Howdy, Stranger!

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

This game better do something quick

ThebeastttThebeasttt Member RarePosts: 1,130

Interest is dying faster then the mini CD.

 

Though they almost deserve it. The fact they tried to make a game with the Pathfinder name pvp centered is one of the most mindless decisions ever. Talk about not knowing your fanbase! That's like making a Marvel MMO centered around Jubilee. Sure a few chicks may like it but the decision makes zero sense.

D&D fans don't support it. True pathfinder fans don't support it. Even most pvp fans don't support it. Exactly who is going to be playing this game at launch? Beats me. Seems like this game needs a pretty major overhaul to get anywhere near it needs to be.

 

Offline Pathfinder fans are 100% about PvE, for starters........

Comments

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo Member UncommonPosts: 3,219

    There's a much bigger issue. I don't think pvp is it. The problem is that pathfinder is a dungeon-run game. Whereas PFO is a virtual world stable of mmorpg. The problem that should be addressed is to square both of those with each other. Just look at the other branch in the mmo tree:-

    EQ -> WOW -> .... (various themepark crash-and-burns)

    ................|

    ...............V

    ...........MOBA genre

    The natural path of that design of narrow + deep. Hence people think the mmorpg genre has been left behind.

  • damond5031damond5031 Member UncommonPosts: 444

    I just started the fifteen day trial yesterday and have played for about 3 hours. The first thing to hit me was that I didnt see anyone anywhere even though the chat box was full of people talking. The game map is HUGE and everyone seems to be spread out. The graphics are certainly old school but I dont play games for graphics. Something I found to be quite strange  is that the Npcs in town dont move and the rivers that crisscross the landscape contain no water.  

    As far as skills go, there are tons of them to train in many professions as well as combat specialties. So far I have trained many different skills in gathering/crafiting and several combat related skills to get me through the expansive forrest. I have spent most of my time so far killing bandits outside the noob villiage and gathering from the many and varied resource nodes spread about the landscape. I have also done a little bit of crafting but I dont know what I should be making and so far have only a handful of materials that I dont know what to do with

    I finally decided to try the chat channel to see if I could find anyone to help me find an active settlement and was met with a very nice, albeit small community. Before the server went down for maintenance  I was heading to a town called Brighthaven to meet up with some folks to hopefully show me the ropes. It seems that the larger guilds in this game all use Mumble, I dont know how I feel about that as I dont usually like to talk in game. 

    This game is in no way deserving of a box price at this stage. I have said it before and I will again, the devs need to drop the box price and only charge a 9 or 10 dollar monthly sub after a player finishes the trial. This game is obviously meant to be played with large numbers of people populating the giant map, forming communites and engaging in political intrigue amongst different factions, none of this is possible with the current population.  I truly believe the game has a lot of promise if the devs can generate some positive vibes within the mmo community, something they have thus far failed to do. I think the game is actually alot of fun right now but I dont think I would drop 30 dollars to continue playing (that might change).  

  • Fanndis_GoldbraidFanndis_Goldbraid Member UncommonPosts: 53

    PFO was not intended to be a themepark game at any time. There are many, many themepark MMOs and they all follow the same customer pattern of a huge enrollment for the first couple of months, followed by a huge crash after the novelty wears off, then the developers rush to save it. (See SWTOR, Wildstar, many others). Ryan and Lisa have said from the beginning this game was for a niche market, but with millions of MMO gamers, 3-5% or that market would be great in the next year to 18 months. The PvP is currently sparse but unpredictable. Later there will be many opportunities for "sanctioned" PvP, meaning features will be introduced allowing players to volunteer for PvP through factions, raids, feuds, and later (a year or so), large wars with formation combat.

    There will be dungeons much along the lines of traditional MMOs, but that will also be pretty far down the road. The first big push is on to get Holdings and Outposts, and settlement construction in the game. It is a HUGE map, but it will feel smaller as the population grows over time. Some time next year the map will expend, probably in phases, introducing more play area in all directions (we Dwarves of Forgeholm are looking forward to exploring the deep mountains for to the north and east).

