Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Originally posted by Vorthanion
Perhaps if you labeled it as the Free For All Full Loot Player versus Player Indie Sandbox, you might get more activity, heh?  Maybe the reason why sandboxes haven't done well since their inception is their insistence on putting a large focus on PvP?

Exactly.  The only successful pvp games, for example DAoC, have had significant pve areas, you went into pvp areas by choice.  The pvp everywhere choice has not worked to this point.  Even UO was a far more successful game after the pve areas were added.  I much prefer a sandbox, but I really won't support one that has no significant pve areas any more. 

This statement is typical of the three blind mice syndrome: "They have some pretty significant mechanics to cut down on random ganking.  The "good guys" will have quite an edge".  

Salem was supposed to have a strong anti ganking ruleset and yet, it only took the gankers a little while before they easily got around those rules.  You can wear blinders all you want, but the facts are obvious to anyone.

Personally I am amazed that a developer can't figure that fact out.

 Really?  EvE online seems to have had a pretty good run.  Given that the CEO is from CCP and is pulling many of the concepts I'm fairly excited about a Fantasy Sandbox with both PvP AND PvE...

 

Speaking of which.. if you are stating there is limited PvE in Pathfinder you are very misinformed...

 

 

The small protective pvp areas in Pathfinder as they are described don't even come close to what Eve offers.    It is hard to replicate Eve's design in a fantasy world.  New players will try the game, get ganked.  Some will stay, most will leave.  So the game ends up with a hardcore base.  That is great for players who like that.  Problem with games like this, there is little choice, you always have pvp close at hand, you just can't have a casual day if you don't feel like pvping.

I have read their design and I have big problems with it.  You will too, once you figure it out.

Originally posted by Jimmydean
And how long before they ask for another million and don't back the product if they don't get it? I don't get there kickstarter things. People pay hundreds / thousands of dollars for a game they have no clue will be any good, or will even come to fruition. In the words of many Bros, seems legit.

With all of the "game changers" that we have gotten in the past few years, I would never donate to a promise. As my grand pappy used to say "That's like buying a pig in a poke". Just my honest opinion.

965K WOOT...!!!

35k to fund this GO GO GO GO GO..!!!!!

Originally posted by Jimmydean
And how long before they ask for another million and don't back the product if they don't get it? I don't get there kickstarter things. People pay hundreds / thousands of dollars for a game they have no clue will be any good, or will even come to fruition. In the words of many Bros, seems legit.

Well, look at it this way,

People pay thousands of dollars to back small projects all the time. Small indy movies, small indy games, etc.

There is no guarantee that they are going to make their money back. They back it because they believe in the project, want to support it and "perhaps" they will make some money back.

With these kickstarter projects it's more like they believe in the project, want to support it, like the pitch that was given and take the chance that they are going to get a game/product that caters to their interests because mainstream companies aren't making the games/products that they are interested in.

The devs do seem to be going in a little nieve regarding pvp.  Richard Garriot said he was overwhelmed by how evil people were.  He really thought  the ´good guys´ would outnumber the reds by such a large amount that pking would rarely happen.  He was also very neive about how skillful players would be at avoiding/cheating any type of noterity system he installed.  The first few years of UO, the devs were constantly 6 months behind the latest éxploit´ that basically allowed one player to kill another player without ever being marked as a criminal.

Other than the one CCP guy, the rest of the guys seem to be tabletop guys or writers (which is funny considering they say that ´players´ write the story.  I would feel much better about this title if there were some more hardcore design guys on team, or someone with ingame economics experience.  You have all this focus on crafting and economy and politics.. and then a bunch of people on staff who made their money writing tabletop games and books.

6 hours,  32k to go.. they got their money.. let the countdown to 2014 begin.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Originally posted by Vorthanion
Perhaps if you labeled it as the Free For All Full Loot Player versus Player Indie Sandbox, you might get more activity, heh?  Maybe the reason why sandboxes haven't done well since their inception is their insistence on putting a large focus on PvP?

Exactly.  The only successful pvp games, for example DAoC, have had significant pve areas, you went into pvp areas by choice.  The pvp everywhere choice has not worked to this point.  Even UO was a far more successful game after the pve areas were added.  I much prefer a sandbox, but I really won't support one that has no significant pve areas any more. 

This statement is typical of the three blind mice syndrome: "They have some pretty significant mechanics to cut down on random ganking.  The "good guys" will have quite an edge".  

Salem was supposed to have a strong anti ganking ruleset and yet, it only took the gankers a little while before they easily got around those rules.  You can wear blinders all you want, but the facts are obvious to anyone.

Personally I am amazed that a developer can't figure that fact out.

 Really?  EvE online seems to have had a pretty good run.  Given that the CEO is from CCP and is pulling many of the concepts I'm fairly excited about a Fantasy Sandbox with both PvP AND PvE...

 

Speaking of which.. if you are stating there is limited PvE in Pathfinder you are very misinformed...

