What changes need to be made to make you want to play PFO?

Bluddwolf · June 2015

A few things are pretty obvious. First, there are more people who have tried playing PFO, than there are currently playing. Secondly, there are more potential players that have looked at it, or read about it and have decided to pass on even trying it for free (ie. 15 day trial).

So, I pose the question here, in the hopes that the makers of Pathfinder Online might see where they may have to alter their plans in order to attract more interest in playing the game long term.

In a CONSTRUCTIVE manner, please list three to five changes you would like to see (especially if you tried the game and you actually know a bit about how the game works).

Loke666 · June 2015

There is not much helpful things I can say, I will buy the game if it get into a releaseable shape, but I just don't want to pay for alpha testing. I kinda feel that they should be paying me for that, not the other way around. I could volunteer to do it for free but actually pay for it just wont work for me.

Pathfinder have many interesting ideas but I feel they need to get some other funding, the game just isn't near release shape and wont be for a while. Charging for it in the current shape just turns away many potential players.

We seen many games releasing far too early, AoC comes to mind. Lost them a lot of players.

I do wish the best of luck for the devs though, they do have plenty of good ideas.

Slapshot1188 · June 2015

See my response to Mr Dancey in the other thread for more explanation but:

Simplify pricing structure. You cannot have a Box Fee + Sub + Cash shop and use the buddy key system for a game in this state.
Announce they are scraping the silly idea of NOT WIPING at open launch. This is an open world, territory control PvP game. Trying to make people pay (see above) for a year or so before the game is in Open Launch or have them fall behind a year's worth of character development is crazy. Note I said this MONTHS ago when I had 4 or 5 months worth of pre-paid sub time so it's not like I was pointing at otehr people and complaining they were getting an advantage. I was pointing at ME and saying "It's crazy to let me build a character that won't be wiped when the game fully launches"
Focus all available resources on making combat smooth. The game is built around combat. Right now it's horrendously clunky. I can deal with sub-par graphics but clunky combat is a no-go.
Totally revamp the UI and all the tootips. Stop making people have to fight the game to play it.
PvP... so broken and in so many ways... but you know all about that part so no need to rehash.

MrSnuffles · June 2015

You call THIS combat? The mobs are not even facing the attacker, the spell animations are horrible. I have no words for this. It's an atrocity.

Mobs play a sound on a loop when attacking. This is really sad.
Combat sounds of players are not synchronized to the animations (i think they are just a loop too)
Mobs just standing around in the game world. They don't even move.
Spell and combat animations need to improve. They look like a game from 1990.
There is no realistic lighting in game. It looks like a plastic world lit by a single light bulb.
The game assets like harvesting nodes look just out of place and not part of the world.
The world looks horrible dull, flat, 1990 style amateur RPG.
NO SHADOWS!
Curved health/mana bars are bad design as they are even more intrusive than straight ones.
Player health/mana bar attached to his ass bouncing up and down while walking or during combat.
Horrible simplistic interface throughout the whole game. Looks like a 5 minute job.

I could go on, but those are my first impressions. How anyone could call this a 2015 game and game design is beyond my understanding. I have seen prototypes from our local game academy students that look far better than this.

Pemmin · June 2015

Originally posted by Slapshot1188
See my response to Mr Dancey in the other thread for more explanation but:

Simplify pricing structure. You cannot have a Box Fee + Sub + Cash shop and use the buddy key system for a game in this state.

Announce they are scraping the silly idea of NOT WIPING at open launch. This is an open world, territory control PvP game. Trying to make people pay (see above) for a year or so before the game is in Open Launch or have them fall behind a year's worth of character development is crazy. Note I said this MONTHS ago when I had 4 or 5 months worth of pre-paid sub time so it's not like I was pointing at otehr people and complaining they were getting an advantage. I was pointing at ME and saying "It's crazy to let me build a character that won't be wiped when the game fully launches"

Focus all available resources on making combat smooth. The game is built around combat. Right now it's horrendously clunky. I can deal with sub-par graphics but clunky combat is a no-go.

Totally revamp the UI and all the tootips. Stop making people have to fight the game to play it.

