Constructive Criticism


Pathfinder Online

201 to 250 of 371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet they have stated from the get go they wanted to avoid a murder simulator and based on speculation on what you advocate in most of your arguments that is what you want. It has been stated that the minimal achievements that are in place now is a poor judge of the finial end point and you don't seem to be willing to give on the fact that you don't want to fight anything other than other players ever. I think you deceived yourself more than any external devices.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:


Confirmed with Lee and Stephen this morning that the above quote is the intent of the system and when the fix to the ability score gate is applied you will be able to achieve the necessary ability score increases simply by training things from the two (or three) trainers for your chosen Role.

Let me reiterate to be clear: The design objective is that if you want to be a better Wizard, all you have to do is learn Feats from Wizard trainers.

(Lee notes that there may be an issue with Constitution right now but that's something that we know about and intend to fix, and that training Hit Points is usually a solution if you find yourself in a dead end on Constitution.)

This is not a change and has always been the design intent. Perhaps we could have been more clear about this so that there wasn't any confusion and for that I apologize.

I would favorite this 100 times if I could.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Pyronous Rath wrote:
My biggest disappointment so far is that GW went for a tab targeting system rather then something closer to pnp like DDO's combat system. I guess I was really picturing a cross between pathfinders world DDO's combat and eve online's skill system and pvp sandbox. Sounds simple enough but there it is.
More and more people are asking for what you are asking. But on the other hand, every game for the last years using what to ask for failed miserably, and tab-targeting games are still the most successful ones.

Tab targeting are 90% so of course the probability is that the successful games would be what? yeah tab targeting. The popularity has nothing to do with tab targeting. WoW made it big because blizzard and Warcraft were big and hyped like crazy not because of tab garbage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honest question - what is the alternative (other than tab targeting) that you are looking for?

"something closer pnp like DDO's combat system"

I've never played DDO - dungeon and dragons online?

Is it Action-Combat oriented?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doc || GenAknosc wrote:

Honest question - what is the alternative (other than tab targeting) that you are looking for?

"something closer pnp like DDO's combat system"

I've never played DDO - dungeon and dragons online?

Is it Action-Combat oriented?

It's a combination so you can target an opponent but if you have no opponent and say you swing your sword(standard attack) if an hostile is in range the game rolls attack dice and determines a hit or mis. If you have no target and cast a firball or other area effect spell hostiles in the area make saving throws and take effects. Also if a hostile is engaged with another you can get a flanking bonus so attacking from behind has meaning as does being attacked from behind. Oh and there is a block key which gives you some dmg reduction. Really there is alot to go over but it is by far the best conversion from pnp in a realtime game. Take a classic pnp spell like web grease or even cloud kill. These spells cannot even be implemented effectively in pfo's current combat system. Sure you could cast a web at a target enemy maby it would have a burst effect and effect some extra hostiles around the target. In ddo and pnp you could cast web in an entrance way and use it to trap enemies in an area. You could cast wall of fire across a bridge. There is more but I suggest if you are really interested go try it for an hour or so and see (its free to play). Tip you dont need to be a mad clicker as holding down the attack key repeats the attack.

Goblin Squad Member

Which is great is you were looking for a more faithful conversion from PnP to MMO. PFO is not and has never intended to be that game.

So I'm not quite sure why this keeps coming up. Even if there was a resounding agreement on the subject of the DDO's system superiority, it is far too late in development to change anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

Kadere wrote:

Which is great is you were looking for a more faithful conversion from PnP to MMO. PFO is not and has never intended to be that game.

So I'm not quite sure why this keeps coming up. Even if there was a resounding agreement on the subject of the DDO's system superiority, it is far too late in development to change anyway.

Wait Wait Wait did you just say alpha is to late for changes I need a moment and another bowl........LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL?

Instead of whatever that was please explain why a system that only lets you cast at targets is superior to a system with flanking and other great combat mechanics that lets you cast at target creatures and target areas?

