Howdy, Stranger!

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

Pathfinder Online (Sandbox) has 48 hours left on Kickstarter

1246

Comments

  • dontadowdontadow Member UncommonPosts: 1,005

    We're from the same generation i think we just remember it diffrently, and not trying to start or keep up an argument.  But conflicts in rpgs, starting old school dnd, are done with systems in the game. What you're describin is making up your own system in your head between players or groups of players.  Creating a conflict of systems that can only be resolved with combats. 

    In dnd, their are social systems, fighting systems, war systems, diplomacy systems. /Their are rules for all of these.  These systems are run by the dm.  Unless i get a personal dm in the game, i'd rather leave these systems up to the ai as opposed  players making up systems outside of the realm of the game.  

  • BlackUhuruBlackUhuru Member Posts: 770
    @dontadow

    No it's cool I totally understand everything your saying, and you could very much be right.

    Im just a big fan of sandbox games and the freedom they allow me to have, I like to create my own back stories and follow them through in game.

    I want my RPG back in my MMOG's. Pathfinder online is backed by RPG creators, developed by RPG designers and supported by RPG community.

    I just want my freedom back!!!

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

  • blackthornnblackthornn Member UncommonPosts: 581
    Originally posted by maplestone

    "Of course, those who simply wish to avoid any PvP at all will choose to remain within the very high security zones close to NPC settlements where PvP is effectively impossible. Such players will have fewer opportunities to find adventure or to earn treasure than their braver and less risk-averse peers, but they'll be safe from griefers."

    When the developers are pre-griefing you, it hardly feels safe.

    perfect example of D&D/Pathfinder aswell.  really.  if you're on crack.

     

    Sounds like a bunch of butthurt Darkfall players trying to make a new game.

     Grouping in Old school mmo's: meeting someone at the bar and chatting, getting to know them before jumping into bed.  Current mmo's grouping: tinder.  swipe, hookup, hope you don't get herpes, never see them again.
  • BlackUhuruBlackUhuru Member Posts: 770
    Never played Darkfall but we do want a new game! Doesn't everyone?

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

  • Moaky07Moaky07 Member Posts: 2,096
    Originally posted by BlackUhuru
    Never played Darkfall but we do want a new game! Doesn't everyone?

    Yeah folks want games, but when Devs force PVP on folks, the games dont seem to do so well.

     

    If they want all the open world PVP, then let folks flag for it.

     

    Until sandbox devs get their heads out of their asses, they will continue to limit subs. A dedicated pure PVE gamer isnt going to subject themselves to FFA in order to face the best content. EVE currently is a great example of it. Miners werent leaving protected space, so now the Goons are offering bounties on suicide runs.

    Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.

  • BlackUhuruBlackUhuru Member Posts: 770
    @moaky07

    I understand your concern and Goblinworks has also talked in length about these concerns, I believe Ryan when he says he is very well aware of the potential for griefing and will do everything in his power as a developer to combat it.

    Will Ryan and Goblinworks be successful in preventing mass griefing? Can they create a fun and engaging PvE game with open world PvP? Will people like it?

    Who knows we can only hope. But what I do know is their intension, and that's to create a fun and immersive sandbox game that will provide a robust PvE and PvP experience.

    Time will tell, I might in a few years be playing an amazing sanbox game in the Riverkingdoms or maybe not. But there's one thing I known for sure! I won't be playing as a panda!!

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

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo Member UncommonPosts: 3,219
    Originally posted by dontadow
    Originally posted by BlackUhuru
    @dontadow

    I understand you like theme park mmo's and that's fine, I have played just about all of them for a couple of months each. I have also played UO for 14 years.

    I prefer not having quests to level, I prefer not having level zones, I prefer not having instances, I prefer non instanced PvP.

    I prefer sandbox!

    I prefer sanbox games because of the freedom to use my imagination, I like to be the DM of my own adventures, I like to be the DM for others adventure.

