Feyshtey said:A global or regional search coupled with an entity with multiple characters disperesed around the gameworld means precisely that it can be purchased and delivered "instantly" to that single entity. They will monitor the search, they will do whatever they have to to be the first to buy up anything with a lower than average offering, and they will in turn sell it for average or above average prices. This will inevitably create an inflation of prices for in-demand items. This will be true for gear, crafting items and quest items. (Unless Pantheon uses a non-material quest system.) The effect will be scaled increasingly higher with an item's rarity.
And who is most likely to pursue such an advantage to gain the most possible wealth? People or groups that want to sell that wealth on the secondary market...
I'd like to hear some reasoning that supports the bolded portion.
Global search: You need a character parked in every market location around the world to purchase something as soon as it is found. It still has to be transported, somehow, from one character in one location to another character in another location.
Local search: You need a character parked in every market location around the world to purchase something as soon as it is found. It still has to be transported, somehow, from one character in one location to another character in another location.
Where's the difference?
Well Feyshtey, I'm glad VR is taking a more reasonable approach and will add enough convenience to attract a large enough audience to keep the title viable.
Face to face only is not gonna fly in 2017+. Neither is no global or continental search. Having seen both of these attempted in 2015, and the resulting failures, I'll stick with my historical evidence. :)
And I'll say it one more time just for clarity: intentionally designing and implementating frustration and inconvenience to attempt but fail to handle multiple accounts isn't a viable design strategy for entertainment.
@Vjek
It's interesting that you mean to declare that a game cannot have a viable audience without implimenting this particular feature, despite the many here that have shown support for it. And if a logical person were to extrapolate your stance to every other instant-gratification game mechanic out there (read as: Not frustration or inconvenience), nothing short of a WoW clown or the dozens of games built predominantly with those same instant-gratification systems would be viable. You have effectively stated that a great deal Pantheon means to return to are in fact self-destructive. One may ask why you have chosen this game to support when so many others follow the ideals you seem to stear toward and which Pantheon means to deliberately stear from.
Feyshtey said:@Vjek
It's interesting that you mean to declare that a game cannot have a viable audience without implimenting this particular feature, despite the many here that have shown support for it. And if a logical person were to extrapolate your stance to every other instant-gratification game mechanic out there (read as: Not frustration or inconvenience), nothing short of a WoW clown or the dozens of games built predominantly with those same instant-gratification systems would be viable. You have effectively stated that a great deal Pantheon means to return to are in fact self-destructive. One may ask why you have chosen this game to support when so many others follow the ideals you seem to stear toward and which Pantheon means to deliberately stear from.
Pretty much this^.
The only thing the instant gratification design assures is that you attract a great number of people for a less than great amount of time.
Searril said:You're being ridiculous.
So we enter a dungeon. Kill 10 mobs. Oops, we just broke the entrance and our bags are full, gotta gate back to town and sell. Get back, the entrance has repopped. Now we have to kill the same 10 mobs at the entrance over and over again because we can't carry enough stuff to go deeper into the dungeon.
There's a reason absolutely nobody would make a game like that. It's absurd and forcing people to leave to sell all the time would contribute absolutely nothing but aggravation to a game.
First, off this is one step away from being insulting. Just because my views are at a polar to yours does not make them rediculous or absurd. These forums are for debating all views in a constructive way, detailing pros and cons of each view. If you dont agree, state your view, state why the proposal doesnt work and offer an alternative. Dont just flip off someone elses view just because you dont agree.
Second, be accurate. At no point did I say anything about 10 mobs, and at no point did I say that players should be forced to leave what they are doing. If there are limits placed on what players can scavenge, then those players will be more selective about what they carry and they would abandon anything that is of no use or little value. They wont abandon a dungeon just to sell 50 helms to get their 5gp, anyone considering this method of gameplay would indeed be rediculous and absurd. Players would carry only those items that will be of use or of value; a much more realistic method. Why should you expect to carry everything you come across?
