Goblin Squad Member
|
I was looking for a suitably old thread to necro (in honour of the day) and instead came across one that I thought deserved a resurrection.
I'd appreciate if anyone who felt like it would offer two things. 1) What you'd say if you could only say one, honest, thing to try to get someone to try PFO. 2) What you'd say if you could only say one honest thing to try to stop someone from trying PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ten years ago my local hobby shop closed its doors. Our community of ~100K people in Northern California did not have a local retail place to play within an hour drive.
Every few months in letters to Dungeon, Dragon, Knights of the Dinner Table, the WotC site and on EN World I would see the topic of 'how do I recruit players'. Fortunately I just put up a website and a few flyers around town and within a month I had over 100 members joining us at a local cub scout hall to play games.
Over the years I have learned that the best players, the ones that I'm most attracted to intellectually, the ones I want to spend my time with, are those who seek my interests and not those who I try to 'convert'. If someone is into Magic the Gathering, then I'm not going to even try to convince them to play D&D. If that same person reads about D&D and approaches me I will gladly try to fit them into my game schedule or find a table for them to play.
When 4th edition came out it splintered our group. I tried to be on board, running daily games of Living Forgotten Realms. I am not a salesman. No matter how logical my arguments might seem to me, ultimately people had to do the research on their own and decide if it was right for them or not. Ultimately it was not right for me, and I converted back to 3.5 (Pathfinder).
If I had one thing to say to someone to try PFO I would say 'goblinworks.com'.
I can't think of any scenario where I would want to stop someone from trying PFO. At a convention last year the Pathfinder Society GM next to our table stopped a husband and wife from joining their group because his game style was very intense and their characters were sub optimal. He told them they would not have fun. I'm not the type of GM who would share an opinion like that. I host my games and let players decide through an actual play session how the game makes them feel. If they are unhappy then so be it, but I'd rather have them experience first and make their own conclusions.
Now if someone is being a jerk in the game the one honest thing I would say to them is 'EN GARDE!' :)
I can't think of any scenario where I would want to stop someone from trying PFO.
I can think of one: blatant and purposeful bigotry. But I won't have to say anything to make them stop playing. I'll just take some screen shots and let GW do the talking (and banning).
Now what to say to get them started? I have no idea. It depends on the person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm asking people to step outside of your own comfort zone, whether you are pro or con. I'm not saying I'd expect anyone to try to push somone away. I'm asking you. Honestly. If you had to come up with the thing you like least, or dislike most, what would it be? and at the same time, even if you think PFo "sucks teh rocks," if you really had to try to sell someone on it, what one thing offends you the least or actually impresses you.
I can't imagine that anyone thinks it's perfect...or perfectly awful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can honestly say I don't know.
This is a PvP game, and as such it will attract certain types of players. However, I think the community we have here during Alpha will be significantly different from the EE and OE communities. For example, I expect the player base to become significantly more aggressive, and much less helpful as soon as EE starts (my opinion).
And it is not until those communities are functioning that I would be able to tell someone, based on their individual likes and dislikes in games, whether they might or might not find what they are seeking in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would not tell a friend to pay to try this game, not until I felt it was worthy of the cost. For those of us that are in for multiple months, that is money already spent (at least that is how I look at it). If however, many months from now, I do feel PFO is worth the subscription cost I'd have no problem encouraging my friends / guild mates to give it a try.
One thing GW might do, periodically, is to have a few free trials during the EE time period. This may keep interest up, even as the game continues to develope.
Bottom line, it is not our job to sell the game. Only GW can do that, and only through the game appearing at the moment to be of value for the expebditure. No amount of our hype will convince anyone past the impression they get from the game play videos they can freely see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm asking people to step outside of your own comfort zone, whether you are pro or con. I'm not saying I'd expect anyone to try to push somone away. I'm asking you. Honestly. If you had to come up with the thing you like least, or dislike most, what would it be? and at the same time, even if you think PFo "sucks teh rocks," if you really had to try to sell someone on it, what one thing offends you the least or actually impresses you.
I can't imagine that anyone thinks it's perfect...or perfectly awful.
Nothing really offends me about the game itself, just how some are willing to place way too much faith in the vision.
Why do I not have faith in the vision? The other part of your question above and my answer to it is the reason.