    If you have a specific issue you want to ask of Ryan Dancey, the CEO of Goblinworks, he started a thread here for that very reason. Post a comment or question and he will drop in once in a while to respond.

  • AudoucetAudoucet Member UncommonPosts: 69

    PFO's fandom should stop talking about SWTOR, which is a very good game with his own customer base, and regular new content updates.

    And seriously, stop listening to Ryan's nonsense about SWTOR's development and customers feedback. I have followed SWTOR since day one, I have been in the beta from day one, I was one of the 10 top posters before the launch wipe (first French), there was a lot of disappointment obviously, but seriously, the developers were even closer from us, than Ryan is. There was a LOT of exchange, and I can't even begin to make a list of things made because of community feedback. I even pride myself, to have been successful in convincing them to include the vanity system, which was not supposed to be in the game at the beginning.

  • Fanndis_GoldbraidFanndis_Goldbraid Member UncommonPosts: 53
    Audocet, do a little independent research and see the peaks and valleys of most game releases.. SWTOR did have it. I was part of the peak, played through 50 levels twice, and there was nothing else to do. They lost tens of thousands of players with their typical themepark design. So it went F2P, as most do when they realize their model is not working. GW is trying something different and it seems to be pissing off a lot of players that don't understand that. Strange though how Star Citizen has taken in $82 million dollars and there is still no game to play. They have a subscription option too. Weird, huh? (Even weirder that I also sub there, and understand what paying a sub for a game that does not currently exist means, and feel good about doing it.
  • TraugarTraugar Member UncommonPosts: 183

    I can assure you that offline pathfinder fans are not 100% pve since I am not.  I have been running the games for my group for years, and I do allow pvp in our games.  In our home games I expect the players to play true to the character that they have made.  If that means attacking another player then so be it.  It honestly rarely happens, and repercussions of the pvp occur through rp.  I have seen it go both ways where the other players decided that they could no longer trust the character so the character became a villain that I used throughout the campaign, and the player created a new character.  I have also seen it to where they players decided to continue adventuring with the character.  Other DMs may not agree with my approach, but it fits the people I play with.  We are all over the age of 30, and have been playing together for years.  It is understood that if it happens it isn't personal.  It is simply the way the story unfolded. 

     

    As for this game.  I finally bought the early enrollment.  I think the game is in ok shape considering the state of development the game is in.  Also, considering that this is a pvp focused game I think it amazing that the players are so helpful at explaining getting started to new players.  GW is trying something different.  It is something that alot of players ask for, and I hope they are successful.  They will never have huge numbers.  They will always be a niche game, but that is something they already know and accounted for when they decided how to fund/develop this game.  

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,073
    Originally posted by Fanndis_Goldbraid
    GW is trying something different and it seems to be pissing off a lot of players that don't understand that. 

    If you think that the reason people are critical that GW is charging a box price, sub AND cash shop for a game that the reviewer here says " isn’t ready for anyone outside of the title’s most devout followers"  because we don't understand something you are quite wrong.  I get it that you are one "of the title's most devout followers" but believe me when I say the rest of us UNDERSTAND quite well.   The McDonalds in my neighborhood can try something different and charge $25 for a cheeseburger that is missing the actual meat.  People who would laugh and walk away aren't actually lacking understanding.

     

    Again, more damage has been done to this game by the 20 or so "most devout followers" than any critic.  There is a reason that post after post made here trying to advertise some game feature get's ignored.  Just look down this forum.  Every time one of you posts a "Golarion Lore Talk" or "Player Lecture" or "Chat with XX designer" nobody responds and very few people even bother to read it.   It's not the vast majority of the readers here who "don't understand".  It's the "most devout followers".  The more you come here and say how wonderful a game is that anyone with eyes can see is in dire straits, the less credibility people give your posts.  That is why someone like Thod, while still a big fan, continues to build credibility.  He talks about his hopes for the game but is quite clear about it's existing deficiencies.