     

    And i get it, you like strategy games and not RPGs.  Yet, this website is called mMORPG.  Thus when peopel decry (more pvp) i ask why are they bringing this up on an rpg website or about something that is tradionally an RPG game. IN RPGs strategy elements are not "th game" they are usually side notes.  I can't imagine playing a game and hjaving to use my own imagiantion to tell the story.  I can do that without playing the game.  

     

    @Mumbo

    Paizo, as much asi love them is shooting themselves in the foot by toting pvp.  The majority of tabletop gamers won't associat e this with their traditonal dnd game. And whereas i like the idea of politics, I"d rather they, like real societies, have a legimtmate way to do things like declare war or politics.  if you're going to add civlization like elements, copy from the best.  Wars coudl easily be segmented on a seperate battlefield with systems that effect cities economy and such. 

    I"m not saying i don't like the idea of sandbox elements in an rpg. Dark cloud is and will forever be my favorite adventure/rpg game of all time.  But it did it right. THere was a whole intelligent subsystem game to building yhour city that directly was related to your aventuring and questing.  It was original and fun.  

    The "state of war" I think will be elaborated later on, but it will involve elaborate methods instead of "gung-ho" to initiate between 2 player run factions and become "flagged" to each other.

    PvP will be a concern because it's been heavily FFA in other sandbox (which attracts a small crowd and possibly a crowd that only like that sort of thing). If open-pvp can be sanctioned within the game rules and not creep beyond that it has potential for all sorts of different scenarios and emergent stories. You might be coming back from a dungeon and bump into a conflict at a mining site and have to decide to interfere or not?

  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,900
    Originally posted by BlackUhuru
    @moaky07

    I understand your concern and Goblinworks has also talked in length about these concerns, I believe Ryan when he says he is very well aware of the potential for griefing and will do everything in his power as a developer to combat it.

    Will Ryan and Goblinworks be successful in preventing mass griefing? Can they create a fun and engaging PvE game with open world PvP? Will people like it?

    Who knows we can only hope.

     

    My honest view is that they need to go live eventually with a PvE (oprtional PvP) server to make this a success.

    Having open world gear/ lvl/ class based PvP has always failed in my eyes. There needs to be optional PvP on offer or they WILL lose a huge section of their potentiol audience.

    Any dev that ignores the PvE co-op with optional PvP crowd is asking for a tiny niche audience. We have seen it again and again.

  • AbrexusAbrexus Member UncommonPosts: 39
    Originally posted by maplestone

    "Of course, those who simply wish to avoid any PvP at all will choose to remain within the very high security zones close to NPC settlements where PvP is effectively impossible. Such players will have fewer opportunities to find adventure or to earn treasure than their braver and less risk-averse peers, but they'll be safe from griefers."

    When the developers are pre-griefing you, it hardly feels safe.

    It sounds like you're discribing The Repopulation.  They have the exact same philosophy in thier sandbox game.  While I admit the sandbox part of their game sounds amazing to me, the semi-forced pvp is not something that I am even remotely interested in.

    Please understand I am not knocking that style of play, just saying it isn't a style that interests me.  SWG did it best IMO with their flagging system and Restus PvP.

    • Take care, young ladies, and value your wine.
    • Be watchful of young men in their velvet prime.
    • Deeply they'll swallow from your finest kegs,
    • Then swiftly be gone, leaving bitter dregs.
  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,900
    Originally posted by Abrexus
    Originally posted by maplestone

    "Of course, those who simply wish to avoid any PvP at all will choose to remain within the very high security zones close to NPC settlements where PvP is effectively impossible. Such players will have fewer opportunities to find adventure or to earn treasure than their braver and less risk-averse peers, but they'll be safe from griefers."

    When the developers are pre-griefing you, it hardly feels safe.

    It sounds like you're discribing The Repopulation.  They have the exact same philosophy in thier sandbox game.  While I admit the sandbox part of their game sounds amazing to me, the semi-forced pvp is not something that I am even remotely interested in.

