Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

A Proposal

Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Bringslite
"You would have to produce evidence of a lie, before that claim can have any merit. Every weakness that the game has in design, implementation and in practice can be pointed to (even if as a corner case)."


Ok. How about what got me started posting over there?

In order to fully participate in the Holding / Outpost aspects of the game that was just added, you will most likely have to join one of the three main settlements or their alliance. Actually getting to own and run an outpost / holding requires that you run escalations and defeat the escalation bosses.

Only the larger populated settlements can run these, and at the same time ensure that no one kill steals the escalation boss. You can actually spend hours running an escalation and by a stroke of luck, another team can spot the boss before your group and kill it (getting all of the rewards, including the resources needed to build an outpost / holding).

So the meaning of this sandbox is, the content is only if you join one of the big boys."


This is pretty much a lie or at the very least misleading when you know better. It was posted by you, Bluddwolf. There are plenty more and not just your poison. I could find better

No, I'm certain you can't find better, because that example did not meet your assertion. It was even agreed that it was not a misrepresentation of how the escalations do favor larger groups. In no less than three occasions I have witnessed during Server-Wide organized escalation runs the fact that only a limited few and potentially those that did the least, received the boss kill and all of the end boss escalation rewards. A large and savvy group can achieve this outcome with limited effort on their part.

Example:

Have ten players in five groups of two disperse throughout the hex in roughly a pentagon formation, giving a maximum view of the hex on the mini map.

As the escalatiin hex drops below 5%, stop attacking escalation goal mobs and take position. All five grouos do nothing but view for the boss to pop up.

Move in and first group of two starts dealing damage on boss. Even if others join in, the two will likely still average higher amount overall and take the boss bonus for their guild.

I made that comment in the first days of the holding / outpost drops being tied to the escalations. This was when running escalations was much more common and server population was higher. But the underlying problem of the potential for kill stealing still exists.

Way back then I had suggested the escalation rewards be broken down based on how much each group reduces the overall escalation strength. I had suggested the instead of the boss randomly spawning, that it should spawn in closest proximity to the group that has the highest score in reducing the escalation strength. But, even in the event that someone else gets the kill, everyone that participated still gets something extra for having contributed to the destruction of the escalation.

Other games have moved to this sort of a system, in some cases rewarding participants in currency specific to running and completing escalation type content. This was also a suggestion I had made.

So I stand by my original statement, until such time that some solution for kill stealing or just dumb luck, is addressed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there also a big bru haha (sp?) over larger settlements snatching up a bunch of towers? Zerg tactics take a variety of forms, and to say it's a lie that they happen just doesn't square with actual events in the game.

Finally, the poor review had nothing to do with that post of mine. In fact, no one really picked up on it or understood the issue because they were not actually playing the game. The poor review was the result of the refusal to call the game's stage of development an alpha or beta stage. That alone would have prevented the review. Playing smarmy word gamed backfired. Speaking of word games, "Crowd Forging" is not unique to PFO, nor is it new. It is as old as letting players into the alpha stage of the game and having a separate forum for them to discuss the development of the game.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
Bringslite
Thank you for the examples. They seem like they would work well. I am not sure how many "Boss" kills have been stolen by groups. I have only heard about elements of EBA and EoX doing that to each other (or just one to the other). As far as I can tell it hasn't happened outside of that. <— That I have heard of. By big "Bru haha" concerning towers, if you mean the Nhur Athemon event, you are wrong. The mess was between EoX and EBA. They wanted ALL to be sure that "their side" was generally hands off smaller settlement's former towers and that the "otherside" was taking them as fast as possible. I didn't see much complaining from anyone other than EBA and EoX. You people out there, if this is incorrect, then speak up, please!

The review was fairly accurate from the point of view that it was experienced. As far as I can tell, nothing from the MMORPG.COM forums had any effect on this last review. Nothing at all, especially:

1. Try it while inside an active group. He did write something about escalations and "we". It didn't come across that he was inside a serious active company or settlement, though.

