If they go full-out sandbox, it's just going to end up feeling generic and bland. The whole sandbox vs themepark debate reminds me of the pen-and-paper RPG scene of the 90's, where you had two main opinions: crunchy and fluffy.
1. Crunch was a game system designed with lots of rules and lots of charts. These were usually the class based systems where your character was defined by his profession, meaning you could do the stuff you could do because of the class you chose. Some of them got pretty convoluted with the stuff like combat. Roll to hit, then roll to see where you hit, and what the effect of that hit is, with all kinds of modifiers. If you like rolling dice, and if you like to have the action sort of play out in a way that can surprise everyone ("wow, it looks like you crushed 3 ribs in, puncturing his lungs"), then Crunch is pretty great.
2. Fluffy was very light on rules, favoring simple dice mechanics and very few charts or modifiers. These were typically skill-based systems where your character is defined by the skills he posseses. Combat is much faster, and less specific. There are a lot of time where you could go hours without actually having to roll dice, as many of these systems advertised themselves as being focused on roleplaying rather than combat.
Ultimately, Crunch systems won out in terms of popularity, and the Fluffy systems became more of a proto-hipster thing, where people would play them because they were different. The fact is, people like to roll dice, so Crunch had an inherent advantage. The other problem, and the one that's relevant to this thread, is that Fluffy systems often resulted in very bland characters that were the result of being able to min/max easier. Stuff like, no one ever taking a "driving" skill because it never comes up in a game session and players know it would be a waste. Everyone ends up taking the same combat, observational, and persuasion skills because they get used very often, with obvious benefits.
With MMO's, crunch is more like themepark/trinity, and fluffy is more like sandbox/skills. Look at all of the sandbox games out there and you'll see that, over time, characters all sort of congeal into the same skills. Maybe a few archetypes emerge like, "ranged dps" or "capital ship captain" or whatever, but still just ends up being a small collection of classes. The problem is that, unlike pre-established classes, these highly-efficient skill-based characters that everyone ends up making have no real sense of lore or hinderences attached to them, which is why they feel generic.
What's really ironic about Pathfinder Online is that the game is actually based on a Crunchy system (D&D 3.5) with classes. Everything about their classes makes the game sound like it will be quite bland.
1. No Grinding? Sounds good on paper, except that the whole "queue up skills and just wait for time to pass" idea means there's less reason to actually *play* the game. You're removing on the rewards of playing an MMO in the first place. I'm all for less grinding, especially when it comes to stuff like Reputation grinds, but simply queuing up skills to learn and then logging off or walking around doing nothing seems rather dull. Efficient maybe, but dull.
2. No Classes? The way the describe it, it sounds like they are talking about a Kingoms of Amalur type thing, where your "role" is determined by the skills you've trained. Except that, since it's still a skill-based system, everyone will eventually train the same skills related to the "role" they wish to play, but without any of the fun lore and identity that might come with having an actual class name.
3. Player Structures? I'll believe it when I see it. This is one of those features that all kinds of MMO's want to include, but it's just not at all easy to impliment. There's a reason games always have housing as instanced features rather than actually part of the world. If they can pull it off, cool. Just dont't get your hopes up for Sim City online anytime soon.
4. Freedom of Allegience? Again, this just means more generic character identity. It is functionaly no different than a Guild system.
5. More than a Gankfest? Good luck with that. Open world PvP is always going to have ganking, regardless of any good intentions the dev's might have.
6. Real Battles? Yeah right. If you guys are imagining Braveheart, with ranks of soldiers charger each other, forget it. Not many engines can handle a bunch of people in the same area all fighting like that, much less at an acceptible graphics level. Like player cities, this is one of those features that never seems to work out.
7. Less Tedious Crafting? Maybe so. This is one of the areas of MMO's that could be improved pretty easily. Since crafting is more of a mechanical and design limitation, than a technical one, they might very well be able to get a system up and running the way they describe.
8. More Meaningful PvE? Again, maybe. Their examples sound an aweful lot like ANET's whole dynamic event crap, or even rifts. Like crafting, it's more of a mechanical challenge than a technical one, though, which means they could make it happen if they actually follow through with the goal.
9. All Players are Useful? I've heard that before. Almost the exact same examples were given for WAR, actually. The problem is, either you handle it with scaling (such as GW2) or you handle it by simply making the differences between various player levels meaningless. Either way, it contributes to the whole "generic" feel of many sandbox games, where you never seem to feel like you are gaining in power. Look at the complaints Oblivion and Skyrim got over no matter how high your level, the world always seems to get just as powerful. There's no progression, and it's less fun.
