Originally posted by Rohn

Originally posted by Souldrainer
I, for one, and quite annoyed that they made their funding goal, because I think companies of this size should be banned from using crowd funding, regardless of the interent nobility of their stated goals.

 

Once they had reached a certain amount, there was virtually no chance that it wouldn't succeed.

They have corporate sponsorship, meaning they have money.  They just wanted MORE money - free money at that, with no strings attached.  With the money they already have, they could have paid off the rest of the Kickstarter to get the donated money.  They weren't in jeopardy of losing it.

What's laughable about this campaign of greed?  They were paying money to advertise the Kickstarter.

Shameless greed.

How is it 'greed' when they clearly state that the aim of the new money is to bring the game to market faster?

Who do you think is actually making money here, apart from the professionals recieving a wage they would have gotten anyhow?

You guys need to take a day off now and again.

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

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.

More on PvP:

 

Kickstarter Community Thread: Player vs. Player Conflict

The core design guideline for Pathfinder Online is "maximize meaningful human interaction". That principle informs every aspect of the game, in ways large and small.

One of the most important impacts is that your character will be often at risk of encountering other characters in combat, "Player vs. Player".

"Often At Risk" is a key phrase. You will not always be at such risk.

There will be some times and some places where you will be safe from any unwanted PvP activity. In general this will be a condition within powerful NPC Settlements who have the ability to enforce peaceable relations between characters.

There will be other places where the risk will be substantially reduced because the NPCs will be able to react to anyone who makes an unwanted attack against you fast enough to have a high likelihood of killing your attacker before they can kill your character, making such assaults highly uncommon. This kind of protection will primarily be provided when you are in an area near a powerful NPC Settlement.

There will be some places where the NPC response will not be fast enough to stop an attacker from killing your character, but will be fast enough to ensure that the attacker dies as well. This makes it less likely that you will be attacked randomly; rather such attacks will be carefully planned and executed by groups with a sense for the risk/reward of their actions. This level of protection will exist on the edges of NPC controlled territory.

Outside of NPC controlled territory, player character decisions will have a strong influence on how secure a given area is - or is not!

We mention meaningful human interaction. The key is meaningful. Somebody ganking newbies without any consequences isn't meaningful. Somebody getting killed while they transport rare ore for the sword they are building, who then gathers some allies and goes after the attacker after putting a bounty on their head IS meaningful interaction. Both result in the death of a character. The first is something we don't want since it isn't meaningful, the second is something we totally want, because it IS meaningful.

[...]

We're happy to discuss this issue in more detail in this thread, and many members of the community will likely have their own opinions and experiences to share as well!

-

Designers Talk PvP

 

Being at risk more often than not is all I need to know, thanks for reaffirming my decision not to support.

Originally posted by adam_nox

Originally posted by jdnyc

Pathfinder Online is not DnD.  It's Pathfinder the number one successful RPG TT right now.

The game is set in The River Kingdoms.

The game is based on the Campaign Setting Kingmaker (which is also in The River Kingdoms.)

You can grow and build your own settlements and wage war in Kingmaker the TT RPG.

 

Lisa Stevens has a very deep contact list with many people in the industry.

Lisa Stevens is the CEO of Paizo. 

Paizo is successful, but isn't a mega corp.

Goblin Works is a startup with some investment from Paizo.  Hence the kickstarter.

ryan and the rest all have experience from CCP and other game companies.

 

 

the more you know.

I won't bother asking who this is even directed towards, but I do keep hearing about all these game connections etc.

 

What I'm curious about, what mmorpg connections do they have, what known and vetted developers of massive online games are working on it, if any?  Since this game is going to be nothing like a tabletop game, and promises mmo features that countless other mmos have and failed at, I think that might be a bit more important.

CTO, Goblin Works: Mark Kalmes: & more at: What Makes Pathfinder Online Different?

Mark Kalmes (Chief Technical Officer)

Mark has worked for 15 years on the most technically demanding projects he could find. He has worked on fluid dynamics, expert medical systems, document management systems, integrated development environments, mobile devices, and of course video games.

In 2002, Mark joined Cryptic Studios and helped launch the successful City of Heroes superhero MMO. City of Heroes was launched with minimal investment, with only 21 people in the company. It quickly gathered a large audience and became highly profitable. Mark became a lead programmer on City of Villains and was named as the software director for the successor project, Champions Online. While at Cryptic, Mark created several successful mission systems and architected the Cryptic DB distributed database system.

In 2007, Mark left Cryptic to start World of Darkness, a new project building on the successful vampire property. He staffed the North American office of CCP with new programming hires and produced the first playable internal test version of the game. While at CCP, he worked closely with the core technology group in Iceland to create a common technology platform for both World of Darkness and EVE Online. Since exiting CCP in 2009, he has pursued his self-directed research in robotics and developed a consumer-focused shopping site, flitterati.com, for people who love books.

Originally posted by Ozmodan
Using Cryptic Studios in a resume certainly does not create a lot of confidence.  

What would be a good development studio to put in your resume?   

Originally posted by BlackUhuru

Originally posted by Ozmodan
Using Cryptic Studios in a resume certainly does not create a lot of confidence.  

What would be a good development studio to put in your resume?   

It's not our fault that Cryptic has such a bad reputation and they darn well earned it and then some.  I believe it's safe to say that any other company would be considered a step up on the quality scale.