannot fly a battleship yet or command a large fleet.

Of course in EVE you can actually buy experienced characters on the bazaar with ISK. However a player with no experience of EVE and no friends or in game contacts that buys a Titan pilot is not going to get very far.

The force multipliers in EVE are player numbers and player experience, not the XP of the character.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:

The force multipliers in EVE are player numbers and player experience, not the XP of the character.

I'm willing to bet that the same will be true of PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

One crucial thing to note in EVE is the exponential increase in cost of ships. You can buy and fit dozens of t1 frigates for the cost of a t1 battleship. Plus depending on your build that t1 battleship may not even be able to land a hit on a t1 frigate because of it's turret tracking speed / missile tracking and velocity.

We don't yet know if the gear cost in PFO will follow that of EVE and we do know high level characters will be the MOST likely to land a hit on a low level.

So I expect character XP to be a much larger factor here. It remains to be seen just how large but I have no doubt a skilled player with a powerful character will be far more powerful than a skilled player with a fresh account once we reach the point there is a notable disparity between vets and newbs.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius the Afflicted wrote:

One crucial thing to note in EVE is the exponential increase in cost of ships. You can buy and fit dozens of t1 frigates for the cost of a t1 battleship. Plus depending on your build that t1 battleship may not even be able to land a hit on a t1 frigate because of it's turret tracking speed / missile tracking and velocity.

We don't yet know if the gear cost in PFO will follow that of EVE and we do know high level characters will be the MOST likely to land a hit on a low level.

So I expect character XP to be a much larger factor here. It remains to be seen just how large but I have no doubt a skilled player with a powerful character will be far more powerful than a skilled player with a fresh account once we reach the point there is a notable disparity between vets and newbs.

The comparison and differences between Eve and PFO intrigue me. I realize that PFO will be an entirely different game, but I think it is obvious that PFO is trying to accomplish a lot of similar goals at least.

Unfortunately I never played Eve, but I can't help but hear about some Eve-feature and then try to find the "matching" mechanic in PFO that could obtain similar results.

One of them for instance: High-sec mining. I think we will see "high-sec" harvesting in PFO (Thornkeep Hexes, citizens harvesting in controlled Hexes of their powerfull Settlement). I think the option to be able to "high-sec" mine in Eve accounts for a lot of PvE-ish gameplay, and probably is a substantial contributor to Eve's yearly earnings. How will that play out in PFO?

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:
The comparison and differences between Eve and PFO intrigue me. I realize that PFO will be an entirely different game, but I think it is obvious that PFO is trying to accomplish a lot of similar goals at least.

In general, role-playing based games (and not just online ones) are all aiming for the same thing. Immersion to the point that you feel like the character is you in-the-moment. That all but guarantees a lot of overlap in the successful ones.

Goblin Squad Member

Well, that is true, but I am more talking about certain mechanics that also seem to contribute to the success of Eve, and the fact that it has a subscriber base that has slowly been getting bigger over time, instead of smaller like in most MMO's.

Like how they seem to mix PvP with a certain type of PvE that not only enhances the game, but is actually needed for the PvP to work.

And how they managed to create communities that care so much about what they hold, that large groups of players are willing to focus their private efforts for the greater good.

And off course a world where there is persistance, but also true *change*: which results in the world slowly accumulating a true "History". Stuff happened, and people will talk about it. This happens in a much smaller form in Themepark MMO's but in PFO things could get epic. Like in Eve, where some of it even reaches regular Press.

Goblin Squad Member

Apparently those are characteristics that contribute to good immersion and finding the right balance of them will be the goal for any system that aims to achieve that type of immersion.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

One crucial thing to note in EVE is the exponential increase in cost of ships. You can buy and fit dozens of t1 frigates for the cost of a t1 battleship. Plus depending on your build that t1 battleship may not even be able to land a hit on a t1 frigate because of it's turret tracking speed / missile tracking and velocity.

We don't yet know if the gear cost in PFO will follow that of EVE and we do know high level characters will be the MOST likely to land a hit on a low level.

So I expect character XP to be a much larger factor here. It remains to be seen just how large but I have no doubt a skilled player with a powerful character will be far more powerful than a skilled player with a fresh account once we reach the point there is a notable disparity between vets and newbs.

After seeing how much it takes to craft a single 1st level cure potion, I can only imagine what it will take to make an epic sword.

Goblin Squad Member

Yet a +3 longsword was made in the second alpha weekend, iirc.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Apparently those are characteristics that contribute to good immersion and finding the right balance of them will be the goal for any system that aims to achieve that type of immersion.