Third, gold farming hurts games! Players able to farm gold then either sell it to other players or buy equipment unabalances everything that developers spend so much time on balancing. Being able to buy your way to the top equipment does not show that you are a good player. I personally think its rediculous to carry 50 (which is the number I used, not 10) mob's inventory and sell it all at one go. As I said above, instead of players expecting to pick up every piece of rubbish and getting something for it, make it all about choice and only selecting those items that will be worth the carry. Also there are other ways to make people carry less without forcing them to. For instance, when a local economy is swamped with useless helms, swords and shields, then that ecomony should reduce the amount payable by npcs to the point that it makes no sense to continue farming. This would be an alternative to capping bags and their contents. Personally I would like to see both. In a more realistic setting (yes I know it is fantasy, but there is still gravity, there is still life and death and limitiations), players shouldn't expect that every item they come across should be an immediate boost to their bank account. I would even argue that drops should be considered only as potential assets to use, rather than just to sell. If its no use or little value, leave it to rot. I expect items to weigh something.
And lastly, just because current games cater to the "everything as quick as you can" brigade, does not mean that every new game should follow suit. If they did, there would be little or no development or progress (oh wait, thats where we are already - hurry up and release Pantheon I want something different!). As the developers have said numerous times, they want to target a more rpg orientated audience. Just because a game has rpg in its description, does not mean it is a role playing game. I would argue that the reason that there are no current games with this mechanism is that their target audience wants instant gratification and not interested in the what a role playing game is really about.
Feyshtey said: @searil Its fairly obvious. If the collective group exists everywhere they can collectively instantly determine the seller and make the buy and/or communicate internally to arrange the buy. This assumes that the search doesnt also allow the purchase as many here have suggested they desire. The second the purchase is complete the buyer can now enter the item for sale to the same search. "Instant" is an exageration, but effectively if the search plus transaction is merely a few clicks then "instant" translates as a few seconds putting your average player who isnt watching all the searches (and cant if the searches are localized) at a disadvantage.
Sorry, I still don't see how that is any different whether it's a global search or a local search. You still have to have characters positioned at every single market place to actually purchase the item.
If what you are trying to do is prevent automated purchasing what you have done is actually created MORE network traffic on the servers while not affecting automation at all.
On a global search, it takes only one search to look at all the markets (even though you still have to later travel there or get a different character to pick it up).
On a local search, you have to generate a search against every single market place to look for an item (and still have to travel there to get it or get a different character to pick it up).
Literally nothing, functionally, has changed for the user, you've just created more congestion on the server's bandwidth with no benefit.
Feyshtey said:@Vjek
It's interesting that you mean to declare that a game cannot have a viable audience without implimenting this particular feature, despite the many here that have shown support for it. And if a logical person were to extrapolate your stance to every other instant-gratification game mechanic out there (read as: Not frustration or inconvenience), nothing short of a WoW clown or the dozens of games built predominantly with those same instant-gratification systems would be viable. You have effectively stated that a great deal Pantheon means to return to are in fact self-destructive. One may ask why you have chosen this game to support when so many others follow the ideals you seem to stear toward and which Pantheon means to deliberately stear from.
The posters on this forum are an extremely tiny subset of the audience Pantheon hopes to (and NEEDS TO) attract in order for the game to be financially viable for more than a few months. I don't claim to have insider financial data for them, but I find it hard to believe they could survive on the subs of the few dozen people who frequently post on these forums.
We even have one person here who thinks a group shouldn't be able to kill and loot 50 mobs and sell off later.
The point is, let's not take an opnion held by a couple people on a forum as anywhere remotely indicative of what the vast majority of people who are going to be putting their money down are expecting.
I won't speak for him, but I chose to support this game because I wanted an MMO that has highly differentiated classes with highly differentiated roles like EQ had, and I want encounters that are difficult and require you to know how to play your class (again, like EQ). I'm looking for the spiritual successor to EQ, not something that intentionally implements tedium for the sake of simply making things slow.
What else is interesting is that even in old EQ there still weren't highly localized markets like what a small few here are asking for. Even then, before the bazaar, people congregated to one or two areas to buy/sell, so why would now be any different? Nobody sold on the Neriak market, the Rivervale market, the Halas market, etc.
