Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to thank Goblinworks for the attempt; the vision and the hard work. If a buyer is found there is no guarantee what direction they will go-if not,well there it is. The next obvious step for Paizo is a Pathfinder game along the lines of The Witcher, Dragon Age Origins, and especially Pillars of Eternity. There's no need to rush anything and there is a built-in market for the game and a rich world to exploit. A game whose mechanics are intuitively easy to follow for TT fans is still very possible without violating the OGL. A world building machine, cooperative online play, pvp, etc. I look forward to it. Game companies will be lining up for a shot at this opportunity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to thank Goblinworks for the attempt; the vision and the hard work. If a buyer is found there is no guarantee what direction they will go-if not,well there it is. The next obvious step for Paizo is a Pathfinder game along the lines of The Witcher, Dragon Age Origins, and especially Pillars of Eternity. There's no need to rush anything and there is a built-in market for the game and a rich world to exploit. A game whose mechanics are intuitively easy to follow for TT fans is still very possible without violating the OGL. A world building machine, cooperative online play, pvp, etc. I look forward to it. Game companies will be lining up for a shot at this opportunity.
I imagine they have a game akin to Pillars of Eternity coming since they partnered with Obsidian. But the Kickstarter for that was in 2012 and the game was released in 2015. Paizo partnered with Obsidian in 2014, so a game could be out as early as 2017.
Because game development is slow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please no Pillars of Eternity-style view/graphics.
Would definitely buy and play NWN 360 degree full realization. With a NWN-style customization toolset as well...
I'm of the opposite opinion, preferring isometric style adaptations than NWN style.
|
I would prefer a partnership with TSI at this point. They are the people that were behind SSI back in the day and made a bunch of Gold Box D&D RPGs. I think they would have a better idea of what is good for a D&D/Pathfinder game. A Witcher-style game, or any other style without a party fully under the control of the player is IMO a bad game waiting to be made. I would like to see either something like Temple of Elemental Evil or one of the older games with first person exploration that shifts into a 3d/isometric view during combat, so basically a hybrid of ToEE and something like Eye of the Beholder or the Might and Magic:World of Xeen series.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would prefer a partnership with TSI at this point. They are the people that were behind SSI back in the day and made a bunch of Gold Box D&D RPGs. I think they would have a better idea of what is good for a D&D/Pathfinder game. A Witcher-style game, or any other style without a party fully under the control of the player is IMO a bad game waiting to be made. I would like to see either something like Temple of Elemental Evil or one of the older games with first person exploration that shifts into a 3d/isometric view during combat, so basically a hybrid of ToEE and something like Eye of the Beholder or the Might and Magic:World of Xeen series.
Let's see if TSI can actually release a game at this point.
They asked for half-a-million for a Kickstarter and cancelled because they weren't going to make that money.SSI was big in the day, but they stopped making successful games almost two decades ago. Whether they can make a modern game work or not is debatable; game design has evolved dramatically in the interim.
I'm of the opposite opinion, preferring isometric style adaptations than NWN style.Please no Pillars of Eternity-style view/graphics.
Would definitely buy and play NWN 360 degree full realization. With a NWN-style customization toolset as well...
I would prefer the Divinity: The Original Sin view, except for unrestricted camera rotation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've had a long day running around outside today, so that's why I'm scribbling here "told you so" in a nasally and annoying tone... so please forgive me, on that account, but if I can contribute to the discussion positively, here's the question in it's most abstract form:-
The next obvious step for Paizo is a Pathfinder game along the lines of The Witcher, Dragon Age Origins, and especially Pillars of Eternity. There's no need to rush anything and there is a built-in market for the game and a rich world to exploit. A game whose mechanics are intuitively easy to follow for TT fans is still very possible without violating the OGL.
To:-
"How Can We Make A Pathfinder Digital Online Game... BEST (which way is best to do this)?"
Let's step back and start where we need to start: "What are your intentions in doing so?"
Now this is the most important question to ask and if asked correctly all subsequent problems should make sense: Whether or not they're do-able or feasable or useful, those are other questions but within the context of the above they make sense even if they don't give an exact answer, to briefly think ahead.
I think the answer is that the Paizo Pathfinder IP Brand must have a gaming community around it to "bring it alive" or "mindshare" or whatever you want to call it and then convert that into your commercial enterprise or whatever else.