     

     

    "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 :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • EdgeXEdgeX Member UncommonPosts: 39
    Originally posted by Slapshot1188

    If you think that the reason people are critical that GW is charging a box price, sub AND cash shop for a game that the reviewer here says " isn’t ready for anyone outside of the title’s most devout followers"  because we don't understand something you are quite wrong.  

    Well there is one thing I don't understand. How people support this game, and the most clueless CEO I've ever seen in my life. lol

  • AudoucetAudoucet Member UncommonPosts: 69
    Originally posted by Fanndis_Goldbraid
    Audocet, do a little independent research and see the peaks and valleys of most game releases.. SWTOR did have it. I was part of the peak, played through 50 levels twice, and there was nothing else to do. They lost tens of thousands of players with their typical themepark design. So it went F2P, as most do when they realize their model is not working. GW is trying something different and it seems to be pissing off a lot of players that don't understand that. Strange though how Star Citizen has taken in $82 million dollars and there is still no game to play. They have a subscription option too. Weird, huh? (Even weirder that I also sub there, and understand what paying a sub for a game that does not currently exist means, and feel good about doing it.

    SWTOR adapted to the market, and now, it works fine. PFO would be happy to be as much successful as SWTOR. 

    About GW doing something different... What ? A sub ? That's not difference, that's denial.

  • EdgeXEdgeX Member UncommonPosts: 39
    Originally posted by Audoucet
    Originally posted by Fanndis_Goldbraid
    Audocet, do a little independent research and see the peaks and valleys of most game releases.. SWTOR did have it. I was part of the peak, played through 50 levels twice, and there was nothing else to do. They lost tens of thousands of players with their typical themepark design. So it went F2P, as most do when they realize their model is not working. GW is trying something different and it seems to be pissing off a lot of players that don't understand that. Strange though how Star Citizen has taken in $82 million dollars and there is still no game to play. They have a subscription option too. Weird, huh? (Even weirder that I also sub there, and understand what paying a sub for a game that does not currently exist means, and feel good about doing it.

    SWTOR adapted to the market, and now, it works fine. PFO would be happy to be as much successful as SWTOR. 

    About GW doing something different... What ? A sub ? That's not difference, that's denial.

    I'm pretty sure GW would be cracking open bottles of champagne if they even had 5% of the subscribers that SWtOR had during it's f2p shift.

     

    Also to comment on Fanndis post, they didn't lose players becaause of a damn typical themepark design, everybody knew it was a themepark before release. They lost players because the game was buggy, not optimized well, and endgame was virtually nonexistant. Despite being a themepark there was no group finder at launch. I can name a million more reasons why people stopped playing SWtOR at launch. You would be the first person I've ever seen say they stopped playing SWtOR because of it's themepark design. Dude....I'm pretty sure everyone knew it was a themepark. I mean god, people were calling it a WoW clone since the very first beta.

  • ThebeastttThebeasttt Member RarePosts: 1,130
    Originally posted by Traugar

    I can assure you that offline pathfinder fans are not 100% pve since I am not.  I have been running the games for my group for years, and I do allow pvp in our games.  In our home games I expect the players to play true to the character that they have made.  If that means attacking another player then so be it.  It honestly rarely happens, and repercussions of the pvp occur through rp.  I have seen it go both ways where the other players decided that they could no longer trust the character so the character became a villain that I used throughout the campaign, and the player created a new character.  I have also seen it to where they players decided to continue adventuring with the character.  Other DMs may not agree with my approach, but it fits the people I play with.  We are all over the age of 30, and have been playing together for years.  It is understood that if it happens it isn't personal.  It is simply the way the story unfolded. 

     

    As for this game.  I finally bought the early enrollment.  I think the game is in ok shape considering the state of development the game is in.  Also, considering that this is a pvp focused game I think it amazing that the players are so helpful at explaining getting started to new players.  GW is trying something different.  It is something that alot of players ask for, and I hope they are successful.  They will never have huge numbers.  They will always be a niche game, but that is something they already know and accounted for when they decided how to fund/develop this game.  

     

    Oh sure PvP happens in pnp Pathfinder from time to time but no one plays the game for that reason. Making PFO PvP centered shows a serious disconnect with it's target audience and it's already showing even before launch.