PvP... so broken and in so many ways... but you know all about that part so no need to rehash.

this mostly

Wizardry · June 2015

I will be very serious,they already made it near impossible to get me into this game.The reasons are simple,i do NOT endorse ANY form of cash shop,be it early access buying of any kind.I also do not want ANY pvp in my rpg game,i know what it takes to do it properly and nobody in the rpg genre is going to do it justice.

I want a game that is 100% fair across the board,everyone is on the same page.HUGE massive mistake to yet again see a developer COPY CAT a BAD idea.Eve online skill gain system is NOT good ,so bad it could be the lone reason i would not play the game.

I love that the game has a lot of skills,i love they are using the multi class design,implementation is just bad.

I also need to see better models/graphics.

it really is too bad,the game does do some good stuff,ideas that i really look for in a game but then they bring in that Eve online mentality and it turns me right off.

kikoodutroa8 · June 2015

Originally posted by MrSnuffles

You call THIS combat? The mobs are not even facing the attacker, the spell animations are horrible. I have no words for this. It's an atrocity.

Mobs play a sound on a loop when attacking. This is really sad.

Combat sounds of players are not synchronized to the animations (i think they are just a loop too)

Mobs just standing around in the game world. They don't even move.

Spell and combat animations need to improve. They look like a game from 1990.

There is no realistic lighting in game. It looks like a plastic world lit by a single light bulb.

The game assets like harvesting nodes look just out of place and not part of the world.

The world looks horrible dull, flat, 1990 style amateur RPG.

NO SHADOWS!

Curved health/mana bars are bad design as they are even more intrusive than straight ones.

Player health/mana bar attached to his ass bouncing up and down while walking or during combat.

Horrible simplistic interface throughout the whole game. Looks like a 5 minute job.

I could go on, but those are my first impressions. How anyone could call this a 2015 game and game design is beyond my understanding. I have seen prototypes from our local game academy students that look far better than this.

Shush, hater! PFO is the 2nd Life-Killer!

reeereee · June 2015

Graphics on par with FFXIV would make me way more interested in this game.

Probably not realistically within their budget though.

Scott23 · June 2015

I supported the game with the second kickstarter and could have been playing since day 1. I have a DT account with a buddy account linked (my wife's) and we were cautiously looking forward to it.

I am still waiting for a minimum viable product. What I see so far just isn't it.

From what I have been able to gather from reading the boards (Paizo and GW) is that combat is not in a good place and that there really isn't much to do in the game.

I am not thrilled that I would have to pay for playing a game that is in this kind of condition. I am starting to doubt if it will fit my definition of a minimum viable product by Open Enrollment. And regardless of what GoblinWorks says - I will decide what is a viable minimum product for me.

jaxome · June 2015

Originally posted by Slapshot1188
See my response to Mr Dancey in the other thread for more explanation but:

Simplify pricing structure. You cannot have a Box Fee + Sub + Cash shop and use the buddy key system for a game in this state.

Announce they are scraping the silly idea of NOT WIPING at open launch. This is an open world, territory control PvP game. Trying to make people pay (see above) for a year or so before the game is in Open Launch or have them fall behind a year's worth of character development is crazy. Note I said this MONTHS ago when I had 4 or 5 months worth of pre-paid sub time so it's not like I was pointing at otehr people and complaining they were getting an advantage. I was pointing at ME and saying "It's crazy to let me build a character that won't be wiped when the game fully launches"

Focus all available resources on making combat smooth. The game is built around combat. Right now it's horrendously clunky. I can deal with sub-par graphics but clunky combat is a no-go.

Totally revamp the UI and all the tootips. Stop making people have to fight the game to play it.

PvP... so broken and in so many ways... but you know all about that part so no need to rehash.

Agree

Gardavsshade · June 2015

Originally posted by Bluddwolf
A few things are pretty obvious. First, there are more people who have tried playing PFO, than there are currently playing. Secondly, there are more potential players that have looked at it, or read about it and have decided to pass on even trying it for free (ie. 15 day trial).

So, I pose the question here, in the hopes that the makers of Pathfinder Online might see where they may have to alter their plans in order to attract more interest in playing the game long term.

