Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

Originally posted by Lobotomist-

They are using middleware to cut down on development time. - This didnt help Bioware. But maybe second gen middleware is better...lets just wait and see what engine will be licenced.

I would hope if they're fast-tracking development and already starting on hype, that an engine and base framework is already in place.  Famous last words "this is turning into a much larger job than expected" when engine + middleware != finished game.

Sad , but not...

He states, they are still searching for the engine.

Now..

You have hero engine (SWTOR) , that didnt really cut developing time of SWTOR. Its not shabby engine as it it, but i am not sure it fits sandbox games.

Although when I think about it , both sci-fi chanel mmo is using it, and repopulation, that claims to be sandbox aswell.

Three engines I'd be looking at are Hero, Big World (not sure if they still work with Indies), and one I only recently learned about which is Esenthal.  I stumbled into videos from it looking for information about shader coding.  Seems quite high-end for the price and it's designed ground-up for MMO creation.  Personally I think that's a huge advantage over converting FPS engines for MMO use.

You know about The Repopulation?  Very cool.  They actually worked with the engine I'm using until they jumped to Hero.  Solid team and their stuff looks good.

Although the reputation of Indie sandboxes has been somewhat tarnished by incomplete development and questionable management, eventually there will be a major hit that will rock the market.  Good luck to Pathfinder, perhaps it will be them that makes a big splash.

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Those things are what I would expect in any game, and a sandbox is no different.  In fact, I would say that a sandbox world/setting must be more interesting than a themepark. When I look at how dead and sterile SWTOR's game world is and compare it to the 7 year old SWG, I think SOE's game is much more interesting.  SWG made you want to explore, and it gave you planets full of interesting places to visit.  I liked having open "dungeons" to run with friends, and areas with different kinds of mobs, etc.  Yes, I agree that SWG could have benefited from more quest content, but the rest of the game was much more interesting than the scripted and contrived content of pure themeparks.  Especially pre-NGE.  Yes, it needed work and was too ambituious for the time, but much of what it did created magic on several servers that I have never seen since.

I saw glimpes of thise in Xsyon too.  I joined a clan, and we immediately start working together and communicating to build our community.  We hung out by the water and fished together while chatting. We went on dangerous resource gathering and exploring "quests" together, etc.  In the two weeks I was there before I gave up on all the problems, I found it more interesting than months in Rift.  Again, to each his own.  I prefer a game where actual people come together to solve problems and create adventures.  I would welcome quests as well, and some scripted content, but not at the cost of open-world features.

 In this day and age both TP and SB games could benefit from devs realizing all of their features would be so much better by bringing in features of the other. A straight SB game will lack in explorable story related content, a TP will lack in community, by being only what they are, they're leaving a lot to be desired.

I understand this company is small, I understand they want to take it slow ( that's intelligent IMO), at the same time for their own benefit I hope they realize they need more than PVP and crafting. That's really all I am saying here.

 

Completely agree.  This was one area where SWG fell far short.  The Galactic Civil War could have been great and done a lot more to grow the the game.  Even the NGE missed that boat.

Originally posted by Distopia

A straight SB game will lack in explorable story related content, a TP will lack in community, by being only what they are, they're leaving a lot to be desired.

The biggest issues I see with going hybrid are that players from one side or another could find design decisions awkward.  One example is classes versus classless / skill based.  A typical sandboxer might find classes too restrictive, while a typical themeparker might find classless too unstructured.

Another area would be PVP.  Part of sandboxing, at least in some definitions, is the building and destruction of player created structures and implies open world PVP.  In themeparks, PVP is often tucked away in instanced battle grounds.

Trying to make everyone happy might end up making noone happy.  Spoken from experience at the making noone happy part.  Been there.

I'm wary of this mindset that says a sandbox needs little content.  If your sandbox has no sand, or lacks plastic shovels and toy buckets to interact with sand, then your sandbox is a failure.