10. Trade is Meaningful? This might work, but again, it's one of those core designs that needs to be fully implimented to work, otherwise it completely breaks down. Some of it would be easier to do though, like having to manually take goods from one place to another. Combined with all the other very-difficult-impliment features they are wanting, I just can't see this getting the attention it needs.
Sorry for the long post, but I just can't see this game working out as they want it to. I know they are just looking for funding, so they are pitching around some very high-level concepts. It's just important that you guys understand that most of this stuff wouldn't actually get into a game ready for release anytime in the next decade, most likely. At best, you'll get a crappy indie "work in progress," as if we don't have enough of those. The game sounds fun though, it's just not realistic.
What's really ironic about Pathfinder Online is that the game is actually based on a Crunchy system (D&D 3.5) with classes. Everything about their classes makes the game sound like it will be quite bland.
2. No Classes? The way the describe it, it sounds like they are talking about a Kingoms of Amalur type thing, where your "role" is determined by the skills you've trained. Except that, since it's still a skill-based system, everyone will eventually train the same skills related to the "role" they wish to play, but without any of the fun lore and identity that might come with having an actual class name.
-
Sorry for the long post, but I just can't see this game working out as they want it to. I know they are just looking for funding, so they are pitching around some very high-level concepts. It's just important that you guys understand that most of this stuff wouldn't actually get into a game ready for release anytime in the next decade, most likely. At best, you'll get a crappy indie "work in progress," as if we don't have enough of those. The game sounds fun though, it's just not realistic.
Thanks for the info "Crunchy vs Fluffy" - that was cool to learn about.
RE: Classes, they should be interesting as it's skill-training and you equip x3 weapons max. on your avatar/person and due to encumbrance you can't carry too much. But you can change those x3 weapons when you go home eg. So it's in some ways more interesting than GW2's x2 weapon sets out of a small range of weapons permissible per class. I think that's kinda good. In terms of everyone training the same stuff, it's a danger, but the design is HIGHLY-GROUP orientated, so groups will need specialists across the board to function better, I believe. That might help?
-
I agree, atm it's all just spitballing in writing and video - but at least this mmorpg is trying something different. They are also doing a lean launch with feature stubs, so a lot of that stuff won't be ready right away and they say they'll take player-feedback on what gets developed and in what priority also.
Finally: The formations thing (in particular) is one thing that could be culled if it just does not work ie "not fun", "can't manage it technically". But I think it's a great step up for creating actual wars with battles as well as other forms of combat (many different factions).
Regarding the highlighted: One day one's got to come good, eh?
What's really ironic about Pathfinder Online is that the game is actually based on a Crunchy system (D&D 3.5) with classes. Everything about their classes makes the game sound like it will be quite bland.
2. No Classes? The way the describe it, it sounds like they are talking about a Kingoms of Amalur type thing, where your "role" is determined by the skills you've trained. Except that, since it's still a skill-based system, everyone will eventually train the same skills related to the "role" they wish to play, but without any of the fun lore and identity that might come with having an actual class name.
-
...
Thanks for the info "Crunchy vs Fluffy" - that was cool to learn about.
RE: Classes, they should be interesting as it's skill-training and you equip x3 weapons max. on your avatar/person and due to encumbrance you can't carry too much. But you can change those x3 weapons when you go home eg. So it's in some ways more interesting than GW2's x2 weapon sets out of a small range of weapons permissible per class. I think that's kinda good. In terms of everyone training the same stuff, it's a danger, but the design is HIGHLY-GROUP orientated, so groups will need specialists across the board to function better, I believe. That might help?
-
...
I read on their site that they think they have a solution to the tendency to multiclass. They aren't going with capstone abilities but they have in mind an ability system like capstone they're calling 'focus'. So in my understanding you can train up your wizard skills but also train up rogue skills so you can gain dodge and some defensive benefits. Then as long as all the skills you actually slot are in one of the class archetypes and are equivalent to L20 you get this Focus ability.
So if you take some time out and put it into a multiclass build you will still not have eliminated your opportunity to get the bonuses of dedication. And since there is no upper limit, as far as we know, to the number of skills you can have (just the number you can slot) the opportunities for custom builds are wide open.
With MMO's, crunch is more like themepark/trinity, and fluffy is more like sandbox/skills.
