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.

How to make PFO more "Pathfinder"

Bringslite
The original question was about making the game MORE "Pathfinder like". Presumably to be more attractive to PF TT players, which is a fairly large audience.

While not ALL PF TT players whom have made it known that they do not enjoy PVP-as a blanket statement-it is safe to point out that they are wanting more elements of a traditionally cooperative nature before they try the game. That doesn't dismiss PVP in reality, but it certainly points to both misconceptions about PVP in PFO as well as indicates that there probably aren't ENOUGH regular "grouping up, oldschool adventuring opportunities" essentially free of PVP available.

This is a very obvious and common response when talking with PF TT players. Even if moving more in the requested direction can't be done on a massive scale, it seems prudent that it be done AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE on a realistic scale. They are telling you what they want…

Maybe the originally conceived concepts about what would make "the world turn", were miscalculated? They obviously were if the main target audience was PF TT players. If the target audience was "Territorial PVP fans" then where are they? In short, I have my doubts that more PVP development(in the short turn) will help, in the mid term after OE.

This is a pretty strong gut feeling.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Azure_Zero
True most of Pathfinder TT is on the Coop side fighting monsters, doing quests, … etc.
But remember where we are in the Pathfinder world.
It is the River Kingdoms, where kingdoms have been fighting each other using various methods and means to expand.
So yeah PVP and PVE have to be in balance here, since players are also content.

You can't lock yourself into a little piece of the world and NEVER expect to get PVP coming to your door.
Look at the HRC for example, we kept basically to ourselves didn't attack anyone, and got Wiped out in week of attacks because one group didn't like the HRC controlling an area they really could not call a settlement.

Now I agree with Paddy, Kenton and a few others that Pathfinder Online SHOULD NEVER of been called Pathfinder Online in the first place,
due to this being a big divergence from the Coop/quest game style found in Table Top play to the PVP style of play found in EVE Online.
It should of been called "Battle for the River Kingdoms: a Pathfinder online Game."
Reasons: 1 inform the player this is a PVP game with PVE elements, 2 it uses the Pathfinder setting, 3 kingdoms are player made.
Bringslite
I am not suggesting that PVP be removed or nerfed. I am suggesting that if you want to attract PF TT players there be a development focus more on PF TT recognizable items, themes, play opportunities and all things like that. Both can exist within the same game.

Now if the goal isn't to attract more PF TT players (sooner rather than later) then, by all means, make PVP better than it is now for the foreseeable development future. We are dealing with limited resources here (time+money). A serious few focus decisions should probably be made if the game is going to progress to a workable population level.

@Azure
What you describe above makes sense but where are the players for that game?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Azure_Zero
@Bringslite
If the Game was marketed correctly with the right Title, more of the PVPers would of Kickstarted and joined the game.
It should of been marketed as Fantasy EVE Online, and it might of caught the attention of the PVPers.

But with game markets now a days you have to be the first to market with the idea and get it right, and not just do another CoD or PUBG clone
Bringslite
Bob
What I'm particularly interested in is the "why" part for things that folks feel would make the game more "Pathfinder." Understanding that makes it possible for me to think about other ways of meeting that need that might be easier to implement or more appropriate for our style of game.

To answer this question, I can only speak for myself.
*Items and recipes for items will really only add a bit of recognition and familiarity. It would help but isn't the Be All, End All. I still think that it would be a key factor and worth it.
*Focusing on recognizable Archetype Character Classes, existing character classes and such will do much the same as they, even more so, will focus on personal character identity than items will.
*Ability score bonuses would bring, also, that sense of character that is part of the TT experience.

Thematically-
*NPCs or even PCs that offer adventure opportunities are highly important, especially if they can be somehow linked into chains that make some sense.
*There should be an "Over Arching" story and more human involvement (in lieu of the world's greatest AI). TT games have these.
*Some ability in creating adventure sessions for series of 3 0r 5 0r whatever number of encounters that, altogether, make a story. The ability to spawn encounters in certain places (Badlands hexes?). This because by giving this power to DMs, you have hooked their whole play group with them.
–Spawning encounters does not need be any more game breaking than already being able to run out and fight already "auto spawning" mobs is. Same treasure tables and all that. The Devs make the rules about what can be spawned, how many, when and how often.
–Using those "Green Lore" pages to deliver text messages for the "adventure" would pretty much make adventures perfect, or at least a start.

Anyway, that is some partial answer for "The Why Would This Help". No matter how incomplete or scattered! smile
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
Azure_Zero
@Bringslite
If the Game was marketed correctly with the right Title, more of the PVPers would of Kickstarted and joined the game.
It should of been marketed as Fantasy EVE Online, and it might of caught the attention of the PVPers.

But with game markets now a days you have to be the first to market with the idea and get it right, and not just do another CoD or PUBG clone

That ship sailed years ago. There are more than a few reasons why it has not succeeded. What is to be done now is the problem. In trying to figure that out, a question has been posed "How to make PFO more 'Pathfinder'? ".

