Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

intresting concept... but what about combat?

CopperfieldCopperfield RotterdamPosts: 194Member Uncommon

after reading the featurelist of this game.. i cant find any info regarding combat mechanics?

 

Is this game gonna be a traditional tab target game?

 

or 

 

what i hope for.. some aim to shoot mechanic?

 

 

 

 

Comments

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo LondonPosts: 3,221Member

    That's a bit annoying, it is difficult to find this out, you're right. Regrettably it's a tab-target combat game.

    I am however still very interested in the game, because it's overall design is very complete and well thought-out, despite the above. There's reasons for the choice I can think of:-

    1. Sandbox = broad systems, less depth to combat (priority is spread around for dev of more systems)
    2. The Network scaling to true MMO (as per eve) having a mass battles and again just help the server out.
    3. Pathfinder is rooted in the RPG TT, and it's not using the OGL license, tab-target is a fair approximation to go for ie character skills/attributes vs player skill/dexterity
    4. It's a tried-and-tested system and PFO is risky enough, and the market "knows" this formulae for combat ie controls
    Anyway those are the sort of rationales for this choice. I still think it's a shame but can appreciate why, given the above.
     
    It's in internal alpah atm and there may be some very early vid footage today.
     
    I still think with all the other features and the vision for the world, it has potential to be a very good game. But it is the one area I'd be most pessimistic about. Think I've said that previously.
  • CopperfieldCopperfield RotterdamPosts: 194Member Uncommon

    thanks alot..

     

    I was hoping for something different tho.. but dont mind tab target if its in correct game speed.

     

    what i dont understand, is that with so little info about the game..they managed to raize like what 1.3 mill? with their kickstarters?

     

    That's kinda amazing..

     

    Hopefully they will bring more info about the game soon.. the vid of the map info really made the game alot intresting then others out there

  • SevalaSevala K, NYPosts: 134Member
    Originally posted by Copperfield

    what i dont understand, is that with so little info about the game..they managed to raize like what 1.3 mill? with their kickstarters?

     

     

    I think the key factor to this is how large pen and paper Pathfinder grew and how fast. Pretty much I recogn that every PnP D&D player that hated 4th edition switched to Pathfinder as their PnP choice of game (or just stuck to 3.5), I know every gaming group I know did that. So, although they might not have had a huge internet presence or lots of paid advertising, just based on their PnP players they had a pretty good size following right off the bat from that crowd.

    ~I am Many~

  • bill4747bill4747 Lynn, MAPosts: 202Member
    Originally posted by MumboJumbo

    That's a bit annoying, it is difficult to find this out, you're right. Regrettably it's a tab-target combat game.

    I am however still very interested in the game, because it's overall design is very complete and well thought-out, despite the above. There's reasons for the choice I can think of:-

    1. Sandbox = broad systems, less depth to combat (priority is spread around for dev of more systems)
    2. The Network scaling to true MMO (as per eve) having a mass battles and again just help the server out.
    3. Pathfinder is rooted in the RPG TT, and it's not using the OGL license, tab-target is a fair approximation to go for ie character skills/attributes vs player skill/dexterity
    4. It's a tried-and-tested system and PFO is risky enough, and the market "knows" this formulae for combat ie controls
    Anyway those are the sort of rationales for this choice. I still think it's a shame but can appreciate why, given the above.
     
    It's in internal alpah atm and there may be some very early vid footage today.
     
    I still think with all the other features and the vision for the world, it has potential to be a very good game. But it is the one area I'd be most pessimistic about. Think I've said that previously.

    Are they even using the Pathfinder pen and paper rpg rules?

  • CopperfieldCopperfield RotterdamPosts: 194Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sevala
    Originally posted by Copperfield

    what i dont understand, is that with so little info about the game..they managed to raize like what 1.3 mill? with their kickstarters?

     

     

    I think the key factor to this is how large pen and paper Pathfinder grew and how fast. Pretty much I recogn that every PnP D&D player that hated 4th edition switched to Pathfinder as their PnP choice of game (or just stuck to 3.5), I know every gaming group I know did that. So, although they might not have had a huge internet presence or lots of paid advertising, just based on their PnP players they had a pretty good size following right off the bat from that crowd.

    ye i dont know that kinda stuff..

     

    But ather reading their crappy website i was kinda "like what " did they raized?

     

    I dont know what to think of of their website and info state on it..

