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!

Pathfinder Online - Sandbox with Theme Park elements from ex CCP CMO

DeaconXDeaconX Toronto, ONPosts: 3,067Member


 


 


Based on the popular pen and paper RPG system (D20), Pathfinder Online is being developed by Goblinworks which was launched by Ryan Dancey, formerly the chief marketing officer CCP's Eve Online.


 


Goblinworks currently consists of Dancey, Paizo Publishing CEO Lisa Stevens, and Mark Kalmes, previously a programmer for Microsoft, Cryptic Studios and CCP.



Pathfinder Online aims to bringing the world of the tabletop game, originally released in 2009, to the video game industry in the form of a sandbox-style MMORPG, with players exploring the River Kingdoms.



Players will be able to buy and sell user-created items and content, while building up their own settlements in the world and then taking on NPCs and other players in battle.



Stevens explained, "A lot of big picture work has already been done on Pathfinder Online, and it's going to be a bit different from your traditional fantasy MMO."



"It's going to focus around the characters you create, in a world that will grow out of your interactions, developing the way you choose to develop it."


 


The entirety of Pathfinder Online at launch will take place in a 133-square-mile region known as the Crusader Road area. To get an idea of how absurd this is, look at this image:


 




 


See that little red box? That's the Crusader Road area. And the remainder of the map that it's shown on is only a small fraction of the entire Pathfinder world, Golarion which can be seen here:


 




 


Check the Official Site linked above for more details


 


Sources:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/12/21/pathfinder-online-looks-to-crusader-road/

image

Why do I write, create, fantasize, dream and daydream about other worlds? Because I hate what humanity does with this one.

BOYCOTTING EA / ORIGIN going forward.

«1

Comments

  • JumdorJumdor Magtown, ARPosts: 62Member

    I think this is a very awesome idea. 

    image

    "Love can be innocent and can be sweet, but sometimes about as nice as rotting meat."

  • MMOExposedMMOExposed lalal land, DCPosts: 6,255Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DeaconX



    Official Site:



     


    Game Forum:




     


     


    Based on the popular pen and paper RPG system (D20), Pathfinder Online is being developed by Goblinworks which was launched by Ryan Dancey, formerly the chief marketing officer CCP's Eve Online.


     


    Goblinworks currently consists of Dancey, Paizo Publishing CEO Lisa Stevens, and Mark Kalmes, previously a programmer for Microsoft, Cryptic Studios and CCP.



    Pathfinder Online aims to bringing the world of the tabletop game, originally released in 2009, to the video game industry in the form of a sandbox-style MMORPG, with players exploring the River Kingdoms.



    Players will be able to buy and sell user-created items and content, while building up their own settlements in the world and then taking on NPCs and other players in battle.



    Stevens explained, "A lot of big picture work has already been done on Pathfinder Online, and it's going to be a bit different from your traditional fantasy MMO."



    "It's going to focus around the characters you create, in a world that will grow out of your interactions, developing the way you choose to develop it."


     


    The entirety of Pathfinder Online at launch will take place in a 133-square-mile region known as the Crusader Road area. To get an idea of how absurd this is, look at this image:


     




     


    See that little red box? That's the Crusader Road area. And the remainder of the map that it's shown on is only a small fraction of the entire Pathfinder world, Golarion which can be seen here:


     




     


    Check the Official Site linked above for more details


     


    Sources:

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/12/21/pathfinder-online-looks-to-crusader-road/

     

    Why did they show off the map of the world when the MMO game will only take place in the red box part?

    image

  • KhalathwyrKhalathwyr Denton, TXPosts: 3,138Member

    Good question. If I know the people at Paizo (and subsequently Goblinworks) it's to show what they plan to start with and how much more they will have to exapand into. Sure, I'd like them to start with all of the known world, but that would probably mean they would be working on the game until 2025 or so, lol!

    "Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."

    Kickstarter 2 / Naysayers 0

  • BlackUhuruBlackUhuru Of Angels, CAPosts: 770Member
    That little red box is actually very large, when the game launches they will only allow 4.5k players each month. As more people are allowed in and spread out they will introduce more of the world as needed.