In a CONSTRUCTIVE manner, please list three to five changes you would like to see (especially if you tried the game and you actually know a bit about how the game works).

Constructive manner? Ok, but from whom's point of view? The Players you seek to attract? The Players you have already acquired? The Dev's? The Exec's? The Investor's?

Doesn't matter what the subject is... almost anything that can be viewed as constructive by some can also be seen as un-constructive by others, especially stuff about MMOs. Do I view MMOs as a game first or as a business first? Do I see it only from my own selfish point of view or do I see it from the broader view of the whole of the community of Players? Mix and match all that and there's going widely divergent points of view on what some of us think needs to be done to make PFO more attractive to more Players.

You bridle responses with your specific requirements of how we shall respond.

IMO... the changes needed to be made so it would attract myself and perhaps others would need to be so radical that the suggested changes would be seen by the owners of PFO as "non-constructive"... so in the spirit of "do not offend" I will keep the specifics of my own personal opinion to myself.

Hycoo · June 2015

The clunky animations/combat has to go before i play it. Im fine with waiting for the rest.

Bluddwolf · June 2015

Originally posted by Gardavsshade
Originally posted by Bluddwolf
A few things are pretty obvious. First, there are more people who have tried playing PFO, than there are currently playing. Secondly, there are more potential players that have looked at it, or read about it and have decided to pass on even trying it for free (ie. 15 day trial).

So, I pose the question here, in the hopes that the makers of Pathfinder Online might see where they may have to alter their plans in order to attract more interest in playing the game long term.

In a CONSTRUCTIVE manner, please list three to five changes you would like to see (especially if you tried the game and you actually know a bit about how the game works).

Constructive manner? Ok, but from whom's point of view? The Players you seek to attract? The Players you have already acquired? The Dev's? The Exec's? The Investor's?

Doesn't matter what the subject is... almost anything that can be viewed as constructive by some can also be seen as un-constructive by others, especially stuff about MMOs. Do I view MMOs as a game first or as a business first? Do I see it only from my own selfish point of view or do I see it from the broader view of the whole of the community of Players? Mix and match all that and there's going widely divergent points of view on what some of us think needs to be done to make PFO more attractive to more Players.

You bridle responses with your specific requirements of how we shall respond.

IMO... the changes needed to be made so it would attract myself and perhaps others would need to be so radical that the suggested changes would be seen by the owners of PFO as "non-constructive"... so in the spirit of "do not offend" I will keep the specifics of my own personal opinion to myself.

I bridled response, to be constructive, because the intention is for those responses to be helpful for the Devs to see where they have gone wrong and to get some ideas of what they can do better or at least differently.

Debating over what being constructive means does not advance that goal. It is therefore a non response and not constructive because no one can build off of it, in any direction.

saying at the end of your post "I will keep the specifics of my own personal opinion to myself" turned your entire post into a waste of time for everyone, including yourself.

im certain you could write one thing GW could do to make the game better. That is being at least minimally constructive.

dlld · June 2015

Animations, combat and models(player character faces for the most part). The bar isn't really high (for me) ie WoW 2004 looks fine this does not.

goboygo · June 2015

1. Optimization

2. Optimization

3. Optimization

4. Optimization

5. Optimization

Bluddwolf · June 2015

Well since I believe every aspect of the game needs major work, I'll start with what they feel is good.

The Player Generated Economy:

The PGE is largely broken because the game already has a crafting base that has produced items that exceed demand. In a system where there is no significant item loss it leads to a failed economy.

What PFO Needs:

1. Full Loot + Item degrade

2. Item Repair with cost

3. Item Salvaging / refining to allow for repurposing or sale of raw materials

The game really should not have launched without this in place.

Asm0deus · June 2015

Originally posted by Bluddwolf
What changes need to be made to make you want to play PFO?

EVERYTHING mentioned in this thread so far plus drop subscriptions and unnerf archers, probably more but can't recall as I haven't checked out the game in a long while.