I am not impressed by any aspect of the game. I understand it is alpha / beta, but the requirement to pay for this stage of the game is shear audacity and quite honestly the single most likely reason potential players won't give the game a try.
Please tell me, what aspect of the game do you believe PFO does better than any other game on the market?
Maybe six months from now I'll see the game differently.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Please tell me, what aspect of the game do you believe PFO does better than any other game on the market?
What Ryan has done better than any other MMO Company on the market is describe a game that is remarkably appealing to me: a Fantasy Sandbox with unlimited Character Development options; with enough Themepark elements to hopefully keep my wife engaged; with non-consensual yet consequential PvP; and with Kingdom-building and all the Politics, Intrigue, and Conflict that entails.
My expectations were properly set such that I would not complain if there was nothing that PFO currently did better than any game on the market right now, but even so I think their Harvesting/Crafting system is already the best I've ever seen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying my best to answer in the spirit of the post.
1) What you'd say if you could only say one, honest, thing to try to get someone to try PFO.
Unlimited Character Development
2) What you'd say if you could only say one honest thing to try to stop someone from trying PFO.
Non-consensual PvP
If you had to come up with the thing you like least, or dislike most, what would it be?
This is actually significantly different from #2 above. I actually really like non-consensual PvP as long as it's consequential, and I've long held the belief that it would be necessary in my perfect game. My answer to #2 above is more directed at giving players the most useful information that might cause them to not want to try PFO.
As for what I like least about PFO, genuinely trying to avoid cop-out answers like "the wait" or "its incompleteness", but also trying to avoid things that I have every reason to expect are temporary, I'd have to say:
Limited Action Bars
But even that's a stretch because I fully grasp the rationale behind the constraints, and have come to accept it as necessary, but it's the only thing I can think of that is an integral part of the game that feels the slightest bit wrong to me.
Cal, I hope you appreciate the sincere effort I put into coming up with that answer. It actually took quite a bit of time and serious thought. I'm a daydreamer by nature, and for the last thirty years I've been daydreaming about my perfect game. I find it astounding how thoroughly Pathfinder Online ticks all the right boxes for me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nothing really offends me about the game itself, just how some are willing to place way too much faith in the vision.Do you really mean to say it offends you where others choose to place their faith?
Offends is the wrong word, just the one I was given in the op. Nothing generally offends me, I'm immune to taking offense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2) What you'd say if you could only say one honest thing to try to stop someone from trying PFO."Here's an alpha access, enjoy !"
Lol, that was brutally honest and in my experience, accurate as well. Although of the five or so alpha invites I did send out, only one who looked at the game first actually tried it. I haven't seen him since then either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) What you'd say if you could only say one, honest, thing to try to get someone to try PFO.
Despite some arguments and a few crazies, the PFO community is one of the best of any MMO.
While a lot of people look for games because of mechanics and what you can/can not do, I would say just as many people are looking for a solid gaming community. A good gaming community can lead you to a group that aligns with your own goals, can provide support, friendship, and help you get past parts of the game you think are subpar (every game as these moments).
2) What you'd say if you could only say one honest thing to try to stop someone from trying PFO.
This is a game where you have to pay to play beta.
I have actually said this to a few people, people I know who make judgement calls too early, in my opinion. I generally want everyone to check out the game, but some people need to stay away until they can get on board with features that will keep them occupied.
1) I have to go with Cheatle, community is the biggest selling point right now.
2) No solo-play. People will try; but the game just isn't built for that. On a related note, loosing a settlement causing the loss of all of your high-level abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Ryan has done better than any other MMO Company on the market is describe a game that is remarkably appealing to me...
Heh, couldn't resist coming back to comment on this when I was told about it.
Ryan described a masterpiece. The game outlined in the blogs is better than anything currently on the market by far, even if it does have some issues that would need to be worked out.
But I could sit down and desribe a game that I would far rather play than the one outlined in this blog. I just don't have the tools, talents, and resources to deliver it.
Unfortunately it's the same case for Ryan. He can deliver you a game but I highly doubt it will ever reflect the quality and complexity detailed in the blogs. That's why I decided it simply was not worthwhile to wait around while another title promised the sky and delivered the midden heap like most of the other sandboxes that lack the resources to succeed.