Apparently? You think Eve is succesfull simply because it is immersive? Well, sure, if a game is immersive, people will stay.

However I am trying to dig a little deeper here. I think "immersive" is a bit of a catch-all phrase. And some people will refute that "immersion" is why they are still playing a certain game. Some for instance would say that they like the competition (of Raiding, having the best gear, having the best stats, having the most powerful town). Others will say that they get a Zen-like feeling of grinding the same patch of Mobs for hours on end. Yet others will tell you "that if it wasn't for their friends or the community, they would have left already".

I am trying to see what the deciding factors are in a successful game like Eve, that keeps people paying subs. Of course each of these factors are things that keep people immersed.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
KoTC Edam Neadenil wrote:
The force multipliers in EVE are player numbers and player experience, not the XP of the character.

And double-web blasters. Don't forget the double-web blasters.

Those three things: player numbers, player experience, double-web blasters, and ruthless efficiency.

FOUR. The four things...

I can make an educated guess about the cost of gear at different tiers and plusses and their affects on each other from what I've experienced gathering, refining, crafting and fighting with them in alpha. Which I would love to share to sound smart, but those are some of those trade secrets that will start to matter some time into EE.

NOBODY expects the unexpected downtime!

Goblin Squad Member

I think the deciding factor that kept me playing Freelancer for five years was that I cared about supporting my allies and killing my enemies on a deeply personal level. As much critisizm as I receive for it, if you don't make things personal your interest in this game will only last until the next game with interesting features comes along.

Goblin Squad Member

At least, Andius, you will gain real value for the time you put into a game that you care about.

Goblin Squad Member

I think EVE is successful, in part, because of a very elaborate Market system. I know that's what most interested me about it. I expect many other players play for different reasons, but I suspect a large number of players stick around because the Market is so satisfying.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:
I think the deciding factor that kept me playing Freelancer for five years was that I cared about supporting my allies and killing my enemies on a deeply personal level. As much critisizm as I receive for it, if you don't make things personal your interest in this game will only last until the next game with interesting features comes along.

This is the sort of stuff I am looking for. Although "Killing my enemies on a deeply personal level" sounds pretty alien to me (as the person that *I* am ) I totally get that this would keep a person paying (and enjoying ) a game. So the next question for a dev-team would be, how can we make things personal in our game(as one of the pillars). Or maybe first try to gauge for how many people this is the main incentive for playing. A good bunch, I'd say.

I think Settlements being razed down would make things personal quit quickly. :) But it is not as easy as that. Will players and the group they belong to, take the loss of a Settlement in the same way as players in Eve take the loss of a Titan? Can we even compare the two? Do these two assets need the same investment in time, and player effort? Will the loss of a Settlement maybe feel *so* personal, that players quit, instead of starting to build a new Titan Settlement?

Those are the similarities that I see superficially, and wonder about.

Goblin Squad Member

Missed your post Nihimon: Absolutely, it is exactly what I am hoping for, for myself in PFO. Crafting and collecting the resources for that by trading, bartering and scavenging all the NPC vendors in the game kept me playing in EQ for years (also keeps me coming back).

Compared to the simplicity of EQ, Eve and hopefully PFO must be so much more satisfying. Though with a dangerous twist. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Apparently those are characteristics that contribute to good immersion and finding the right balance of them will be the goal for any system that aims to achieve that type of immersion.
Apparently? You think Eve is succesfull simply because it is immersive? Well, sure, if a game is immersive, people will stay.
No. I said
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Apparently those are characteristics that contribute to good immersion and finding the right balance of them will be the goal for any system that aims to achieve that type of immersion.

"Contribute to" does not equal "simply because it is..."

They are things that are in part responsible for keeping people interested.

Goblin Squad Member

Semantics aren't my strong point, so if I understood you wrong, I am sorry.


Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
The key is to keep the game between total chaos and buddying.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what this is intended to do.

The game is not about PvP, it is about meaningful choices. PvP is one of the primary means to dealing with those choices. Negotiating an uneasy peace is a form of PvP. If 20,000 people turn up in October and 15,000 are disappointed that there isn't enough fighting, I'm not convinced Lisa and Ryan will see that as a failure.

The issue is that maybe they won't pay money if they see how the game is? Or that they won't be like O I'll come back!

I don't want chaotic pvp, I want the game to be played as intended. The war of towers was implemented for a reason (hopefully.) And not just some flashing lights to keep us busy.

I agree with whoever said "this is a new game." I hope if there IS a serious NAP with none of the big groups fighting that they do something like make towers squishier.