Not buying it. Great post in most respects, but the bias is evident to me right there in that line. Case in point: Skyrim: Elder scrolls is fluffy by your definition, and iwhether a game is MMO or solo is irrelevant to crunchines or fluffiness.
With MMO's, crunch is more like themepark/trinity, and fluffy is more like sandbox/skills.
Not buying it. Great post in most respects, but the bias is evident to me right there in that line. Case in point: Skyrim: Elder scrolls is fluffy by your definition, and iwhether a game is MMO or solo is irrelevant to crunchines or fluffiness.
Elder Scrolls would be fluffy, in the context I'm talking about. Actually, the game Daggerfall was the main reason I even got into the fluffy RPG's back in the 90's at all. Not sure if you played it, but it had a really in-depth character generation process where you pick the skills you want, and pick what kind of advantages and disadvantages you had and stuff. It all worked out to determine how fast your level increased, compared to how powerful your build was.
It went through about a 3 year period of playing nothing but fluffy games as a result, particularly the old West End Games version of Star Wars, which was a skill based and lacked the "crunch" associated with something like D&D 2nd Edition.
Trust me, there's no bias one way or another for me on this topic. I just think it's interesting how the current MMO debates are mirroring stuff from the 90's in a lot of ways, even though the medium has changed.
Lastly, the only real advantage I'd say crunchy systems have over fluffy systems, when it comes to computer games, is that crunchy systems tend to be easier to implement, because all the rules are there already. Like, the Baldur's Gate games were near-literal translations of AD&D, with only a few modifications.
Trust me, there's no bias one way or another for me on this topic. I just think it's interesting how the current MMO debates are mirroring stuff from the 90's in a lot of ways, even though the medium has changed.
Lastly, the only real advantage I'd say crunchy systems have over fluffy systems, when it comes to computer games, is that crunchy systems tend to be easier to implement, because all the rules are there already. Like, the Baldur's Gate games were near-literal translations of AD&D, with only a few modifications.
When I was mulling over whether to back PFO I ordered the core rule book. It is well over 500 pages, where the pages are as large as a 16" laptop screen. It is filled with charts and tables. I don't think there is a problem with the lack of rules. The challenge will be porting those into a computer game in a way that makes sense.
The content they have to draw on has been developed and throroughly tested by live people in tabletop gaming over the last thirty years.
The team of authors they have working on their superdungeon is stellar. Ed Greenwood invented the Forgotten Realms. Mike Stackpole you might remember from the ol Mechwarrior titles under FASA. Their partner company is Paizo, who took over Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine from Wizards of the Coast and TSR. The tech demo netted them investment capital sufficient to get the job done by 2017 but they want to hire more talent.
This isn't a flash in the pan.
Your point about reverting back to game designs from the 90s is actually a telling point, but maybe not in the way you are thinking. MMOs have become quite unpopular for investors. Your 'crunchy' themepark MMOs appear to be hitting some hard times. You hardly see anyone anymore in GW2 (or I don't). SWtOR is pretty sparsely populated. Rift hasn't the numbers they had. WoW's population was pretty low before Pandaria and I suspect it is already thinning out.
It is time to revisit the themepark design, and one way to do that is by looking once more where the path diverged, back some time ago, and maybe approach it once more with new tech.
FantasyRPG has been tried as themepark but, after UO, I don't think anyone really tried to go back and do it right. Nobody looked back after EQ until now. Finally the same people who have been keeping tabletop RPGs alive and kicking are going to try and bring it to reality and you are locked into the marketing of the themepark model because it is crunchy. Well, stay tuned.
I for one am glad they are slowing things down. One of the banes of recent MMOs is that they catered to the "content locusts." The locusts would race through the game, tabbing through and ignoring dialogue and backstory, using whatever shortcuts they could to max-farm experience. The idea was to hit level max in week. They then fill the boards with complaints that they were bored. After another week they have moved on to another MMO to rinse and repeat.
I really rahter hope they can slow it down too, IF when they do the players actually play the game. I'm a bit afraid that the bulk of the players will be unable to stay focused long enough to learn to actually play a game instead of only beating it.
You know there are at least two ways to approach the potential for griefing in a sandbox game.
One way would be to express a desire for the game system itself to make it so it couldn't occur. The problem I see with that approach is that it is intrinsicly antithetical to the whole idea of 'sandbox'. It is asking the game system to essentially play part of the game for us.
The other way I see would be to join with the Paladins and other Lawful Good characters and crush the murderers. Liberate the normal players through your own will and courage. Be the good and the lawful, and bring justice to the sandbox. That way the players empower themselves rahter than passively plead for virtually divine intervention.
