Goblin Squad Member
|
I was reading some pre release stuff about the next Everquest that's coming out. It sounds very much like PFO, but with the backing of a major company that isn't charging you to test their game.
Might be worth checking for some of you who are disgruntled. If my impression of the next Everquest is right, it also means "the race of one" concept just became the race of the one legged blind man vs the Ferrari.
It would be a very tough gig for an indi company like GW to go up against SOE.
I actually hope I'm wrong. I have no interest in PvP games like this, but I wouldn't want to see people's time, effort and money destroyed by big game competition.
I can't remember but Landmark asks for a fee. Atm that put a lot of players off because it was more terra-forming the game than actual EQ of old.
That said I think PFO is going to struggle in comparison simply because the engine tech that SOE or whatever they're called now after the sell off, have: Forgelight Engine, Storybricks already implemented, VoxelFarm.
Players will conform to type and see the above shiny and go for it. What they'll compare is that to PFO's visuals and combat.
What I think PFO needs to do is minimize these issues and maximize it's design document to match it's customers stated wants, which we can dig up a few of these from old posts to illustrate:-
Fairly straight-forward subject.. Which Class at release (or possibly beta) are you looking forward to trying the most, and why? Assuming, that is, all of the base classes from the core rule book make it, including prestige classes, and that they are as true to the pen and paper version classes as possible in this game.
What do you think will be fun/difficult about playing this class in what is very similar to an expanded Kingmaker Campaign (i.e, exploration, mining, etc)?
What kind of non-class specific skills would you look into?
Basically, I'm curious as to what everyone's looking forward to trying first, and get a discussion going about their hopes on the class specifics.
---------------
I personally am primarily looking forward to a Wizard (Dwarf, of course), as not only am I currently playing one in a campaign with friends, but they've always been a favorite. Though, a close second would be either a cleric or ranger.
I think what would be difficult for a wizard is their general lack of solo-ness. I could see Conjurers and possibly Enchanters being good soloists (For summons and Charms, respectively). What would be fun about them? Being a hoarder of spells and know-it-all of magic. >:D
And
As for the non-class specific skills I'd look into.. probably magic-item creation (Especially golems, if its possible.. and man do I hope it is) for the most part. Though food preparation and brewing would be close seconds if they're available.
No
What is currently sanctioned PVP, besides a few things like Territory War, is meaningless.
Faction warfare is meaningless. It as far as I know of is the only sanctioned PVP that is not involved in territory wars.
I do consider SAD's as part of territory wars. "This is my turf, you want to pass through then there is a cost."
Everything that happens around territory conflicts is what makes holding territory fun. Small gangs that pass through your territory and cause a little mischief is fun.
"Unsanctioned PVP" (I really do hate that term) is the type of pvp that makes sandbox games great.
I will be honest, after playing darkfall for a while, the territory fighting and pvp in that game is boring and meaningless. I dont really consider that game much of a real sandbox. It seams to be lacking a lot of sand in the box.
What Makes Pathfinder Online Different?
Where Pathfinder Online Went Wrong IMO
I was wondering if anyone else has have been day dreaming about stories you will help tell via game play. What sorts of things to you want your character to be known for? What sort of stories do you want to build? What sort of drama do you want to be in the center of?
Feature Request: Complex Voting Methods
The 'settlement' screenshot in the blog set thoughts in motion.
Core question:
Will settlements be constructed strategy-game style?
I mean like bases in C&C/starcraft/etc, placing one building at a time and having to consider logistics and defensibility. (Actually the best example would be SimCity Societies since that has 'development indices').Background:
-settlements grow one building at a time
-some buildings may raise development indices (DI), other will require certain DI. The order or building therefore matters
-wares must be hauled between buildings (mine->smelter->smith->market), markets and storages should be easy to access, but buildings can also be attacked and destroyed. Travel paths and location of buildings matters.
-space may be limited, at least space inside palisade/wall.IF we can design our own bases, then layout is a big part of the strategy. A single gate to make it defensible, or multiple gates shorten the travel routes? Compact build for effectiveness or open build to make it harder for assassins (and save space for future additions)?
I'd also love to see buildings placed on the map directly relate to develop indices.[/QUOTES]
I really wanted to hold out as long as possible to start this thread, afraid it's too far out to make an impact but anyways...