    That said I don't know why so many people are bringing up SWTOR, that game is a terrible WoW clone that isn't much better then PFO :p

  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,713

    PO is one of those game that I will never play but I still enjoy it a lot because of the hilarious posts.

     

    1. Answer critical statements by comparing PO to another game with zero similiarities 

    2. Tell people to ask the CEO who is known to ignore any meaningful question

    3.   .....

    4. Profit

    Harbinger of Fools
  • TalonsinTalonsin Member EpicPosts: 3,619
    Originally posted by EdgeX

    Well there is one thing I don't understand. How people support this game, and the most clueless CEO I've ever seen in my life. lol

    Is it just me or does the CEO have an Eve complex?  Every time he talks, he compares PO to Eve or uses some example of Eve.  We understand, CCP let you go and you are mad but for goodness sake, show some dignity about it.  You are not going to be building the "Eve Killer".

    "Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game."  - SEANMCAD

  • flizzerflizzer Member RarePosts: 2,408
    Originally posted by Dakeru

    PO is one of those game that I will never play but I still enjoy it a lot because of the hilarious posts.

     

    1. Answer critical statements by comparing PO to another game with zero similiarities 

    2. Tell people to ask the CEO who is known to ignore any meaningful question

    3.   .....

    4. Profit

    Reading PO posts is more enjoyable than playing the game. 

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo Member UncommonPosts: 3,219
    Originally posted by Talonsin
    Originally posted by EdgeX

    Well there is one thing I don't understand. How people support this game, and the most clueless CEO I've ever seen in my life. lol

    Is it just me or does the CEO have an Eve complex?  Every time he talks, he compares PO to Eve or uses some example of Eve.  We understand, CCP let you go and you are mad but for goodness sake, show some dignity about it.  You are not going to be building the "Eve Killer".

    Looking at the other tree in the mmorpg genre from:-

     

    EQ -> WOW -> .... (various themepark crash-and-burns) => "Predicted: Star Citizen"

    ................|

    ...............V

    ...........MOBA genre

    The natural path of that design of narrow + deep. Hence people think the mmorpg genre has been left behind.

     

    UO -> SWG

    |

    V

    EVE Online

    |

    V

    ?

    I think EVE is the growth branch in this tree, hence if PFO takes a lot of contributions from EVE it makes sense. My concern is that PFO as per SWG takes too much from the other tree: EQ (from the diku-MUD) seed.

    From design pov, Ryan is correct to emulate EVE. However the calculations based on "EVE + avatars" as per the materialization of Star Citizen I think may have been an erroneous assumption of how "the market" works or should work.

  • EdgeXEdgeX Member UncommonPosts: 39
    Originally posted by MumboJumbo

    Looking at the other tree in the mmorpg genre from:-

     

    EQ -> WOW -> .... (various themepark crash-and-burns) => "Predicted: Star Citizen"

    ................|

    ...............V

    ...........MOBA genre

    The natural path of that design of narrow + deep. Hence people think the mmorpg genre has been left behind.

     

    UO -> SWG

    |

    V

    EVE Online

    |

    V

    ?

    I think EVE is the growth branch in this tree, hence if PFO takes a lot of contributions from EVE it makes sense. My concern is that PFO as per SWG takes too much from the other tree: EQ (from the diku-MUD) seed.

    From design pov, Ryan is correct to emulate EVE. However the calculations based on "EVE + avatars" as per the materialization of Star Citizen I think may have been an erroneous assumption of how "the market" works or should work.

     

    Of all the things to copy from EVE, I still don't know why they went with the time based skill system. That is one of my serious complaints about EVE. I think it's dumb to become a better pilot by selecting  something to learn, then signing offline and sitting in a space station for a day. I should become a better pilot by flying, not sitting in a space station.