    Pathfinder onlines game launch will be unlike anything we have seen before! Starting out with only 4.5k players on day one and introducing 4.5k players every month there after.

    I'm on my iPhone so it's hard for me to type out a full description of there plans for launch but I recommend going to the message boards on the Paizo website and read up on it, very interesting game design and launch philosophy.

    "It would be awesome if you could duel your companion. Then you could solo pvp".--Thanes

  • JimmacJimmac TXPosts: 1,667Member Uncommon

    What country is this game company from? The company that is actually making this game, I mean.

  • JimmacJimmac TXPosts: 1,667Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    Originally posted by DeaconX

    <>

     

    Why did they show off the map of the world when the MMO game will only take place in the red box part?

    The way I understand it is that the entire map will be playable eventually. The red box is the area players will be restricted to in the mean time.

  • BlackUhuruBlackUhuru Of Angels, CAPosts: 770Member
    Seattle Washington.

    "It would be awesome if you could duel your companion. Then you could solo pvp".--Thanes

  • JimmacJimmac TXPosts: 1,667Member Uncommon

    Well I'm interested. Looks cool so far. Maybe let us know when it's playable in some form.

  • BlackUhuruBlackUhuru Of Angels, CAPosts: 770Member
    Will be awhile before we see any ingame stuff I'm sure.

    "It would be awesome if you could duel your companion. Then you could solo pvp".--Thanes

  • BlackUhuruBlackUhuru Of Angels, CAPosts: 770Member
    The new blog post from Ryan is up on goblinworks.com, this is a really good read about PvE in Pathfinder Online.

    For anyone interested in next-gen sandbox games this is a must read.

    I'm on my iPhone so I can't link sorry.

    goblinworks.com/blog

    "It would be awesome if you could duel your companion. Then you could solo pvp".--Thanes

  • RoyalkinRoyalkin Abilene, TXPosts: 273Member

    After reading these blog posts, I'm much more enthusiastic about this project, and especially so with the outline of how they plan to implement the heirearchy and mechanics of 'social units'. Also with that, they hint at numerous opportunities for the socio-politically inclined player(s), such as the following,

    "...the political structures of these entities will be varied. Some will be actual kingdoms with power vested in a single monarch. Some will be oligarchies. Others will be more democratic—even a direct democracy is possible.

    [Coming from Eve, wherein the mechanics really don't support anything other than oligarchy and autocratic personality cults, I find this appealing.  Hopefully, the mechanics will enforce the rule of law when a 'kingdom' is established as a democracy, and prevent a potential tyrant from amassing total power.]  

    The economic structures of kingdoms will be varied as well. The kingdom may tax its members on their earnings to fund its operations, and that tax rate could vary from nil to 100%. Ayn Rand to Karl Marx and everything in between.

    The combination of politics and economics will create a matrix of variety in kingdoms, and that matrix is further complicated by alignment, creating a three-dimensional structure of options. If you can imagine it, you can likely custom-tailor a kingdom to deliver."

     

    Also, they seem to be aware of the mistakes made by others in the past and are eager to innovate, both of which are refreshing changes,

    "We want to mirror some of the amazing things that occurred in Ultima Online and EVE Online, but we also want to strike out on our own path.

    We also want to avoid some of the missteps that have happened in other games. We want to ensure that there's always enough space so that new settlements and kingdoms can form. We want to avoid the problem of choke points that restrict access to key resources, making whomever got to those points first the de facto "winners" in the economy.

    We're going to design Pathfinder Online so that each level of social organization arises when the game is ready for it. Slowly adding these increasing levels of sophistication will allow the society of the game to ramp up gradually and with good cohesion. As new players join, they'll always have ways to become a part of that process."

     

    Lastly, I like their choice of time based progression, rather than grinding out experience. This allows me to use my time in game to pursue other things, and these statements are encouraging,

    "The upsides outweigh these downsides. One huge upside is that unlike almost every other MMO, your character gets better in EVE even when you're playing another game! That makes it easy to make EVE your "second" MMO, the game you play in addition to something else (like World of Warcraft). It also levels the playing field between people who can only put in a few hours a day (or a few a week), and those who can play continuously. Finally, it encourages characters to specialize, but doesn't inflict overt penalties if the player doesn't do so. No skill training is ever wasted—the worst scenario is that you wasted some time training a skill you're not going to use right away. Your character's advancement doesn't create dead ends or "worthless builds."

