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: Funding Goal REACHED!

2456

Comments

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLPosts: 4,530Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ozmodan
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Perhaps if you labeled it as the Free For All Full Loot Player versus Player Indie Sandbox, you might get more activity, heh?  Maybe the reason why sandboxes haven't done well since their inception is their insistence on putting a large focus on PvP?

    Exactly.  The only successful pvp games, for example DAoC, have had significant pve areas, you went into pvp areas by choice.  The pvp everywhere choice has not worked to this point.  Even UO was a far more successful game after the pve areas were added.  I much prefer a sandbox, but I really won't support one that has no significant pve areas any more. 

    This statement is typical of the three blind mice syndrome: "They have some pretty significant mechanics to cut down on random ganking.  The "good guys" will have quite an edge".  

    Salem was supposed to have a strong anti ganking ruleset and yet, it only took the gankers a little while before they easily got around those rules.  You can wear blinders all you want, but the facts are obvious to anyone.

    Personally I am amazed that a developer can't figure that fact out.

     Really?  EvE online seems to have had a pretty good run.  Given that the CEO is from CCP and is pulling many of the concepts I'm fairly excited about a Fantasy Sandbox with both PvP AND PvE...

     

    Speaking of which.. if you are stating there is limited PvE in Pathfinder you are very misinformed...

     

     

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • MaelwyddMaelwydd CrawleyPosts: 1,123Member

    They need just under $10,000 an hour.

     

    I am broke at the moment while studying but even so I am sorely tempted to give a donation. Even $5 can help if enough give 5$...in fact, while writing this is decided to donate and just not eat for a day...well eat less!

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo LondonPosts: 3,221Member
    Originally posted by Ozmodan
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Perhaps if you labeled it as the Free For All Full Loot Player versus Player Indie Sandbox, you might get more activity, heh?  Maybe the reason why sandboxes haven't done well since their inception is their insistence on putting a large focus on PvP?

    Exactly.  The only successful pvp games, for example DAoC, have had significant pve areas, you went into pvp areas by choice.  The pvp everywhere choice has not worked to this point.  Even UO was a far more successful game after the pve areas were added.  I much prefer a sandbox, but I really won't support one that has no significant pve areas any more. 

    This statement is typical of the three blind mice syndrome: "They have some pretty significant mechanics to cut down on random ganking.  The "good guys" will have quite an edge".  

    Salem was supposed to have a strong anti ganking ruleset and yet, it only took the gankers a little while before they easily got around those rules.  You can wear blinders all you want, but the facts are obvious to anyone.

    Personally I am amazed that a developer can't figure that fact out.

    More on PvP:

     

    Kickstarter Community Thread: Player vs. Player Conflict

    The core design guideline for Pathfinder Online is "maximize meaningful human interaction". That principle informs every aspect of the game, in ways large and small.

    One of the most important impacts is that your character will be often at risk of encountering other characters in combat, "Player vs. Player".

    "Often At Risk" is a key phrase. You will not always be at such risk.

    There will be some times and some places where you will be safe from any unwanted PvP activity. In general this will be a condition within powerful NPC Settlements who have the ability to enforce peaceable relations between characters.

    There will be other places where the risk will be substantially reduced because the NPCs will be able to react to anyone who makes an unwanted attack against you fast enough to have a high likelihood of killing your attacker before they can kill your character, making such assaults highly uncommon. This kind of protection will primarily be provided when you are in an area near a powerful NPC Settlement.

    There will be some places where the NPC response will not be fast enough to stop an attacker from killing your character, but will be fast enough to ensure that the attacker dies as well. This makes it less likely that you will be attacked randomly; rather such attacks will be carefully planned and executed by groups with a sense for the risk/reward of their actions. This level of protection will exist on the edges of NPC controlled territory.

    Outside of NPC controlled territory, player character decisions will have a strong influence on how secure a given area is - or is not!

    We mention meaningful human interaction. The key is meaningful. Somebody ganking newbies without any consequences isn't meaningful. Somebody getting killed while they transport rare ore for the sword they are building, who then gathers some allies and goes after the attacker after putting a bounty on their head IS meaningful interaction. Both result in the death of a character. The first is something we don't want since it isn't meaningful, the second is something we totally want, because it IS meaningful.

    [...]

    We're happy to discuss this issue in more detail in this thread, and many members of the community will likely have their own opinions and experiences to share as well!

    -

    Designers Talk PvP

     

  • HeretiqueHeretique Posts: 1,101Member Uncommon
    Hopefully they can get this game out to the masses sooner rather than later.

    Originally posted by salsa41
    are you have problem ?

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo LondonPosts: 3,221Member
    Originally posted by Heretique
    Hopefully they can get this game out to the masses sooner rather than later.