  • Fanndis_GoldbraidFanndis_Goldbraid Member UncommonPosts: 53

    Ryan was the Director of Marketing at CCP for 3 years or so before he left to start the Pathfinder Online project. There are a lot of things about the way CCP created a sandbox game Ryan is adapting to the PFO systems. He can certainly tell you better than I can. Try posting a question in his thread on these forums. He has been very open about what he expects to see from the game development and the player base, as well as all the research he has done analyzing previous game releases. and in answer to EdgeX above, of course SWTOR lost players because of typical themepark design. Players hit the cap in a few days at most and bang around in end game waiting for content releases. Sadly, there was no end game in SWTOR, nor was there any subsequent content releases for ages after. It was very, very predictable.

    As far as the previous comments about SWTOR goes, the game was not very buggy at all. It ran great, the cut scenes were really awesome and it told a great story (I was on the Republic side and ran through the Jedi Sage and Trooper lines). The end game was non-existent; the structured leveling paths quickly got old, and the battlegrounds performed horribly. Players left by the tens of thousands after sitting at level cap for a few weeks, then realized that was it. After hemorrhaging so many players something had to be done, so it went F2P. It seems to have resuscitated the game, but lost a lot of the original interested players. 

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,516
    Originally posted by MumboJumbo

    There's a much bigger issue. I don't think pvp is it. The problem is that pathfinder is a dungeon-run game. Whereas PFO is a virtual world stable of mmorpg. The problem that should be addressed is to square both of those with each other. Just look at the other branch in the mmo tree:-

    EQ -> WOW -> .... (various themepark crash-and-burns)

    ................|

    ...............V

    ...........MOBA genre

    The natural path of that design of narrow + deep. Hence people think the mmorpg genre has been left behind.

    This is the real problem with sandbox games in general.  They forget that there is actually supposed to be something worthwhile to accomplish.  Progression and content are of the utmost importance in an MMORPG.  When a game lacks them, the game doesn't get played.  Its that simple.

    This isn't me trying to champion for themepark games either, because if you hadn't noticed, I hate them even more than shallow litterbox games.  There just has to be something to do in the world to make it worth fighting over.  The easiest and most relevant form of content in Pathfinders case would be dungeons as Mumbo suggested.


  • EdgeXEdgeX Member UncommonPosts: 39
    Originally posted by Fanndis_Goldbraid

    Ryan was the Director of Marketing at CCP for 3 years or so before he left to start the Pathfinder Online project. There are a lot of things about the way CCP created a sandbox game Ryan is adapting to the PFO systems. He can certainly tell you better than I can. Try posting a question in his thread on these forums. He has been very open about what he expects to see from the game development and the player base, as well as all the research he has done analyzing previous game releases. and in answer to EdgeX above, of course SWTOR lost players because of typical themepark design. Players hit the cap in a few days at most and bang around in end game waiting for content releases. Sadly, there was no end game in SWTOR, nor was there any subsequent content releases for ages after. It was very, very predictable.

    As far as the previous comments about SWTOR goes, the game was not very buggy at all. It ran great, the cut scenes were really awesome and it told a great story (I was on the Republic side and ran through the Jedi Sage and Trooper lines). The end game was non-existent; the structured leveling paths quickly got old, and the battlegrounds performed horribly. Players left by the tens of thousands after sitting at level cap for a few weeks, then realized that was it. After hemorrhaging so many players something had to be done, so it went F2P. It seems to have resuscitated the game, but lost a lot of the original interested players. 

    I'm so confused by this. You make no sense. You say they left SWtOR because of it's themepark design, but then go on to list the real reasons people left. Just because the rides are shitty at a themepark, doesn't mean all themeparks are bad, just that one. You also know they still had over 500k+ subs when they did the f2p shift right? It's just with the Star Wars name, and brand, they expected a lot more. So they took a gamble with the f2p shift, after seeing that LotRO was generating much more money after their f2p shift, and it paid off.

     

    Also I don't know why you keep comparing this game to other games. No other games were stupid enough to try to charge a monthly fee for beta.

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo Member UncommonPosts: 3,219
    Originally posted by EdgeX
    Originally posted by MumboJumbo

    Looking at the other tree in the mmorpg genre from:-

     

    EQ -> WOW -> .... (various themepark crash-and-burns) => "Predicted: Star Citizen"

    ................|

    ...............V

    ...........MOBA genre

    The natural path of that design of narrow + deep. Hence people think the mmorpg genre has been left behind.