     

    In the end, if your a sandobx fan, I would definitely keep an eye on Pathfinder Online. I will be.

    image
    image
    image

  • dzoni87dzoni87 BelgradePosts: 541Member

    Pathfinder online? Did i read this good? I must be dreaming....

    If it will be anything like UO it will be fine :O

    Main MMO at the moment: Guild Wars 2
    Waiting for: Pathfinder Online

  • AdamTMAdamTM Frankfurt Am MainPosts: 1,376Member

    Originally posted by Royalkin

    After reading these blog posts, I'm much more enthusiastic about this project, and especially so with the outline of how they plan to implement the heirearchy and mechanics of 'social units'. Also with that, they hint at numerous opportunities for the socio-politically inclined player(s), such as the following,

    "...the political structures of these entities will be varied. Some will be actual kingdoms with power vested in a single monarch. Some will be oligarchies. Others will be more democratic—even a direct democracy is possible.

    [Coming from Eve, wherein the mechanics really don't support anything other than oligarchy and autocratic personality cults, I find this appealing.  Hopefully, the mechanics will enforce the rule of law when a 'kingdom' is established as a democracy, and prevent a potential tyrant from amassing total power.]  

    The economic structures of kingdoms will be varied as well. The kingdom may tax its members on their earnings to fund its operations, and that tax rate could vary from nil to 100%. Ayn Rand to Karl Marx and everything in between.

    The combination of politics and economics will create a matrix of variety in kingdoms, and that matrix is further complicated by alignment, creating a three-dimensional structure of options. If you can imagine it, you can likely custom-tailor a kingdom to deliver."

     

    Also, they seem to be aware of the mistakes made by others in the past and are eager to innovate, both of which are refreshing changes,

    "We want to mirror some of the amazing things that occurred in Ultima Online and EVE Online, but we also want to strike out on our own path.

    We also want to avoid some of the missteps that have happened in other games. We want to ensure that there's always enough space so that new settlements and kingdoms can form. We want to avoid the problem of choke points that restrict access to key resources, making whomever got to those points first the de facto "winners" in the economy.

    We're going to design Pathfinder Online so that each level of social organization arises when the game is ready for it. Slowly adding these increasing levels of sophistication will allow the society of the game to ramp up gradually and with good cohesion. As new players join, they'll always have ways to become a part of that process."

     

    Lastly, I like their choice of time based progression, rather than grinding out experience. This allows me to use my time in game to pursue other things.

    In the end, if your a sandobx fan, I would definitely keep an eye on Pathfinder Online. I will be.

    Which is what I am extremely weary off. I do not want to see yet another EVE p2w system.

    In fact, I don't want to see another game focused on economy in the first place, but it seems to me that CCP and all its developers, even those that quit, can't put that drug down.

    image
  • RoyalkinRoyalkin Abilene, TXPosts: 273Member

    Originally posted by AdamTM

    Which is what I am extremely weary off. I do not want to see yet another EVE p2w system.

    In fact, I don't want to see another game focused on economy in the first place, but it seems to me that CCP and all its developers, even those that quit, can't put that drug down.

     

    With all due respect, I think stating that the game will be based off the economy is a little short-sighted. A player-driven economy is a consequence of a virtual world sandbox, rather than being its focus. I really don't see how its possible to have a virtual world sandbox without a player driven economy, being that it is a definitive aspect diferentiating it from a themepark.

    Personally, and I admit this is a relative point of view, I really hate grinding experience, quests or not. Time based progression creates a sitaution where adventuring becomes something that players do because they find it fun, not because its a necessary action in order to progress their character. Also, for those players not-inclined to combat, it affords them more time to pursue thier chosen activity.

    image
    image
    image

  • revy66revy66 NY, NYPosts: 464Member

    Originally posted by AdamTM

    Originally posted by Royalkin

    Which is what I am extremely weary off. I do not want to see yet another EVE p2w system.