There's a very nice connect here between:
1. The best form of digital game design for community = Online Interaction Systems
2. The most profitable business model of digital games is indeed via online group monetization and transactions
So already you're narrowing down if your intention above is so how best to incorporate those qualities?
In general there's a number of ways for players to positively interact online:-
1. Making materials for each other (virtual $)
2. Existing in the same virtual simulation and affecting that (status of world is it a better or worse place? and of self and others and in relation to all the above?)
3. Generating shared game stories with each other and for selves (Experiences: This is the fruit of the above too as they're virtual, here positive experiences is what we'd normally just say is fun, but there's literally a well of crack to be tapped here and it's not the sort to give you a sore tummy in the morning either but the sort to give you a bounce in your step on your way to work the next morning).
Now with the TT you get a small party who share great stories together. Don't compete with that imo. What you want is loads of PF players around the world sharing the same Golarion world space together as an addition to TT but in a different form that is COMPLEMENTARY to the TT game not EQUAL to it, but EQUIVALENT in some form. Of course that means it does not need the D20 system... necessarily which always pops up in the topic: A question without an answer it would seem.
Now I think the guess of what the intention was is good. The problem was the mmorpg WOW ENGINE it took to get there.
If so, the right adaptation to use that word from another thread is understand what the problems are to convert the intention in the best way. And guess what? In the computer games industry there has been many people working on KNOWING WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE in the design of games that can be made use of! Except the mmorpg developers as Bartle points out: Keep making the same mistakes.
A lot of the emphasis in this thread is only 3. but in coop/4-party systems to emulate Pathfinder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still firmly believe the issue was not the game engine. Myself and many others never even looked at the game or saw an example of play. I personally know a half dozen or so people who backed the kickstarter in my local town and every one of them gave the game a pass when it went to heavy PvP to the point it even affected getting resources for crafting. Pathfinder is not about PvP and a game with the name Pathfinder in the title should not focus on PvP in my opinion.
I think modeling it on any of the RPG games out there would be fine. The graphics are nice to have... but tons of people still play the old gold box games... Bards Tale, Balder's Gate, etc and the graphics where horrible. Many games have new "versions" done by kickstarter that sell very well and make a profit without any PvP. That is what an RPG TT game should go for... and MMO RPG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I find this puzzling. The PVP thing comes up often. The plain truth is though, if you are not involved in a war, PVP is really really rare. Not like just rare, I mean like in over 8 months (not counting alpha) I have been attacked one time outside of a war/skirmish situation. I play all the time. My characters are All over the map and always moving to the next best guess at opportunity to gather what I want.
Politics reduces this even more.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this puzzling. The PVP thing comes up often. The plain truth is though, if you are not involved in a war, PVP is really really rare. Not like just rare, I mean like in over 8 months (not counting alpha) I have been attacked one time outside of a war/skirmish situation. I play all the time. My characters are All over the map and always moving to the next best guess at opportunity to gather what I want.
Politics reduces this even more.
I think the issue most people had was bad experience in the past and the mere fact that possibility for non-consensual PvP exist. I don't care if I will be backstabbed and looted only very rarely. The mere possibility that I will be involved in PvP against my will is a big turn off for me and many other people. I want to play game for fun. PvP is not fun for me. If I can not opt out of that aspect of the game I might want to not start it in the first place.
I don't think that alpha/beta testing properly reflects what will happen when a game goes gold.
I have played fully open PvP games that have gone gold and they're pretty much full of murder-hobos.
I read one review where they said they weren't randomly killed, but that was because of a lack of players, not a lack of PvPers murdering strangers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AvenaOats: I have long thought you had valuable things to say about perspective and playability, even the business model itself. But I think a cooperative game for Pathfinder ought to be based on online modules created by fans for a single player and/or party-based RPG. MMOs have hard sledding right now. I think that world-building features should be designed in conjunction with the peeps who make POS systems for restaurants. I'm serious. I once walked into a fine dining gig in downtown San Francisco and taught myself the Aloha system as I was bartending a busy restaurant. Command sequences that make sense to the average person, redundant screen popups and an intuitive interface so a neanderthal such as myself can make online Pathfinder adventures. Advanced users of course could shut off that stuff and make more refined inputs (outputs?).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still firmly believe the issue was not the game engine. Myself and many others never even looked at the game or saw an example of play. I personally know a half dozen or so people who backed the kickstarter in my local town and every one of them gave the game a pass when it went to heavy PvP to the point it even affected getting resources for crafting. Pathfinder is not about PvP and a game with the name Pathfinder in the title should not focus on PvP in my opinion.