Goblin Squad Member

For your refrence. "Alpha[edit]
The alpha phase of the release life cycle is the first phase to begin software testing (alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, used as the number 1). In this phase, developers generally test the software using white box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black box or gray box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release.[2]

Alpha software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss. External availability of alpha software is uncommon in proprietary software. However, open source software, in particular, often have publicly available alpha versions, often distributed as the raw source code of the software. The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software. At this time, the software is said to be feature complete."-software release cycle Wikipedia

Goblin Squad Member

Pyronous Rath wrote:
Audoucet wrote:
Pyronous Rath wrote:
My biggest disappointment so far is that GW went for a tab targeting system rather then something closer to pnp like DDO's combat system. I guess I was really picturing a cross between pathfinders world DDO's combat and eve online's skill system and pvp sandbox. Sounds simple enough but there it is.
More and more people are asking for what you are asking. But on the other hand, every game for the last years using what to ask for failed miserably, and tab-targeting games are still the most successful ones.
Tab targeting are 90% so of course the probability is that the successful games would be what? yeah tab targeting. The popularity has nothing to do with tab targeting. WoW made it big because blizzard and Warcraft were big and hyped like crazy not because of tab garbage.

It's probably an issue considering Themeparks have traditionally out-sold Sandboxes due to deep and narrow combat design focus even WOW's tab-target +75 Skill Abstraction. But I think with PFO, it is necessary due to technical reasons predominantly; it is a closer fit to provide higher Skill Abstraction to allow players more time to make decisions; it fits a long-term character-rpg growth model and hence market of players also.

That's not to say I would not prefer a sort of Mount And Blade combat system of slicing and dicing enemies but given the wider context of PFO where combat characters and groups of characters is a part of the game systems mainly concerned with changing the world's status between different groups, you probably appreciate why tab-target combat is chosen.

And it's another design feature that is standardized/expected which reduces risk for GW atst as they attempt a lot of risky things. IE FPS games have a simple interface dedicated to combat and player skill and do a superior job of designing it. Again to reinforce the RPG style of combat, you have the party with specializations working together to overcome different problems: Mismatch, Synergy, Positional based off time and distance and inflicting damage to zero first.

This excellent blog post makes this very clear:-

The Archetypal Origins of MMORPG Group-Combat Roles

The archetypes interacting in combat is just ONE EXPRESSION of these characters. If combat is boiled down extremely you lose some of these attributes and end up with the rock-paper-scissors (DPS, Tank, Healer). Combat is one type of problem to solve, afterall and teamwork/smarts being rewarded is very fun.

For example I want to find in the game to express a particular playstyle I'm attempting to conceptualize. This has a basis in all sorts of things, and the actual combat of this role is only one aspect of the full archetype albeit still important. But I think the actual context of the role to the combat in this example to illustrate the above, is MORE important to enjoyment than the content of the combat mechanics. Without the right approach to character creation, the role loses a lot of meaning and it's "place in the world" of PFO.

But yeah I can appreciate tab-target may in EE with less game be harder to bear.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

[combat system / animations]

I would like to see a system like there was in Fallen Earth. It was tab target assisted, but still directional and non twitch. The animations were smooth, including melee.

The reasons I bring up Fallen Earth are three fold. First, Lee Hammock was the lead designer of the game. He does not have to learn from scratch how to code it. Second, FE is an older game (2006?) and it's combat system / animations should still match up with Goblin Works MVP philosophy. Finally, it would be a tremendous upgrade to what we have now.

[PvP]

I believe we need to see player looting before EE. This may or may not include the threading system, but it might also be a good idea to see that in alpha as well.

Settlement PvP Windows testing idea: Each of the settlements should have a PvP window (different times of day) set up to effect the settlement and each if it's surrounding six hexes. Thorn Keep should be kept out of this testing.

Once each settlement has gone through its PvP window, it's time for the next day would be changed to simulate player settlement managers making the vulnerability times unpredictable.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pyronous Rath wrote:
Kadere wrote:

Which is great is you were looking for a more faithful conversion from PnP to MMO. PFO is not and has never intended to be that game.