    In fact, I don't want to see another game focused on economy in the first place, but it seems to me that CCP and all its developers, even those that quit, can't put that drug down.

    A drug that I would gladly accept. To each his own I guess. There are way too many MMOs that deny player interaction outside of combat, let's not see this be one of them. Having a player driven economy is one of the most important features in a sandbox game, I wouldn't change that.

  • AdamTMAdamTM Frankfurt Am MainPosts: 1,376Member

    Originally posted by Royalkin

    Originally posted by AdamTM



    Which is what I am extremely weary off. I do not want to see yet another EVE p2w system.

    In fact, I don't want to see another game focused on economy in the first place, but it seems to me that CCP and all its developers, even those that quit, can't put that drug down.

     

    With all due respect, I think stating that the game will be based off the economy is a little short-sighted. A player-driven economy is a consequence of a virtual world sandbox, rather than being its focus. I really don't see how its possible to have a virtual world sandbox without a player driven economy, being that it is a definitive aspect diferentiating it from a themepark.

    Personally, and I admit this is a relative point of view, I really hate grinding experience, quests or not, and adventuring becomes something that players do because they find it fun, not because its a necessary action in order to progress their character. Also, for those players not-inclined to combat, it affords them more time to pursue thier chosen activity.

    A player-driven economy is fine. A player driven economy as the center of your game-design is a bad idea, or at least for me its a bad idea because I don't enjoy playing the market.

    EvE is a perfect example of this, there is not an aspect in the game world that does not revolve around money and the economy. Its just another disguised progression system, it doesn't really solve anything of what you say in your second paragraph. Yes your character can progress by just paying for the subscription and queing skills, but if you don't GRIND for money, you will be effectively completely useless even with LVL5 skills.

    You are just substituting one kind of grind for another kinf of grind. This might be a question of perspective, but for me its the same thing.

    A sandbox can certainly have player based economy, its fine really, but we need to remember that these are games, they do not need to necessarily follow the free-market economy in real life. There is nothing saying that the economy must be the driving factor of a sandbox, in fact, a free-market economy simulation in a MMO brings the exact same problems with itself like it does in real life.

    Its actually one of the things i think why sandboxes are not as popular, because the economical libertarian model is by its very -definition- concerned about individual wealth and not the collective, it is therefore, essentially, anti-social. Which is a bad thing for an MMO.

     

    PS: Because this might be misunderstood: economy and combat are not the only parts of a game, especially an MMO, focusing on either is a big mistake. What I am advocating is interdependant game design.

    image
  • SiveriaSiveria Saint John, New BrunswickPosts: 1,200Member Uncommon

    I dunno about this, I doubt marketing officers really know much about game devolopment, they are mostly responsable for advetising it and such aren't they? Needless to say a combo fo sandbox+theme park? could be quite nice, Imma pay attention to this title and see where it goes.

    Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:

    A. Proven right (if something bad happens)

    or

    B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)

    Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!

  • hfztthfztt GlostrupPosts: 839Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by AdamTM

     

    PS: Because this might be misunderstood: economy and combat are not the only parts of a game, especially an MMO, focusing on either is a big mistake. What I am advocating is interdependant game design.

    That is what EvE does. That is EXACTLY what eve does.

    There is one basic truth of wealth building: It take efford. If it did not, everyone would have it. So yeah, if you want anything resembling a player driven economy you have to factor this in.

    If you have a magic way to make Efford =/= Grind, please do share.

  • AdamTMAdamTM Frankfurt Am MainPosts: 1,376Member

    Originally posted by hfztt

    Originally posted by AdamTM

     

    PS: Because this might be misunderstood: economy and combat are not the only parts of a game, especially an MMO, focusing on either is a big mistake. What I am advocating is interdependant game design.

    That is what EvE does. That is EXACTLY what eve does.

    There is one basic truth of wealth building: It take efford. If it did not, everyone would have it. So yeah, if you want anything resembling a player driven economy you have to factor this in.

    If you have a magic way to make Efford =/= Grind, please do share.

    No EVE does not.

    Tell me something in EVE that has nothing to do with combat or economy?