The inspiration for this is the movie Red Cliff. It's a fantasy war strategy movie and in it they pull off all kinds of fantastical battle formations (the turtle is particularly funny) both on land and sea. I point this out because if PFO is going to use battle formations it's important that they don't be traditional formations that we know in modern or even historical warfare because A.) it's boring and B.) those formations would not actually work or be ideal with the capabilities of 20th level magic users and arcane archers.
So this thread is designed for a brainstorming on the formations and tactics that would actually work in an MMO large scale battle using the talents of the D&D classes. Some will be robbed from games like Warhammer, some will be based on the tragically bad siege tactics of games like AoC.
Time's yours.
First I can’t believe that that no one made this thread yet. So what do you guys wish to see?
My wish list is as follows:
1-Have the ability to make any of our classic characters we are used to. All our oracles, inquisitors, monks of the 4 winds, ect. All the core and base classes with all the archetypes.
2-Lots of content for low levels, and with each update to have some more for low levels, this is key to keep the game fresh for everyone
3-Quick travel, at all levels, nothing kills the enjoyment of the game than having to spend 3 hours running from place A to B.
4-Ability to play with any alignment, I’d like to see as player options clerics of Asmodeus and Zon-Kuthon, play anti-paladins and so on.
5-Have the ability to gain some templates after hard and higher level quests, things live vampire, werewolf, skeleton champion and lich all come to mind
Well that’s my wish list, what are yours?While I appreciate all the general insights and first impressions, I'm most interested in how PFO is meaningfully distinct from prior MMOs. A lot of us have run around in EQ2/WOW/RIFT/Warhammer, etc.
What stands out to you as a genuinely distinct about PFO's approach?
Ryan's made a pretty interesting offer: for us to crowdforge truly immersive, innovative RP support. I buy his claim that we've been playing impoverished, "Kill x" games--deserts where a chairsit animation seemed meaningful for helping us play our roles.
The point isn't so much that sitting in a chair is wrong or bad, but rather given all the resources dedicated to a /chairsit, why not shoot higher? Why not cast off the shackles of EQ/EQ2/WOW/Whatever and really explore the space?
So if the devs are going to devote resources to making this really a role playing game, what would it be? We'll have to bear in mind that there are technical limits, also the "wouldn't it be cool" principle (i.e. would it still be cool if everyone does it?), but we can think big now, brainstorm, and than do work paring back to what's doable and presents the bet bang for the buck.
GW has a serious rhetorical challenge facing it: to general gaming public, this game is a murder simulator, and most of the people this game would appeal to don't want a murder simulator. It's a miscommunication, compounded by some rhetorical mistakes GW is making (understandable ones, and ones that can be fixed), and the ongoing discourse at gaming sites.
I had an intuitive sense of this problem, and so I conducted a corpus linguistics analysis of editorial and user comments at sites like Massively and MMORPG.com. What I found was that people are extremely negative about the game, are very certain about their arguments, and express uncertainty about the future success of the game, specifically:
-Statistically significant levels of emotional "negativity" language (words and phrases English speakers use to refer to very negative outcomes, e.g. rape, murder, suicide, mistreatment) along with an absence of positive emotion language.
-Significantly lower levels of positive values langauge
-High levels of combined oppositional reasoning, confidence and intensity (e.g. commenters arguing back about how bad PFO will be, and using high levels of certainty/modals w/ intensifiers as they argue)
-High levels of uncertainty and future projection (e..g expressing a lot of doubt about the future of the game).
What makes for effective, durable online social structures? How do we create guilds, settlements, and larger structures that don’t fall apart? While most of us long-time gamers likely have some ideas from experience, there may be value in extrapolating from the scientific literature on military resilience and readiness, at the unit level. Real life military social structures are different in some very important ways from online social structures (life-threat being the most obvious), but thinking through what coordinated, cohesive groups handle adversity and grow, and what supports their readiness and effectiveness may help us think through and implement best practices for our guilds and settlements.
My review of the literature shows the following unit level factors:
Resilience:
· Pro-social behavior and teamwork
· Communication and problem-solving skills and habits
· Cohesion [both affective cohesion (high levels of mutual social support, comradeship love), and instrumental cohesion (committed to the group's goals and tasks]
· Unit leadership and positive command climate (leader competency,
Readiness:
· Personal/Family well-being (gives you space to commit to and focus on unit tasks)
· Cohesion
· Confidence (both self-confidence and confidence in each other)
· Unit leadership and positive command climate
· Shared ethos (group agreement on values and ethics)
... Just a quick sample, much more...