Then we only have to worry about Justice becoming injustice through the application of vigilante oppression.
Trust me, there's no bias one way or another for me on this topic. I just think it's interesting how the current MMO debates are mirroring stuff from the 90's in a lot of ways, even though the medium has changed.
Lastly, the only real advantage I'd say crunchy systems have over fluffy systems, when it comes to computer games, is that crunchy systems tend to be easier to implement, because all the rules are there already. Like, the Baldur's Gate games were near-literal translations of AD&D, with only a few modifications.
When I was mulling over whether to back PFO I ordered the core rule book. It is well over 500 pages, where the pages are as large as a 16" laptop screen. It is filled with charts and tables. I don't think there is a problem with the lack of rules. The challenge will be porting those into a computer game in a way that makes sense.
The content they have to draw on has been developed and throroughly tested by live people in tabletop gaming over the last thirty years.
The team of authors they have working on their superdungeon is stellar. Ed Greenwood invented the Forgotten Realms. Mike Stackpole you might remember from the ol Mechwarrior titles under FASA. Their partner company is Paizo, who took over Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine from Wizards of the Coast and TSR. The tech demo netted them investment capital sufficient to get the job done by 2017 but they want to hire more talent.
This isn't a flash in the pan.
Your point about reverting back to game designs from the 90s is actually a telling point, but maybe not in the way you are thinking. MMOs have become quite unpopular for investors. Your 'crunchy' themepark MMOs appear to be hitting some hard times. You hardly see anyone anymore in GW2 (or I don't). SWtOR is pretty sparsely populated. Rift hasn't the numbers they had. WoW's population was pretty low before Pandaria and I suspect it is already thinning out.
It is time to revisit the themepark design, and one way to do that is by looking once more where the path diverged, back some time ago, and maybe approach it once more with new tech.
FantasyRPG has been tried as themepark but, after UO, I don't think anyone really tried to go back and do it right. Nobody looked back after EQ until now. Finally the same people who have been keeping tabletop RPGs alive and kicking are going to try and bring it to reality and you are locked into the marketing of the themepark model because it is crunchy. Well, stay tuned.
If I had to cite one reason to back this irrespecitve of odds of success, it's because of the highlighted. The people as well as the product matter to me.
At least he has been quite responsive on the forums over there. Moreso than most dev teams and about as good as Turbine was during their first development cycle.
This all sounded amazing and then I read open world pvp...
Why an mmo company thinks creating an environment with a gankfest will be successful amazes me.
If they offer a non pvp server I'll play this game, if not, I'll watch it last a few months before going free to play with all the other dumbass games that did this same mistake.
This.
You can tell me the game will rain gold from the sky, but if in a year of playing the game I'm subjected to a single occurrence of pvp I didn't consent to, I'm gone. Instantly and forever.
I played EVE for 2 months. I got jumped ONE TIME and didn't even die, I managed to escape. I've never played the game since; I even let the last month of sub time I had expire.
I totally disagree and feel that pvp as described is essential to this game. I do agree that if you are so against the concept that even the slightest chance of pvp will ruin your game then this is not a game for you.
Luckily there are pure pve games for folks. Just as there are pure pvp ones. I prefer both and find games that exclude one or the other to be boring.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
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
This all sounded amazing and then I read open world pvp...
Why an mmo company thinks creating an environment with a gankfest will be successful amazes me.
If they offer a non pvp server I'll play this game, if not, I'll watch it last a few months before going free to play with all the other dumbass games that did this same mistake.
This.
You can tell me the game will rain gold from the sky, but if in a year of playing the game I'm subjected to a single occurrence of pvp I didn't consent to, I'm gone. Instantly and forever.
I played EVE for 2 months. I got jumped ONE TIME and didn't even die, I managed to escape. I've never played the game since; I even let the last month of sub time I had expire.
Forced PVP is just a horrible, horrible idea IMO.
Okay. You want the game to play itself for you to that extent, and to that extent you do not want a sandbox game. It is good for you to recognize your preferences and make decisions based on your values.
The main reason they asked for what they did is they didn't think it would be meaningful to ask for less and quntify how it effects the project.
With the $1Mill target they can meaningfully say they will advance the timeline. From Ryan Dancey:
Without the Kickstarter, our plan is to begin Early Enrollment in early 2015, and Release in early 2017.
With the Kickstarter at $1 million, we plan to begin Early Enrollment in the summer of 2014, and Release in early 2016.