 

 

The small protective pvp areas in Pathfinder as they are described don't even come close to what Eve offers.    It is hard to replicate Eve's design in a fantasy world.  New players will try the game, get ganked.  Some will stay, most will leave.  So the game ends up with a hardcore base.  That is great for players who like that.  Problem with games like this, there is little choice, you always have pvp close at hand, you just can't have a casual day if you don't feel like pvping.

I have read their design and I have big problems with it.  You will too, once you figure it out.

You may have missed the important parts then... about how the actual mechanics will discourage random ganking.   I have actually read them and my concern is the opposite, that the field is tilted soo far to the 'good" side that we will not have many bandits around.

Also, the first 9 months of the world it will be established and developed by the Crowforgers.  the OVERWHELMING majority of these folks are anti-PK.   A society will be built... and then at release other players will be allowed in.  This is a radically different concept than has been tried before.

But you know what.. if it's not your cup of tea go pour yourself one from another teapot.  THIS one is gonna fund with just $30k left.   I will be in this world on day one.. so i'll let you know how it's going :-)

Originally posted by Azrile

The devs do seem to be going in a little nieve regarding pvp.  Richard Garriot said he was overwhelmed by how evil people were.  He really thought  the ´good guys´ would outnumber the reds by such a large amount that pking would rarely happen.  He was also very neive about how skillful players would be at avoiding/cheating any type of noterity system he installed.  The first few years of UO, the devs were constantly 6 months behind the latest éxploit´ that basically allowed one player to kill another player without ever being marked as a criminal.

Other than the one CCP guy, the rest of the guys seem to be tabletop guys or writers (which is funny considering they say that ´players´ write the story.  I would feel much better about this title if there were some more hardcore design guys on team, or someone with ingame economics experience.  You have all this focus on crafting and economy and politics.. and then a bunch of people on staff who made their money writing tabletop games and books.

6 hours,  32k to go.. they got their money.. let the countdown to 2014 begin.

i do rather donate 100$ to a writer making a game then giving 1c to the next themepark trash, we ll make it, suck it up themepark apologists

Originally posted by TsaboHavoc

Originally posted by Azrile

The devs do seem to be going in a little nieve regarding pvp.  Richard Garriot said he was overwhelmed by how evil people were.  He really thought  the ´good guys´ would outnumber the reds by such a large amount that pking would rarely happen.  He was also very neive about how skillful players would be at avoiding/cheating any type of noterity system he installed.  The first few years of UO, the devs were constantly 6 months behind the latest éxploit´ that basically allowed one player to kill another player without ever being marked as a criminal.

Other than the one CCP guy, the rest of the guys seem to be tabletop guys or writers (which is funny considering they say that ´players´ write the story.  I would feel much better about this title if there were some more hardcore design guys on team, or someone with ingame economics experience.  You have all this focus on crafting and economy and politics.. and then a bunch of people on staff who made their money writing tabletop games and books.

6 hours,  32k to go.. they got their money.. let the countdown to 2014 begin.

i do rather donate 100$ to a writer making a game then giving 1c to the next themepark trash, we ll make it, suck it up themepark apologists

What is there to suck up.  I enjoy themeparks if they are done well ( WOW), but my first 6 years in an MMO were in UO from almost day 1.    What I am stating is common sense.. if you are making a game where the story is driven by players, and the main part of the game is systems like crafting, economy and politics..   wouldn´t it be better to have the ´story-writers´ making a themepark game and the hardcore system designers and economists making your sandbox.

I have two major problems with this title.  First is the lack of real experience from the devs in regards to creating the systems ingame.  They have one guy who worked on an MMO before in some capacity.  The other major problem I have is the early access + crowdsourcing they are doing.  The game is going to be completely dominated by the people who get into early access, who will be helping to write a lot of the rules.  Anyone coming into the game after that will be relegated to sheep... very similar to Eve.   If you joined Eve in the last 4 years, the best advice someone could give you was to join a large corp and be a peon.  By the time the ´real´ players join PFO, the factions will already be well developed, the map will already be carved up and the rules will already be in place that encourage you to join an existing faction and be a sheep for one of the people who got in early access.

Just $25k to go :-)

If anyone really wants to be a part of building this fantasy sandbox world.. NOW is your chance to get into Early Enrollment.  Don't be left on the outside looking in!

When the game gets released to the F2P players the crowdforgers will have developed a great enviroment for them to start thier journey. Crowdforgers will establish the base lore for the game, not some out of touch suit in an office!

A game for the players, crowdforged by the players, established on day one by the players.

A real MMORPG made by real RPG developers go figure...

Its rare that I put money into a product before something is more concrete, but I went ahead and put some funding in.  

While this premise behind the game is something I'm personally interested in,  I'm also supportive of the use of the Unity Engine as I am currently working with it and additional development could lead to them adding or buying from the asset store,  which, either way would be a plus.  

Hopefully they will get funded...  It would be terrible to get so far for us all to go home empty handed.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Its rare that I put money into a product before something is more concrete, but I went ahead and put some funding in.  