     

    UO -> SWG

    |

    V

    EVE Online

    |

    V

    ?

    I think EVE is the growth branch in this tree, hence if PFO takes a lot of contributions from EVE it makes sense. My concern is that PFO as per SWG takes too much from the other tree: EQ (from the diku-MUD) seed.

    From design pov, Ryan is correct to emulate EVE. However the calculations based on "EVE + avatars" as per the materialization of Star Citizen I think may have been an erroneous assumption of how "the market" works or should work.

     

    Of all the things to copy from EVE, I still don't know why they went with the time based skill system. That is one of my serious complaints about EVE. I think it's dumb to become a better pilot by selecting  something to learn, then signing offline and sitting in a space station for a day. I should become a better pilot by flying, not sitting in a space station.

    A while ago in the Design Blog, Ryan explained in a very thoughtful and considerate post on MMO-RPG Progression the choices:-

    Your Pathfinder Online Character

    1. XP increase by "objective completion" accumulation e.g. WOW (PnP model)

    2. XP increase by "doing" accumulation e.g. Runscape

    3. XP increase standardized and uniform over real time for all players e.g. EVE

    It's certainly worth a read though the above summarizes it succinctly.

    =

    What all these have in common is STORED VALUE / PROGRESSION where:-

    • Money + Time + Completion = Progression + {stored and increasing only upwards}
    • So it ties in with the Pricing Model, with the Business Model, with the Design of the Game itself.
     
    I think it also helps incentivize the ealry players to carry on player a the start of the game too which is an added bonus.
     
    Those are the reasons and within that frame of context I think 3. is indeed a better model. However I feel that whole frame of context itself is in need of a radical overhawl and think there is a way to achieve this revolution in mmorpgs.
     
    In a story RPG your character = progression increase; In a competitive game the player = skill improvement
     
    Added to MMO- you also have requirement for value for money in progression.
  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo Member UncommonPosts: 3,219
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by MumboJumbo

    There's a much bigger issue. I don't think pvp is it. The problem is that pathfinder is a dungeon-run game. Whereas PFO is a virtual world stable of mmorpg. The problem that should be addressed is to square both of those with each other. Just look at the other branch in the mmo tree:-

    EQ -> WOW -> .... (various themepark crash-and-burns)

    ................|

    ...............V

    ...........MOBA genre

    The natural path of that design of narrow + deep. Hence people think the mmorpg genre has been left behind.

    This is the real problem with sandbox games in general.  They forget that there is actually supposed to be something worthwhile to accomplish.  Progression and content are of the utmost importance in an MMORPG.  When a game lacks them, the game doesn't get played.  Its that simple.

    This isn't me trying to champion for themepark games either, because if you hadn't noticed, I hate them even more than shallow litterbox games.  There just has to be something to do in the world to make it worth fighting over.  The easiest and most relevant form of content in Pathfinders case would be dungeons as Mumbo suggested.

    Where MOBA has gone is player-skill + competition and the "new characters" learning every so often plus clever business model / refinement. Where Star Citizen will go is adding greater player-skill combat but the persistent elements between modules too. So I think both directions will really work (MOBA already and SC shortly).

    For Sandboxes, I'd break down the target market into:-

    1. Bottom = Casual Layer

    2. Middle / Core = Story/RPG/Experience Layer

    3. Top / Hardcore = Competition/Skill Layer

    To achieve success all layers need their required play-style to be catered for and integrated with the other layers. The casual is huge and cheap and drops in for a draught of guaranteed entertainment at a social scene. The core always wants more story materials to experience and to create. The hardcore want power and to influence the rest of the playerbase.

    So progression is as above merely a trope of the genre's maturation. To dig deeper and re-establish a pattern for success is the way forward for sandboxes.