Traugar · June 2015

I want to play it now. I have payed for a couple of months just to see where it was at. The game has huge potential, but I am not going to pay to test for them. I am more than willing to help test it so that it can be a success, and I am willing to pay a monthly sub when the game is finished. I just can't justify paying for part of a product. I enjoyed my time in the game, and people were incredibly helpful. I may sub to pop in along to see how development is going, but I won't commit finances to a product in this stage of development.

Talonsin · June 2015

I love the vision for this game however it is not even close to a playable/enjoyable state for my taste.

The sub fee plus cash shop scares me as I dont ever want to play a game like Archeage again where my sub fee is not enough to allow me to do simple things like fish or farm. I dont know what the cash shop is like in PO as the state of the game I have seen in videos deters me from investigating it any further.

The no wipe thing is another issue for me as I do not understand how someone who has subbed for a year in the testing phase will not be able to own me at launch. I accept this in a game I join a year after launch but on launch day I expect to be almost equal to the other players in terms of power. They can add all the systems they want to deter random PVP but some people are going to be running around looking for noobs to kill come launch day and if they have a years head start on their toon, it is gonna be bad for some of the new players.

AndiusMeuridiar · June 2015

A single feature well done enough to make me miss the title. So far the only thing that keeps me interested is the people playing this game who I want to kill in-game. There is no mechanic I would say is well done or addictive. Nothing really stands out about this title if you assess it for what it actually is and not what it has promised to be.

It's just a drab / less inspired version of Darkfall / Mortal / Life is Feudal / Crowfall etc. that theoretical should be able to suppor larger scale battles but has yet to ever get more than 43 players in a single place as far as I have heard.

So I guess I would just like to see this game get SOMETHING right. Anything both good and unique. Anything at all.

wmmarcellino · June 2015

Talosin:

1) If they ever make the cash shop necessary, I'm out immediately.

2) Not saying you have to like it or desire this kind of game experience, but there is a logic to having settlements grow in power and become stable.

You're looking at PvP and power at the level of the individual: if I come into the game a year later than veteran players, I'm a minnow in a sea full of sharks, and they can and likely will eat me. You would be right btw, if this was a game designed with players as the unit of meaning.
This game is designed at the level of the settlement: victory, defeat, growth, influence, power, etc. all come at the level of the settlement. Players experience ups and downs, and their personal power fluctuates by, settlement success. So when you enter the game a year later, settlement block A, and settlement block B (and settlement block C if the designers get it right) will all be powerful and relevant. The school of fish you swim with will be strong, like the other schools, and you will go at each other as you need to, competing for ocean space and resources. And because the power curve is relatively flat, while you won't be as powerful as the sharks in your school, in a couple of months you'll be powerful enough in ONE role to be able to swim with them and contribute to the school's success.

Again, not saying that second game--PFO--is something you should like or want to play. But you have to "get" that second model and structuration to "get" PFO and how play works.

Ramanadjinn · June 2015

Combat needs to be less laggy. Much less laggy. When I hit a button the thing I want to happen should just happen.

I thought the game was a cool idea and I liked it aside from the combat.

So just one change would get me to at least come back and try it again:

- Combat lag

Thedip · June 2015

My request is simple but not achievable. I want it to be an online version of Pathfinder.

Dip

Gardavsshade · June 2015

Originally posted by Bluddwolf
Originally posted by Gardavsshade
Originally posted by Bluddwolf
A few things are pretty obvious. First, there are more people who have tried playing PFO, than there are currently playing. Secondly, there are more potential players that have looked at it, or read about it and have decided to pass on even trying it for free (ie. 15 day trial).

So, I pose the question here, in the hopes that the makers of Pathfinder Online might see where they may have to alter their plans in order to attract more interest in playing the game long term.

In a CONSTRUCTIVE manner, please list three to five changes you would like to see (especially if you tried the game and you actually know a bit about how the game works).

Constructive manner? Ok, but from whom's point of view? The Players you seek to attract? The Players you have already acquired? The Dev's? The Exec's? The Investor's?