So I'm not quite sure why this keeps coming up. Even if there was a resounding agreement on the subject of the DDO's system superiority, it is far too late in development to change anyway.

Wait Wait Wait did you just say alpha is to late for changes I need a moment and another bowl........LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL?

Instead of whatever that was please explain why a system that only lets you cast at targets is superior to a system with flanking and other great combat mechanics that lets you cast at target creatures and target areas?

No. He said too late in development. Alpha is already supposed to be over. They are already late deploying "Open Enrollment" and therefore late to the stage where they planned to have income, and you are asking for a change to the underlying mechanics of a core feature when they are struggling to make a deadline they've had to push out a couple of times already. You're asking them to risk the viability of their business plan because you don't like something that most people are not complaining about.

Pretending that the ability to alter features in software during late alpha is anything like changing underlying operations of core features when you are already late-to-the-shelf is disingenuous.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Cal B

What it sounds like you're saying is that it is more important to meet a deadline, and push out an inferior product, than it is to delay and put out a better product.

Goblin Works has not said that changes, even major changes, will not occur during the EE period. Ryan has said that while there might not be roll-backs, or reimbursements for xps spent, there may be dead ends along a training tree.

EE is not the launch of a finished or even near finished product. It is a period of Beta that is also a paid period.

There may be some that will argue that this is not "Pay to Beta", but that is exactly what it is. Remember the pillars of the game? None of them are fully in, some are not in at all, and few have been fully tested or tested at all.

Do you believe that none of those major systems will have to be tweaked or changed in major ways, based on testing?

That brings me to the issue of testing, post EE.

I believe it has been said that the current Alpha server will be used for testing. I assume that means a parallel server will run for EE. This would allow for that testing, without it interfering with the characters on the EE server. It may also allow us to import our EE characters into the testing server.

I have seen this done in two games, Eve and Sto, quite successfully. I'm hoping they use a similar model for PFO.

The one potential downside I can think of is that some players / groups may attempt to "reside" solely on the test server. To prevent that, GW could do a frequent Test Server Wipe.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Please try and not distract this thread with talks about changing the targeting system as it isn't going to get changed.

Let's stay on topic and critique the things in game that actually have a chance of changing as this thread contains, in my opinion, very important critiques.


Ryan Dancey wrote:

I consider EVE's system to be flawed. The fact that you can just pay for training, logging in increasingly infrequently as you train skills that have longer and longer windows, and doing nothing when you conduct those periodic logins to reset your skill queue is, in my opinion, bad for the game.

In fact, the reason that EVE did not even have a skill queue until Apocrypha was because the designers understood that forcing players to log in regularly was a necessity to keep them engaged with the game. The compromise for the current skill queue design was hard fought and many people still think it was a mistake.

The risk is that players who are paying, but not truly engaged, are fragile. They're more likely to quit than someone who has something meaningful to do in the game on a regular basis. It's much easier to say to yourself when you look at your monthly credit card bill "why am I paying this $15 for doing nothing?"

Infrequent logins also mean that player's clients become woefully out of date very quickly, which can generate all sorts of customer service headaches. It also means that if your credit card fails to bill for some reason and you ignore emails about the problem (most such emails are ignored) you may in fact not be getting the training you thought you were getting and when you do log in, finally, and discover that due to a payment failure you missed months of skill points, it's pretty easy to imagine that you might just quit right there on the spot.

this means we have 2 legit paths, with gating and without gating, which one would provide more revenue in the end? Ryan seems to think that the "gating one" will, also he have more experience and know all than all of us together, even so i believe the no gating one would provide more money in the end.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saiph wrote:

Please try and not distract this thread with talks about changing the targeting system as it isn't going to get changed.

Let's stay on topic and critique the things in game that actually have a chance of changing as this thread contains, in my opinion, very important critiques.