    Please understand I am not knocking that style of play, just saying it isn't a style that interests me.  SWG did it best IMO with their flagging system and Restus PvP.

     

    Any game that locks me out of PvE content because I don't want to fight other players for it isn't one I am very interested in tbh.

     

  • AbrexusAbrexus Member UncommonPosts: 39
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by Abrexus
    Originally posted by maplestone

    "Of course, those who simply wish to avoid any PvP at all will choose to remain within the very high security zones close to NPC settlements where PvP is effectively impossible. Such players will have fewer opportunities to find adventure or to earn treasure than their braver and less risk-averse peers, but they'll be safe from griefers."

    When the developers are pre-griefing you, it hardly feels safe.

    It sounds like you're discribing The Repopulation.  They have the exact same philosophy in thier sandbox game.  While I admit the sandbox part of their game sounds amazing to me, the semi-forced pvp is not something that I am even remotely interested in.

    Please understand I am not knocking that style of play, just saying it isn't a style that interests me.  SWG did it best IMO with their flagging system and Restus PvP.

     

    Any game that locks me out of PvE content because I don't want to fight other players for it isn't one I am very interested in tbh.

     

    Agreed and simply put.

    • Take care, young ladies, and value your wine.
    • Be watchful of young men in their velvet prime.
    • Deeply they'll swallow from your finest kegs,
    • Then swiftly be gone, leaving bitter dregs.
  • BlackUhuruBlackUhuru Member Posts: 770
    It's not for everyone that's for sure...

    Sandbox developers need to focus on PvE and non-combat game mechanics first and just let PvP happen on its own, if you focus on PvP first the game ends up like Darkfall and MO.

    Ryan at Goblinworks has talked about this many times and understands the importance to not highlight the PvP in the game and create more content for players to do other the grief.

    What's the best way to combat griefing in mmo's?

    Develop robust PvE and non combat features first and let PvP only be a side effect of RP.

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

  • maplestonemaplestone Member UncommonPosts: 3,099
    Originally posted by BlackUhuru

    What's the best way to combat griefing in mmo's?

    Develop robust PvE and non combat features first and let PvP only be a side effect of RP.

     

    Wolves are not distracted by cardboard cutouts of sheep.

  • dontadowdontadow Member UncommonPosts: 1,005
    Originally posted by BlackUhuru
    @dontadow

    No it's cool I totally understand everything your saying, and you could very much be right.

    Im just a big fan of sandbox games and the freedom they allow me to have, I like to create my own back stories and follow them through in game.

    I want my RPG back in my MMOG's. Pathfinder online is backed by RPG creators, developed by RPG designers and supported by RPG community.

    I just want my freedom back!!!

    This won't put RPGs back in the game anymore than you can put them in the game now yoruself.  I can make up whatever I wish. I run a RPG guild in mMOs,.  The scary thing about this is they had an idea of hwo to do that, it cost 50 millino dollars. Sothey decided to scrap that idea because they don't have the money and go with something that is significantlly cheaper and further away from their vision.  Eve in fantasy land is not DnD.  

    YOu have crative people backing this game, but you also have creative people backing 4e, and we see where that went.   This game just aint dnd sounding nor pathfinder. 

    It's my same argument with Elder Scroll, and why i'm actually starting to like whati'm hearin about that.  I want hte spirit of the game. Elder scroll, now that more video and explanations are being made is sounding like elder scroll.  Adventure whereever i want, lengthy adventures, compelx dungeons that are not instanced, that sounds like elder scroll regardless of the enterface.

    DnD, i want to find some friends, go out and adventure in the land.  I want something creating adventures and challenges for me, i don't want to make them up in my head. How silly would it be to sit at a DnD table and have the DM tell a story and in your head you replace it wit hyour own. It'd be pretty difficult to play with other people. Then have the people playing next door to come in and kill everyone at your table.  Again, other than griefing or avoiding griefing, PVP serves no purpose.  