Doesn't matter what the subject is... almost anything that can be viewed as constructive by some can also be seen as un-constructive by others, especially stuff about MMOs. Do I view MMOs as a game first or as a business first? Do I see it only from my own selfish point of view or do I see it from the broader view of the whole of the community of Players? Mix and match all that and there's going widely divergent points of view on what some of us think needs to be done to make PFO more attractive to more Players.

You bridle responses with your specific requirements of how we shall respond.

IMO... the changes needed to be made so it would attract myself and perhaps others would need to be so radical that the suggested changes would be seen by the owners of PFO as "non-constructive"... so in the spirit of "do not offend" I will keep the specifics of my own personal opinion to myself.

I bridled response, to be constructive, because the intention is for those responses to be helpful for the Devs to see where they have gone wrong and to get some ideas of what they can do better or at least differently.

Debating over what being constructive means does not advance that goal. It is therefore a non response and not constructive because no one can build off of it, in any direction.

saying at the end of your post "I will keep the specifics of my own personal opinion to myself" turned your entire post into a waste of time for everyone, including yourself.

im certain you could write one thing GW could do to make the game better. That is being at least minimally constructive.

If you wish, but you won't like it, neither will the Devs.

After how this new MMO has been managed, how it has been funded, and the problems associated with those two aspects... My suggestion would be a near total replacement of anyone in a management position with this project and a full legal investigation of all parties involved with this project since day one.

The past and present members of the management team have lost my confidence and that to me is the number one problem with the project. No amount of bug fixing, new features, fleshed out content or finished odds and ends will do much as those are all "dragon's tail" items... the head of the dragon is what needs attention. Until I see news of that, a good housecleaning, my confidence in this MMO will never return.

Yes I am seeking People to lose their employment if they have caused the project problems. Accountability matters, even in MMO production.

I tried to say this in a way that you might understand, without coming right out and saying it, but there you go... you have my personal opinion.

I am just a potential Player, a customer (and I know how much my opinion counts), but you asked us what we each thought was needed to help PFO become something we would want to play, and you now have my very blunt answer. I consider this post to be constructive, but I am fairly certain the forums Mods here won't, and neither will you or the Devs of PFO.

[Deleted User] · June 2015

The user and all related content has been deleted.

AndiusMeuridiar · June 2015

Without knowing the inner-workings of who is responsible for decision making and how much sway I think firing every developer would be overkill.

However what is very clear to me is Ryan Dancey has been the captain of this ship from the beginning and he's doing an absolutely horrible job. I fully agree with you that he needs to be demoted or fired, and not to put words in Bluddwolf's mouth but based on our Teamspeak conversations I don't think he would disagree.

The main issues I have with Ryan Dancey is:

A. He doesn't know is own genre. Ryan was involved with EVE and makes a lot of comments about EVE but I haven't seen any real evidence he's played any PvP driven sandbox other than EVE. A lot of the problems he struggles with are issues already struggled with in titles such as Darkfall and Mortal Online. Having some knowledge of how those problems worked there and what unsuccessful and successful solutions they used for those problems would be HUGELY advantageous knowledge to making PFO a better game. However he and most of the PFO community are pretty clueless about these problems which is leading to a lot of mistakes and bad decisions.

B. Ryan has a mind that sees problems and not solutions. Something I know from my years of experience of dealing with him on the PFO boards is that when you talk about a mechanic he will point out how it didn't work in some other game so they should never do anything like that in PFO. He never stops to think about how that system could be changed to overcome the problems they've seen in other titles. And sometimes he just creates problems where they don't exist. To date the worst position he holds is that you should be penalized for killing members of your same guild/alliance. The evidence is overwhelming from similar titles that there are TONS of benefits from this (Practice fights, no alignment penalties for accidental friendly fire, etc.) and it is very rarely ever abused because those who do abuse it are swiftly kicked from their guilds. And the fact that his position is "demonstrably false" as he is so fond of saying won't change his mind.

Ryan Dancey will never be fired. I don't think anyone other than Lisa Stevens could fire him and I believe she's said she would never do that. But if he really wants this game to succeed he needs to find someone with half a clue on how to run a PvP driven MMO and give them the authority to make this game not suck.

Howdy, Stranger!

What changes need to be made to make you want to play PFO?

Comments