This is not wholly accurate, as the targeting system was due for a tweak in build 7 or 8. The discussion of having a different tabs for NPC targeting and PC targeting were also discussed.

Unintentional PC targeting and the subsequent rep loss was a major issue in build 6 and earlier. It was / is so bad that many of us actually shy away from large group escalations.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

@Cal B

What it sounds like you're saying is that it is more important to meet a deadline, and push out an inferior product, than it is to delay and put out a better product.

No, it doesn't sound like that at all, that's just what you want to hear it as.

What it sounds like is that it's better to focus on the essentials and meet the deadline and remain viable than to delay more for unnecessary core-function redesigns that a small group is whining about endlessly and risk running out of funds and failing.

Is that more clear?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The funds wont be failing unless they are over paying themselves. They took the cheap road for everything possible.. hint: Unity is free, its utilities are not (only know of one they bought)

Holding their feet to the fire is not whining, but it sure as hell is better then being a wimpy fanboy that praises everything.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm no wimpy fan boy. I've criticized plenty of things about PFO and it's direction. When the majority of the people disagree with me, I just don't keep trying over and over to convince everyone else that they should want what I want and complain that they're doing wrong.

The targeting system should, and presumably will, improve over time. Constant pressure to do it a different way because some people are offended by tab targeting isn't helping anything at this stage.

CEO, Goblinworks

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unity is not free, btw. Nor is Havok AI, or Granny, or 3DSMax, or Adobe Creative Cloud, etc. We are a Source Code licensee and that's quite expensive. We are not taking the "cheap road" on anything. What we are doing is keeping our staff as small as we can, because salary costs are the biggest part of any software development project. Smaller staff means smaller feature set. You are not seeing the effects of being stingy on spending. You're seeing the effects of being very small in size.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I appologize, I was told that the add ons cost not the engine... but the pro version is $1500.

Do not misunderstand something Ryan, One thing I have been backing you and your team when telling people to come to PFO, is that they are making this game with what 5? developers? (that is what I have said anyway) I am talking about the coding guys.

Most people take pause at that and reconsider their graphics complaints... It hasnt exactly brought them here to try it out but it at least made them think.

That is why I made the graphics suggestion. Get a group, let them hammer some eye candy out, and keep them as short term contractors. It will not be cheap I know. Just a thought.

Goblin Squad Member

The Source Code licenses, from what I've heard elsewhere, are price-negotiated on a case-by-case basis, so there's nowhere to see the costs, but the reports have mirrored Ryan's choice of wording: "quite expensive".

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:


Hardin Steele wrote:
Social - Using different operations like "trade","party" etc... The chat functions need a lot of additional features at a fairly high priority because using them is a right pain.

The Number One thing I'd love to see added to the chat interface is /R for Reply to Last Whisper. Some people are using long names for their characters, and it sucks to type "/w Mygoodfriend Withaverylongname Watch out. The escalation between our settlements has reached 98%", and have the whisper fail to send because you forgot a comma.

As for other / operations, /wave would be a good choice to implement soon. Right now, all you can do is jump up and down when you see someone you know.

Not sure if someone has already pointed this out, but these things already are in the game. /r to reply works, just used it the other day.

/wave, /bow, /cheer, /laugh, and other emotes work, as well, the only caveat is that they appear in the "Local" window only.

Goblin Squad Member

Dazyk wrote:
/wave, /bow, /cheer, /laugh, and other emotes work, as well, the only caveat is that they appear in the "Local" window only.

And there's no associated animation.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Dazyk wrote:
/wave, /bow, /cheer, /laugh, and other emotes work, as well, the only caveat is that they appear in the "Local" window only.
And there's no associated animation.

and that ;)

/bow


Ryan Dancey wrote:
Unity is not free, btw. Nor is Havok AI, or Granny, or 3DSMax, or Adobe Creative Cloud, etc. We are a Source Code licensee and that's quite expensive. We are not taking the "cheap road" on anything. What we are doing is keeping our staff as small as we can, because salary costs are the biggest part of any software development project. Smaller staff means smaller feature set. You are not seeing the effects of being stingy on spending. You're seeing the effects of being very small in size.