I think modeling it on any of the RPG games out there would be fine. The graphics are nice to have... but tons of people still play the old gold box games... Bards Tale, Balder's Gate, etc and the graphics where horrible. Many games have new "versions" done by kickstarter that sell very well and make a profit without any PvP. That is what an RPG TT game should go for... and MMO RPG.
I covered this in the other thread, already. It's at the basics of the whole "discussion"> "What is your intention if you choose to make a digital represenation game system from Pathfinder IP?"
Route 1: In effect you could easily make as you say successful Game Products.
Route 2: But the intention all along was to make a Game Service.
I think there's a number of reasons: There's the "gamble aspect" which because PFO was lean even the bad result now looking at the odds before was still accountable - I estimate. Now, with TT market, it is there but OGL and I think 3D-Printing and Online allow players to cut out the middle-man such as Games Workshop is going to go down the drain shortly, Ryan talked about similar themes. What Paizo has done very well is create a community and it's that that makes it viable business. When you lose some ingredients in that status, it's like colony collapse disorder or something, I'm sure the relevant quote could dug up. Games Workshop have gone for Route 1 and spinning all their IP's into licenses all over the place to make cash quick...
So, anyway, taking all the above preceding, there was STRONG emphasis on Route 2. if the business model could be modelled - which Ryan did quite well in fact. Also it took into account the emerging market of online social games and young kids entering the next age bracket looking for the next sophisticated online game experience from Penguin or wizard online or other sources besides.
One thing to remember is a lot of the initial playerbase during EE, by Yr2 or so of OE probably would have left the game. IE a different market would emerge to play PFO over time. So the initial PvP yes was a problem to a lot of the market, but not inherently the prime problem given different conditions and the pvp market would have floated the game... bludd et al make that case from their own experiences eg DF and I agree with it.
To really get to the meat of the matter in one single, simple sentence for clarity: The TT system is immensely robust at creating "Theatre Of Mind". I don't believe that problem can be worked into the computer nearly to the required level. Instead what the computer is good at solving is "Crunchy Systems".
Namely what you're promoting (and fair enough) is:-
* TT RPG group stories
* Online version of TT RPG group stories
You get choice of 2 products of 1 IP.
What I think is better is:-
* {Online World of Golarion(TT RPG Group Stories) Entire Community Story-telling}
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
AvenaOats: I have long thought you had valuable things to say about perspective and playability, even the business model itself. But I think a cooperative game for Pathfinder ought to be based on online modules created by fans for a single player and/or party-based RPG. MMOs have hard sledding right now. I think that world-building features should be designed in conjunction with the peeps who make POS systems for restaurants. I'm serious. I once walked into a fine dining gig in downtown San Francisco and taught myself the Aloha system as I was bartending a busy restaurant. Command sequences that make sense to the average person, redundant screen popups and an intuitive interface so a neanderthal such as myself can make online Pathfinder adventures. Advanced users of course could shut off that stuff and make more refined inputs (outputs?).
Yeah, agree... that's why in the design I will bash out I got that essential base: Covered !! :-)
That's the first step to reconcile the TT RPG crowd's expectations. Though there's a twist in the tale/tail.
Ryan even said making this in PFO was goign to take huge amount of resources: It's a big big reason why the WOW ENGINE was the culprit.
The other thing you say is really important too:-
In the game around a large community, you need lots of niches for lots of different types of playstyles. THere's tons of talk in mmorpgs about how you can never please everyone eg Raph Koster blogs, but you can with a particular design go a long way to pleasing a lot more people and as you say a big chunk of them is the players who want their place in the world but to lead a simple role IN THE FIELD they want: Then like magic some amount of dev ratio to very happy players. A big field is "Make It Simple" for players to play and get fun and self-select how much they are able to censor off their own stories from needless complexity eg the skill-training system sounds like a nightmare tbh and should be scrapped in a new design imho - contentious but it needs to be modularized.
ie that Player's mental model of the game pov where all the dev needs to keep focusing back to. And yet again another reason WOW ENGINE is horrible.
Whatever happens I will be having fun playing ESO Tamriel Unlimited where I can PvE to my heart's content and then go to Cyrodill and PvP all I want as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah it maybe your heart's content, but I'm not sure it sounds like your "heart's desire"?