But it is trying to provide some material for:-
Q: WHAT DOES THE CUSTOMER WANT?
Q: HOW CAN GW FOCUS ON THAT AND PROVIDE THAT?
Q: IS EE DOING THIS?
As said, if you change the approach from graphics/combat-complexity-needed you can directly provide more of this more quickly and it actually looks like it more too - imo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our budget for the game to date is around $4 million, and we think we'll need a couple of million more in a combination of investment and income from operations to get to the next major evolution of the game (which we call "Open Enrollment").Open enrollment is the official release of the game which we're all waiting on, set to occur early next year. They don't have enough money to get through the current Early Access stage of the game and make it to launch.
Part of the reason they're charging for this "beta" is to get enough money to finish the game.
I understood Ryan's statement to mean they have spent $4 million and plan to spend a couple of million more.
Where I work, "budget" records how much you've spent and how much you plan to spend. It does not imply anything about how that budget will be funded or how much money is available.Saying "I have a budget of $6 million for this project" means I anticipate spending $6 million. I might have $10 million in the bank, or I might be praying to make $3 million in sales to cover my budget, but the fact of stating my budget doesn't give any information about my access to funding.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gaskon: That's my understanding too Gaskon. I think they have finance for up to OE from private backers. I think the funding during EE is supplementary/expected in tandem with the improvement of the game and with the EE whales investing into their characters. At a sketchy guess.
@Gol Phyllain: If CCP were looking to invest, then I'm not sure the current situation would work out; EQ as ppl suggest and others already have the 3D avatar mmorpg market sown up.
=
For recap, on EVE's model of success:-
CCP had been developing the WoD mmorpg for about 8 years. It had employed nearly around 100 developers. It had the outstanding experience and success of CCP and apparently the right approach to sandbox design... See:
- The secret to EVE Online's success: It's all bottom-up
- Infinite Space: An Argument for Single-Sharded Architecture in MMOs
- The Icelandic Model of MMO Development
- EVE Online and the meaning of 'sandbox'
The content-based blockbuster MMO model excludes the vast majority of aspiring developers both due to its extraordinary capital requirements and the near-suicidal business risk. Yet there is an alternative model of MMO design, one which doesn't require the budget of a Hollywood film or the risk-taking of a lemming on meth.
CCP began as a tiny group of former Ultima Online buddies who decided that they wanted to create their own game. They didn't have a tremendous amount of startup capital; by modern standards, the game was developed on a shoestring budget.
When it was released, EVE could barely be called a game at all. It was a pure sandbox design, with only a smattering of content. The learning curve was vertical, the tutorials a disaster, and sales and the subscriber curve abysmal.
Yet with a bare-bones game, CCP managed to eventually grow and prosper. Why? It wasn't a matter of pure random luck. EVE as it was released was a mostly-empty sandbox, where the focus of the endgame was on player conflicts not presided over by the devs.
And another one:-
Too many developers with great ideas are intimidated away from creating intriguing MMO titles by the daunting startup costs of following the dominant blockbuster model. It doesn't have to be this way; just use a different business model! CCP began with a bare $2.6 million in funding. eGenesis, creators of A Tale In the Desert, have followed a similar model with a focus on an organically-grown sandbox.
There are many unexplored niches in the MMO market in which excellent games could thrive, and the capital barrier to entry is lower than you might think.
I think we can conclude:-
1. Sandbox MMORPG = Do-able.
2. EVE Model can be replicated hence if applied correctly...
So, "Question: What went wrong with World Of Darkness (WOD)?"
“We overreached with World of Darkness in its initial concept, wanting to achieve too much in the first go,” a CCP spokesperson told [GamesBeat](http://venturebeat.com/2014/04/14/world-of-darkness-mmo-an-unfortunate-cas ualty-of-latest-round-of-ccp-layoffs/). “While we have adjusted scope numerous times along the way, the outcome is neither true to the original concept nor to a concept that would have been much more focused from the start. We wanted to create a sweeping, immersive experience, and we didn’t get there. In our assessment, it’s best to put an end to the project over retrofitting it more.”