2. It was a 15 day trial and I wonder if he played more than 6 two hour sessions.

3. The review was done from the stand point of a reader base that is immovable in their stance that it is a finished product because to play, you must pay a subscription. Fair enough, but….
****a. Nothing was said about the endless posts by enthusiastic players that PfO is not a finished game.
****b. No mention of many posts explaining that it isn't out to attract players like a "Big Gold Launch" MMO.
****c. No mention of the countless examples of advice "It sounds like this game isn't for you yet, and that's OK"

The review was approached from the assumption that it is a "Gold Launch", that GW wants it accepted right now as a finished game, and that GW expects it to be subscribed to by 100,000 players, right now.

PfO doesn't stand a chance if reviewed as what the general MMO pop consider "a ready for subscription" criteria is. For people that like to test things, see things from the inside, even just want a head start then there could be value in subscribing (for them) right now.

All of that^^^ doesn't detract from the probability that posting twisted or ignorant BS about PfO probably dwindles the chances to find that small % of players that could find value from what GW offers right now. New people are subscribing, so that small % is out there.

Let's get our anger (because the Dev path is not what we want) out by misleading, lying, deliberately misquoting, and (best of all) find what we need and take it out of the context in which it was written, to do as much damage as we can. It makes perfect sense that if I don't like something, no one else should either. I will work very hard to convince all others that they don't/shouldn't like it either.

^^^Pretty sure that kind of stuff isn't going to get GW to wipe the EE crowd's progress, redesign the development map from scratch, or basically do anything that alienates "the game" from the core players or the very basic principles that it started with.

So, dammit Bluddwolf, time for a new approach. Where are you and your naer'do'well pack of cutthroats? WE need some danger. We need some bandits to chase.

Edited because the previous closing remark was mean. I really don't like where discussing this with haters has been taking me when I post on it. I am not a hater. I am a frustrated player.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Hobson Fiffledown
Little bit of agreeing, little bit of disagreeing.

I mean…I was once jumped at a T1 escalation just as I had found the boss. I was killed, looted, and the boss was taken down. But I was soloing the escalation, and that's what I get. It was fun, great fun actually. Certainly it's no reason to leave an open world PvP game.

But I don't agree with a lot of that statement. If loot splitting between friendlies is an issue, then those friendlies need to sort it out. Any additional loot benefit beyond the initial 6 just seems to give more toys to the larger player groups. And MVD hasn't had an issue playing the holding and outpost game either. It may only be one hex, but it's ours and we run it well. Running it apart from a settlement would also be achievable.
This space for rent.
Dreaden
I generally agree with the mmorpg.com review. @Brightslite, lets not fool ourselves. No one would be paying a subscription fee right now if GW didn't promise that there would be no wipe. They know we're all about that max exp and it is the only reason they can get away with charging a subscription for a far from finished product. If people were actually paying a sub fee to crowdforge for the good of the game, they wouldn't mind a wipe to level out the playing field once all planned features are implemented at OE.
Bringslite
Dreaden
I generally agree with the mmorpg.com review. @Brightslite, lets not fool ourselves. No one would be paying a subscription fee right now if GW didn't promise that there would be no wipe. They know we're all about that max exp and it is the only reason they can get away with charging a subscription for a far from finished product. If people were actually paying a sub fee to crowdforge for the good of the game, they wouldn't mind a wipe to level out the playing field once all planned features are implemented at OE.

I can agree with that. I also agree with the review and don't begrudge what was written in it.

At MMORPG.COM, their criteria before a "review" of this type is Developer:
A. declares there are to be no wipes, and
B. starts charging a sub to play.

At the same time, I can grasp Ryan wanting a review from some type of gaming community that is more about games in development and open to things like new marketing/monetizing/low risk(initial investment)/player agency(crowdforging and influence) strategies. If that type of community doesn't really exist then you can want all that you want, but will only get what you can get. Perhaps GW's particular type of combining these things, in new ways, really is too new.

No matter when a game with a fixed exp rate becomes a persistent game, others will come along (after it's start) and bemoan that they are too far behind to start playing. This will be going on throughout the game's lifespan. Those that gambled it would be a success and backed ($$$) early have every right to have an edge. Those that want it "polished" before they will back a game, certainly are not putting their $$$ or their valuable time at risk to help it get where they want it to be.