    PVP, is a 12 years olds idea of conflict resolution. Why not give us a system that has a more mature, and realistic (fantasy or otherwise)way of soliving conflicts.  PVP is Risk and I'd be far more interested in a game that was more "Shogun".  You want war, a group of people declare war and are only flagged to attack one another.  in designated war zones.  

    I used to run a tournament at Gencon, and one of the things i found otu is that the majority of people hate playing other parties in game lol. I found that out the hard way. I assumed it would be a great way to have a mid conflict in the game, pitting groups of people against one another. But tables hated it.  Primarily cause monsters, NPCs and PCs are built differently.  And even running it it felt very unDnD.  

    I want to support this project, i love the print rewards, and i'm sure this will cost no different than waiting till october,  but I simply have researched myself out of supporting something that sounds very much unlike dnd and something that sounds like something else.  

    Thsi feels like Paizo's path towards the dark side, and at a time where 5e is approaching, trying to mend the gaps of the edition wars.  Paizo did a great thing by giving players what they wanted, but the marjority of rpg players don't want pvp or a pvp based game in their DnD.  Especially if they really can't afford to make it.  

  • AbrexusAbrexus Member UncommonPosts: 39
    Originally posted by BlackUhuru
    It's not for everyone that's for sure...

    Sandbox developers need to focus on PvE and non-combat game mechanics first and just let PvP happen on its own, if you focus on PvP first the game ends up like Darkfall and MO.

    Ryan at Goblinworks has talked about this many times and understands the importance to not highlight the PvP in the game and create more content for players to do other the grief.

    What's the best way to combat griefing in mmo's?

    Develop robust PvE and non combat features first and let PvP only be a side effect of RP.

     

    You may very well be right.  I haven't done much research on Pathfinder quite honestly.  the quote I mentioned was almost an exact post of a game I was closely following called The Repopulation.  I was really hyped about that game until I found out you couldn't craft or build cities without engaging in PvP.  You could stay in the starter zones and be PvP safe, but that limited your ability to progress and that was a huge turnoff to me.

    Also the only housing that was PvP safe was the instanced housing, so if you wanted a house placed in the real world it was open to being destroyed by the PvP community.

    Again, this is all info from that other game and not Pathfinder.  If I find Pathfinder goes a different route, then I may just have to give that a much closer look.

    • Take care, young ladies, and value your wine.
    • Be watchful of young men in their velvet prime.
    • Deeply they'll swallow from your finest kegs,
    • Then swiftly be gone, leaving bitter dregs.
  • hardiconhardicon Member UncommonPosts: 335

    im really interested in this game, they have alot of great ideas but I am way too leary of scams to throw any money at it.  sorry been a cop too long to fall for that trick.  too many studios just cant get mmos off the ground nowadays and there is no guarantee you will ever see anything for the money you invest.  now once they get it to alpha stage I would pay them to test the game, basically purchase a copy of the game but I want something for my money, if not I will wait till it gets released and if it doesnt get released im sure I wont die. 

     

    I truly wish goblinworks well and will follow this game and will play it once it get released but I wont throw money away on a dream which right now that is all it is.  glad they are getting their funding though and hope none of you guys get screwed over by them.

  • dontadowdontadow Member UncommonPosts: 1,005

    So why have pvp at all if its , again , just a side effect. Why not find a more DnD like way to resolve player versus player conflict. This goes back me saying create a new game.  Stop copying off the old game. PVP, what else can u do with a game?  What about a war engine? a diplomacy engine, a trade engine?  Why develope these caveman conflict resolution intiiatives that gamers (en masse) just don't like. 

    PVP is literally anti DnD.  Any DM will tell you, you want to slow down a session of a game. You want to create real life conflict in your group. Allow players to attack one another, steal from one another and grief one another.  Quickest campaign you'll ever run. 