     

    Website looks like its been made by a 12 year old.. its lacks info.. besides that the shops is showing what? 1000 dollar for alpha access? i mean is this even correct? wtf

  • sakersaker harrisburg, PAPosts: 993Member Uncommon

    some of their videos on the videos page. https://goblinworks.com/pathfinder-online/video/

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo LondonPosts: 3,221Member

    @Copperfield :

    1. There was a significant upswing in Kickstarter after Double Fine.
    2. Goblinworks were able to cross-promote PFO with Paizo again really helpful
    3. Imo seeing various campaigns run, Goblinworks ran a very very good one really listening and instantly actioning to raise the level again and again throughout the campaign.
    4. Eg excellent rewards Thornkeep, Emerald Spire, minis etc
    5. Beforehand GW had run a dev blog for about 1yr and the Design of PFO is f*k brilliant stuff, again created an audience before launching
    6. This was one of the first and few mmos to raise over 1m$ so again more backers before the lag in returns kicked in and kickstarter fatigue set in. Eg Camelot Unchained raised about 2m off DAOC backers and tbh I don't believe their campaign or what they had to show and talk about was nearly as comprehensive but with a built-in player-base they nailed it.
    The website has gradually improved as it's a lean project. It was basically empty bar the blog and a few details previously, by comparison with now it's really nice. I'm sure it will keep iterating over time and improving... much like PFO which will release early version as a minimum viable product, really basic but gradually develop the systems. I think it's good idea for a business model to be competitive and reduce risk and hopefully that way boost innovation in this stale genre!
     
    ==================================
     

    @ bill4747 : 3. "Pathfinder is rooted in the RPG TT, and it's not using the OGL license, tab-target is a fair approximation to go for ie character skills/attributes vs player skill/dexterity"

    There's a length disussion in this thread on the reasons for the combat system used in the mmorpg as opposed to the OGL

    if you're interested. Summarizes a fair bit of info and background. Knock yourself out!

    Again coming back to tab-target, I get all the reasons it's in and it **MAY** turn out pretty cool system, for example there's a interesting article on mmo combat here for reference. But it does come with a heck of a lot of old baggage...

    The Abstraction Of Skill In Game Design

     

    75 percent is the standard combat model for MMOs like World of Warcraft or EverQuest. Players can control the movement of their character as in an action game, but all combat and interacting with the world is abstracted by the game.

    Players are still restricted to just issuing commands to their character and then watching how everything plays out, but at a quicker pace then the 100 percent titles, due to both parties performing their actions at the same time.

    -

    Most skill-based games are aimed at the -70 to -50 percent crowds, while RPGs are aimed at 70 to 50 percent. A distinction has to be made: it's not that these fans are going away; instead, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the fans of more mainstream games.

    -

    You cannot make a game that has universal appeal.

    On the other hand, in a RPG where managing attributes and information is necessary, the player wants to slow down and examine the data. As the design moves to 0 percent, these two polarizing views will have to be dealt with -- and if it isn't done right, it will annoy fans of each specific genre.

     

    I think Pathfinder by tradtion the IP fits the above, as well as PFO the "eve-like" skill progression again fits the above eg the Settlements and skill-training are another layer of sophistication to this game's RPG-progression on larger scale. ;)

     

  • The problem with realtime systems like aim-to-target is that they don't scale well past a dozen players or so. If you have N people in an engagement, the amount of info that has to be communicated to each player about every other player scales as a function of N^2. So every game has a "heartbeat" or update speed, and the more people you want to have in an engagement, the longer that heartbeat has to be. In a shooter you have very limited engagement scales, and very fast heartbeats that allow for realtime targeting. In a PVP-based, non-instanced MMO where you can have hundreds of people in the same battle, your heartbeat has to be a lot slower, and aimed shots have to go out the window because you don't accurately know where someone is on an instant by instant basis.
  • caldeathecaldeathe Posts: 206Member Uncommon

    The alpha cost is pretty outrageous, and I think it's more of an ego thing than anything else. It does cover play and in-game stuff that would cost about $350.00 to get via other channels, but getting in a few months earlier than everyone else isn't worth the extra $650. There is an Early Enrollment option that's $100, and covers three months of subscription. Even that's steep, but there's going to be an advantage to getting in ahead of the open crowd, and I guess everybody has to weigh that for themselves. Maybe there'll be a few deals once the beta server is running, depending on uptake.

     

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo LondonPosts: 3,221Member
    Originally posted by Guurzak
    The problem with realtime systems like aim-to-target is that they don't scale well past a dozen players or so. If you have N people in an engagement, the amount of info that has to be communicated to each player about every other player scales as a function of N^2. So every game has a "heartbeat" or update speed, and the more people you want to have in an engagement, the longer that heartbeat has to be. In a shooter you have very limited engagement scales, and very fast heartbeats that allow for realtime targeting. In a PVP-based, non-instanced MMO where you can have hundreds of people in the same battle, your heartbeat has to be a lot slower, and aimed shots have to go out the window because you don't accurately know where someone is on an instant by instant basis.