    I'll actually make it even easier, name something in EVE that is not directly tied to economy.

     

     

    Also this has really no impact on what i said. Wealth in itself does not need to be important at all in a game/sandbox/themepark. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. There can be player driven economy without wealth playing an overt role.

    image
  • RoyalkinRoyalkin Abilene, TXPosts: 273Member

    A player-driven economy is fine. A player driven economy as the center of your game-design is a bad idea, or at least for me its a bad idea because I don't enjoy playing the market.

    Ok, thats fine. Your entitled to your opinion and preferences.

    EvE is a perfect example of this, there is not an aspect in the game world that does not revolve around money and the economy.

    Yes, this is because the vast majority of items in the game are produced by players, which is a player-driven economy, which is a consequence of it being a sandobx. You cannot have a player-driven economy without it affecting the game in a large way. I don't see a way to have both a player-driven economy, and not have it be a large part of the game.

    Its just another disguised progression system, it doesn't really solve anything of what you say in your second paragraph. Yes your character can progress by just paying for the subscription and queing skills, but if you don't GRIND for money, you will be effectively completely useless even with LVL5 skills.

    You are just substituting one kind of grind for another kinf of grind. This might be a question of perspective, but for me its the same thing.

    Grind will never be eliminated, it is very much a relative thing from person to person. Where I have a disdain for grinding experience, you seem to have a disdain for grinding to earn in-game currency. Both are relative perceptions and preferences, and there is nothing wrong with that.

    A sandbox can certainly have player based economy, its fine really, but we need to remember that these are games, they do not need to necessarily follow the free-market economy in real life. There is nothing saying that the economy must be the driving factor of a sandbox, in fact, a free-market economy simulation in a MMO brings the exact same problems with itself like it does in real life.

    Once again, how can you have a player-driven economy and not have it be a large part of the game?

    Its actually one of the things i think why sandboxes are not as popular, because the economical libertarian model is by its very -definition- concerned about individual wealth and not the collective, it is therefore, essentially, anti-social. Which is a bad thing for an MMO.

    I sincerely mean no disrespect here, but it sounds like you have a problem with capitalism. Eve's model is a replication of real world economics, but also in that you get a return on effort. If you want to be wealthy, you have to earn it, there is no one there who is going to give you a handout. There should be a guarantee of equal opportunity, but not of equal results.

    If the collective mentality prevailed, everyone would be equal, and there would therefore be no incentive for anyone to achieve anything, because by doing so, whatever 'extra' could be earned would be taken and given to another in order to enforce the collective.

    PS: Because this might be misunderstood: economy and combat are not the only parts of a game, especially an MMO, focusing on either is a big mistake. What I am advocating is interdependant game design.

    Sandbox game design is dependent on player actions, and because of this these player actions involve the economy and pvp. If you remove those elements the world isn't persistent, nor is it virtual. It would simply be a set of static content that players run-through, i.e. a themepark.

     

    This is very off-topic, my bad.

    image
    image
    image

  • AdamTMAdamTM Frankfurt Am MainPosts: 1,376Member

    Originally posted by Royalkin

    A player-driven economy is fine. A player driven economy as the center of your game-design is a bad idea, or at least for me its a bad idea because I don't enjoy playing the market.

    Ok, thats fine. Your entitled to your opinion and preferences.

    EvE is a perfect example of this, there is not an aspect in the game world that does not revolve around money and the economy.

    Yes, this is because the vast majority of items in the game are produced by players, which is a player-driven economy, which is a consequence of it being a sandobx. You cannot have a player-driven economy without it affecting the game in a large way. I don't see a way to have both a player-driven economy, and not have it be a large part of the game.

    There is a difference between player driven economy and free market/libertarian player driven economy, its also not a consequence of being a sandbox.

    A sandbox can be a game where everyone is self-sufficient and your victory-condition is creativity or execution through gameplay, not wealth. (see Minecraft) Interesting to note is that a game like Minecraft, if imagined on the scale of an MMORPG, would still have a player-driven economy with a barter-system, PVP, Combat, PVE etc.

    Yet the economy would not have any significantly larger impact on the gameplay than PVE for example.