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832

    I'm not a fan of FFA PvP as well. But, I've also read alot of comments on the GW forums by Ryan and the other GW folks....and they seem VERY WELL aware of the pitfalls with it. They seem to have rather extensive and well thought out plans and mechanisms in thier design for addressing those pitfalls. They clearly DON'T seem to have any intention for PFO to become a gank/grief/scam fest. That's a big difference between CCP who seem to embrace those aspects of EvE as a desired part of the game.

    Personaly, I'm cautiosly optomistic that PFO won't turn into just another FFA gankfest....and PvP will be a saner, funner and more balanced portion of the game. Ultimately we'll see what happens....but unless some-one completely despises any form or aspect of PvP, I don't think peoples worst nightmares about it will come true. In the end, we'll just have to wait and see.

     

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo Member UncommonPosts: 3,219
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by BlackUhuru
    @moaky07

    I understand your concern and Goblinworks has also talked in length about these concerns, I believe Ryan when he says he is very well aware of the potential for griefing and will do everything in his power as a developer to combat it.

    Will Ryan and Goblinworks be successful in preventing mass griefing? Can they create a fun and engaging PvE game with open world PvP? Will people like it?

    Who knows we can only hope.

     

    My honest view is that they need to go live eventually with a PvE (oprtional PvP) server to make this a success.

    Having open world gear/ lvl/ class based PvP has always failed in my eyes. There needs to be optional PvP on offer or they WILL lose a huge section of their potentiol audience.

    Any dev that ignores the PvE co-op with optional PvP crowd is asking for a tiny niche audience. We have seen it again and again.

    I think single shard is best if technologically possible. (keeps the full playerbase connected)

    Open-pvp should allow "SANCTIONED PVP" not ffa-pvp with conditions and penalties applied. (increases total possible interactions)

    Agree level differences (in combat stats) and equipment should be kept in check (improves quality of interactions!).

     

  • maplestonemaplestone Member UncommonPosts: 3,099
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Personaly, I'm cautiosly optomistic that PFO won't turn into just another FFA gankfest....and PvP will be a saner, funner and more balanced portion of the game. 

    I feel like there's a joke about Charlie Brown, Lucy and a football here.

    Ah well, wishes are horses and kickstarter rides.  I can't help but feel like this project met its goals for all the wrong reasons, but it did and we'll get to see what they manage to do with their demo.

  • TraugarTraugar Member UncommonPosts: 183
    Originally posted by dontadow

    So why have pvp at all if its , again , just a side effect. Why not find a more DnD like way to resolve player versus player conflict. This goes back me saying create a new game.  Stop copying off the old game. PVP, what else can u do with a game?  What about a war engine? a diplomacy engine, a trade engine?  Why develope these caveman conflict resolution intiiatives that gamers (en masse) just don't like. 

    PVP is literally anti DnD.  Any DM will tell you, you want to slow down a session of a game. You want to create real life conflict in your group. Allow players to attack one another, steal from one another and grief one another.  Quickest campaign you'll ever run. 

    How does that equal the quickest campaign you will ever run?  I've been running a campaign for years that has migrated through several edition changes, and is currently on Pathfinder rules that allows all that.  The only rule I have is that I don't allow new players to create an evil character, and that is because most new players don't have any imagination on how an evil character would actually be ran.  If someone chooses to do that why stop them?  The rest of the party is the ones that have to decide to either continue adventuring with them or not.  They are the ones that have to be able to justify IC'ly that they continue to travel with someone that they know is robbing them blind or something.  I also don't force my players to a specific railroad set of actions.  If I have spent a great deal of time coming up with a plot that has a big shiny clue that the orcs are attacking from the north for example, and they completely miss it and go south then I get to wing the session because most of what I prepared is useless.  I guess I may just be more freeform than other DMs though, but I have never had any issues as a result of my way of running a game. 

    For the people who feel that PvP is a 12 year olds way of resolving conflict let me ask you a question.  Let's pretend you have a low int/wis half orc barbarian.  Is it so hard to believe that his way of resolving an arguement is to take a swing at the other person?  