What's funny about that is when the game was originally announced, they were talking about how they had these magical methods for developing the game very quickly and getting it out there. Now they are talking about 2015-2017? What a joke. Get back to me in four years, I guess.
From what I can see now, they are going to have to develop the game around the myriad rewards they created for the kickstarter levels.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
The main reason they asked for what they did is they didn't think it would be meaningful to ask for less and quntify how it effects the project.
With the $1Mill target they can meaningfully say they will advance the timeline. From Ryan Dancey:
Without the Kickstarter, our plan is to begin Early Enrollment in early 2015, and Release in early 2017.
With the Kickstarter at $1 million, we plan to begin Early Enrollment in the summer of 2014, and Release in early 2016.
What's funny about that is when the game was originally announced, they were talking about how they had these magical methods for developing the game very quickly and getting it out there. Now they are talking about 2015-2017? What a joke. Get back to me in four years, I guess.
From what I can see now, they are going to have to develop the game around the myriad rewards they created for the kickstarter levels.
2-4 years to me is a pretty quick development for an MMO from the ground up. Wow took 5 years, SWG took 3 years (from the announcement) and those were both done by good sized companies that already had some titles under their belt. (Ie they already had the staff and teams. While GW has some great people they still need to get the great staff and teams and continue work. So I still think that is a pretty quick development.
The main reason they asked for what they did is they didn't think it would be meaningful to ask for less and quntify how it effects the project.
With the $1Mill target they can meaningfully say they will advance the timeline. From Ryan Dancey:
Without the Kickstarter, our plan is to begin Early Enrollment in early 2015, and Release in early 2017.
With the Kickstarter at $1 million, we plan to begin Early Enrollment in the summer of 2014, and Release in early 2016.
What's funny about that is when the game was originally announced, they were talking about how they had these magical methods for developing the game very quickly and getting it out there. Now they are talking about 2015-2017? What a joke. Get back to me in four years, I guess.
From what I can see now, they are going to have to develop the game around the myriad rewards they created for the kickstarter levels.
They do at a certain development team size due to the design and release strategy which is dependent on investment raised and - subsequently this kickstarter.
This all sounded amazing and then I read open world pvp...
Why an mmo company thinks creating an environment with a gankfest will be successful amazes me.
If they offer a non pvp server I'll play this game, if not, I'll watch it last a few months before going free to play with all the other dumbass games that did this same mistake.
This.
You can tell me the game will rain gold from the sky, but if in a year of playing the game I'm subjected to a single occurrence of pvp I didn't consent to, I'm gone. Instantly and forever.
I played EVE for 2 months. I got jumped ONE TIME and didn't even die, I managed to escape. I've never played the game since; I even let the last month of sub time I had expire.
Forced PVP is just a horrible, horrible idea IMO.
Okay. You want the game to play itself for you to that extent, and to that extent you do not want a sandbox game. It is good for you to recognize your preferences and make decisions based on your values.
Good thing Pathfinder is upfront about it, right?
Agreed. I didn't mean to bash the game for it's open world pvp, my apologies if that's how it seemed. Rather, I lament that I won't experience the game simply because it has that kind of pvp.
I'm not quite sure I understand why you would shun a game that could be really great because you might have a PvP encounter you don't want once, when the rest of the time you might very well enjoy.
I just started reading about this game. I am happy that Goblinworks is finally making a (fantasy) sandbox MMO that I would actually play. I haven't tried EVE, but if PfO has the same skill advancement system, then I am all over it. I am hoping they can pull it off.
This all sounded amazing and then I read open world pvp...
Why an mmo company thinks creating an environment with a gankfest will be successful amazes me.
If they offer a non pvp server I'll play this game, if not, I'll watch it last a few months before going free to play with all the other dumbass games that did this same mistake.
This.
You can tell me the game will rain gold from the sky, but if in a year of playing the game I'm subjected to a single occurrence of pvp I didn't consent to, I'm gone. Instantly and forever.
I played EVE for 2 months. I got jumped ONE TIME and didn't even die, I managed to escape. I've never played the game since; I even let the last month of sub time I had expire.
Forced PVP is just a horrible, horrible idea IMO.
Wow. You take carebearism into a whole new level. So you ALMOST got killed by another player in a game?
Well it's your choice, of course. This game is not for you so you can move on.
It's actually expected to make the goal, most kickstarters gain 1/3 of their support the last 72hrs.