    Its just another disguised progression system, it doesn't really solve anything of what you say in your second paragraph. Yes your character can progress by just paying for the subscription and queing skills, but if you don't GRIND for money, you will be effectively completely useless even with LVL5 skills.

    You are just substituting one kind of grind for another kinf of grind. This might be a question of perspective, but for me its the same thing.

    Grind will never be eliminated, it is very much a relative thing from person to person. Where I have a disdain for grinding experience, you seem to have a disdain for grinding to earn in-game currency. Both are relative perceptions and preferences, and there is nothing wrong with that.

    A sandbox can certainly have player based economy, its fine really, but we need to remember that these are games, they do not need to necessarily follow the free-market economy in real life. There is nothing saying that the economy must be the driving factor of a sandbox, in fact, a free-market economy simulation in a MMO brings the exact same problems with itself like it does in real life.

    Once again, how can you have a player-driven economy and not have it be a large part of the game?

    Its actually one of the things i think why sandboxes are not as popular, because the economical libertarian model is by its very -definition- concerned about individual wealth and not the collective, it is therefore, essentially, anti-social. Which is a bad thing for an MMO.

    I sincerely mean no disrespect here, but it sounds like you have a problem with capitalism. Why yes I do, comming from one of these socialist states like Germany I indeed have a problem with the libertarian model or free-market economy, I much more prefer social market economy. Eve's model is a replication of real world economics, but also in that you get a return on effort. If you want to be wealthy, you have to earn it, there is no one there who is going to give you a handout. There should be a guarantee of equal opportunity, but not of equal results.

    Except there is no equal opportunity in a capitalitic system. The people with more capital have "more equal" an opportunity. That is essentially what capitalism is and what it always was. Pure work and dedication does not get you further in real life and make you more wealthy than Bill Gates.

    Success in EVE is randomly generated, just like in real life, it is based on luck. Do you get ganked by pirates, do you hit a day with a good stock market, do you get scammed, etc.

    Unforseen things happen and can throw you back to the stone-age (just like in real life).

    This might really be my perspective, but I feel nobody wants to play a simulation of real life, because i  play real life 24/7 already anyways. Why not make the system -better- or -different- from RL instead of copying a flawed system in the first place.

    If the collective mentality prevailed, everyone would be equal, and there would therefore be no incentive for anyone to achieve anything, because by doing so, whatever 'extra' could be earned would be taken and given to another in order to enforce the collective.

    I think this is a flawed argument. I am currently developing a ruleset for a sandbox MMO with no economy at all, it is set in a post-scarcity society, there is no money, no shortage on resources.

    It does not necessitate an economy to make a sandbox at all.

    PS: Because this might be misunderstood: economy and combat are not the only parts of a game, especially an MMO, focusing on either is a big mistake. What I am advocating is interdependant game design.

    Sandbox game design is dependent on player actions, and because of this these player actions involve the economy and pvp. Player agency can entirely be based on different things than economy or PVP. Change in the world does not need to come from either of those. There is societal changes, creative challenges, terraforming, etc. I would urge you to understand that just because you might not find these sollutions appealing for one reason or another, that it doesnt mean they don't exist.

    If you remove those elements the world isn't persistent, nor is it virtual. It would simply be a set of static content that players run-through, i.e. a themepark.

     

    This is very off-topic, my bad.

    I absolutely understand why certain solutions seem to be cast in stone and unappealing, mostly because we use the same conventions IRL, but also because most MMORPGs and RPGs rely on the fact they were/are created around a very distinct -power fantasy-.

    What I'm advocating is that there are other, viable solutions to design-problems that do not involve the beaten path of power and vertical progression.

    image
  • KhalathwyrKhalathwyr Denton, TXPosts: 3,138Member

    I don't think that I want to see PO focused on economy LIKE Eve, but I certainly want the player economy to be developed in depth such that it's piece of the overall gameplay pie is equal to or slightly greater than all other portions respectively. All of the recent MMOs, majority of which are themeparks, have done very poorly in the "amount" or "weight" of player economy with respect to the overall game. Indeed they have taken Bioware's philosophy in that "they include crafting and economy because that's what players expect in an MMO".