 

While this premise behind the game is something I'm personally interested in,  I'm also supportive of the use of the Unity Engine as I am currently working with it and additional development could lead to them adding or buying from the asset store,  which, either way would be a plus.  

 

Hopefully they will get funded...  It would be terrible to get so far for us all to go home empty handed.

Funding is no longer in question.. now it is a matter of stretch goals!

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Its rare that I put money into a product before something is more concrete, but I went ahead and put some funding in.  

 

While this premise behind the game is something I'm personally interested in,  I'm also supportive of the use of the Unity Engine as I am currently working with it and additional development could lead to them adding or buying from the asset store,  which, either way would be a plus.  

 

Hopefully they will get funded...  It would be terrible to get so far for us all to go home empty handed.

Funding is no longer in question.. now it is a matter of stretch goals!

 

Good to know :)

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Its rare that I put money into a product before something is more concrete, but I went ahead and put some funding in.  

 

While this premise behind the game is something I'm personally interested in,  I'm also supportive of the use of the Unity Engine as I am currently working with it and additional development could lead to them adding or buying from the asset store,  which, either way would be a plus.  

 

Hopefully they will get funded...  It would be terrible to get so far for us all to go home empty handed.

If they were smart and truly deserving of the money they would have some money put back to finish off the kickstarter themselves if it got close. If they do not and the project fails to get funded by lacking such a small amount then it shows they didn't really have the business sense to pull off a project like this. 

Originally posted by Azrile

Originally posted by TsaboHavoc

Originally posted by Azrile

The devs do seem to be going in a little nieve regarding pvp.  Richard Garriot said he was overwhelmed by how evil people were.  He really thought  the ´good guys´ would outnumber the reds by such a large amount that pking would rarely happen.  He was also very neive about how skillful players would be at avoiding/cheating any type of noterity system he installed.  The first few years of UO, the devs were constantly 6 months behind the latest éxploit´ that basically allowed one player to kill another player without ever being marked as a criminal.

Other than the one CCP guy, the rest of the guys seem to be tabletop guys or writers (which is funny considering they say that ´players´ write the story.  I would feel much better about this title if there were some more hardcore design guys on team, or someone with ingame economics experience.  You have all this focus on crafting and economy and politics.. and then a bunch of people on staff who made their money writing tabletop games and books.

6 hours,  32k to go.. they got their money.. let the countdown to 2014 begin.

i do rather donate 100$ to a writer making a game then giving 1c to the next themepark trash, we ll make it, suck it up themepark apologists

What is there to suck up.  I enjoy themeparks if they are done well ( WOW), but my first 6 years in an MMO were in UO from almost day 1.    What I am stating is common sense.. if you are making a game where the story is driven by players, and the main part of the game is systems like crafting, economy and politics..   wouldn´t it be better to have the ´story-writers´ making a themepark game and the hardcore system designers and economists making your sandbox.

I have two major problems with this title.  First is the lack of real experience from the devs in regards to creating the systems ingame.  They have one guy who worked on an MMO before in some capacity.  The other major problem I have is the early access + crowdsourcing they are doing.  The game is going to be completely dominated by the people who get into early access, who will be helping to write a lot of the rules.  Anyone coming into the game after that will be relegated to sheep... very similar to Eve.   If you joined Eve in the last 4 years, the best advice someone could give you was to join a large corp and be a peon.  By the time the ´real´ players join PFO, the factions will already be well developed, the map will already be carved up and the rules will already be in place that encourage you to join an existing faction and be a sheep for one of the people who got in early access.

 You maybe right or you maybe just running around yelling wolf.

Those that have a interest in the game and actually plan to play (ie kickstarters) should have a voice in the games developement over those that have no plans to play and are perfectly fine with more WoW.

  You have your unlimited WoW rez scrolls to entice players who want to try WoW. Don't fear that another game that you are not investing in might succeed. Everyone that kickstarts has to know theres always a chance the game will never make it to launch. its a risk and a chance we take because we want something better then the same wornout stuff the suites at the big name developers that have lost touch with the gaming community keep producing.

  it short your happy with WoW . Go play WoW. Your are risking nothing and lossing nothing If pathfinder online fails or succeeds. Don't complain if while taking no risks you also get no benifits.

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Its rare that I put money into a product before something is more concrete, but I went ahead and put some funding in.  

 

While this premise behind the game is something I'm personally interested in,  I'm also supportive of the use of the Unity Engine as I am currently working with it and additional development could lead to them adding or buying from the asset store,  which, either way would be a plus.  

 

Hopefully they will get funded...  It would be terrible to get so far for us all to go home empty handed.

If they were smart and truly deserving of the money they would have some money put back to finish off the kickstarter themselves if it got close. If they do not and the project fails to get funded by lacking such a small amount then it shows they didn't really have the business sense to pull off a project like this. 

 

 

 this as i understand it against the Kickstarters TOS