So with that being said... Go go go pledge and support this wonderful concept. If nothing else feel good to not be lining the pockets of corporate suits who don't even play their own games!
"It would be awesome if you could duel your companion. Then you could solo pvp".--Thanes
Comments
If they go full-out sandbox, it's just going to end up feeling generic and bland. The whole sandbox vs themepark debate reminds me of the pen-and-paper RPG scene of the 90's, where you had two main opinions: crunchy and fluffy.
1. Crunch was a game system designed with lots of rules and lots of charts. These were usually the class based systems where your character was defined by his profession, meaning you could do the stuff you could do because of the class you chose. Some of them got pretty convoluted with the stuff like combat. Roll to hit, then roll to see where you hit, and what the effect of that hit is, with all kinds of modifiers. If you like rolling dice, and if you like to have the action sort of play out in a way that can surprise everyone ("wow, it looks like you crushed 3 ribs in, puncturing his lungs"), then Crunch is pretty great.
2. Fluffy was very light on rules, favoring simple dice mechanics and very few charts or modifiers. These were typically skill-based systems where your character is defined by the skills he posseses. Combat is much faster, and less specific. There are a lot of time where you could go hours without actually having to roll dice, as many of these systems advertised themselves as being focused on roleplaying rather than combat.
Ultimately, Crunch systems won out in terms of popularity, and the Fluffy systems became more of a proto-hipster thing, where people would play them because they were different. The fact is, people like to roll dice, so Crunch had an inherent advantage. The other problem, and the one that's relevant to this thread, is that Fluffy systems often resulted in very bland characters that were the result of being able to min/max easier. Stuff like, no one ever taking a "driving" skill because it never comes up in a game session and players know it would be a waste. Everyone ends up taking the same combat, observational, and persuasion skills because they get used very often, with obvious benefits.
With MMO's, crunch is more like themepark/trinity, and fluffy is more like sandbox/skills. Look at all of the sandbox games out there and you'll see that, over time, characters all sort of congeal into the same skills. Maybe a few archetypes emerge like, "ranged dps" or "capital ship captain" or whatever, but still just ends up being a small collection of classes. The problem is that, unlike pre-established classes, these highly-efficient skill-based characters that everyone ends up making have no real sense of lore or hinderences attached to them, which is why they feel generic.
What's really ironic about Pathfinder Online is that the game is actually based on a Crunchy system (D&D 3.5) with classes. Everything about their classes makes the game sound like it will be quite bland.
1. No Grinding? Sounds good on paper, except that the whole "queue up skills and just wait for time to pass" idea means there's less reason to actually *play* the game. You're removing on the rewards of playing an MMO in the first place. I'm all for less grinding, especially when it comes to stuff like Reputation grinds, but simply queuing up skills to learn and then logging off or walking around doing nothing seems rather dull. Efficient maybe, but dull.
2. No Classes? The way the describe it, it sounds like they are talking about a Kingoms of Amalur type thing, where your "role" is determined by the skills you've trained. Except that, since it's still a skill-based system, everyone will eventually train the same skills related to the "role" they wish to play, but without any of the fun lore and identity that might come with having an actual class name.
3. Player Structures? I'll believe it when I see it. This is one of those features that all kinds of MMO's want to include, but it's just not at all easy to impliment. There's a reason games always have housing as instanced features rather than actually part of the world. If they can pull it off, cool. Just dont't get your hopes up for Sim City online anytime soon.
4. Freedom of Allegience? Again, this just means more generic character identity. It is functionaly no different than a Guild system.
5. More than a Gankfest? Good luck with that. Open world PvP is always going to have ganking, regardless of any good intentions the dev's might have.
6. Real Battles? Yeah right. If you guys are imagining Braveheart, with ranks of soldiers charger each other, forget it. Not many engines can handle a bunch of people in the same area all fighting like that, much less at an acceptible graphics level. Like player cities, this is one of those features that never seems to work out.
7. Less Tedious Crafting? Maybe so. This is one of the areas of MMO's that could be improved pretty easily. Since crafting is more of a mechanical and design limitation, than a technical one, they might very well be able to get a system up and running the way they describe.
8. More Meaningful PvE? Again, maybe. Their examples sound an aweful lot like ANET's whole dynamic event crap, or even rifts. Like crafting, it's more of a mechanical challenge than a technical one, though, which means they could make it happen if they actually follow through with the goal.