This isn't the first game I've tested during development and the quality reflected is extremely poor even when weighed against other alphas. I find that a more meaningful measure of PFO's quality than outdated promises.
I can agree with that much at least. When people describe this game to other people, they need to do more to focus on what is actually there rather than just on what "could" be.
I say "could" rather than "would", as I believe too many folks are focusing on design specs as if they are writ in stone.
Personally, when reflecting on alpha promises to release deliveries, I can't recall any MMO in recent years that people were generally happy with in terms of what was delivered.
That certainly wouldn't/shouldn't make excuses for any current failures, but it seems to me the one thing all MMO's have in common is that their players are generally disappointed to some degree.
Star Citizen may be one that excels above others, probably simply because of the sheer amount of capital they have to work with and the lack of outside investors ruining the vision.
I guarantee you though, there will be (and already are) people that will be disappointed - simply because their expectations are so ridiculous and they're pledging ie. "donating" so much money to the project.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) What you'd say if you could only say one, honest, thing to try to get someone to try PFO
This is a rare opportunity to participate at a very early stage in the development of an MMORPG, where a developer of a tradional fantasy RPG world has joined forces with some MMO industry veterans in an attempt to create a game that would be built around player interaction while all the time facilitating direct feedback from the players.
2) What you'd say if you could only say one honest thing to try to stop someone from trying PFO
What Goblinworks has ready today is nowhere near a product, which would in content or quality match what is available elsewhere (or even representative of their own vision). It is a much safer bet to wait a year (or two or three or whatever it takes) to see if Goblinworks can deliver the game they envisioned.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
1) What you'd say if you could only say one, honest, thing to try to get someone to try PFO.
Despite some arguments and a few crazies, the PFO community is one of the best of any MMO.
While a lot of people look for games because of mechanics and what you can/can not do, I would say just as many people are looking for a solid gaming community. A good gaming community can lead you to a group that aligns with your own goals, can provide support, friendship, and help you get past parts of the game you think are subpar (every game as these moments).
PFO's community is a great community, and it will get better as time goes by. Because the less people there is, the less arguments you get. Everybody agree with everybody, and everybody's happy with nothing. So yeah, it's a great community.
But I would be curious to know which games got successful because of a great community, despite a bad game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The community by its nature is meta gamed. I don't know of any gaming community that has lasted for any real length of time, that was not involved in multiple games or other activities.
When it comes to a great community, GW did not build that, we did. As Audoucet points out, name one game that survived solely on its community despite having bad game play, bugs, stability issues and or outdated / terrible graphics.
Now before the whole of fanboidom jumps down my throat, I'm not saying PFO is any or all of those negative things.
PFO is mediocre and uninspiring in every aspect, but it does not suck.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bluddwolf, I love your down and dirty realism. I agree with how you present the game.
Right now I would not invite anyone to the game. Ask me that in 4-6 months I may have a different answer. We really are just in a holding pattern until GW puts more of the game together.
But I will always have someone bookmark this game for later. The community often seems to preach the potential of it as if the messiah was coming. In that I do not disagree. I have high hopes, but I doubt I'll see much of that potential before next summer.
The one thing our effective community will have, is hopefully a great foundation of support in place for when the game is truly ready for the masses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Star Citizen may be one that excels above others, probably simply because of the sheer amount of capital they have to work with and the lack of outside investors ruining the vision.
I think it's important to note that Star Citizen didn't start with some huge advantage over Pathfinder Online other than the leadership of Chris Roberts. They simply had a vision that appealed to more people, and took the time to get some really incredible visuals ready before launching their kickstarter.
They also decided to go with a pay or play to win model, which PFO actually has kind of done themselves (Any version or PLEX introduces an element of pay to win) it's just that most of their stuff isn't purchasable yet and the stuff that is (Brewmaster, tavern, etc.) is overpriced so they didn't get nearly as much revenue during their critical development stage.
Pathfinder Online could have had similar success if they played their cards right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You pay money, you get in-game items which can be sold for in-game currency in order to buy whatever you want. That's what PLEX (EVE) APEX (ArchAge) etc. are. Ryan has said PFO will have it.
In Star Citizen you can purchase ships and insurance which are also purchasable with the money earned in-game. If they game had a PLEX system you could buy PLEX with real life money, sell it for in-game money, and essentially do the same thing.