The company's full financial presentation notes a drop in profit of $4.3 million from the year before, while revenues saw a rise of $76.7 million from $56.3 million.
It is believed that the primary reason for a drop in profit is an increase in research and development costs which jumped from $16.5 million in 2012 to $56.5 million in the next financial year. This is likely to do with costs related to the development of Eve Valkyrie and Dust 514, as well as the now-canceled World of Darkness.
"During the year the company assessed its capitalized development assets and determined that a portion of those assets would likely not have future economic benefits," reads a statement accompanying the report. "IAS 38 requires that such assets should be derecognized and removed from the balance sheet. The expense related to the derecognized assets are presented as part of research and development expense in the statement of comprehensive income."
This report might be the most insightful:-
The story begins 25 years earlier at the peak of the tabletop roleplaying games industry. Back in the 1990s, a company named White Wolf loomed over this arcane landscape with a hugely successful series of games about vampires, werewolves, and wizards lurking behind our mundane reality.
“On many different occasions throughout the years I was there, CCP would often ‘poach’ WoD staff for expansion projects,” recalls Nick Blood, a former developer and game master at CCP.
“There were plenty of developers who would get redirected to create Eve content for three to six month cycles… During these times, World of Darkness development was significantly slowed down. I remember the upper management often exasperatedly trying to figure out what to do with the remaining staff for a six-month period while their artists and programmers were busy elsewhere.”
This constant yo-yo effect contributed to a development cycle in which planned features were partially completed and then dumped numerous times over. There seemed to be no clear vision on how the various parts would create a cohesive end product.
Sources report that, over the nine-year period, the game effectively reached alpha – the stage at which all the major features have been implemented - three times, only for each version to be scrapped.
“I tested it myself, on two different occasions out of those three,” says Blood. “With the first playtest, I was amazed at how little of the core game was there – at this point the game had been in development for over half a decade. I mean, there was just nothing, literally nothing, for someone like me, a complete outsider to the WoD IP, to appreciate.
"Other testers who were familiar with it thought it was great that they could finally see their avatars ‘diablerise’ – or consume – other player’s corpses, for health, or something. I just kind of shook my head and wondered how this would ever draw in anything other than die-hard fans.
“On the second play test, quite some time later, I was struck by how much had changed – and yet remained unfinished. The flagship achievement was a new movement system, made after scrapping the old one, which was similar to the Assassin’s Creed gameplay – with mantling walls, etc. But it was very basic in comparison. CCP was quite self-congratulatory on achieving this much, and the internal propaganda was that this kind of movement system would revolutionise MMO gaming.”
For the coders there was a constant state of flux. “Almost every system in the game was designed, built and tested at least once, most of them multiple times,” says one gameplay programmer. “Some of the systems were reportedly pretty cool; they had never been seen in MMOs before. The problem was that, without a cogent vision, none of it gelled. There was no clear path towards ‘done’.
"So the team just ended up building stuff and throwing it away, over and over again. It's something I saw on Eve and Dust as well - the teams would build a feature, then be told by management to make ‘small changes’ which necessitated a full, back-to-square-one rewrite.”
One manager couldn't answer questions on gameplay or focus. I remember him standing over the shoulder of a programmer putting his finger to his lips and saying 'No - make it more... psssshhhh’
Design meetings were decidedly robust affairs. Lead designers piled into what was known as “The Sweaty Room” and yelled at one another. “It was very alpha-male, whoever shouted longest and hardest would dominate the meetings,” recalls one developer. “This didn't seem to spill out into the rest of the project until later.”
That wasn’t how things turned out. Spurred by Eve’s status as a unique brand in the MMO space, CCP developed an odd internal corporate culture which insisted on what CCP refers to as a "War on the Impossible", an idea that the company should do more and expect more than its peers in the industry. This mission became tangled up with what Nick Blood calls CCP’s “lusts for relevance” - its constant attempts to recreate the buzz that followed a favourable article in the New York Times. There was a growing sense of hubris.
Shockingly, given the turmoil, a flythrough video for WoD was released at Fanfest 2012, CCP’s annual fan convention. At barely over one minute long, it showed an impressive grasp of the World of Darkness universe – but it also displayed no moving NPCs or collision, the hallmarks of a developed product.