9. All Players are Useful? I've heard that before. Almost the exact same examples were given for WAR, actually. The problem is, either you handle it with scaling (such as GW2) or you handle it by simply making the differences between various player levels meaningless. Either way, it contributes to the whole "generic" feel of many sandbox games, where you never seem to feel like you are gaining in power. Look at the complaints Oblivion and Skyrim got over no matter how high your level, the world always seems to get just as powerful. There's no progression, and it's less fun.
10. Trade is Meaningful? This might work, but again, it's one of those core designs that needs to be fully implimented to work, otherwise it completely breaks down. Some of it would be easier to do though, like having to manually take goods from one place to another. Combined with all the other very-difficult-impliment features they are wanting, I just can't see this getting the attention it needs.
Sorry for the long post, but I just can't see this game working out as they want it to. I know they are just looking for funding, so they are pitching around some very high-level concepts. It's just important that you guys understand that most of this stuff wouldn't actually get into a game ready for release anytime in the next decade, most likely. At best, you'll get a crappy indie "work in progress," as if we don't have enough of those. The game sounds fun though, it's just not realistic.
You make me like charity
Thanks for the info "Crunchy vs Fluffy" - that was cool to learn about.
RE: Classes, they should be interesting as it's skill-training and you equip x3 weapons max. on your avatar/person and due to encumbrance you can't carry too much. But you can change those x3 weapons when you go home eg. So it's in some ways more interesting than GW2's x2 weapon sets out of a small range of weapons permissible per class. I think that's kinda good. In terms of everyone training the same stuff, it's a danger, but the design is HIGHLY-GROUP orientated, so groups will need specialists across the board to function better, I believe. That might help?
-
I agree, atm it's all just spitballing in writing and video - but at least this mmorpg is trying something different. They are also doing a lean launch with feature stubs, so a lot of that stuff won't be ready right away and they say they'll take player-feedback on what gets developed and in what priority also.
Finally: The formations thing (in particular) is one thing that could be culled if it just does not work ie "not fun", "can't manage it technically". But I think it's a great step up for creating actual wars with battles as well as other forms of combat (many different factions).
Regarding the highlighted: One day one's got to come good, eh?
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I read on their site that they think they have a solution to the tendency to multiclass. They aren't going with capstone abilities but they have in mind an ability system like capstone they're calling 'focus'. So in my understanding you can train up your wizard skills but also train up rogue skills so you can gain dodge and some defensive benefits. Then as long as all the skills you actually slot are in one of the class archetypes and are equivalent to L20 you get this Focus ability.
So if you take some time out and put it into a multiclass build you will still not have eliminated your opportunity to get the bonuses of dedication. And since there is no upper limit, as far as we know, to the number of skills you can have (just the number you can slot) the opportunities for custom builds are wide open.
To dream, perhaps to be.
Not buying it. Great post in most respects, but the bias is evident to me right there in that line. Case in point: Skyrim: Elder scrolls is fluffy by your definition, and iwhether a game is MMO or solo is irrelevant to crunchines or fluffiness.
To dream, perhaps to be.
Elder Scrolls would be fluffy, in the context I'm talking about. Actually, the game Daggerfall was the main reason I even got into the fluffy RPG's back in the 90's at all. Not sure if you played it, but it had a really in-depth character generation process where you pick the skills you want, and pick what kind of advantages and disadvantages you had and stuff. It all worked out to determine how fast your level increased, compared to how powerful your build was.
It went through about a 3 year period of playing nothing but fluffy games as a result, particularly the old West End Games version of Star Wars, which was a skill based and lacked the "crunch" associated with something like D&D 2nd Edition.
Trust me, there's no bias one way or another for me on this topic. I just think it's interesting how the current MMO debates are mirroring stuff from the 90's in a lot of ways, even though the medium has changed.
Lastly, the only real advantage I'd say crunchy systems have over fluffy systems, when it comes to computer games, is that crunchy systems tend to be easier to implement, because all the rules are there already. Like, the Baldur's Gate games were near-literal translations of AD&D, with only a few modifications.
You make me like charity
When I was mulling over whether to back PFO I ordered the core rule book. It is well over 500 pages, where the pages are as large as a 16" laptop screen. It is filled with charts and tables. I don't think there is a problem with the lack of rules. The challenge will be porting those into a computer game in a way that makes sense.
The content they have to draw on has been developed and throroughly tested by live people in tabletop gaming over the last thirty years.
The team of authors they have working on their superdungeon is stellar. Ed Greenwood invented the Forgotten Realms. Mike Stackpole you might remember from the ol Mechwarrior titles under FASA. Their partner company is Paizo, who took over Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine from Wizards of the Coast and TSR. The tech demo netted them investment capital sufficient to get the job done by 2017 but they want to hire more talent.