  • dontadowdontadow Member UncommonPosts: 1,005
    Originally posted by Traugar
    Originally posted by dontadow

    So why have pvp at all if its , again , just a side effect. Why not find a more DnD like way to resolve player versus player conflict. This goes back me saying create a new game.  Stop copying off the old game. PVP, what else can u do with a game?  What about a war engine? a diplomacy engine, a trade engine?  Why develope these caveman conflict resolution intiiatives that gamers (en masse) just don't like. 

    PVP is literally anti DnD.  Any DM will tell you, you want to slow down a session of a game. You want to create real life conflict in your group. Allow players to attack one another, steal from one another and grief one another.  Quickest campaign you'll ever run. 

    How does that equal the quickest campaign you will ever run?  I've been running a campaign for years that has migrated through several edition changes, and is currently on Pathfinder rules that allows all that.  The only rule I have is that I don't allow new players to create an evil character, and that is because most new players don't have any imagination on how an evil character would actually be ran.  If someone chooses to do that why stop them?  The rest of the party is the ones that have to decide to either continue adventuring with them or not.  They are the ones that have to be able to justify IC'ly that they continue to travel with someone that they know is robbing them blind or something.  I also don't force my players to a specific railroad set of actions.  If I have spent a great deal of time coming up with a plot that has a big shiny clue that the orcs are attacking from the north for example, and they completely miss it and go south then I get to wing the session because most of what I prepared is useless.  I guess I may just be more freeform than other DMs though, but I have never had any issues as a result of my way of running a game. 

    For the people who feel that PvP is a 12 year olds way of resolving conflict let me ask you a question.  Let's pretend you have a low int/wis half orc barbarian.  Is it so hard to believe that his way of resolving an arguement is to take a swing at the other person?  

    I understand that you have modified the rules of the game, but as per the rules of game players should be within one alignment of each other. It's also quite unbelievable for good players to party or travel with evil players for any length of time. Dnd was designed as a cooperative game, so actions against other players are against the design of the game. 

    I can only speak to the hundreds of players I've dm'd, and few would want to be apart of a campaign that was consistently derailed because the DM is not following the rules and restricting alighnment.  

    Say you have that orc.  Following pathfinder rules his ability score isn't lower than a 7, which is smart enough to know right from wrong.  Run your game how you want, but if you're breaking rules to allow your dm style that's on you.  If you have a player constantly derailing the campaign, trust me, your other players don't like it.  

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo Member UncommonPosts: 3,219
    Originally posted by maplestone
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Personaly, I'm cautiosly optomistic that PFO won't turn into just another FFA gankfest....and PvP will be a saner, funner and more balanced portion of the game. 

    I feel like there's a joke about Charlie Brown, Lucy and a football here.

    Ah well, wishes are horses and kickstarter rides.  I can't help but feel like this project met its goals for all the wrong reasons, but it did and we'll get to see what they manage to do with their demo.

    There's two sides to this. One it seems the pledge awards tapped the current Pathfinder populace in spades. So just how interested they are in the actual MMO side of the kickstarter is indeed questionable vs the Pathfinder merchandise? That said, there's a good community, if PfO can tap and target specifically, that could be a very positive for the mmo experience.

    Anyway, it's still a pipe-dream at this twinkling stage but the vote of confidence is very handy.

  • BlackUhuruBlackUhuru Member Posts: 770
    @dontadow

    How can you not have PvP in the River Kingdoms? Purely from an RP perspective it's the perfect setting for PvP.

    And remember in Pathfinder Online PvP doesn't just mean killing people, if you read the blogs and Ryan's posts on Paizo, combat PvP is a very small portion of what PvP means in PFO.

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

  • DeaconXDeaconX Member UncommonPosts: 3,062
     
    4,212

    Backers

     
    $307,843

    pledged of $50,000 goal

     

    Damn... over 300K.  Pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.