Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Pathfinder Adventures Dev Q&A Stream this Wednesday 6/7/17


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#41
Ripe

Ripe

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 206 posts

 

Well, for multiplayer to work they need to handle it the way Paizo handle Organized play (which IS multiplayer for physical game!)... and for that they need to introduce Class decks.

 

As for Story vs. Quest mode... I actually prefer Story because it's a lot less grinding there. Quest mode is just constant repeating of same 5-6 scenario setups untill you get to add a new tier od cards where you get to repeat another set of same 5-6 scenario setups. Difference is, in Story mode you get to add new tier much faster (5 scenarios won as opposed to 15-20). 

I don't see why you'd think this is the case... there's really no reason they'd need to introduce class decks in order for you to have characters play in an asynchronous way... they could do it with their current cards and mechanics.

 

Because timing of WHEN someone play something is only one of the problems with Pathfinder multiplayer... and it's not even the biggest one.

 

Card pool available for deck construction AND play is the main issue, same as with Organized play. Paizo handled that issue with Class decks and I can't see a way Obsidian can do it without them.



#42
Yewstance

Yewstance

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 59 posts

 

Because timing of WHEN someone play something is only one of the problems with Pathfinder multiplayer... and it's not even the biggest one.

 

Card pool available for deck construction AND play is the main issue, same as with Organized play. Paizo handled that issue with Class decks and I can't see a way Obsidian can do it without them.

 

 

That seems a very narrow view. There are a great deal of ways to work around it.

For example, look at the (soon-to-be defunct) Quest Mode. It gave you a 'level' based on your number of feats/rewards, and sorted a party into a "Tier"/Adventure Deck based on the highest level/tier amongst the group.

Even without Quest Mode, you can still categorize progression by the count of how many feats they have (thankfully, we don't have to worry about the "gaining extra feats mid-scenario" as some other sets outside of RotR do), and/or limit deckbuilding to a specific adventure deck. Oh you are playing scenario 4-X multiplayer? Then you must put your adventure deck 5 and 6 cards in the stash and replace them with basics, and you can't do it with a character that has X feats.

Of course...

More realistically, they don't need a limitation on 'when' anyway. In the current setup you can use a finished character with loot and adventure deck 6 cards and all of the feats possible and use them to play alongside a brand new character on any scenario you wish. Multiplayer would likely maintain that - just don't restrict who you can/can't play with. If you want a challenge, then perhaps set your own custom limits (Feat count, adventure deck # of cards, even modifiers like wildcards), or just play with a friend who pre-agreed.

 

I don't really think that multiplayer is going to be seen in the foreseeable future. Honestly, I don't think I'd use it if it existed, either. But suggesting that Class Decks (and, by extension, organized play character sheets/tracking) are mandatory to have people play with each other for fun is nonsense.

 

As for card pool available for play - that's generated in the app AFTER the group have adjusted their decks anyway. And the idea of 'losing' cards from the card pool by players acquiring it isn't a concern at all in a digital version (though they may need to consider how they'll limit treasure cards when one or more players lack having unlocked them).


Edited by Yewstance, 12 June 2017 - 11:02 PM.

  • Ethics Gradient likes this

#43
Ripe

Ripe

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 206 posts

It may be a "very narrow view" but you're the one missing the whole picture...

 

The problem is not how to add Multiplayer to the game, it's how to add it without causing issues with "main game" (which, like it or not is Story Mode). Quest Mode introduced a lot of ways it could be done, but Quest Mode also introduced so many issues and bugs (not just for itself but also for Story Mode) that Obsidian decided to scrap it completely and remove it before a Steam release.

 

Organized play (and Class Decks) are not mandatory to introduce Multiplayer but they are simplest and easiest solution, one that have least chance of introducing bugs that could make Story Mode unstable. Could it be done without it? Sure, but that also bring the risk of creating "another Quest Mode" with all it's problems and issues.



#44
Ethics Gradient

Ethics Gradient

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1107 posts
  • Location:NJ
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

Organized play (and Class Decks) are not mandatory to introduce Multiplayer but they are simplest and easiest solution, one that have least chance of introducing bugs that could make Story Mode unstable. Could it be done without it? Sure, but that also bring the risk of creating "another Quest Mode" with all it's problems and issues.

 

I'm not against the introduction of class decks to add more content to the game, but I'm not sure what problems they would solve regarding a multiplayer mode.  As the poster above noted, the way that decks are built from the vault there are a "nearly limitless" quantity of campaign cards, and a "technically unlimited" quantity of Blessings of the Gods. Class decks tried to help support organized play and pick-up games by segregating cards you own from the hosting base set.  There is no analogous concern in the digital app, the vault simply rebuilds itself before the next game.

 

Treasure cards are a concern, but they could either be turned off in multiplayer, or a system could be created to allow you to "keep" treasure cards you don't own.  The latter option seems like it could be abused, but looking forward with the PC version of the app, it honestly seems that the devs are less concerned about Treasure Chests being core to the revenue stream.

 

What is problematic for async multiplayer (synchronous too), is that there are still a few communication and gameplay issues to smooth over.  Multiplayer might be simpler if each player just did their thing independently of the other, but Pathfinder doesn't fit the "Words With Friends" gameplay model.  Figuring out how Player A can beat a check requesting a blessing assist from Player B and maybe having Player C volunteer to play a spell they were holding onto for emergencies it going to be rough.  Having a turn stalled-out because the person controlling Player B is in the shower (and you really need that blessing) won't be a lot of fun either.  If I recall correctly, the recent Pathfinder dev stream briefly glossed over that issue, stating that should multiplayer be implemented someday, maybe some rules would need to be modified or simplified to fit an async model.

 

The Quest Mode/Story Mode crossover bugs weren't all that terrible in reality.  However, they were catastrophic in that users couldn't do anything to resolve them and helpful cloud syncing only made things worse.

 

As one of the devs mentioned over here, when their small team had to chose between troubleshooting/developing quest mode or ensuring the core experience (story mode) was as seamless as possible, they chose to cut quest loose.


  • Hannibal_PJV likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users