This isn't a flash in the pan.
Your point about reverting back to game designs from the 90s is actually a telling point, but maybe not in the way you are thinking. MMOs have become quite unpopular for investors. Your 'crunchy' themepark MMOs appear to be hitting some hard times. You hardly see anyone anymore in GW2 (or I don't). SWtOR is pretty sparsely populated. Rift hasn't the numbers they had. WoW's population was pretty low before Pandaria and I suspect it is already thinning out.
It is time to revisit the themepark design, and one way to do that is by looking once more where the path diverged, back some time ago, and maybe approach it once more with new tech.
FantasyRPG has been tried as themepark but, after UO, I don't think anyone really tried to go back and do it right. Nobody looked back after EQ until now. Finally the same people who have been keeping tabletop RPGs alive and kicking are going to try and bring it to reality and you are locked into the marketing of the themepark model because it is crunchy. Well, stay tuned.
To dream, perhaps to be.
I for one am glad they are slowing things down. One of the banes of recent MMOs is that they catered to the "content locusts." The locusts would race through the game, tabbing through and ignoring dialogue and backstory, using whatever shortcuts they could to max-farm experience. The idea was to hit level max in week. They then fill the boards with complaints that they were bored. After another week they have moved on to another MMO to rinse and repeat.
To dream, perhaps to be.
Go pledge now and support the Sandbox Revolution!!!
"It would be awesome if you could duel your companion. Then you could solo pvp".--Thanes
You know there are at least two ways to approach the potential for griefing in a sandbox game.
One way would be to express a desire for the game system itself to make it so it couldn't occur. The problem I see with that approach is that it is intrinsicly antithetical to the whole idea of 'sandbox'. It is asking the game system to essentially play part of the game for us.
The other way I see would be to join with the Paladins and other Lawful Good characters and crush the murderers. Liberate the normal players through your own will and courage. Be the good and the lawful, and bring justice to the sandbox. That way the players empower themselves rahter than passively plead for virtually divine intervention.
Then we only have to worry about Justice becoming injustice through the application of vigilante oppression.
To dream, perhaps to be.
If I had to cite one reason to back this irrespecitve of odds of success, it's because of the highlighted. The people as well as the product matter to me.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
"He’s been called 'the Steve Jobs of MMO Marketing'."
Oh puke.
To dream, perhaps to be.
This.
You can tell me the game will rain gold from the sky, but if in a year of playing the game I'm subjected to a single occurrence of pvp I didn't consent to, I'm gone. Instantly and forever.
I played EVE for 2 months. I got jumped ONE TIME and didn't even die, I managed to escape. I've never played the game since; I even let the last month of sub time I had expire.
Forced PVP is just a horrible, horrible idea IMO.
Luckily there are pure pve games for folks. Just as there are pure pvp ones. I prefer both and find games that exclude one or the other to be boring.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
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
Okay. You want the game to play itself for you to that extent, and to that extent you do not want a sandbox game. It is good for you to recognize your preferences and make decisions based on your values.
Good thing Pathfinder is upfront about it, right?
To dream, perhaps to be.
What's funny about that is when the game was originally announced, they were talking about how they had these magical methods for developing the game very quickly and getting it out there. Now they are talking about 2015-2017? What a joke. Get back to me in four years, I guess.
From what I can see now, they are going to have to develop the game around the myriad rewards they created for the kickstarter levels.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
2-4 years to me is a pretty quick development for an MMO from the ground up. Wow took 5 years, SWG took 3 years (from the announcement) and those were both done by good sized companies that already had some titles under their belt. (Ie they already had the staff and teams. While GW has some great people they still need to get the great staff and teams and continue work. So I still think that is a pretty quick development.
They do at a certain development team size due to the design and release strategy which is dependent on investment raised and - subsequently this kickstarter.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Agreed. I didn't mean to bash the game for it's open world pvp, my apologies if that's how it seemed. Rather, I lament that I won't experience the game simply because it has that kind of pvp.
Wow. You take carebearism into a whole new level. So you ALMOST got killed by another player in a game?
Well it's your choice, of course. This game is not for you so you can move on.
So with that being said... Go go go pledge and support this wonderful concept. If nothing else feel good to not be lining the pockets of corporate suits who don't even play their own games!
"It would be awesome if you could duel your companion. Then you could solo pvp".--Thanes