Feyshtey said: @searill I'm not arguing the value between centralized or localized searches.
The only third option I know of is to have no searches at all. There's no way that's going to happen. I don't believe for a moment that Brad would ever think it was a good idea to go back to GFay/EC Tunnel type trading. So if it is a definite that there will be searches, the debate is about what kind of searches they will be.
Feyshtey said:If an individual character must travel to a market and wait to see am aiction of items they which to buy up, or view a merchant and peruse the items they have for sale, the time required to do so greatly increases the possibility of the average player finding and benefiting from a bargain by chance.
So make the game tedious and boring to try to find something for sale to try to keep someone else from buying and reselling things? That's what I'm hearing.
Feyshtey said:On the topic of the "few dozen" people who post on these forums; You wholly discount the 8000 people registered and grossly underestimate the 100s that have posted but do not do so regularly.
I discount the incorrect belief that some people seem to have that a few people on a forum has any relevance to what the larger group as a whole believes. It doesn't. On all MMOs, and this one will be no different because EQ was no different, only a tiny vocal minority (that includes people like you and me) spend time on the forums. Publisher after publisher has verified this to be true, and I accept their word.
Feyshtey said:And it can be easily argued that most of those people are here, for this title alone, delebaretely because they follow Brad and know his philosophies that built Everquest and Vangaurd. They are fesperate for those thi gs that made those games great precisely because those things are absent from most other games that fail to retain the longevity Everquest did, specifically.
I have never argued against this. In fact, I will state that the only reason I am here is because Brad's "vision" has more closely aligned with mine than have the visions of other designers. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. That doesn't mean he is always right. And I don't claim it about my statements either. But I just cannot believe that he is going to think attempting to take everything back to a complete pre-millennial mentality is going to succeed. It won't. If you think it will then this conversation is over because there is no way anyone is going to be able to bridge that gap with you.
And, really, this goes along with what has been another thing that seems to keep rearing its ugly head on these forums. Any time something is discussed that has any tiny level of the dreaded "convenience" in it, people start making claims like "that makes it an MMO not MMORPG" or "you want instant gratification" or "go play WoW" or "go play a single player RPG" or any other of a number of lame conversation killing type drivel. I have confidence in Brad to see past those juvenile type of "my way or the highway" demands that WILL kill the game.
Searril said:We even have one person here who thinks a group shouldn't be able to kill and loot 50 mobs and sell off later.
There you go again, flipping off a view you dont agree with. Very constructive! Shees! Serously Searril, dont put words in my mouth, that is not what I said.
If you bothered to read anything of my opinion, then it is all about stopping gold farming, not being able to swamp local economies and being selective in what you carry. Its not about limiting kills and all about being more realistic with loot. Your opinion is not the only one here. The pantheon developers have stated time and again that they want to get away from the current "eat your fill" mmos and back to the roots of RPGs.
I discount the incorrect belief that some people seem to have that a few people on a forum has any relevance to what the larger group as a whole believes. It doesn't. On all MMOs, and this one will be no different because EQ was no different, only a tiny vocal minority (that includes people like you and me) spend time on the forums. Publisher after publisher has verified this to be true, and I accept their word.
Did you ever play EQ in the early days? It was totally different from the mmos we have today. Nothing was handed to you and it was very difficult. It changed later to cater more towards the mass market, but the original couple of years were tough. You could die and lost xp and could even lose levels, you had to run for corpses through mob infested zones. You had to rely on the help of others as situations you ended up in were not rectifiable by yourself. Those first couple of years where hard and the feeling it gave was magic. No game since has given that, so I would say that all current games have lost something.
The following is taken from an interview with Brad McQuaid: http://haogamers.com/blog/2016/07/11/taking-the-high-road-pantheon/
"Is it time for a better MMO?
It seems obvious there is a large, significant demographic of older gamers being underserved by the games industry, and newer gamers disenfranchised with the easy mode style of game design that is dominating right now. They are the type of players that will be interested in Pantheon. Do you believe the time for deeper, more “mature” games has come again?"