FFA-pvp sandboxes simply doesnt work because they do zip to attract prey so PKs just get bored and quit. Times of games like UO are long gone, why would PvE'ers play FFApvp games when theres so many pve games to choose from? and without variety on the community, sandbox isnt a sandbox...its just pvp themepark.

Let's get back on topic and stop the namecalling.

Thier ideas don't sound bad in concept...although I do wonder about the execution.

I think limiting thier initial audience....starting small and gradualy building up thier numbers is actualy a good plan for the type of game they want to make and the resources they have.

Sandbox games tend to be much more oriented toward community then themeparks. Starting with a small core group and gradualy building onto that group is actualy alot more effective in building community then throwing everyone in feet first at once....it also lets the Dev's play a more active role in building community.

It also does allow them to take a more phased approach to building out other things....like infrastructure, customer service teams, the game world itself, even game mechanics.  Alot of the growing pains happen with a smaller more dedicated  (and presumably more tolerant) group of players before the masses get exposed to them.

It's actualy not a bad plan for a company that doesn't have any previous experience in running MMO's. It lets them build up operational experience slowly...instead of being thrown directly in the deep end.

Of course there are some dangers to the approach as well.

 - Word of mouth means alot....so if the game has a rough start...even with only a small player base it may never get the opportunity to grow that base...as reputation travels and people write it off before ever giving it a try. Also people may pass up joining it 6-12 months down the road simply because it doesn't have the new/shiney factor anymore.

- There is such a thing as "economy of scale"....so they are going to have to plan on loosing money every month for quite awhile before they build up enough critical mass to be proffitable....at least if the want the game to be well supported and actual grow they will.  This is not inherently a bad thing...as lots of companies take a few years to build thier business before the become proffitable....and MMO's are certainly used to running up pretty hefty bills up front before they see a dime back in income....but they definately need to account for that in thier planning.

- There is another issue of scale, in that software/hardware or game systems that work well when you are dealing with a small group of users don't neccesarly scale up very well when you start to reach certain thresholds.....and there is a real cost involved in trying to scrap and redo architecture to accomodate a larger volume of use then if you hand planned and tested for that volume from scratch. It's definately an issue they'll need to be carefull about.

Again, not a bad approach....but it definately has it's pitfalls as well. I'll be watching this with interest.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Thier ideas don't sound bad in concept...although I do wonder about the execution.

I think limiting thier initial audience....starting small and gradualy building up thier numbers is actualy a good plan for the type of game they want to make and the resources they have.

Sandbox games tend to be much more oriented toward community then themeparks. Starting with a small core group and gradualy building onto that group is actualy alot more effective in building community then throwing everyone in feet first at once....it also lets the Dev's play a more active role in building community.

It also does allow them to take a more phased approach to building out other things....like infrastructure, customer service teams, the game world itself, even game mechanics.  Alot of the growing pains happen with a smaller more dedicated  (and presumably more tolerant) group of players before the masses get exposed to them.

It's actualy not a bad plan for a company that doesn't have any previous experience in running MMO's. It lets them build up operational experience slowly...instead of being thrown directly in the deep end.

Of course there are some dangers to the approach as well.

 - Word of mouth means alot....so if the game has a rough start...even with only a small player base it may never get the opportunity to grow that base...as reputation travels and people write it off before ever giving it a try. Also people may pass up joining it 6-12 months down the road simply because it doesn't have the new/shiney factor anymore.

- There is such a thing as "economy of scale"....so they are going to have to plan on loosing money every month for quite awhile before they build up enough critical mass to be proffitable....at least if the want the game to be well supported and actual grow they will.  This is not inherently a bad thing...as lots of companies take a few years to build thier business before the become proffitable....and MMO's are certainly used to running up pretty hefty bills up front before they see a dime back in income....but they definately need to account for that in thier planning.