The intention for PvP in PFO was as Ryan described to create a world populated by roles eg assassin, diplomat, merchant, bandit and many more. Strangely "Adventurer" seems to have got butchered with the skill-training system.
The intention was never to ostracise players into the derivatives of you can choose PvE and or PvP game modes ie vs AI or vs the invariable online personality that loves crushing other players like a sort of The Terminator: "It will absolutely never stop until you are dead! It feels no pain, no emotion..." Crikey - no thanks!
Seems a bit chicken-egg: But too many potential players saw PvP > PvE and from the above memory of "PvP Market = Terminators" crossed out the game as an option entirely.
The key I think with PvP is competition vs cooperation game play. It does seem the reliance with PFO was too much on competition. For a game with Pathfinder roots, it is better to emphasize cooperation. LOL and WOT have competition that is popular but that lesson can be learnt I think too.
In that regard, I hope what comes next is not obvious until when it comes only then does it seem obvious to apply to the OP's title suggestion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I can't walk away from the game for 10 minutes without the possibility of being killed and, possibly, my stuff taken, then there's no reason for me to be playing the game. Because that would not be enjoyable to me.
There's nothing in the game that would discourage that kind of behavior, there is no way to actually give consequences that can't be worked around as they are in the real world.
Just because YOU won't do it, doesn't mean 1-in-50 people aren't going to do it and I don't want to play with those people.
I don't know how much more clear I can be than that.
Even the idea of having a non-PvP server was dismissed with a handwave.
And to prove you aren't psychic - My "heart's desire" is to have fun playing a game. Sometimes that's improving my character, other times that's improving my PvE fighting skills or improving my PvP fighting skills, or maxing out my crafting.
Non-consensual PvP rules don't fall anywhere in my desires.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Chuck: I do remember a lot of your former posts probably around 2012 even or way when PFO was more of an idea than a business?
So of course I responded to your view with respect.
>"It does seem the reliance with PFO was too much on competition."
I personally thought it a risk worth taking given the PvP crowd would fund the game to eventually create PvE stuff. Ryan was often quite scathing in putting off people from PFO and I suspect it was very much with a view to such a future, fully knowing many who tried during EE would be burnt and not look again.
However, I think the solution is different, and it must involve more cooperation as the basis for a design with Pathfinder.
I said in another thread, "the key is basing the pvp rule-sets on groups of players". A big problem is the zerg effect of open world pvp. I still think there's merit in Ryan's idea of roles however and I think it's possible to design a game with them but it would require a completely radically new formulation so much so the resultant game would look quite unlike any other mmorpg and in fact not really a mmorpg anymore but a new genre.
One of the central ideas is if it were still Pathfinder is to be as inclusive of the PF TT players as possible. The idea is that Online Social games must be SOCIAL and that requires pre-prepared communities. And the idea is that it must function to be complementary to what Paizo is doing with the TT RPG PF stuff... and perhaps vica-versa even, dare I say it.
People Like You.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I can't walk away from the game for 10 minutes without the possibility of being killed and, possibly, my stuff taken, then there's no reason for me to be playing the game. Because that would not be enjoyable to me.
There's nothing in the game that would discourage that kind of behavior, there is no way to actually give consequences that can't be worked around as they are in the real world.
Just because YOU won't do it, doesn't mean 1-in-50 people aren't going to do it and I don't want to play with those people.
I don't know how much more clear I can be than that.
Even the idea of having a non-PvP server was dismissed with a handwave.
Currently in PFO if you don't live in the south, you'll see zero pvp you don't want to be apart of. and the pvp in the south is due to bad diplomacy. I think there's ONE character in the game who actually murderhobo's people. The Reputation systems actually do a very good job of making people think about killing that afk person..
As one of the more hardcore pvp'ers, I've walked by many people I found off in the woods just standing around. Sometimes because I felt like being nice, other times because I figured that the rep loss was not worth the possibility of them having loot.
but from what I can tell from your posts, your not interested in a sandbox MMO. but more of a Themepark, or purely Co-op game.
Sandbox MMO Co-op with active events from the company.
Horizons almost had it down except for the crappy lag-fest of an engine it had and you couldn't decide where to build.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Chuck Wright
Thanks for sharing all this stuff here. As I have said before, GW has a "Map" that can lead them to a great treasure (success). This map is jumbled and full of many strange symbols that are indecipherable.