About the perks of supporting now with a subscription to get an edge… Yes, that was indeed a motivator (for me) and not something that I have seen combined with many of the principles that were laid out at the beginning of this project. Some things that go along with that and also motivate me are:

*The great community we have here, all we have debated, agreed about, disagreed about, and agonized about for a few years before even Alpha1.
(And lets face it, it has been pretty entertaining, thought provoking and fun. By far a more mature and pleasant community than almost any other MMO's)
*Building the foundations of an MMO that has a functioning economy ready and working for new players.
*Solidifying, polarizing, and weeding (by natural selection) the in-game micro communities that offer a variety for new players.
*In general, WE are building the societies, atmosphere, and content rather than the Developers who usually define that stuff and throw the players into it after the fact.

Those other motivations/rewards/whatever make this a pretty unique experience in MMOs. Very much worth my time and $$$.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Kitsune
Bringslite
The Proposal: GW in general, please take a step back. Take a 4 day weekend and get your heads cleared and leak some of the pressure that you are feeling, if you are feeling pressured and/or stressed. In the long run, it will mean nothing to us (the players). Right now it could be really good for the Dev Team.

Been there, done that… at least with Goblinary and PFO. Except it was a 4-week weekend.

It really helped, but unfortunately 4 weeks is too long. smile
Edam
My understanding is the MMORPG.COM situation is pretty simple.

The early enrollment is there for people that want to be around during the start up phase and like building things from the ground up, be it a character settlement or alliance. That way when open enrollment comes the people that want to just sub and roll a character and go out and do be awesome and big note themselves will have a game ready to go.

The game is not and never was meant to be suitable during EE for the second sort of player.

The only problem with MMORPG is they get off on implying the devs are somehow conning the second sort of player into joining an incomplete game when it was never the intention to ever have those guys in early.
Doc
@Bringslite:

So, dammit Bluddwolf, time for a new approach. Where are you and your naer'do'well pack of cutthroats? WE need some danger. We need some bandits to chase.

Not that I'm really associated with Bluddwolf in PFO anymore, I'm not really sure he plays PFO since his example of escalation tactics above don't jive with the actual mechanics of event spawning – but are you asking people to engage in banditry again?

I stopped roam ganking months ago because of the Meta. I don't and never have considered it picking on players, something I don't do, but merely what should be a part of the game. But since people cried, I stopped.

Are you inviting me to start again?

Don't tease me. Please.
MidknightDiamond
Doc
@Bringslite:

So, dammit Bluddwolf, time for a new approach. Where are you and your naer'do'well pack of cutthroats? WE need some danger. We need some bandits to chase.

Not that I'm really associated with Bluddwolf in PFO anymore, I'm not really sure he plays PFO since his example of escalation tactics above don't jive with the actual mechanics of event spawning – but are you asking people to engage in banditry again?

I stopped roam ganking months ago because of the Meta. I don't and never have considered it picking on players, something I don't do, but merely what should be a part of the game. But since people cried, I stopped.

Are you inviting me to start again?

Don't tease me. Please.
If they aren't, I am. We need more bandits and random chaos in the realms - more "bad guys" for those paladins and holy crusaders to try and hunt down.
Aurora Silverstar, Pathfinder University Quartermaster & Explorer
Kiernan Silverstar, Aurora's lazy & good-for-nothing younger brother who just likes to blow things up.

PM MidknightDiamond on Paizo Forum
Edam
MidknightDiamond
If they aren't, I am. We need more bandits and random chaos in the realms - more "bad guys" for those paladins and holy crusaders to try and hunt down.

Never going to happen.

Even if half the server were Bandits and the other half Paladins the chances of the two actually crossing paths and coming to blows is almost nil unless the bandits actively decide to fight the paladins.

You are going to need a way around the "log in my bandit alt, do a raid maybe two, then logout and go do something else for a day or two before anyone tracks me down" dynamic before you get any action like that happening.

It is different in TT the DM/GM deliberately puts the NPC bandits in harms way at the parties disposal.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post