  • EdgeXEdgeX Member UncommonPosts: 39
    Originally posted by MumboJumbo

    A while ago in the Design Blog, Ryan explained in a very thoughtful and considerate post on MMO-RPG Progression the choices:-

    Your Pathfinder Online Character

    1. XP increase by "objective completion" accumulation e.g. WOW (PnP model)

    2. XP increase by "doing" accumulation e.g. Runscape

    3. XP increase standardized and uniform over real time for all players e.g. EVE

    It's certainly worth a read though the above summarizes it succinctly.

    =

    What all these have in common is STORED VALUE / PROGRESSION where:-

    • Money + Time + Completion = Progression + {stored and increasing only upwards}
    • So it ties in with the Pricing Model, with the Business Model, with the Design of the Game itself.
     
    I think it also helps incentivize the ealry players to carry on player a the start of the game too which is an added bonus.
     
    Those are the reasons and within that frame of context I think 3. is indeed a better model. However I feel that whole frame of context itself is in need of a radical overhawl and think there is a way to achieve this revolution in mmorpgs.
     
    In a story RPG your character = progression increase; In a competitive game the player = skill improvement
     
    Added to MMO- you also have requirement for value for money in progression.

    After reading that, I've come to the conclusion that Ryan is more clueless than I originally thought. So many things I feel are incorrect with that blog.

     

    "One of the design goals for Pathfinder Online is that characters should have a viable lifespan of at least five real-time years"

    I know people still playing the same WoW char from vanilla. Just because you make the skill timers take 5 years to max everything, doesn't really mean anything. It literally has no effect on the gameplay.

     

    "A major problem with both of these solutions is that people who play more often have characters that are fundamentally better than those of people who play less. There's nothing less fun than finding out that the buddies you introduced to a cool MMO have out-leveled your PC, and you can't adventure with them anymore unless they choose to join you in content that is boring for them, or you play with them in content where your character is unlikely to be effective and is likely to die a lot."

     

    I don't see how this is any different with a skill based timer. I can go play EVE, sure I can go join a corp and do pvp in my shitty frigate or rookie ship, but I'm pretty much just a body and nothing more. If I want to do something specific, say tackling, well you're looking at about 2 months of skill investment required. If you just introduced a friend to EVE, I doubt you are going to be doing a whole lot with them initially. It's the same situation, it just takes care of itself after a couple months of not playing the game............fun?

     

    "We also wanted to capture the idea from the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that dedication to one path would have additional benefits. Therefore, if your character chooses to stay committed to one of these archetypes until it has achieved all 20 archetype merit badges, your character will earn an additional capstone ability! (A character can train in many other skills outside of their archetype skill tree and still progress towards the capstone ability—they just need to avoid training in the skill tree of a different archtype. Don't worry—if you accidentally start to train a skill tree outside your archetype, you'll be warned, the consequences will be explained, and you'll have a chance to change that decision before it's irrevocable!)

    Of course, if you decide that it would be more interesting or fun for your character to training in the skills of more than one archetype, you'll still earn the appropriate class-type bonuses when you meet the prerequisites—you just won't be eligible for the final special capstone ability when you achieve the 20th merit badge in that archetype."

     

    Then this, goes totally against everything he just said previously

     

    I swear the more I read about this game, the more I question how people gave them money.

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo Member UncommonPosts: 3,219
    Originally posted by EdgeX
    Originally posted by MumboJumbo

    A while ago in the Design Blog, Ryan explained in a very thoughtful and considerate post on MMO-RPG Progression the choices:-

    Your Pathfinder Online Character

    1. XP increase by "objective completion" accumulation e.g. WOW (PnP model)

    2. XP increase by "doing" accumulation e.g. Runscape

    3. XP increase standardized and uniform over real time for all players e.g. EVE

    It's certainly worth a read though the above summarizes it succinctly.

    =

    What all these have in common is STORED VALUE / PROGRESSION where:-

    • Money + Time + Completion = Progression + {stored and increasing only upwards}
    • So it ties in with the Pricing Model, with the Business Model, with the Design of the Game itself.
     
    I think it also helps incentivize the ealry players to carry on player a the start of the game too which is an added bonus.
     