ALL feedback that they get are clues that if read properly will eventually let them decipher that "map" and get the reward that they (and we) want.
Now, back to reality. Pretty much everything that is considered opportunity for PVP is/was being planned to be in the game and NOT cause penalties. Between feuds, factions, wars everything is covered and if done right, will be "opt in". The incentives just have to be there for a majority of the player base to want to opt in through one or more of those avenues.
Now if that is true, i.e. the incentives are there and strong, the disincentives are VERY powerful, all "sides" of the issue should be placated.
Why should it even be possible to do RPKing at all? Feuds are not RPK. Factions are not RPK. Wars are not RPK.
Maybe it is a misjudgment to think that ALL of that stuff AND RPK can be mixed into a dough and baked to be edible.
Now, back to reality.
And people wonder why more folks stopped bothering to post and didn't get in on the Kickstarter.
Later, all!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And to prove you aren't psychic - My "heart's desire" is to have fun playing a game. Sometimes that's improving my character, other times that's improving my PvE fighting skills or improving my PvP fighting skills, or maxing out my crafting.
Non-consensual PvP rules don't fall anywhere in my desires.
You really can't improve your PvP fighting skills when the only type of PvP your willing to accept is consensual PvP.
In 99% of all arena style PvP, there is no risk or reward and you tend to use set skills and gear as does your opponent. Sparring is not really PvP, it is practice in a controlled environment and not even good practice for PvP in an open world PvP setting.
As for the next step for this game, I'm afraid it's probably either a near complete start from scratch or just a shut down. If it's a shut down, I wouldn't expect another Pathfinder based PC game anytime in the distant future.
As for the next step for this game, I'm afraid it's probably either a near complete start from scratch or just a shut down. If it's a shut down, I wouldn't expect another Pathfinder based PC game anytime in the distant future.
Not MMO. I don't think it will harm chances for Pathfinder cRPG much - unless it would have to rely on Kickstarter, then it might have problems. On the other hand I think that KS made by Obsidian for Pathfinder cRPG could still work - they have proven their capacity of handling kickstarter quite well. And with the current cooperation between Obsidian and Paizo, the Obsidian is the most realistic pick for Pathfinder cRPG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Tbh, the card-game is a very strong and logical start to the digital online market. They're all the rage atm and an intuitive fit for PF players to slide into, I'm sure...
http://paizo.com/paizo/news/v5748eaic9s92?Obsidian-Announces-Pathfinder-Lic ense
As for a Pillars of Eternity Design, given that's what Obsidian are good at;
"What's Next Is Obvious"...
I have an idea that is not obvious, until you see it. Dang, I'll write it up this w/e and post it. I think Bludd is correct, it won't be MMO, but it will be VERY specific to the Paizo Pathfinder community of fans: A product/service to complement their TT game and extend it beyond.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, back to reality.And people wonder why more folks stopped bothering to post and didn't get in on the Kickstarter.
Later, all!
Oops. Sorry Chuck Wright. There was no intent there to insult or belittle your posts. Reading that line you quoted, I can see that it could be easy to take that sentence badly. Not my intent.
I meant "now back to reality" in that I would stop using an allegory about "maps" and "clues" etc.... that I used above that line. :(
Now, back to reality.And people wonder why more folks stopped bothering to post and didn't get in on the Kickstarter.
Later, all!
Oops. Sorry Chuck Wright. There was no intent there to insult or belittle your posts. Reading that line you quoted, I can see that it could be easy to take that sentence badly. Not my intent.
I meant "now back to reality" in that I would stop using an allegory about "maps" and "clues" etc.... that I used above that line. :(
Totally accepted and no worries.
I wasn't in a good mood that day, either, so we're good. Sorry for my misunderstanding you!
And to prove you aren't psychic - My "heart's desire" is to have fun playing a game. Sometimes that's improving my character, other times that's improving my PvE fighting skills or improving my PvP fighting skills, or maxing out my crafting.
Non-consensual PvP rules don't fall anywhere in my desires.
You really can't improve your PvP fighting skills when the only type of PvP your willing to accept is consensual PvP.
In 99% of all arena style PvP, there is no risk or reward and you tend to use set skills and gear as does your opponent. Sparring is not really PvP, it is practice in a controlled environment and not even good practice for PvP in an open world PvP setting.
Please define "PvP Skills" and fully define what you think it means to say "Consensual PvP".