    Good point, this is key distinction for what PFO aims to achieve with what I'd call:

    "True MMO-rpg" as with EVE Online. A lot of mmorpgs have come to the conclusion that too many players in one space is unproductive (performance, game play eg "zergs" of PvE content and PvP battles). But I think if the game is going to scale to full blown wars and armies and emergent strategy at that level then the above is practical fit to server/network technical requirements.

    I know Camelot Unchained are going for something like "mass-combat" too with their RvRvR system, but PFO is going more for the Corporation wars or Settlement diplomacy war-games it's potentially less about the combat per individual and more about the collective and the context variables and build-up.

    If PFO can manage to produce "Total War" type of units and battlegrounds then it would be brilliant system for standardization of declarations of warfare (pitched battles and sieges) and seasonal campaigns possibly.

    =

    @caldeathe:

    I did a spreadsheet for the cost to benefits of the $100 tier during the kickstarter and the value was excellent. There were 4 months of gametime then a whole bunch of goodies too. The only question is if you can access ahead of time if you would use and enjoy those four months and the goodies. That's the major variable per person, not the quantity vs price I'd say based off the spreadsheet (deleted now). Agree about the alpha, I'd suggest GW provide more perks for this tier in-game.

  • WexelDaventryWexelDaventry Broomfield, COPosts: 4Member
    For the Alpha, they have provided an extra perk that I haven't seen talked about here. That perk is that the Alpha players are being given invites to Alpha for their friends and family as they chose. Meaning that although they only purchased 1 Alpha Slot, it is allowing them to have several more. It doesn't carry the rest of the perks from buying Alpha, but it does allow you to play in Alpha. Also, another reason why they have left the cost for Alpha at $1000 is that was the price in the Kickstarter to raise the money in the first place and now they can't lower it or it would detract from what those at that Kickstarter level paid.  

    Wexel Daventry

  • coretex666coretex666 PraguePosts: 1,934Member Uncommon
    Combat system is practically immaterial in an RPG and I believe this game aims at being an actual RPG.

    Waiting for L2 EU Classic

  • Lam_de_CorkLam_de_Cork Glendale, CAPosts: 4Member
    Aim-to-hit is fine for the young, but that is more for an arcade game.  THis game is meant for organized play of groups of players, including some of us with older bodies which have a different twitch mechanic.
  • iridescenceiridescence Elliot Lake, ONPosts: 1,486Member

    The alpha is mainly a way for those who wish to to donate. There is very little value in it. Certainly nothing objectively worth $1000. However, Early enrollment is a great value as it works out to about a full year of gametime in a game that will have a $15 a month sub.

     

    As for combat they are talking about having sophisticated formation military warfare in this game with huge pitched battles and sieges. It may be tab target but if they deliver on what they're promising it will be unlike anything really seen in an MMO before (at least to my knowledge).

     

    (Think of an RTS where human players take the role of individual units).

     

  • Scott23Scott23 Moline, ILPosts: 108Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by iridescence

    The alpha is mainly a way for those who wish to to donate. There is very little value in it. Certainly nothing objectively worth $1000. However, Early enrollment is a great value as it works out to about a full year of gametime in a game that will have a $15 a month sub.

     

    Note that you do pay the sub fee during early enrollment (after running through the time included in whatever package you have).

     

    On the plus side your EE characters are not deleted when it goes into wide release.

  • iridescenceiridescence Elliot Lake, ONPosts: 1,486Member
    Originally posted by Scott23
     

    Note that you do pay the sub fee during early enrollment (after running through the time included in whatever package you have).

     

    On the plus side your EE characters are not deleted when it goes into wide release.

    Sorry, you are correct. For some reason I had the idea that they weren't charging the sub fee during EE. In that case those on the fence about the game may want to skip it. Although i still think it's a decent deal for those who are sure they want to play long term.

     

  • BlueMountainBlueMountain Philadelphia, PAPosts: 147Member
    Originally posted by iridescence

    The alpha is mainly a way for those who wish to to donate. There is very little value in it. Certainly nothing objectively worth $1000.

    I disagree with your usage of 'value' and 'worth'. If you are talking about dollars or euros and exchange product then sure, but those aren't values they are metrical enumeration. What is valuable to me will most likely vary from what is valuable to you. I certainly value currency, and I think that evaluation is appropriate, but a few wrinkly bank notes are radically less valuable than a large-scale interactive social environment, a multiplayer RPG 'done right' under the auspices and counsel of (arguably) the finest tabletop RPG vendor in the market (Paizo). Unless you haven't many wrinkle notes to spend at all, in which case perhaps your entertainment dollars should be applied to more practical needs.