Speaking to Rock Paper Shotgun during the annual Eve Fanfest in May, CCP CEO Hilmar Veigar Pétursson, showed some acknowledgement of the company’s mistakes over the past few years. “I would say we’re re-focusing on simpler strategies and smaller teams,” he said. “I think that helped make us successful: EVE was made like that. And maybe we scaled up our teams and our ambitions too rapidly.”
Imho,
The killer with WOD:-
1. The EVE Model was not applied correctly:-
- Starting small team
- Gradually growing up
- Tight management and focus
- Singular focus (not spread on other projects eg Valkyrie, combining tech, chaning pricing, WOD, EVE, Dust all atst
2. The Design Model for WOD is much more challenging vision to implement:-
- 3D Avatars (eg walking in stations!)
- Combat mechanics of avatars is huge system
- Coding a huge world with tons of assets (eg cities in WOD)
- Converting the core game vision of night-time/day-time, drinking blood, masquerade turning that imagination into gameplay was very challenging to create "fun".
Strategically and tactically it was badly selected battle to fight and badly fought.
Should CCP invest in PFO? I think after WOD it would be unwise with 3D avatars and the competition. However I think creating a new genre hybrid as I suggested, cutting costs and increasing chance to create emergent gameplay via rule-sets and then expanding on that ie
* Exploration = Huge SCALE world = for players that like the tourist holiday
* Development = The Social model of building stuff that players crave with their peers
* Domination = The other half to the economic engine that gives the world consequence and meaning to story as well as cater to strategy and huge armies that would be USP.
For the
* Adventure
Ok, since we are the content. Would not it be awesome if we could create our own dungeons or encounters. Not sure how it worked, but something like:
1 - cave entrance in game - You tie your entrance to it, the cave can have more than 1 player made dungeon. Player selects which one they want to go in.2 - player uses an ingame dungeon maker, CoH had something like this. You get a certain amount of gold or something that you can use to make your dungeon. Based on the dungeon level you select and amount of gold, you get a choice of monsters to put in it.
I do not know, just kinda thinking out loud :)
I just discovered pathfinder online and as an avid tabletop gamer and roleplaying MMO player, I'm literally drooling at the concepts discussed on the blog.
One of the earlier blog entries mentioned the possibility of player created modules even an App Store type concept for sharing adventures.
As a member of a role playing guild in wow ( the Gnomish rescue squad http://gnomishrescuesquad.org ) I'm always trying to run adventures for others that involve some storyline and pvp and pve content. However it's an uphill battle as despite some addons I've written and a lot creativity it's very difficult as the game really provides no assistance for this sort of thing.
I love game lore but when it's left to the game developers there's never enough of it, for instance wow has very little gnome lore so I like to flesh that out with my storylines and adventures.
What I'd love is something like the content creator they have in Star Trek online for a fantasy setting. I'd love to be able to script npc's speech and spawn monsters and have a whole paleatte of actions to design an adventure for my friends.
Has there been any further thoughts or design on this since that older blog entry.
You'd have to code the classes from Pathfinder as adventurers immune to PvP who go to dungeons to gain riches and other stuff for their settlements (this could be integrated more sophistated outside current discussion). This whole system could do more intricate combat, more intricate dungeon party system PvE and PvPxmulti and then allow player-created dungeons and modules at this scale, GW would provide tools for players to do this as per OGL experience of TT players... again at this scale graphics should be easier to achieve this.
You square the circle of PF TT and PFO MMO this way.
DO this and CCP should invest: Smaller investment needed; but whole new approach and models CCP and extends into innovation of a whole huge world just as CCP made a huge galaxy/universe New Eden.
Their marketing could do wonders when ready which Ryan pointed out was the 3rd key thing needed.
I think this is all food for thought. I think both markets need synergy and integration that works for them both and good marketing/publicity in both. You'd have to do the Adventure after the other 3, and promote that line with the PF TT crowd - start getting invested in this.
I know Ryan said UCC is cr*p often, but with the simpler graphics and the Torchbearer system or other this is the area to really allow player creativity input and story-bespoke creation for a few friends ie PvE within the setting and context of the MMO which is the original plan anyway.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
@AvenaOats - some constructive feedback.
I think you have interesting things to say.