    Shorter dev for mmorpgs is good because it reduces risk and building up an "mmo mortgage" that then needs years and tons of subs to pay off. So PFO should be a-ok for first few years eventually climbing up to the first 100k sub or a/c number. :)

    THE KEY is to speed up dev however and lean launch to the peep most amped for a sandbox fantasy mmorpg. A Journey of a Thousand Miles Begins with a Single Step .

    Originally posted by strangiato2112

    open world pvp + not earning your skills = no thanks

    time based exp is just silly to me, completely non-immersive with no logic to it whatsoever.  How this can be a foundation of a game is beyond me.  Yes, I know EvE uses it as well.  I just hope this 'feature' goes no further.

    For more on PvP: To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms PvP

    For more on Character Progression: Your Pathfinder Online Character

    -

    The closest failed KS project I've heard of:  >"M.U.L.E.-inspired trading sim Alpha Colony missed its $50,000 goal by just $28" image

     

     

  • StofftierStofftier berlinPosts: 93Member
    First thing by looking the Video on the site was for me "What Darkfall 3.0?"
  • victorbjrvictorbjr Quezon CityPosts: 186Member Uncommon

    U MARIO VAN PEEPLEZ BETTER BACKS IT!

     

    BACKS IT I SAY OR THE GOBLIN GETS THE HOSE!

    A writer and gamer from the Philippines. Loves his mom dearly. :)

    Can also be found on http://www.gamesandgeekery.com

  • GhavriggGhavrigg Halifax, NSPosts: 778Member Uncommon
    Holy shit, it bumped up from 872k to 940k overnight.... maybe they'll barely make it. It does look very promising, but I don't have any money to just give away.
  • BlackUhuruBlackUhuru Of Angels, CAPosts: 770Member

    Go go go go ... Only 7hrs left to pledge! Big push looks like it's going to fund!!

     

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

  • ObiClownobiObiClownobi CoruscantPosts: 186Member
    Looks to be well on target, kick starters get a big boost near the end as the undecideds decide their $20 will actually make a difference.

    image
    "It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs

  • adam_noxadam_nox hays, KSPosts: 2,036Member Uncommon
    All the addons and adventurer packs and daily deals stuff confuses me and is one reason I haven't pledged, I really don't know what I'll get and what I have to pay to addon. 
  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo LondonPosts: 3,221Member
    Originally posted by adam_nox
    All the addons and adventurer packs and daily deals stuff confuses me and is one reason I haven't pledged, I really don't know what I'll get and what I have to pay to addon. 

    Pledge Guide Link

    Any Q's, fire away or pledge and ask on the comments section!

  • strangiato2112strangiato2112 Richmond, VAPosts: 1,538Member Common
    Originally posted by Jayaris
    Originally posted by strangiato2112

    open world pvp + not earning your skills = no thanks

    time based exp is just silly to me, completely non-immersive with no logic to it whatsoever.  How this can be a foundation of a game is beyond me.  Yes, I know EvE uses it as well.  I just hope this 'feature' goes no further.

    Latent learning.

    Your character does stuff when you're not logged in?

    Not sure how you think thats "not logical". 

    what you do while logged in is then irrelevant.  How is this logical?

     

  • ValentinaValentina Los Angeles, CAPosts: 1,676Member Uncommon

    DONAAAATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    By the way, offline activity adds a lot to the game in Age of Wushu, it's completely viable without making your work while online obsolete or irrelevant. So it's possible.

  • JimmydeanJimmydean Ypsilanti, MIPosts: 1,270Member
    And how long before they ask for another million and don't back the product if they don't get it? I don't get there kickstarter things. People pay hundreds / thousands of dollars for a game they have no clue will be any good, or will even come to fruition. In the words of many Bros, seems legit.
  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHPosts: 7,193Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Slapshot1188
    Originally posted by Ozmodan
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Perhaps if you labeled it as the Free For All Full Loot Player versus Player Indie Sandbox, you might get more activity, heh?  Maybe the reason why sandboxes haven't done well since their inception is their insistence on putting a large focus on PvP?

    Exactly.  The only successful pvp games, for example DAoC, have had significant pve areas, you went into pvp areas by choice.  The pvp everywhere choice has not worked to this point.  Even UO was a far more successful game after the pve areas were added.  I much prefer a sandbox, but I really won't support one that has no significant pve areas any more. 

    This statement is typical of the three blind mice syndrome: "They have some pretty significant mechanics to cut down on random ganking.  The "good guys" will have quite an edge".  

    Salem was supposed to have a strong anti ganking ruleset and yet, it only took the gankers a little while before they easily got around those rules.  You can wear blinders all you want, but the facts are obvious to anyone.