Brad:
"We absolutely agree with both of your assertions. There’s definitely an older demographic that feels orphaned by the more casual, more single-player style MMOs as of late. You can look just about anywhere and see articles and posts attesting to the frustration this significant demographic is feeling. Likewise, there is a large group of younger gamers who enjoy challenging games like Dark Souls. Many also love cooperative play like taking on the AI with their friends in the Call of Duty games. What’s really significant here is that most of these younger players have never experienced that level of cooperative play in MMOs. When they encounter deeper cooperative play in a persistent environment as opposed to session based games I think they’re really going to love it."
This is the target audience. People who dont want everything handed to them. People who want to team up, a less casual game play and less solo game play.
I have considered things backwards and forwards on this topic and a few things strike me:
1. Any 'ease of use' feature should be the minimum possible version of that thing.
Thus a global AH is less desirable than a regional one. Auto-delivery is again less desirable than manual, or 'delayed' delivery (here 'delayed' delivery is a mode of delivery that takes a substantial time - roughly equivalent to the timescales to actually travel there yourself, or by courier along the main roads / shipping lanes. This minimizes inadventernt dilution of 'The Vision (TM)'.
2. Innovation that persues more 'fun', 'interesting' or 'immersive' gameplay should be considered seriously.
This is obviously weighed against any 'ease of use' it adds and the nett development cost it imposes. In other words innovation is worth considering as far as the number-crunching stage before it is vetoed. This is the idea that many of the original precepts that build both EQ1 and VG were not 'working as intended (TM)' but were pragmatic necessity from coding and resource limitations. Some of the technical limitations have changed and many alternative game methods have been tested in the interveneing period, albeit in different guises and genres. Some of these changes are worth consideration.
3. Compromises can be the 'worst of both worlds' rather than the 'least worst'.
Often a compromise is chosen between 2 wildly differring options that is 'midway' between the two. This is rarely a useful compromise in areas where the compromise dramatically favours one side of the coin over the other, i.e. where the playing field is not remotely 'even'. The whole 'global AH' is exactly one such arguement.
In light of these views (I hold with little or no foundation in evidence) this means moves towards a 'half-way' AH are a problem. I can see regional searching a possibility, with limited use and restrictions. Delivery is out without substantial 'delays' implicit in the system.
However, the idea of a newspaper is an intriguing one. It could be published at a regional market and propagated by NPCs (slowly along trade lines) or by PCs. from market to market. It would have implicit delay, expiry and measure to limit the worst excesses and 'ease' of global AHs. Very very interesting.
I haven't read this whole thread so forgive me if it has been mentioned, but what about player to player contract to sell that is enforced by the game?
I'm not sure how difficult this would be to implement, but why not allow players to contact with other players for an agreed upon duration and with the other player getting a certain agreed upon percentage of the cut. A minimum price could also be specified for the item. If, after the set time, the item is not a sold, it could picked up somewhere. If it is sold, you would pick up your money at the same location with the seller getting his cut..
Using this feature, every transaction would happen between 2 live players and those who hate selling wouldn't have to bother with it. Those who love selling would be able to build a name for themselves as someone who is good at selling your items and earn a better cut.
Searril said:I won't speak for him, but I chose to support this game because I wanted an MMO that has highly differentiated classes with highly differentiated roles like EQ had, and I want encounters that are difficult and require you to know how to play your class (again, like EQ). I'm looking for the spiritual successor to EQ, not something that intentionally implements tedium for the sake of simply making things slow.
What else is interesting is that even in old EQ there still weren't highly localized markets like what a small few here are asking for. Even then, before the bazaar, people congregated to one or two areas to buy/sell, so why would now be any different? Nobody sold on the Neriak market, the Rivervale market, the Halas market, etc.
Quoting myself as I've already stated these items.