That is the question. I simply disagree that continued focus on PVP development(at this time, and don't get the idea PVP doesn't need work too) will make PFO more Pathfinder like. My opinion and suggestions, about the question, seems to make some sense to me for some reason.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Stilachio Thrax
The PVP issue is a giant Gordian's Knot. Not too get to detailed but a few reasons why the current PVP setup is going to have problems attracting casuals.

1) Gear that might take a couple of months to wear out in PVE, can be wrecked in a single night of PVP.
2) Replacing that gear for anyone without a stable of personal crafters is prohibitively expensive. If I lost all my gear in one night, I wouldn't be able to replace any T3, even if it were available for sale- I don't craft or gather in quantity, so my only coin comes from PVE combat.
3) Given 1 & 2, T2 is probably the way to go for PVP, except now you are making yourself weaker wearing inferior equipment- it is antithetical to virtually every other MMO out there, where PVP gear is often the best gear or on par with the best raid gear. Star Wars Galaxies' space PVP originally had your starfighter and its equipment take permanent damage if you died in PVP. The devs didn't account for the fact that pilots would spend ungodly sums of time and money to get materials and reverse engineer parts to create their ideal gear and a max-mass starfighter. We are talking months to years to create the right loadout. Guess what happened? Nobody wanted their good gear to take damage, so they used inferior parts or stopped PVPing. Those that used inferior parts eventually found a lack of opponents and got frustrated at gimping their ship every time they might have PVP. The devs eventually removed any equipment and ship damage on death, and it was the best thing they could have done for PVP- participation and the fun factor of using the great gear you built jumped significantly.

As long as PVP death nukes equipment (or later can be looted), you are going to keep PVP in the realm of a few dedicated hardcore.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Bringslite
I have thought it odd that it takes 2.2 times longer to craft a set of General's Banded armor Than it does to build a Keep.

And, I hope that I have not come across as too much of a jerk in this thread. I actually like most of the ideas I have seen here. Apologies if I have done so. I am not a great communicator. smile
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Azure_Zero
@Bringslite
If the Game was marketed correctly with the right Title, more of the PVPers would of Kickstarted and joined the game.
It should of been marketed as Fantasy EVE Online, and it might of caught the attention of the PVPers.

But with game markets now a days you have to be the first to market with the idea and get it right, and not just do another CoD or PUBG clone

+1
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
plopmania
Bob
In terms of incentives, one of the main things we intended originally was that settlements would very much want to keep their nearby hexes cleared of escalations. We had multiple things in mind, like cutting into bulk resource production in infected hexes, monsters attacking buildings or even settlements, and just generally having bad things happen to settlements if nearby escalations remained unchecked. Sometimes settlements would find themselves needing a little help and would offer up bounties for helping battle specific escalations, or even just to reward their own members when they choose doing what the settlement needs over doing what they personally need.

While contracts aren't exactly Pathfinder-y, doing quests with tangible end results sure sits right in the TT.. table?

Anyways, I'd suggest searching for a way to implement both settlement-to-player and player-to-player contracts. Maybe a notice board near the settlement inn with open offers.

Settlement contracts:
  • Reduce nearby escalation strength by X
  • Eliminate X monsters of type Y near inside settlements control region
  • Collect and deliver trophy from monster B in hex (x, y)
  • ???

Escalations and "abundance" of certain monsters could affect bulk generation of the settlement and potentially travel speed of, say, donkeys with that region. Or something similar to goad the settlement to put out contracts. Rewards could be silver and maybe tax relaxation tokens for a number of days. Or something.

Trophies could be special items that the settlement could use to either reduce bulk requirements for some time or grant bonuses for the settlement's denizens. Maybe a trophy could be placed just outside the wall. (I don't want to think about the ramifications of 100s of people doing the trophy quest - seems hard.)

Player contracts:
Aside from buy-orders and bounties, it seems a little hard to generate meaningful contracts that would not be superbly painful to implement.
So I thought about skipping auction house for the purpose of generating player contracts that make sense.

Similar to the trophy quest offered by the settlement, players could leave contracts for rare materials required for enhancements (or something similar). These materials could only be obtained through a contact - one could not sell these items on the action house.

The contract would be a "quest chain", like "Kill 30 wolfs then kill 10 goblin shamans, and then travel to hex [10,-3] where a Mad Goblin Rider will spawn". Targets could be picked at random, in escalating tiers to make the content somewhat different each time.

The Mad Goblin Rider would drop a token, which would act as the object to return. It would not be the rare material itself. Right clicking the token would turn it into the rare material, effectively ending the contract (in violation, since the token was not returned). Either return the token and claim the reward or "steal" the end result.
The rare material cannot be listed into the action house.

I am not entirely sure how party-play would fit in, exactly. Maybe upon contract completion the rewards are equally distributed among the party members, if a party exists.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post