    Personally I am amazed that a developer can't figure that fact out.

     Really?  EvE online seems to have had a pretty good run.  Given that the CEO is from CCP and is pulling many of the concepts I'm fairly excited about a Fantasy Sandbox with both PvP AND PvE...

     

    Speaking of which.. if you are stating there is limited PvE in Pathfinder you are very misinformed...

     

     

    The small protective pvp areas in Pathfinder as they are described don't even come close to what Eve offers.    It is hard to replicate Eve's design in a fantasy world.  New players will try the game, get ganked.  Some will stay, most will leave.  So the game ends up with a hardcore base.  That is great for players who like that.  Problem with games like this, there is little choice, you always have pvp close at hand, you just can't have a casual day if you don't feel like pvping.

    I have read their design and I have big problems with it.  You will too, once you figure it out.

  • ThorkuneThorkune Eastern, KYPosts: 1,830Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jimmydean
    And how long before they ask for another million and don't back the product if they don't get it? I don't get there kickstarter things. People pay hundreds / thousands of dollars for a game they have no clue will be any good, or will even come to fruition. In the words of many Bros, seems legit.

    With all of the "game changers" that we have gotten in the past few years, I would never donate to a promise. As my grand pappy used to say "That's like buying a pig in a poke". Just my honest opinion.

  • BlackUhuruBlackUhuru Of Angels, CAPosts: 770Member

    965K WOOT...!!!

     

    35k to fund this GO GO GO GO GO..!!!!!

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

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jimmydean
    And how long before they ask for another million and don't back the product if they don't get it? I don't get there kickstarter things. People pay hundreds / thousands of dollars for a game they have no clue will be any good, or will even come to fruition. In the words of many Bros, seems legit.

    Well, look at it this way,

    People pay thousands of dollars to back small projects all the time. Small indy movies, small indy games, etc.

    There is no guarantee that they are going to make their money back. They back it because they believe in the project, want to support it and "perhaps" they will make some money back.

    With these kickstarter projects it's more like they believe in the project, want to support it, like the pitch that was given and take the chance that they are going to get a game/product that caters to their interests because mainstream companies aren't making the games/products that they are interested in.

  • AzrileAzrile Houston, MDPosts: 2,582Member

    The devs do seem to be going in a little nieve regarding pvp.  Richard Garriot said he was overwhelmed by how evil people were.  He really thought  the ´good guys´ would outnumber the reds by such a large amount that pking would rarely happen.  He was also very neive about how skillful players would be at avoiding/cheating any type of noterity system he installed.  The first few years of UO, the devs were constantly 6 months behind the latest éxploit´ that basically allowed one player to kill another player without ever being marked as a criminal.

    Other than the one CCP guy, the rest of the guys seem to be tabletop guys or writers (which is funny considering they say that ´players´ write the story.  I would feel much better about this title if there were some more hardcore design guys on team, or someone with ingame economics experience.  You have all this focus on crafting and economy and politics.. and then a bunch of people on staff who made their money writing tabletop games and books.

    6 hours,  32k to go.. they got their money.. let the countdown to 2014 begin.

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLPosts: 4,530Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ozmodan
    Originally posted by Slapshot1188
    Originally posted by Ozmodan
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Perhaps if you labeled it as the Free For All Full Loot Player versus Player Indie Sandbox, you might get more activity, heh?  Maybe the reason why sandboxes haven't done well since their inception is their insistence on putting a large focus on PvP?

    Exactly.  The only successful pvp games, for example DAoC, have had significant pve areas, you went into pvp areas by choice.  The pvp everywhere choice has not worked to this point.  Even UO was a far more successful game after the pve areas were added.  I much prefer a sandbox, but I really won't support one that has no significant pve areas any more. 

    This statement is typical of the three blind mice syndrome: "They have some pretty significant mechanics to cut down on random ganking.  The "good guys" will have quite an edge".  

    Salem was supposed to have a strong anti ganking ruleset and yet, it only took the gankers a little while before they easily got around those rules.  You can wear blinders all you want, but the facts are obvious to anyone.

    Personally I am amazed that a developer can't figure that fact out.

     Really?  EvE online seems to have had a pretty good run.  Given that the CEO is from CCP and is pulling many of the concepts I'm fairly excited about a Fantasy Sandbox with both PvP AND PvE...

     

    Speaking of which.. if you are stating there is limited PvE in Pathfinder you are very misinformed...

     

     

    The small protective pvp areas in Pathfinder as they are described don't even come close to what Eve offers.    It is hard to replicate Eve's design in a fantasy world.  New players will try the game, get ganked.  Some will stay, most will leave.  So the game ends up with a hardcore base.  That is great for players who like that.  Problem with games like this, there is little choice, you always have pvp close at hand, you just can't have a casual day if you don't feel like pvping.