- There is another issue of scale, in that software/hardware or game systems that work well when you are dealing with a small group of users don't neccesarly scale up very well when you start to reach certain thresholds.....and there is a real cost involved in trying to scrap and redo architecture to accomodate a larger volume of use then if you hand planned and tested for that volume from scratch. It's definately an issue they'll need to be carefull about.

 

Again, not a bad approach....but it definately has it's pitfalls as well. I'll be watching this with interest.

Well said and I agree with most of your points. Heck, I give them credit for being willing to think outside of the box and try to do things differently...

Looking forward to the game.  I have alot of the pathfinder books and would be fun to play a mmorpg based around them.

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

Originally posted by Distopia

A straight SB game will lack in explorable story related content, a TP will lack in community, by being only what they are, they're leaving a lot to be desired.

The biggest issues I see with going hybrid are that players from one side or another could find design decisions awkward.  One example is classes versus classless / skill based.  A typical sandboxer might find classes too restrictive, while a typical themeparker might find classless too unstructured.

Another area would be PVP.  Part of sandboxing, at least in some definitions, is the building and destruction of player created structures and implies open world PVP.  In themeparks, PVP is often tucked away in instanced battle grounds.

 

Trying to make everyone happy might end up making noone happy.  Spoken from experience at the making noone happy part.  Been there.

You do bring up a good point, execution of bringing these hybrid designs would be key. IF your game is fundamentally a Themepark, you do have to make sure you're offering what that playerbase wants. And of course the same goes for a fundamental sandbox game. Picture a Themepark with all the trimmings you'd expect in one, that also offered a lot of community building features such as player cities, guild keeps, etc. Picture a Sandbox with all the trimmings that also had many layers of story content, and what goes along with that. These would be my ideal MMO's. That doesn't mean they'd be for everyone of course.

---

Originally posted by spinner_vis

---

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

---

Originally posted by ArEf
I just pooped a little bit in my pants.
Pathfinder setting and mechanics in a sandbox? HELL YES.

---

That's my big question! Will it be Pathfinder mechanics, or will it be the usual MMO fare? Combat being the number one thing I'm looking at. Character development with abilities and skills being another area.
DDO failed miserably at bringing DnD online for me. DDO is nothing like DnD in gameplay mechanics. That's my worry for Pathfinder Online.

---

it's not going to be d20. read FAQ for more information.

---

No. MMOs have different needs than a tabletop roleplaying game. Pathfinder Online will retain the spirit and flavor of the Pathfinder RPG, but it will not be mechanically identical."

That's all I needed to know. Thanks :)

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Distopia
I want a quality Sandbox MMO as much as anyone who does. But saying they don't need to focus on content development simply because Sandbox players can provide their own is a bit wonky to me.
This was the biggest issue many had with SWG as an example there was no forward growth when the game was a sandbox, none. Base content (non-expansion) growth didn't begin until after the game had already faced it's final nail (NGE). Things may have been far different (pre-cu) if this were not the case.
Sandbox games need content, without it the game becomes nothing but a PVP play-ground with crafter support. Which is fine for some I'm sure, myself included. We're hardly enough to sustain a game and company though, content addition will be the difference between the game becoming another MO or Darkfall, regardless of the SB tools available to us.
 

---

 

 

---

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Clearly...you are not the target audience for this game.

---

 

First, I would appreciate if you would not use my quotes is such manner. You do not speak for me.

Secondly, Distopia, from his/her words, most certainly is the target audience. Anyone who actually read the blog sees that they plan to implement sandbox tools for players to create content, as well as dumping a ton of the exisiting lore into the game. They don't need to "create" it, it has already been created. They just have to move it into game.

They also stated that they will introduce themepark elements, which is content via the adventure modules that have been put out for Pathfinder. No, they are not going to flood the game with this type of content, but it will be there. And the way they allude to incorporating it it will not be on the scale of your typical themepark. Which means they don't have to spend as much time or money as themepark only games.

On that note, I'll take my leave of this thread. It has drawn certain attention which prevents me from making further comment.