Unity at that is a $1500 per seat license..most of them are per seat. 3DSMax itself is over 3k per seat (depending on number of artist that compiled with Maya can run you up quickly on base tool cost.

I have gone down this road myself as a dev having to fork out code licenses etc it can run up and amok quickly. And we were using a "free" engine/middleware at the time Multiverse for mmo development. When it comes out of your own pocket and not a VC it hurts even more ;) At least they are progressing ahead out of alpha we couldn't get that far with a 8 man dev team.

Back on topic there is one issue I do have with targeting. Say i'm engaged with a gob warrior and he pulls in an archer and in the area are others. So i kill the warrior from tabbed target, then i try to target the gob archer, who's hitting me but because i may or may not be line of sight with him it doesn't autotarget to an engaged combatant it instead targets a gob mob another 100m away and i have to run to the archer target w/ mouse on it to engage while he's whittling me away. Don't know how many times this has happened to me w/ combat targeting and it is extremely difficult with my fps rate, I need to figure that out so i get better then 5 or 10fps.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rorin Doombringer wrote:


Back on topic there is one issue I do have with targeting. Say I'm engaged with a gob warrior and he pulls in an archer and in the area are others. So i kill the warrior from tabbed target, then i try to target the gob archer, who's hitting me but because i may or may not be line of sight with him it doesn't autotarget to an engaged combatant it instead targets a gob mob another 100m away and i have to run to the archer target w/ mouse on it to engage while he's whittling me away. Don't know how many times this has happened to me w/ combat targeting and it is extremely difficult with my fps rate, I need to figure that out so i get better then 5 or 10fps.

If this is recent, you may be doing it to yourself. I discovered the other day that the system is now auto-targeting the next existing threat, so my compulsive tab strike was actually de-selecting the auto-targetted critter that was attacking me and moving the selection to the next available, often a creature with which I was not actually engaged.

Goblin Squad Member

First0f0ne wrote:

I am of the mind that you should take the money of players that would pay for training time but play very little. The issue with (MVP) achievement gating is that the number whom what to give you that money to develop the game while they wait in the wings will go dow significantly.

I am currently in this group. MVP is not currently at a point where I want to spend all of my "gaming" time. I have money. I would like to give that money to you to develop the game as talked about in the blogs. During this time I would log in 1 to 4 times per week spend xp, develop my guys, play a little, and check out new features and see if you (GW) are "there" yet.

I will probably still do as I planned but I will tell you that if Im unable to spend the xp that I have paid for I wont be happy about it.

Personal motives aside, I feel double gating (time AND achievements) are twice as much gating at the same or greater price or any MMO I have played.

Sounds reasonable until you consider that you're not buying a Hamburger, but paying to play a game, and games (to be games) have rules that limit game activity. Further you are already aware that not only do those gates exist and have domain in the game but those same rules apply to every player: that is something of a covenant in gaming. Games (well, good games] differ from reality in that they are fair like that.

As much as the game company might like to take as much cash off of your largesse as they can, they should rightly resist temptation and hold true to the covenant of fair play. Yes or no?.

Goblin Squad Member

@Ryan

Can I take this to mean that a Dowser/Sage will not need to grind level of Wizard, Arcane achievements and cantrips to advance? Please confirm that it aill be possible to advance with harvesting g and crafting achievements as a commoner and not require going out as wizard adventurer.

Goblin Squad Member

Lam wrote:

@Ryan

Can I take this to mean that a Dowser/Sage will not need to grind level of Wizard, Arcane achievements and cantrips to advance? Please confirm that it aill be possible to advance with harvesting g and crafting achievements as a commoner and not require going out as wizard adventurer.

I don't see why you shouldn't have to. I have to level gathering, refining and crafting skills just so I can unlock skills like basic attack 4, because of the attribute requirements.