I mean you can sit there and say "no", without any supporting argument but saying PLEX isn't pay to win doesn't even fall within the realm of opinion. It's quite simply wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pay to Win is yet to be seen. If they offer no items that give a mechanical advantage in game from the PLEX system than it is not Pay to Win. The purchasable stuff like Brewmaster, Tavern, etc... should only be a Alpha/EE thing.
Purchasing and selling "Goblin Balls" is just another Pay to Play system for those that don't want a steady subscription. That is not the same thing as buying ships/insurance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pay to Win is yet to be seen. If they offer no items that give a mechanical advantage in game from the PLEX system than it is not Pay to Win.
You obviously don't understand how PLEX works, nor do any of the people who favorited your post apparently.
You go to the Goblinworks and buy an item with money. That item is sent to you character and can be redeemed for microtransaction currency or subscription time.
It can also be sold on the open market to other players for gold. That's it's primary purpose as generally a PLEX type item costs more than regular subscription time. So in order for PLEX to not be pay to win there would have to be nothing that gives a mechanical advantage you can purchase with regular gold.
Ryan has said PFO will have PLEX so unless he goes back on that PFO will have an element of pay to win. Period.
The reason PLEX receives less backlash than other Pay to Win systems is it allows the unemployed no-lifers with unlimited gaming time who are most opposed to Pay to Win systems to pay for their game time with in-game currency. It's still a system which is just as much Pay to Win as if you could purchase the items directly with real world money.
Pay to Win is yet to be seen. If they offer no items that give a mechanical advantage in game from the PLEX system than it is not Pay to Win. The purchasable stuff like Brewmaster, Tavern, etc... should only be a Alpha/EE thing.
Purchasing and selling "Goblin Balls" is just another Pay to Play system for those that don't want a steady subscription. That is not the same thing as buying ships/insurance.
Players with lots of cash can buy lots of Goblin Balls, then sell them on the markets for extra gold or trade them for high-end services to gain an edge over other players. In that way, it is a "Pay to Win" system. That said, it is also a system that allows GW to make cash and players to play the game sans-subscription fee, so it is a nominal win-win on that front. Also, just because you have lots of gold or can exchange for lots of favors, in this game, that does not equate to having a more uber character than anybody else. That just means having more resources. Your Exp still advances at the same rate and your gear is still the same gear everybody else has access to, and you still have to get along well enough with others to be a part of a settlement. If anything, I see the Goblin Balls being used by settlements to fund development and wars, not by lone players to build uber characters.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that what most people mean when they say a game is "play to win" is that the game offers Supremacy Goods.
The absence of such goods in Pathfinder Online means, that for most people, itis not "pay to win".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that what most people mean when they say a game is "play to win" is that the game offers Supremacy Goods.
The absence of such goods in Pathfinder Online means, that for most people, itis not "pay to win".
Precisely this. In the absence of golden bullets, it isn't pay to win.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pay to Win is yet to be seen. If they offer no items that give a mechanical advantage in game from the PLEX system than it is not Pay to Win. The purchasable stuff like Brewmaster, Tavern, etc... should only be a Alpha/EE thing.
Purchasing and selling "Goblin Balls" is just another Pay to Play system for those that don't want a steady subscription. That is not the same thing as buying ships/insurance.
Base camps and small holds give a mechanical advantage. So does DT, Twice marked, Your name on Monument (forget the name of it), etc.
But, as Andius pointed out, any time you can purchase something with real money, and then exchange it for in-game currency, that can be accurately called "pay to win".
I don't necessarily consider pay-to-win as being a bad thing. I'd say it is not that much different than the difference between one person who can play a game 40 hours per week versus someone who can only play 14 hours per week.
Someone will always find some kind of an advantage, be that access to money or time, makes no difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Someone will always find some kind of an advantage, be that access to money or time, makes no difference.
"People are inequal by nature - ones are tall, others are short, etc, so wishing for a social equality is going against the nature" - that's what they said in Middle Ages to justify the feudal hierarchy.
Imho what matters is not whether it's "fair" from some perspective, or even less whether it falls under someone's definition, but what effect does it have on the social part of the gameplay, structure of the community. How much of an upper hand, not mechanically - but socially, will have those with more real money, with more time, with more "skill", with more friends, with more intelligence.