    Those are the reasons and within that frame of context I think 3. is indeed a better model. However I feel that whole frame of context itself is in need of a radical overhawl and think there is a way to achieve this revolution in mmorpgs.
     
    In a story RPG your character = progression increase; In a competitive game the player = skill improvement
     
    Added to MMO- you also have requirement for value for money in progression.

    After reading that, I've come to the conclusion that Ryan is more clueless than I originally thought. So many things I feel are incorrect with that blog.

     

    "One of the design goals for Pathfinder Online is that characters should have a viable lifespan of at least five real-time years"

    I know people still playing the same WoW char from vanilla. Just because you make the skill timers take 5 years to max everything, doesn't really mean anything. It literally has no effect on the gameplay.

     

    "A major problem with both of these solutions is that people who play more often have characters that are fundamentally better than those of people who play less. There's nothing less fun than finding out that the buddies you introduced to a cool MMO have out-leveled your PC, and you can't adventure with them anymore unless they choose to join you in content that is boring for them, or you play with them in content where your character is unlikely to be effective and is likely to die a lot."

     

    I don't see how this is any different with a skill based timer. I can go play EVE, sure I can go join a corp and do pvp in my shitty frigate or rookie ship, but I'm pretty much just a body and nothing more. If I want to do something specific, say tackling, well you're looking at about 2 months of skill investment required. If you just introduced a friend to EVE, I doubt you are going to be doing a whole lot with them initially. It's the same situation, it just takes care of itself after a couple months of not playing the game............fun?

     

    "We also wanted to capture the idea from the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that dedication to one path would have additional benefits. Therefore, if your character chooses to stay committed to one of these archetypes until it has achieved all 20 archetype merit badges, your character will earn an additional capstone ability! (A character can train in many other skills outside of their archetype skill tree and still progress towards the capstone ability—they just need to avoid training in the skill tree of a different archtype. Don't worry—if you accidentally start to train a skill tree outside your archetype, you'll be warned, the consequences will be explained, and you'll have a chance to change that decision before it's irrevocable!)

    Of course, if you decide that it would be more interesting or fun for your character to training in the skills of more than one archetype, you'll still earn the appropriate class-type bonuses when you meet the prerequisites—you just won't be eligible for the final special capstone ability when you achieve the 20th merit badge in that archetype."

     

    Then this, goes totally against everything he just said previously

     

    I swear the more I read about this game, the more I question how people gave them money.

    Good stuff. I still think out of those 3 types of progression real-time is best. In fact for the solution I'm working on I use a modified version of this approach. But that's not fully worked out yet... I don't know enough about EVE to say, it does sound like you can find something to do as part of a group? And again here we enter to add to progression more related concepts:-

     

    Progression: (see how important it is above: Design, Pricnig, Business) and of courrse GOALS for players

    Pacing: MMOs are designed to be large scale as below, then imho what genre has to do is work on slower pacing. The alternative is the actiony approach or do more and get more hits per game session. Traditionally MMOs have resolved this via Grind to Progression eg Filler Content and other gate-keeper via time via in-game content designs. What Real-Time does is allow matching of real time to game time progression and hence value consistency and prediction of progress for balance of progression systems (and payment). But it's also the old: Time Rich or Money Rich vs other combinations of those things on progression compared to other players eg selling a/c's etc or gold-farming to avoid boring content. Aka Time vs Money ie Investment Rate of Gameplay to Output

    Scale: Eg group vs group combats or other interactions. If there's lots of players this concept of each individual being a hero in a battle is working at the wrong scale imho. So how to resolve this issue for mmorpgs?

    I know for example one of the assumptions in PFO is that from marketing data they worked out that players overwhelmingly want to play Hero Type Characters who doll out the death/sheet in combat gloriously. Well I disagree with that and think the marketing data is only telling a small part of the full story of what players want (even if they don't know or can't explicate it themselves).

     

    From the last of those 3 major factors coming onto how they've changed the Capstone Idea, here they have not found a solution to that problem; it's again a mirror of EVE's concept of the ship driver and the ship choice.

Sign In or Register to comment.