    I have read their design and I have big problems with it.  You will too, once you figure it out.

     

    You may have missed the important parts then... about how the actual mechanics will discourage random ganking.   I have actually read them and my concern is the opposite, that the field is tilted soo far to the 'good" side that we will not have many bandits around.

     

    Also, the first 9 months of the world it will be established and developed by the Crowforgers.  the OVERWHELMING majority of these folks are anti-PK.   A society will be built... and then at release other players will be allowed in.  This is a radically different concept than has been tried before.

     

     

    But you know what.. if it's not your cup of tea go pour yourself one from another teapot.  THIS one is gonna fund with just $30k left.   I will be in this world on day one.. so i'll let you know how it's going :-)

     

     

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • TsaboHavocTsaboHavoc PinheiralPosts: 351Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Azrile

    The devs do seem to be going in a little nieve regarding pvp.  Richard Garriot said he was overwhelmed by how evil people were.  He really thought  the ´good guys´ would outnumber the reds by such a large amount that pking would rarely happen.  He was also very neive about how skillful players would be at avoiding/cheating any type of noterity system he installed.  The first few years of UO, the devs were constantly 6 months behind the latest éxploit´ that basically allowed one player to kill another player without ever being marked as a criminal.

    Other than the one CCP guy, the rest of the guys seem to be tabletop guys or writers (which is funny considering they say that ´players´ write the story.  I would feel much better about this title if there were some more hardcore design guys on team, or someone with ingame economics experience.  You have all this focus on crafting and economy and politics.. and then a bunch of people on staff who made their money writing tabletop games and books.

    6 hours,  32k to go.. they got their money.. let the countdown to 2014 begin.

    i do rather donate 100$ to a writer making a game then giving 1c to the next themepark trash, we ll make it, suck it up themepark apologists

  • Rambo621Rambo621 McKinney, TXPosts: 28Member
    "builds taverns! role-play with friends! new players are nearly as good as veterans! doing anything is pointless because skills level themselves!!!"
    "virtually no npc-run shops! players will sit in one spot for days to buy and sell items! worthless pvp! pk someone and you might get banned!"

    image

  • Nemesis7884Nemesis7884 ZurichPosts: 880Member Uncommon
    Eve is quite successful with it and growing, so it cant be that bad...besides, where is the difference in 4 hours of wIting or 4 houds of sensles grinding
  • AzrileAzrile Houston, MDPosts: 2,582Member
    Originally posted by TsaboHavoc
    Originally posted by Azrile

    The devs do seem to be going in a little nieve regarding pvp.  Richard Garriot said he was overwhelmed by how evil people were.  He really thought  the ´good guys´ would outnumber the reds by such a large amount that pking would rarely happen.  He was also very neive about how skillful players would be at avoiding/cheating any type of noterity system he installed.  The first few years of UO, the devs were constantly 6 months behind the latest éxploit´ that basically allowed one player to kill another player without ever being marked as a criminal.

    Other than the one CCP guy, the rest of the guys seem to be tabletop guys or writers (which is funny considering they say that ´players´ write the story.  I would feel much better about this title if there were some more hardcore design guys on team, or someone with ingame economics experience.  You have all this focus on crafting and economy and politics.. and then a bunch of people on staff who made their money writing tabletop games and books.

    6 hours,  32k to go.. they got their money.. let the countdown to 2014 begin.

    i do rather donate 100$ to a writer making a game then giving 1c to the next themepark trash, we ll make it, suck it up themepark apologists

    What is there to suck up.  I enjoy themeparks if they are done well ( WOW), but my first 6 years in an MMO were in UO from almost day 1.    What I am stating is common sense.. if you are making a game where the story is driven by players, and the main part of the game is systems like crafting, economy and politics..   wouldn´t it be better to have the ´story-writers´ making a themepark game and the hardcore system designers and economists making your sandbox.

    I have two major problems with this title.  First is the lack of real experience from the devs in regards to creating the systems ingame.  They have one guy who worked on an MMO before in some capacity.  The other major problem I have is the early access + crowdsourcing they are doing.  The game is going to be completely dominated by the people who get into early access, who will be helping to write a lot of the rules.  Anyone coming into the game after that will be relegated to sheep... very similar to Eve.   If you joined Eve in the last 4 years, the best advice someone could give you was to join a large corp and be a peon.  By the time the ´real´ players join PFO, the factions will already be well developed, the map will already be carved up and the rules will already be in place that encourage you to join an existing faction and be a sheep for one of the people who got in early access.

Sign In or Register to comment.