     

    Now, these companies' companies implementations have, in my view, been lackluster. It's like them saying "Hey, I'm going to make you dinner" and we arrive to see that dinner is a cold bologna sandwhich, chips and a room temperature soda with no fizz. What I, and others I imagine, would prefer for dinner is a fresh salad, a 20 ounce Tbone steak, a baked potato with the works, a nice vegetable medley to compliment, a top bill wine or beer and completed with a slice of your favorite pie. Vegetarians edit as needed.

     

    Only a couple of games in my view have come near the latter. UO, SWG (preNGE), EvE, Ryzom, ATiTD and maybe WURM are on my list of those who have done so with their crafting/economic systems.

     

    Yes, I want to see their player economic crafting system be such that a person could play a non-adventuring character and build a merchantile powerhouse such that they are rightly considered for a place on a player government council. Or such that their aid or withholding of could influence kindgom wars and other politics.

     

    That makes for a more intriguing game world. 

    "Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."

    Kickstarter 2 / Naysayers 0

  • TasarakTasarak redmond, WAPosts: 43Member Uncommon

    As a veteran MMORPG gamer, I'm very interested in this title.  After reading the blogs I can say  I like what I hear so far.  I encourage other's to take the time to visit their website & get familiar with their design philosophy.   Let's hope what they have on paper translates into the vision they have described for us.  I wish them all the best.

  • RefMinorRefMinor MyTownPosts: 3,452Member
    Originally posted by AdamTM


    Originally posted by Royalkin

    After reading these blog posts, I'm much more enthusiastic about this project, and especially so with the outline of how they plan to implement the heirearchy and mechanics of 'social units'. Also with that, they hint at numerous opportunities for the socio-politically inclined player(s), such as the following,
    "...the political structures of these entities will be varied. Some will be actual kingdoms with power vested in a single monarch. Some will be oligarchies. Others will be more democratic—even a direct democracy is possible.
    [Coming from Eve, wherein the mechanics really don't support anything other than oligarchy and autocratic personality cults, I find this appealing.  Hopefully, the mechanics will enforce the rule of law when a 'kingdom' is established as a democracy, and prevent a potential tyrant from amassing total power.]  
    The economic structures of kingdoms will be varied as well. The kingdom may tax its members on their earnings to fund its operations, and that tax rate could vary from nil to 100%. Ayn Rand to Karl Marx and everything in between.
    The combination of politics and economics will create a matrix of variety in kingdoms, and that matrix is further complicated by alignment, creating a three-dimensional structure of options. If you can imagine it, you can likely custom-tailor a kingdom to deliver."
     
    Also, they seem to be aware of the mistakes made by others in the past and are eager to innovate, both of which are refreshing changes,
    "We want to mirror some of the amazing things that occurred in Ultima Online and EVE Online, but we also want to strike out on our own path.
    We also want to avoid some of the missteps that have happened in other games. We want to ensure that there's always enough space so that new settlements and kingdoms can form. We want to avoid the problem of choke points that restrict access to key resources, making whomever got to those points first the de facto "winners" in the economy.
    We're going to design Pathfinder Online so that each level of social organization arises when the game is ready for it. Slowly adding these increasing levels of sophistication will allow the society of the game to ramp up gradually and with good cohesion. As new players join, they'll always have ways to become a part of that process."
     
    Lastly, I like their choice of time based progression, rather than grinding out experience. This allows me to use my time in game to pursue other things.
    In the end, if your a sandobx fan, I would definitely keep an eye on Pathfinder Online. I will be.

    Which is what I am extremely weary off. I do not want to see yet another EVE p2w system.

    In fact, I don't want to see another game focused on economy in the first place, but it seems to me that CCP and all its developers, even those that quit, can't put that drug down.

     

    I guess you can choose one of the other 95% of MMO's to play then.
  • BlackUhuruBlackUhuru Of Angels, CAPosts: 770Member
    The new dev blog is up and it's all about settlements, hideout, watchtowers, inns, forts and more.

    Check it out www.goblinworks.com/blog/

    "It would be awesome if you could duel your companion. Then you could solo pvp".--Thanes

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.