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

 

First, I would appreciate if you would not use my quotes is such manner. You do not speak for me.

Secondly, Distopia, from his/her words, most certainly is the target audience. Anyone who actually read the blog sees that they plan to implement sandbox tools for players to create content, as well as dumping a ton of the exisiting lore into the game. They don't need to "create" it, it has already been created. They just have to move it into game.

They also stated that they will introduce themepark elements, which is content via the adventure modules that have been put out for Pathfinder. No, they are not going to flood the game with this type of content, but it will be there. And the way they allude to incorporating it it will not be on the scale of your typical themepark. Which means they don't have to spend as much time or money as themepark only games.

On that note, I'll take my leave of this thread. It has drawn certain attention which prevents me from making further comment.

 

Yeah his post seemed to be a dig at you rather than a reply to me so i left it alone. You're right from their description thus far I am certainly in the target range of this game. I'm excited to see where this project goes.

I'm unfamiliar with the IP, but at the same time; I've been looking for a good sandbox that fits my taste for a long time. This may be it if they can deliver on the direction they're taking.

Well, Sandboxxy will be different change of pace, from the last few years.  Don't know if it's going to be good or bad at this point, I can only speculate and I'm not going to do that.   Goblinworks, please hit one out of the park.

10 pages... looks like this game and Goblin are gonna provide u with 4 years of discussion if nothing else lol

and oh yeah... Pathfinder + sandbox + realistic market aims and expectation = yes please.

Originally posted by vesavius

10 pages... looks like this game and Goblin are gonna provide u with 4 years of discussion if nothing else lol

and oh yeah... Pathfinder + sandbox + realistic market aims and expectation = yes please.

Agreed, but a Pathfinder MMO is one of the few games I actually wants to see levels in.

The pathfinder system is very flexible as it already is, we use it for Forgotten realms currently and my Lvl 5 bard, lvl 2 rogue and lvl 1 Gunslinger is maybe the most customized character I ever had in a P&P game, and I played a lot of P&P during many years.

Pathfinder is a great system, really good balanced unlike D&D (any version) and messing with it is risky.

The market aims is realistic but I am not so sure the budget really is, it is not easier to create the tools for the players to make their own stuff compared to the devs making it even if once you done it you wont run out of content.

Still, I really hope they succeed, Pathfinder is really great. :)

Looks good, although "weeks" for just one guy to go from a traditional plan to a revolutionary plan seems cheesy. I hope he is a genious.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by vesavius

10 pages... looks like this game and Goblin are gonna provide u with 4 years of discussion if nothing else lol

and oh yeah... Pathfinder + sandbox + realistic market aims and expectation = yes please.

Agreed, but a Pathfinder MMO is one of the few games I actually wants to see levels in.

The pathfinder system is very flexible as it already is, we use it for Forgotten realms currently and my Lvl 5 bard, lvl 2 rogue and lvl 1 Gunslinger is maybe the most customized character I ever had in a P&P game, and I played a lot of P&P during many years.

Pathfinder is a great system, really good balanced unlike D&D (any version) and messing with it is risky.

The market aims is realistic but I am not so sure the budget really is, it is not easier to create the tools for the players to make their own stuff compared to the devs making it even if once you done it you wont run out of content.

Still, I really hope they succeed, Pathfinder is really great. :)

Right there with you, I have been with the game since testing :)

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 

---

Originally posted by ArEf
I just pooped a little bit in my pants.
Pathfinder setting and mechanics in a sandbox? HELL YES.

---

That's my big question! Will it be Pathfinder mechanics, or will it be the usual MMO fare? Combat being the number one thing I'm looking at. Character development with abilities and skills being another area.

 

DDO failed miserably at bringing DnD online for me. DDO is nothing like DnD in gameplay mechanics. That's my worry for Pathfinder Online.

It is the Pathfinder setting only.  The mechanics will be regular MMO fare.  If you poke around the Goblinworks page you will find the information.