I dunno. Basically I feel like my mind is pretty skilled at world-building or world-imagining. Even in video games. I feel that I can play out situations in my mind. I've seen stagnant games, that sucks. I wouldn't be opposed to a NAP IF it was in game, but it's not. It's some pre-game meta crap. In some way, it is like there is a group of elders that have decided our future for us. That is end game. I hope that a lot of people rebel against this and make it utter hell for those that want to NAP.

Not to mention, what happens if someone actually goes in on a large group? Do the other NAPers come to its aid? That's not something I agree with. Again: This is decided as it's in the best interest of the largest groups. So, that means that the largest groups are already deciding what happens in the game. Sure, that's natural, but people should fight it. If everyone falls in line with this, that's pretty weak willed.

Play the game and it can be adjusted as needed. If we are grinding our gears THEN you can say, "Wow, this is futile!" Don't ever lose da fight between big groups. Why would the big groups fight each other even thereafter. They have so much more to gain by just controlling parts of the map, maybe tiny border wars. Wars drive the game. They give players something to focus on. Pvp is not the same as a war. Even the players who hate pvp will keep up on the war, trust me. And eventually, they may decide to get in on it because it's essential.

Epic post.

Goblin Squad Member

celestialiar wrote:
I hope that a lot of people rebel against this and make it utter hell for those that want to NAP.

So... which Settlement are you with, again? Just curious :)

(Realizing that subtle humor seldom carries over very well on the forums, I apologize if the joking threat sounded like a real threat)

I think the NAP is useful for giving the "big groups" a little bit of breathing room during the early game so that an unnecessarily early War doesn't put some of them at a significant disadvantage to the others who manage to avoid such a setback. It's kind of like most multi-player RTS games, where the guy unlucky enough to have enemies streaming into his territory early on has his entire development strategy interrupted while he deals with it, all the while everyone else is happily advancing up those tech trees.

I very sincerely hope that we don't end up where anyone that doesn't sign the NAP is zerged by everyone in the NAP.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
I think EVE is successful, in part, because of a very elaborate Market system. I know that's what most interested me about it. I expect many other players play for different reasons, but I suspect a large number of players stick around because the Market is so satisfying.

For me, EVE offers a level of immersion that I don't think any other game even comes close to. The graphics, ambient sounds, soundtrack--as a sensory package, it's practically perfect.

On top of that, the devices and conceits that make playing over the internet practical also mesh brilliantly with the game environment. If I'm a capsuleer orbiting some nameless hunk of rock out in low-sec, I probably am sitting in front of some kind of computer terminal, communicating with corp-mates over vast distances on an audio channel or using text-based chat. It pushes all the right buttons for me.

Conversely, using a chat window or even TeamSpeak in a swords-and-sorcery setting breaks immersion for me. What choice do we have, though, but to use them? It's no fault of Goblinworks, it's just the way it is. I expect I'll still enjoy PFO plenty, but I don't expect it will come close to EVE in terms of immersion.

Then again, I'm not a game designer. Maybe I'm wrong and this will be the most completely immersive gave ever! If so, I'll be delighted to eat my words.

Goblin Squad Member

PvP in PFO will be different than a lot of games: it needs to happen for a reason. If diplomacy can give the groups what they want, then they'll go that route as it is cheaper. When groups can't get what they want later, well, then the political landscape will get interesting.

PvP has a place in this game. So does politics. That, I am sure, can be set in stone.

Goblin Squad Member

Shaibes wrote:
On top of that, the devices and conceits that make playing over the internet practical also mesh brilliantly with the game environment. If I'm a capsuleer orbiting some nameless hunk of rock out in low-sec, I probably am sitting in front of some kind of computer terminal, communicating with corp-mates over vast distances on an audio channel or using text-based chat. It pushes all the right buttons for me.

I remember thinking The Matrix Online should have been a perfect setting for an MMO. I never played it, which I suppose say something. I genuinely appreciate what Sony Online Entertainment has done for the MMO genre, and am detached enough to recognize the entire industry learned valuable lessons from their decisions with Star Wars Galaxies. However, I've also been very emotionally attached to some of their products (mostly, Vanguard), and I can't help thinking they've got people in decision-making positions who just don't get it.

I keep waiting for the day when the development tools are democratized enough that a very small outfit can make a living marketing a graphically immersive MMO to a few hundred players.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Speaking as a member of one of the Carebearier settlements, I'll be pretty disappointed if the NAP, in addition to existing, lasts for a set amount of time.

Better to just let it run and see who breaks first. Keeps things exciting! :)

Proud to have you in the tavern!

1 to 50 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Hey everybody, let's pour cement in our sandbox! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.