If anything, I see the Goblin Balls being used by settlements to fund development and wars
I guess this would be the worst outcome - it would mean those who don't make "optional" purchases officially contribute less to their settlement, which affects the very core of social interactions in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that what most people mean when they say a game is "play to win" is that the game offers Supremacy Goods.
The absence of such goods in Pathfinder Online means, that for most people, itis not "pay to win".
The reason I brought Pay to Win up to begin with is because a lot of people say Star Citizen is a Pay to Win game that's earned it's money through a Pay to Win model.
The ships being sold are purchable in-game with regular game currency so by your definition it's not Pay to Win.
So back to the original point Star Citizen and Pathfinder Online are on equal level of Pay to Win. Star Citizen just took a smarter approach to it which factored into their ability to raise tens of millions more dollars than Pathfinder Online without investors.
Pathfinder Online had a few novel ideas but overall execution was pretty poor and they paid WAY too little attention to the competition and what good ideas were working for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Star Citizen didn't start with some huge advantage over Pathfinder Online other than the leadership of Chris Roberts.
That was the main advantage it has over any other indie game out there, I wouldn't pass it over so lightly.
CR is like the Spielberg of space games. Of course, because of who he is the initial presentations were good, so yeah they raised a ton of money, but I wouldn't discount the cult of personality effect that probably had a lot of influence on their early traction.
---
On the pay to win thing. I think a good way to describe these systems, is whether it is "Pay to Get Things Without Playing" or not.
The fact of the matter is, if two players are otherwise equal, and if they get a sword of awesomeness +5 with which they can defeat the other player - if one player can cough up the real life money to buy the sword then they are effectively paying to win, in my book.
The purchase might be indirect, by buying other things that can be sold for ingame money (like PLEX) which can then be used to buy the sword in game.
Not being pay to win would mean limiting in game purchasing via real world money to just cosmetic items or other things which have no effect on combat or success.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
No.
Well, not that I mind, but since I can't do anything else than play on my computer because of my disability, I could throw my monthly 800Euros to by PLEX and send unending waves of mercs without even logging at your face without leaving my 1.0 station in Amarr. Well, I wouldn't, because it would be a waste of money, and I would like to keep my Batman subscription, but I heard about a saudi prince a few years ago, who bought a WoW character for 9600$. I wonder what a guy like that could screw most people in EvE or PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those with time but no money will be able to accomplish the same things as those with money but no time. The truly advantaged will be those with both. (those with neither won't play) But the people with both are going to use it to advantage regardless of whether there's an in-game mechanism. They will be organized, acquire mercenaries via PayPal, and provide high end accessories to their loyal supporters. All of that support outside the game.
That's life. I'd rather the devs get some of it, so it supports the game, rather than all of it going to Teamspeak and external Web resources. From my inexperienced perspective, I'd call it pay to compete.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those with time but no money will be able to accomplish the same things as those with money but no time. The truly advantaged will be those with both. (those with neither won't play) But the people with both are going to use it to advantage regardless of whether there's an in-game mechanism. They will be organized, acquire mercenaries via PayPal, and provide high end accessories to their loyal supporters. All of that support outside the game.
That's life. I'd rather the devs get some of it, so it supports the game, rather than all of it going to Teamspeak and external Web resources. From my inexperienced perspective, I'd call it pay to compete.
The only problem with your argumentation is that your time is limited, but some people money isn't.
But again, don't take Andius' talk as an accusation, EvE's model is a pretty good one.
The winners are clearly not particularly the paying players, but in an imaginary war between two big blocks, equivalent in strategy and power, the one with more IRL money would be at a clear advantage, simply because they will have a little more juice in the engine. And that would be P2W. But it's a very hypothetic situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blizzard Blue announcement that they are looking into adopting a PLEX system for WoW as the most feasible way to combat gold selling. Looks like PLEX or some variant is becoming an industry standard.
Edit: link.