I had to complete gathering achievements, in order to unlock Mining 5, in order to increase my CON, in order to unlock Hit Points 7.

I noticed one refining skill that required that I have crafting achievements.

Whereas EvE Online's sandbox system allows your character to fulfill a role in a "pure" pathway (excluding core skills), PFO seems to force you to take a little bit of everything in order to advance your character beyond level 6 or certainly 7.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have talked to way too many people that are now looking for something else to play... kinda disappointing...

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry to hear that man. We are still in Alpha though, not even EE and the game is not set in stone. If people are making a judgement on the game at this early stage and looking elsewhere, hopefully they will look again once things have been adjusted and you can focus on what you want. I think the game is most likely in one of it's most hard to sell periods as it is playable but not even MVP, so people are judging it right now, when so many changes will be coming shortly.

Goblin Squad Member

Lam wrote:
Can I take this to mean that a Dowser/Sage will not need to grind level of Wizard, Arcane achievements and cantrips to advance? Please confirm that it aill be possible to advance with harvesting g and crafting achievements as a commoner and not require going out as wizard adventurer.

Ryan's statement was about feats only. He was very careful to avoid mentioning achievements.

So the design intent of "you only need to train wizard feats to advance as a wizard", leaves open the possibility that the requirements to train those wizard feats will force you to do things that might be non-wizardly, such as mining or killing 150 goblins with a shortsword.

Goblin Squad Member

@Gaskon that sounds like it is the opposite of the stated intent.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
@Gaskon that sounds like it is the opposite of the stated intent.

Being, it might "sound" or even "be" the opposite of what the "stated" intent was, but it is the way it works for some now.

For many (I only avoid the use of "all", because I'll wait for others to speak up) this is true for as early as advancing to Rogue level 7.

Even though bows (Long and Short) are both Martial and Subterfuge, you can only raise your Ranged Attack Bonus through gaining Martial Points. Eventually, even though you may be trying to level up as a Rogue, you will have to increase your attributes, which will require you to train all of the gathering / refining skills and likely some of the crafting skills as well.

Obviously the "stated' intent is not the reality of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Being wrote:
@Gaskon that sounds like it is the opposite of the stated intent.

Being, it might "sound" or even "be" the opposite of what the "stated" intent was, but it is the way it works for some now.

For many (I only avoid the use of "all", because I'll wait for others to speak up) this is true for as early as advancing to Rogue level 7.

Even though bows (Long and Short) are both Martial and Subterfuge, you can only raise your Ranged Attack Bonus through gaining Martial Points. Eventually, even though you may be trying to level up as a Rogue, you will have to increase your attributes, which will require you to train all of the gathering / refining skills and likely some of the crafting skills as well.

Obviously the "stated' intent is not the reality of the game.

The system is very convoluted and limited (in options) right now. I will speak up and say that it is currently pretty frustrating. Get this to train that, but you need those first so you have to side spec into whatsit...

It will get better. I am not confident that new people looking in will realize that it will get better. I hope they can have the patiance that we "Fan Bois" have.

IT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. Let it progress. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Has it been inadequately explained that much that will be in the game is not yet implemented? Ryan himself pointed that out just the other day.

If you have built a good block foundation, and raised the wall framing, nailed up your trusses and nailed down the plywood and tarpaper for the roof should folks complain it isn't finished when you show off your craftsmanship? No, they understand you have just dried-in the house in time for working before the cold weather sets in.

What exactly is not understood about the nature of alpha?


Audoucet wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
You don't want to do anything but let time pass to become more powerful? That's a legit critique. I disagree, so you lose that argument. But I respect you for making the argument. But saying that because the tiny handful of Achievements we've implemented are boring or grindy means the design paradigm is flawed doesn't move me very much.

I only loose the argument because I was stupid enough to trust you by giving you 1500$.

Give me back my money, and I'll completely stop arguing. Nobody will lose, you will do whatever you want, and I'll have nothing to say about that.

But of course you won't, since well, the last two years of your company have been financed by our blind faith.

