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.
|goldenradish 04.26.2017 10:40|
Bringslite of StaalgardAgreed. Indirect PvP, filtered PvP, any kind of meaningful & competitive player interaction that isn't "make the HP bar zero" would go a long way. Yet, the GW team has had years and this isn't the plan. The new plan is to keep following the original failed plan and expecting a different result.
Paddy FitzpatrickRespectfully, today, in PFO this is exactly what the game is. When I appear in the world, if I step 30m away from the guards, I can immediately be killed and fully looted. FFA PVP. Anywhere in the world that I'm not within 30m of a guard, this is true. FFA PVP. It's a basic design goal that has been met.
From here: https://goblinworks.com/blog/early-enrollment-2-release-notes/ (from Jan 22 2015, with no changes at least until Apr 26, 2017)
" This release includes a major feature - player character husks. This feature introduces the element of looting from dead characters to the game. From this point forward you risk losing some or all of the contents of your inventory if your character dies. The extent of your losses will be related to how quickly you are able to return to the site of your Husk and if you are able to recover the inventory that remains on the Husk before others are able to take all of its contents or its timer expires.
If inclined, my attacker can do this forever, over and over. Even at my respawn location. There are no in-game mechanics to prevents this. There are no guards at respawn locations. It's Ryan Dancey's "Eve with swords" come true, but far less safe for the victims. As long as it's true, PFO will be a niche game with insufficient subscribers to cover costs, never mind make a profit. All other mechanics, features, and implementation details are meaningless in light of this current FFA PVP reality. How many more years of proof do you need?
|goldenradish 04.25.2017 12:14|
Bringslite of Staalgard#1 You could build a game with no-texture primitives to work out gameplay issues. Graphics have almost nothing to do with good gameplay.
#2 and below?
The financial failure of every north american fantasy-themed pvp-focused MMO to date boils down to one thing, in my experience:
Most customers will not pay to be victims, indefinitely.
Now, it's true, some customers will pay to be victims, but they are a very very small target demographic, and evidently not enough to cover expenses, never mind make a profit, for an MMO. I don't see this ever changing, given it's been true for over 20 years.
Conflating sandbox with FFA PVP will continue to produce the failures of the past 20 years.
There are hundreds of good ideas for MMO's that will be popular, hell, if PFO was actually a pure PvE implementation of Pathfinder Modules Online? There would be more than 10k subs right now.
To your question of Why Are All "Sandboxy PVP Included" MMOs not meeting expectations? Because developers keep repeating the mistakes of history. FFA PVP does not make a sandbox. FFA PVP does not guarantee financial success or subscriptions. Maybe, just maybe, FFA PVP needs to stay in first person shooters, RTS, and other short-lived trivial games? Yeah, maybe.
I saw dozens of posters trying to talk Ryan Dancey out of this exact situation almost 5 years ago, on the Paizo forums. He dismissed them all and now we have another failure. Almost like 100, 1000, or 10,000 humans ARE wiser than one hubris-filled human. :|
|goldenradish 03.18.2017 21:30|
Read through the email..
It's really unfortunate that goblinworks is continuing down this demonstrated path of failure. It's not really that hard to understand: The existing and outlined future feature set has not and will never gather a sufficient population to make this game a financially viable product or service.
Attempting to "finish" the feature set that has not gathered a sufficient population in an attempt to make this game a financially viable product is just throwing good time & money after bad. I see no logic in it, and I will tell everyone I know to stay away until someone else purchases/licenses the Pathfinder intellectual property and makes a product worthy of the Pathfinder name.
You know how to make a financially viable product or service, and yet deliberately choose not to? Why would anyone continue to support such a path? The lack of financial responsibility is frankly astonishing to me.
|goldenradish 09.28.2016 10:45|
Duffy SwiftshadowNo new player is going to review the last 2 years of decisions & events before subscribing. You'd be fortunate if they read anything more than the official web site and first page of the forums before subscribing.
Potential new customers look at the current feature set and either sub or not. Just like every other live & persistent MMO with a subscription model.
It's been 1 year and 9 months (as of next week) that this has been happening, and the required critical threshold of paying customers has not materialized. The only variables to change in this equation are the feature set.
Continuing down this design path, with this same feature set, is not going to change the outcome. The last 1 year and 9 months has proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
|goldenradish 09.28.2016 08:05|
NihimonJust to provide an outside opinion..
The few dozen players who are still logging in daily to PFO are enjoying these mechanics, which have been requested by the larger MMO community for 20 years:
-A 'sandbox' (despite there being no consensus on what that really means)
-Open world always-on no-consent-required PvP (which, statistically, historically, and financially, drives away 90% of your potential paying audience, wolves eat all the sheep)
-Consequences for death (20 deaths, your gear is gone, GL getting more, l2play nub)
-Fixed pace temporal base advancement (not "skill", not use) like Alganon and Eve. And yes, I'm aware, a little use is
required for some gates.
-Tile/hex ownership, attack, and defense. (this is supposed to add meaning and depth to PvP rather than just murderhobo zerg ganking)
-No fast travel.
-No global banks.
-No global auction house.
-No NPCs that sell anything. Players make everything. 100% Player driven economy.
Now, outside looking in, since January 15th, 2015, this game has been persistent, live and in production. It has never, despite all those core mechanics being present that the hardcore PvP crowd continues to request in any/all other games, gathered even 5000 subscribers. Personally, I doubt it had more than 1000 subscribers, but GW will never reveal those numbers, so it's all speculation.
My point? The number of players in the game today is less than 10% of any wildest-dreams potential customers, without changing some or all of those core mechanics. Historically demonstrated dozens of times with other PvP titles, financially inescapable given the historical reality.
If finance is going to be driving the PFO bus w/ Newcorp? None of the customers, past or present, has any bearing whatsoever on the changes required to make this a FINANCIALLY successful MMO title.
It has nothing to do with promises, or a level playing field. It has everything to do with attracting a target demographic large enough to keep the lights on, share price up, dividends paying, or whatever other euphemism you want to use. And the current game and mechanics? They aren't doing that, and they haven't done that since January 2015 and they will NEVER do that.
I appreciate the myopic perspective you guys are enjoying, but you have to remove yourselves from the financial equation, because it's the only responsible course of action on the road to revenue & profit.