Because, apparently you only think it's dueling or something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the next step for this game, I'm afraid it's probably either a near complete start from scratch or just a shut down. If it's a shut down, I wouldn't expect another Pathfinder based PC game anytime in the distant future.Not MMO. I don't think it will harm chances for Pathfinder cRPG much - unless it would have to rely on Kickstarter, then it might have problems. On the other hand I think that KS made by Obsidian for Pathfinder cRPG could still work - they have proven their capacity of handling kickstarter quite well. And with the current cooperation between Obsidian and Paizo, the Obsidian is the most realistic pick for Pathfinder cRPG.
I think the product differentiation aspect can be handled skillfully at next years'various cons. I mean that there is a new cRPG on the horizon that has nothing to do with the Pathfinder MMO; which could never shake the "unrestricted ganking" label. Even among my friends. Even after I spoke to them numerous times. Then an alpha test was presented as 'mvp' that people had to pay for and the 'war of towers' (which was what soured me). I think a Golarion-centered cRPG full of adventure and deep character creation will sell a million copies if it is presented from the beginning as having nothing to do with Pathfinder Online.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It makes a big difference having an established studio of high experience and track-record quality doing a similar genre to what they're used to using a well-known IP.
Of course, PFO's real reward was that as a start-up GW's was primary share-holder if it went big.
I'm sure a cRPG from Obsidian would sell well.
What I would propose is a digital game service that complements the actual TT game, not emulate it as such as a cRPG attempts as per Pillars of Eternity etc.
The requirements here:-
1. Low cost to make
2. Strong match to community
3. Technologically proven to be very do-able
4. As a service built as per modularity, extensibility
5. Harness community as much as possible to input into it.
I have a grand idea for more "MMO-" features but the reality is they are simply no longer within Paizo's possible scope. So this idea is part of the modular first and some of the second ONLY modular component of that full vision. Something that adds value to the current TT system and uses both Paizo products, staff and community of players...
Well I'll ping this up over the w/e.
I think they could be successful with a Kingdoms-of-Amalur-style conversion to a SP format.
I also agree that an isometric view would be more suited to a Pathfinder cRPG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If PFO couldn't be made true to the IP with Paizo officers on the board, how can we possibly expect a truer game from a publisher that simply buys the IP?
Are we going to have to face the fact that the game that we initially backed is never going to be?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Que sera, sera... perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
Or crack a crude joke: "Zed's dead, baby... Zed's dead."
Either way, the optimistic or the pessimistic, alleviate uncertainty is a better choice.
When I log out of PF_online forums I'm often redirected to such gems as:-
New Pathfinder Tales novel releases!
From critically acclaimed author Howard Andrew Jones comes Beyond the Pool of Stars, our newest Pathfinder Tales novel and an adventure of sunken cities and jungle exploration, set in the award-winning world of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
Mirian Raas comes from a long line of salvagers—adventurers who use magic to dive for sunken ships off the coast of tropical Sargava. With her father dead and her family in debt, Mirian has no choice but to take over his last job: a dangerous expedition into deep jungle pools, helping a tribe of lizardfolk reclaim the lost treasures of their people. Yet this isn't any ordinary dive, as the same colonial government that looks down on Mirian for her half-native heritage has an interest in the treasure, and the survival of the entire nation may depend on the outcome.
THAT is what I want more of. World building, to harbour emotions, creativity, unbounded horizons etc etc. The sort of stuff I have read in the rare refined fantasy novel or the superlative beyond worlds and words sci-fi novels.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assuming that we eventually get well-developed faction, feud and war mechanics, I agree that random player killing mechanics might not be necessary. With factions for Merchants and Bandits, even the highwayman and caravan guard styles of play could remain viable.
If your character belonged to a group involved in a feud or war, then you probably wouldn't want to walk away and leave the game running. If your character didn't belong to such a group, then it would be safe.
(Yes, mechanics establishing when it's possible to join or leave a group are vital to prevent abuse of the system, but that's true with or without random player killing.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Karlbob
I think it should be mandatory then that every player should at least be part of a certain faction, that at least has an Enemy faction associated with it. I also think it should be possible to belong to more then one NPC faction, which opens up more danger (and PvP possibilities) but also should give perks(each faction giving a perk, like being part of the merchant faction giving you a slight discount at AH's or something like that). I think this was kinda in the plans anyway, not sure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Has there ever been a company that had the time and money to develop an MMORPG product with both really great non theme park PVE and also balanced and fun PVP?