As said the sandbox model is a much about hype and telling the players they're doing it wrong/ working as intended when they get mad. haha. That's why it's so indie. Doesn't take much to get a working sandbox if the players are doing all of the work.

Should never donate/bet if you aren't prepared to eat it. Faith is best placed in self if anything. (truism 10 hit combo.)

Someday, we(people who care about quality) will all get together and make a truly good game. It won't make any money, nobody will play it, but it will be done. But now it's like "yeah, but money!" Dudes go in to recoup so much that if the game flops they still make money.

I know someone is gonna tell me that's not true.

Goblin Squad Member

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there's a lot of good feedback in this thread, and I largely agree with Xeen's original post. While I don't care to wade into a debate over the minutiae, there's one recurring theme I'd like to comment on.

As a fan of history, I'm reminded of the aircraft carrier, Enterprise, in WW2. After it had taken heavy damage during an engagement, they made an unusual choice. While critical repairs were done at dock, much of the carrier's patching and refit was done while it was under way and even in the middle of combat. It's my understanding this event coined the phrase, "Built at sea."

Most games are released as finished, polished products (well, except for Creative Assembly games). You drop your $50 - $60 (plus subscription if it's an MMO) and there's your game. If you like it, great. If you hate it, tough. It's already built, and changing it will be really hard. And in the MMO space, you can bet companies are going to build very safe and same-y games since they're risking a lot before they see a dime in ROI.

But going all the way back to the Kickstarter, GW has made it clear this game is being built at sea.

Quote:
Unlike a lot of traditional game designs that are delivered nearly feature-complete and where feedback from players is limited to bug hunting and mechanical balancing, Pathfinder Online will have a much more community-driven development process. Many game features will be developed and implemented based on prioritization choices made by the community and they will be added to the game through a process of continuous iteration during Beta - the Crowdforgers who are Early Enrollees will be involved not only in playing the game but in shaping its very nature.

The initial product will be very stripped down with a lot of placeholders, missing features, and rough bits. The advantage to GW is that they don't need a $100,000,000+ investment to make the game. The advantage to us is that we get to shape the product through crowdforging instead of having to swallow decisions they made two years before the first E3 trailer.

Some people don't like this model. It feels like paying them to make a game you already bought, and in the meantime, you get missing features and sketchy graphics. I get that. I really do. I completely understand someone saying they want nothing to do with a project being run this way.

What I don't understand is the people that have been here from the start that seem surprised by this truth. The quote above was from their Kickstarter FAQ, right alongside delivery dates that strongly suggest they don't expect the game to be in a release version 1.0 state until early 2016.


"I completely understand someone saying they want nothing to do with a project being run this way."

I don't understand it at all. Who else do they think is going to make a game with this kind of scope/concept, for this little (relatively speaking) money?

Where do they think the investment money is going to come from for such a niche market, with investors that won't be backseat driving to ensure profit margins?

EVE is the closest thing to the kind of game Pathfinder Online hopes to be, and there is probably a reason why there aren't other games out there like it already - and yet still be hundreds of other themepark WoW clones.

I still believe the biggest challenge facing GW is public relations. Programming is easy. Getting people to buy into your idea and believe in your vision - and stick with it while it's not there yet - that's tough.

Goblin Squad Member

Maybe those who can buy into that kind of vision are the very people we want in on it, and those who cannot, who cannot wrap their minds around it, well... not so much.


Being able to wrap your brain around it is a function of how well the vision is articulated and how familiar you already are with the concept.

Since themepark MMORPG's are the prevailing paradigm, it will require a substantial amount of outreach and visionary leadership to demonstrate why and how Pathfinder Online can be viable and fun.

Dumping potential customers/players to the side because they don't grasp it right away is folly in my opinion.

Goblin Squad Member

You guys crack me up with the vision talk. Every bit of this has been done before in one game or another, its a merger of several ideas.