    The potential for PvP is necessary. One cannot adequately imagine being in a rough-and-tumble adventure world when you cannot enforce your will or defend your honor by strength of arms. Yet the potential for PvP to run amok is so great the developer must justify spending ginormous expenditures of time and effort on the mechanics of PvP to ensure those mechanics can work for everyone, even those who have no intention of defending their honor or robbing a merchant caravan.

    What is most valuable to me is the potential for international players to meet, fight, and learn respect for one another in a (real world) safe environment. The leaders of the future are young and unknown today. We will influence them when they arise from our midst. Better if they, and we, recognize and respect the peoples of every culture. I think it is arguable that there is no better place to learn about other people than the world of Pathfinder, Online.

    To dream, perhaps to be.

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,530Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by iridescence

    The alpha is mainly a way for those who wish to to donate. There is very little value in it. Certainly nothing objectively worth $1000. However, Early enrollment is a great value as it works out to about a full year of gametime in a game that will have a $15 a month sub.

     

    As for combat they are talking about having sophisticated formation military warfare in this game with huge pitched battles and sieges. It may be tab target but if they deliver on what they're promising it will be unlike anything really seen in an MMO before (at least to my knowledge).

     

    (Think of an RTS where human players take the role of individual units).

     

    Tab targetting is not the issue - the real issue is how floaty the combat looks - yes it's alpha but they will need a TON of work to get combat feel right IMO.

    Right now combat = hitting air with weapons, look more like an interpretive dance 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r_tthm1Im0

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo LondonPosts: 3,221Member
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by iridescence

    The alpha is mainly a way for those who wish to to donate. There is very little value in it. Certainly nothing objectively worth $1000. However, Early enrollment is a great value as it works out to about a full year of gametime in a game that will have a $15 a month sub.

     

    As for combat they are talking about having sophisticated formation military warfare in this game with huge pitched battles and sieges. It may be tab target but if they deliver on what they're promising it will be unlike anything really seen in an MMO before (at least to my knowledge).

     

    (Think of an RTS where human players take the role of individual units).

     

    Tab targetting is not the issue - the real issue is how floaty the combat looks - yes it's alpha but they will need a TON of work to get combat feel right IMO.

    Right now combat = hitting air with weapons, look more like an interpretive dance 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r_tthm1Im0

    Agree.

    I think Goblinworks need to ensure PFO's combat is fun and feels right, when EE starts on 15th September. I'm personally anticipating some quality PvP to enjoy, but the combat mechanics have to work for the highly variable contexts I'm anticipating (well, salivating at the mouth tbh!) to then factor in and increase my enjoyment of the game. Failing that I'd be more inclined to wait for more development then pitch into playing and paying. But I would expect the devs to prioritize this right to the top of the pile.

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,975Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sevala

    I think the key factor to this is how large pen and paper Pathfinder grew and how fast. Pretty much I recogn that every PnP D&D player that hated 4th edition switched to Pathfinder as their PnP choice of game (or just stuck to 3.5), I know every gaming group I know did that. So, although they might not have had a huge internet presence or lots of paid advertising, just based on their PnP players they had a pretty good size following right off the bat from that crowd.

    True, I moved to Pathfinder myself, a great PnP game and the best DnD copy around (better than the original).

    But for some reason did they turn a levelbased game into a leveless sandbox instead of the other way around and that might backfire just as turning WAR into a levelgame did. All depends on how good they can capture the feeling of the PnP game since the fans of it after all is their main focus group and the people who kicks in the kickstarter money.

    I kinda have mixed feelings about the game, it is great that they make something different and sandboxes are the place with less competition but I wish they used and IP where they could have kept most of the original mechanics for it, like Shadowrun, Runequest or Warhammer fantasy RPG instead. But the thing that really matters is if the game is fun enough or not.

  • BlueMountainBlueMountain Philadelphia, PAPosts: 147Member

    They have mentioned that much of their animation will be worked and that eventually they intend fully AAA visuals including animation, but the priority for now is to make the math work appropriately. I do know that recently there have been significant improvements in particle effects and character appearance.

    For me the bottom line is how the game plays. If combat works well is more important to me than how prettily it looks. Without combat working well the appearance is irrelevant. Without the game of it all there is nothing to adorn and no one to see and appreciate it.

    To dream, perhaps to be.

Sign In or Register to comment.