This is coming from an absolute(originally) opponent of wide open non consensual PVP. Why didn't I like PVP combat much?
Let's see: Ultima Online was open PVP. I always played as a loner and the experience was always an outnumbered one and a surprise as well. Almost always when gathering or when doing some solo PVE. It was always a ganking experience with myself on the bad end of the deal.
Now playing in a group, having way more PVP interactions that are for reasons greater than "gank to loot", has greatly changed my perspective. It is actually fun! Win or lose something about it being a "group experience" makes it much more fun. This is not an uncommon transformation. Many former PVP haters now feel that in certain doses(each to his own measure) it is actually VERY FUN. I still do not like being caught alone and overwhelmed so I try and always do things with at least another friend or 3.
It is a matter of perspective and positioning. It is fun to have the perspective of a war band going to pay back some great wrong. It stimulates me to try and balance risk vs reward by never getting myself into a vulnerable position. I'm not trying to convince anyone that PVP is ok and they are wrong to not like it. Just sharing one poor slob's experience.
Despite all of the above, I strongly feel that there are plenty of old avenues planned for the game to engage in PVP. Perhaps it should come down to a system where you can benefit in various ways by "opting in" but the appeal could be increased(for a wider audience) by the choice to simply "opt out" and not enjoy the exact same benefits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has there ever been a company that had the time and money to develop an MMORPG product with both really great non theme park PVE and also balanced and fun PVP?
The answer to this is "No", but there have been a few that came close.
I think part of your problem is in the use of the qualifier and adjective "Really Great". Not only do they fall subject to the "Eye of the Beholder" but even if we accept that it is possible for just one element of a game to be "Really Great", it is virtually impossible for any developer to get multiple aspects of the game to be so.
Non Theme Park PVE is almost always represented by grinding. How could repetitive, risk free, and storyless activities be considered "Really Great"?
On the PVP side, again we have to look at the terms "Balanced" and "Fun". Again, they are very subjective. A developer has in my opinion just one responsibility in developing their game to be "balanced", and that is where they have pre set classes. Classes should be balanced, so as to not favor one class over the other or to avoid the never ending cycle of trying to repair unbalanced classes, and usually creating the problem of FOTM classes.
In all of my experience with MMOs I have only come across two games that I felt came close to getting both PVE and PVP in a decent balance and both were fun. Star Wars Galaxies and Fallen Earth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What's next? My hope is they strip all Pathfinder IP from the game, rename it, and sell it to some other entity.
I realize this means starting over from scratch with a new "pathfinder" game, but I'm willing to wait and contribute to that.
My hope is the real Pathfinder multiplayer game will include at least a subset of the actual Pathfinder game mechanics.
Currently PFO is fine as idea and brand extension in my mind, as turn-based pen and paper games don't translate well into Real-time multiplayer games given the completely different environment and need for rules to be modified to match the new timing system.
Also furthermore the OGL license does not cover electronic games, hence could be a legal problem to those that want an electronic Pathfinder game using OGL systems and rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep hearing this, but there must be more to it. The OGL clearly allows for "computer software", and WotC further clarifies that "computer games" are permitted in their FAQ.My hope is the real Pathfinder multiplayer game will include at least a subset of the actual Pathfinder game mechanics.That can't happen. The pathfinder mechanics are OGL, and can not be used in an electronic game. That particular ship sank before it got in the water.
Ironically Ryan Dancey was one of the people that helped make the OGL and it ended up blocking what they could do for PFO. I think there is a thread somewhere in this subforum where they talked about it.
To my knowledge and reading of the OGL (I Am Not A Lawyer) the main problem is that they would need to code the game and then release a plain text version of the code outlining all the rules and mechanics they used that are then available to anyone else for use. Literally everything the code does to govern the game, and they would need to update it with every change. A dump of the source code is not good enough (plus the whole giving away your code thing).
This is probably why the few commercial d20 games out there were all directly licensed instead of trying to use the OGL.
I could be wrong but that's what my reading gets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Has there ever been a company that had the time and money to develop an MMORPG product with both really great non theme park PVE and also balanced and fun PVP?In all of my experience with MMOs I have only come across two games that I felt came close to getting both PVE and PVP in a decent balance and both were fun. Star Wars Galaxies and Fallen Earth.
didn't play Fallen Earth but played MANY others
SWG is the only one that came close
I would still be playing it on the live servers but Sony borked up