I am not reading them. Your posts are too long and lack pithiness. If you could condense your points to a few sentances you would have a wider audience, at least wider by one.
I am as guilty if this problem as anyone so I recognize a fellow member of the excessive verbosity tribe. A boss I once had told me that if he had to scroll to read my email, he deleted it. Changed my style to accomodate. Reccomend you consider the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"..."(!)
The ideas they did the talking - not me. Many coffees had to be drunk so that these posts could be said.
I prefer sketches and graphs and doodles and lists and flow-charts... I could give that a go.
To boil it all down: The community interacting in a shared space which generates stories from the inputs of those players into the system: That's the focus, are the graphics and the combat system conducive to creating that? Many mmorpgs have tried and it seems the problem is more intrinsic directly to the way each of those has built it's engine (themepark or sandbox fantasy mmorpg) which then determines the system which then determines the quality of the shared story space which then either works or does not work for a large online community building.
Still the advice, it was worth it. Much coal has to be shovelled for a tiny gleaming rock to be unearthed. TU.
@ <Kabal> Daeglin - Well thank you for the suggestion, I think the real utility of the posts may be as a record to the present stage of development to compare what we were thinking now with what we achieve later.
The one thing I have little knowledge of, not being a professional mmorpg dev is the full requirements of making mmorpgs in the EQ/WOW conception and the networking limitations of our time.
If someone says: We can do these things now. I have to take their word. But after seeing EE and thinking on this, I have to suggest more parsimony^2 is required and that's what I suggest to the OP's question, is missing.
2. Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor. You see why short posts are very difficult...
What is so good about Ryan's Business Model for MMORPG Development = Parsimony. But has he applied it fully enough to PFO? And could graphic engine => combat system complexity be a fatal flaw in this essential rule?
Just another agreement with Ryan. Earlier posts were unreadable due to length of posts and breadth of topics discussed, yet interesting enough when scanning through that I wonder what I'm missing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just another agreement with Ryan. Earlier posts were unreadable due to length of posts and breadth of topics discussed, yet interesting enough when scanning through that I wonder what I'm missing.
* I employed repetition of the key criticism in constant form (EQ/WOW model -> Graphics Engine -> Combat complexity
* I employed numerous references and quotations in blocks which if investigated ie scanned should convey ideas non-verbally or heuristically* A lot of the posts were naturally developed hence their undue length and order teasing out different components of the key criticism and indeed even deriving innovations that emerge naturally from applying that criticism at different levels automatically linking up.
It's interesting that solutions do tend towards parsimony, and that is the criticism of my criticism too!
Next, opening a new thread with the above hopefully synthesized; it's my last day of doing so for a while new work starting tomorrow (I did the above while house-sitting!).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You may not like this post, but at least it is consistent and honest. Besides, I thought you rage quit a year and a half ago? Did you actually give the game a try?But to be clear, what I want and have always wanted is EvE with Swords. All aspects of EvE, including the fact that it is a game "Made by wolves, for wolves". Now I expected that some compromises would be made and PFO would be "Made by Sheepdogs for Wolves". But, I believe it is more so "Made by Sheepdogs for Sheep" and the wolves are left with nothing but to become sheepdogs themselves. Eventually, even the sheepdogs will have nothing to do and we all become sheep in the FarmVille Kingdoms.I <3 this post.
That was a heart, as in I like the post...
Yes I gave the game a try.
Yes I sold my accounts when I decided I had neither the time, money or interest in the game in its current state to give the effort it required to play. The control system for combat is especially problematic and is very, very painful (as in can't move my wrists) after an hour or so of gameplay. Something I don't get in many other games.
No, I haven't completely given up hope that someday PFO might be a game I enjoy playing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was a heart, as in I like the post...
Yes I gave the game a try.
Yes I sold my accounts when I decided I had neither the time, money or interest in the game in its current state to give the effort it required to play. The control system for combat is especially problematic and is very, very painful (as in can't move my wrists) after an hour or so of gameplay. Something I don't get in many other games.
No, I haven't completely given up hope that someday PFO might be a game I enjoy playing.
Well then, I apologize for mistaking it for the other meaning.
As for your physical condition, best of luck with that. I can see why even with tab targeting PFO's controls may still cause a good amount of strain.
If you are interested in fantasy RPGs and multiplayer, I would recommend you look into Sword Coast legends.