Relevant part
New Ways to Play
We’re exploring the possibility of giving players a way to buy tradable game-time tokens for the purpose of exchanging them in-game with other players for gold. Our current thought on this is that it would give players a way to use their surplus gold to cover some of their subscription cost, while giving players who might have less play time an option for acquiring gold from other players through a legit and secure system. A few other online games offer a similar option, and players have suggested that they’d be interested in seeing something along those lines in WoW. We agree it could be a good fit for the game, and we look forward to any feedback you have as we continue to look into this feature.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Blizzard Blue announcement that they are looking into adopting a PLEX system for WoW as the most feasible way to combat gold selling. Looks like PLEX or some variant is becoming an industry standard.
Well, encouraging some people to play more, and others to pay more, seems a pretty neat deal to me.
If anything, I see the Goblin Balls being used by settlements to fund development and warsI guess this would be the worst outcome - it would mean those who don't make "optional" purchases officially contribute less to their settlement, which affects the very core of social interactions in the game.
Actually not how I was looking at it. The folks running the settlement would be the ones securing the Goblin Balls, and then using them to either encourage more folks to join their settlement and help build it up or using them to acquire more resources from other groups in-game. The average settlement member wouldn't be expected to contribute to the procurement of Goblin Balls.
Of course, in such a system, any settlement member that *does* contribute financially to the settlement in such a way might expect to receive special treatment or status in the settlement proportionate to their contributions. In the worst case, this could result in players trying to buy their way to the top of a settlement- but I doubt that will happen unless the leadership of that settlement is already weak.
.
.
.
Separately, Caldeathe's point about who will be advantaged versus who will not be is spot on, except that I think some folks with little money and little time will still play.
.
.
.
I guess the real questions about Goblin Balls is not the "pay to win" aspect but the aspect of how real-world money could be used to manipulate in-game politics and resource management, etc.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Actually not how I was looking at it. The folks running the settlement would be the ones securing the Goblin Balls, and then using them to either encourage more folks to join their settlement and help build it up or using them to acquire more resources from other groups in-game. The average settlement member wouldn't be expected to contribute to the procurement of Goblin Balls.
Of course, in such a system, any settlement member that *does* contribute financially to the settlement in such a way might expect to receive special treatment or status in the settlement proportionate to their contributions. In the worst case, this could result in players trying to buy their way to the top of a settlement- but I doubt that will happen unless the leadership of that settlement is already weak.
.
.
.
Separately, Caldeathe's point about who will be advantaged versus who will not be is spot on, except that I think some folks with little money and little time will still play.
.
.
.
I guess the real questions about Goblin Balls is not the "pay to win" aspect but the aspect of how real-world money could be used to manipulate in-game politics and resource management, etc.
Your ideas are valid, but they are not followed by reality. Paying players aren't that much treated differently. You must use way too much money, to be on par with an industrial player, on the long run. A lvl 20 active crafter, is a far more precious asset, than a guy throwing money.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was looking for a suitably old thread to necro (in honour of the day) and instead came across one that I thought deserved a resurrection.
I'd appreciate if anyone who felt like it would offer two things. 1) What you'd say if you could only say one, honest, thing to try to get someone to try PFO. 2) What you'd say if you could only say one honest thing to try to stop someone from trying PFO.
1) I would have to go with the community on this one like a few others have. Most MMOS I have played only survive by their community. I think the community here is strong and a great group of people. PFO will survive if the community stays strong. It also has a fantastic crafting system like Nihimon pointed out. There is only one MMO that has a better system IMO and I am not sure that MMO is still going or not, but PFO has a lot of elements that remind me of Istaria: Chronicals of the gifted. Though as I say that the graphics are also on par with Istaria (see my answer to #2) and it was released in 2003.
2) The game does currently have dated graphics (I would say on par with games between 2000 and 2003) and is incomplete. Many players I know will not touch a game until it is fully developed and polished. To those players I would simply caution this game is currently being built come back during OE. I feel the graphics will be much better when the testing is over. I have already seen a remarkable improvement since I first played the game in February. Being tied to one settlement is also something most of my friends would not like. It's not bad just not a play style my circle of friends like.
Hope this is what you were looking for Cal :).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) I would have to go with the community on this one like a few others have. Most MMOS I have played only survive by their community. I think the community here is strong and a great group of people. PFO will survive if the community stays strong...