You are correct Doc. Promoting the game is a big problem atm. Sure it is being tried but not effectively. I can tell you that the talk about peoples disposable income, not caring if people leave, showing favoritism, listening to only a select group, and etc really have kept people optimistic.

Goblin Squad Member

Gaskon wrote:
Lam wrote:
Can I take this to mean that a Dowser/Sage will not need to grind level of Wizard, Arcane achievements and cantrips to advance? Please confirm that it aill be possible to advance with harvesting g and crafting achievements as a commoner and not require going out as wizard adventurer.

Ryan's statement was about feats only. He was very careful to avoid mentioning achievements.

So the design intent of "you only need to train wizard feats to advance as a wizard", leaves open the possibility that the requirements to train those wizard feats will force you to do things that might be non-wizardly, such as mining or killing 150 goblins with a shortsword.

My question was the flip side of Ryan's statement: would a character need to train Wizard feats to advance a Dowser/Sage Commoner? Currently, in order to advance those feats, the character must acquire many arcane achievements and feats (2 Cantrips level 3 [e.g. Acid Dart and Adrenaline Surge] to reach level 8 D/S and 10 more Cantrip (to level 3) to reach 9).

There may be alternate way involving aristocrat, but I have not seen much about acquiring social achievements. Aristocrats will be introduced much later. If the characters are to be the economy, there needs to be a way to get commoners to Tier 2. This is similar to issues others have talked about with the 4 base roles needing crafting to advance ability, but reversed.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
... its a merger of several ideas.

Most great advancements are...

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
... its a merger of several ideas.
Most great advancements are...

Although being constructively critical is the purpose of this thread, I can't think of a at to counter your argument without asking for evidence of these supposed great advancements.

Even if we accept every intention as. Something that has been attained, what will we find that is innovative or revolutionary?

Goblin Squad Member

I don't understand your question, Bluddwolf.

I was referring to the general recognition that we are able to make advancements because of the hard work and discoveries of those who have come before us.

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

celestialiar wrote:

As said the sandbox model is a much about hype and telling the players they're doing it wrong/ working as intended when they get mad. haha. That's why it's so indie. Doesn't take much to get a working sandbox if the players are doing all of the work.

Should never donate/bet if you aren't prepared to eat it. Faith is best placed in self if anything. (truism 10 hit combo.)

Someday, we(people who care about quality) will all get together and make a truly good game. It won't make any money, nobody will play it, but it will be done. But now it's like "yeah, but money!" Dudes go in to recoup so much that if the game flops they still make money.

I know someone is gonna tell me that's not true.

I learned my lesson !

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
celestialiar wrote:

As said the sandbox model is a much about hype and telling the players they're doing it wrong/ working as intended when they get mad. haha. That's why it's so indie. Doesn't take much to get a working sandbox if the players are doing all of the work.

Should never donate/bet if you aren't prepared to eat it. Faith is best placed in self if anything. (truism 10 hit combo.)

Someday, we(people who care about quality) will all get together and make a truly good game. It won't make any money, nobody will play it, but it will be done. But now it's like "yeah, but money!" Dudes go in to recoup so much that if the game flops they still make money.

I know someone is gonna tell me that's not true.

I learned my lesson !

This is Alpha, the lesson has yet to begin.

Please be patient and try to be optimistic, it's not too late for the game you dreamed about to become a reality. You seem to want this game to fail before it can fabricate; I don't understand your outlook.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saiph wrote:

This is Alpha, the lesson has yet to begin.

Please be patient and try to be optimistic, it's not too late for the game you dreamed about to become a reality. You seem to want this game to fail before it can fabricate; I don't understand your outlook.

Saiph, for me, being optimistic would be that grinding will disappear.

I know it will, because that's such an obvious design flaw, that it can't stay. But I've had enough with Ryan's attitude, and the fanboy-inquisition.

Anyway, I gave my account to Cheatle, at least I'll have one good souvenir from this community.

I'm hesitating on selling my DT account or just offering it to Xeen or Andius just for the lol.

201 to 250 of 371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Constructive Criticism All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.