I know people who are still playing MUDs and other early MMO's that have a strong community and the players view it as a success. I think defining the "success" of a title varies quite differently among players, developers, financial backers, and the press/nonplayers. Even among players, opinions will vary because most people, when they are predicting success, are using a value system that really means "success to people just like me". Many of the statements declared authoritatively in this thread should really have IMHO after them, but then again, may not be that humble :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think I messed up in my ask. I didn't want to know what's good or bad about the game. I've got my own list. And I wasn't remotely interested in trying to sell the game. I just wanted people to take a look inside themselves and decide why they will or won't be here when the game starts.
I got involved because the Landrush was a free and interesting way to get some entertainment. Before that, I had every intention of teaching my PDFs and disposing of the account by the most expedient route. I fell in love with the community, even it's sharp corners. So far, that's the thing I like most.
I hate a feeling of wishywashyness. The sensation that there's a constantly moving target but that nobody wants to own that, instead pretending that was what was meant all along. I try to own my mistakes, and hope others will too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the graphics are also on par with Istaria...
I'm sorry, but I don't see that at all. I just watched some videos of Istaria and those graphics remind me more of EverQuest. There are no shadows and the trees are blocky.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3 - particularly useful because the character runs past a building with bolts of cloth on display.
Compare those to the GraphicsExample video shared here. The lighting effects alone are light years ahead of Istaria.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was looking for a suitably old thread to necro (in honour of the day) and instead came across one that I thought deserved a resurrection.
I'd appreciate if anyone who felt like it would offer two things. 1) What you'd say if you could only say one, honest, thing to try to get someone to try PFO. 2) What you'd say if you could only say one honest thing to try to stop someone from trying PFO.
1) I would have to go with the community on this one like a few others have. Most MMOS I have played only survive by their community. I think the community here is strong and a great group of people. PFO will survive if the community stays strong. It also has a fantastic crafting system like Nihimon pointed out. There is only one MMO that has a better system IMO and I am not sure that MMO is still going or not, but PFO has a lot of elements that remind me of Istaria: Chronicals of the gifted. Though as I say that the graphics are also on par with Istaria (see my answer to #2) and it was released in 2003.
2) The game does currently have dated graphics (I would say on par with games between 2000 and 2003) and is incomplete. Many players I know will not touch a game until it is fully developed and polished. To those players I would simply caution this game is currently being built come back during OE. I feel the graphics will be much better when the testing is over. I have already seen a remarkable improvement since I first played the game in February. Being tied to one settlement is also something most of my friends would not like. It's not bad just not a play style my circle of friends like.
Hope this is what you were looking for Cal :).
You didn't mess up in your ask, I missed the point of the questions.
Here are my revised answers:
1) I would say, "I am currently helping out in the development of a new MMO based on the tabletop game we play, Pathfinder. It has a great community where we can have development conversations and help each other both in and out of the game. We are on the ground floor of something great, it is awesome you should join the fun."
2) I would say, "Man this game may not be for you. While the community is great and I am enjoying myself, you would most likely hate it. We are constantly dealing with bugs and the game is currently incomplete. The graphics are old like that one game we used to play back in 2003, they are literally 11 years old. I would honestly wait to try it until the development is finished, I am pretty sure the bugs and graffics situations will be way better come Open Enrollment. It is currently basically going into a beta from an alpha."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I read here that the crafting system is a real star of PFO and to be honest, I haven't given that system much of my time .
I will dedicate done time to it when I log in tonight. My comparison will be pretty stiff competition for it, including: Star Wars Galaxies, Fallen Earth and Life is Feudal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the graphics are also on par with Istaria...I'm sorry, but I don't see that at all. I just watched some videos of Istaria and those graphics remind me more of EverQuest. There are no shadows and the trees are blocky.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3 - particularly useful because the character runs past a building with bolts of cloth on display.Compare those to the GraphicsExample video shared here. The lighting effects alone are light years ahead of Istaria.
You get shadows on the better graphics views just like in PFO. It has been a while since I played but they were there. I didn't mean it as a bash toward PFO at just that it is steadily improving over time and I am impressed with what they have so far. Like PFO though videos and screenshots rarely portray the best of the best settings in a game. And my wife can't even see shadows on the fantastic setting of PFO so videos are very relative and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Edit: With that said, 'on par' was most likey the wrong term. I should have said 'similar to'. PFO does provide more detail on their terrain than Istaria.