Evoras said:I have considered things backwards and forwards on this topic and a few things strike me:
1. Any 'ease of use' feature should be the minimum possible version of that thing.
Thus a global AH is less desirable than a regional one. Auto-delivery is again less desirable than manual, or 'delayed' delivery (here 'delayed' delivery is a mode of delivery that takes a substantial time - roughly equivalent to the timescales to actually travel there yourself, or by courier along the main roads / shipping lanes. This minimizes inadventernt dilution of 'The Vision (TM)'.
So by that reasoning, if we have boats to go from here to there they should only be a flat raft with nothing on it but a place to stand. There should never be NPCs or machinery, or anything interactive at all since that wouldn't be the minimum possible version of a boat.
Evoras said:3. Compromises can be the 'worst of both worlds' rather than the 'least worst'.
Often a compromise is chosen between 2 wildly differring options that is 'midway' between the two. This is rarely a useful compromise in areas where the compromise dramatically favours one side of the coin over the other, i.e. where the playing field is not remotely 'even'. The whole 'global AH' is exactly one such arguement.
In light of these views (I hold with little or no foundation in evidence) this means moves towards a 'half-way' AH are a problem. I can see regional searching a possibility, with limited use and restrictions. Delivery is out without substantial 'delays' implicit in the system.
However, the idea of a newspaper is an intriguing one. It could be published at a regional market and propagated by NPCs (slowly along trade lines) or by PCs. from market to market. It would have implicit delay, expiry and measure to limit the worst excesses and 'ease' of global AHs. Very very interesting.
A number of compromises that keep the spirit of the "no auction house" vision without being unduly tedious have been put forth.
I've been reading the discussions here and I think a lot of what people have said here is great stuff that shows that you really care about the issues. The majority of the discussion has been civil, but what is truly great to see is when people try to clear the air and take the high road when things get a bit too personal.
To the discussion at hand though. It seems that most of the arguments here are presented in form of "here is a potential approach and these are the pros/cons". We now have many different viewpoints on what makes global and regional auction houses good and bad and how that would affect a person's gameplay experience. However, I think it would be valuable to see the argument from the other direction and drive the discussion from the viewpoint of how we want to be spending our time. So I ask you...
What do you actually want your gameplay experience to be when you are a buyer or a seller?
As a buyer I...
- Would like to have to hunt for rare and crafted gear amongst a collection of player vendors. I want to see what's for sale and use that information to guide my buying choices. I would like to be able to fairly quickly browse through each vendor without losing track of "who is selling".
- Would like to have a streamlined and impersonal experience of the purchase of bulk goods. I don't honestly care much for who makes the 300 linen sheets (obviously a personal choice), but I do care very much that I'm getting the best price that I can find.
As a seller I...
- Would like to dump my rare goods (weekly-ish) or daily dump (daily-ish) my crafted goods into a vendor and not have to wait around for bites. I think having a centralized location for my drop off would make sense. I do remember the thrill of negotiating a sale in EQ, but unfortunately I don't think all the hours were worth it.
- Would like to have a game of supply and demand economics for my bulk goods. I would like to find where is best to sell linen sheets and do the trade-off of whether I have enough to be worth going there to sell them.
The game mechanics that would enable my ideal playstyle are...
- A flea-market style grouping of player vendors outside a city somewhere. Sales are taxed by the city and the rates could be controlled to encourage multiple marketplaces if that is desired by the devs. The vendors would be ordered based on tax revenue produced in the previous week, giving preferential positioning to top sellers.
- A traditional aucionhouse in the vendor area of each city for the sales of bulk goods. Regional AH preferred in this case.
I honestly wasn't sure which type of mechanics would best suit me until I went through this line of thought, but I'm happy that I thought about it. I encourage you to do the same and share the results if you wish to.
Such a contentious and frustrating topic. Hopefully it grinds out a diamond.
I would much prefer if Pantheon ushered me to quest and engage in the content of grouping (dungeons, raids, exploration, etc.) to acquire the great majority my gear needs.
Tradeskillers would be my second route for equipping my character.
And the AH, vendoring, auctioing, haggling the very smallest avenue of item acquisition.
I simply would rather spend most of my time getting my 'stuff' from playing the game than searching and purchasing it from someone who has alrready found it.
OakKnower said:Such a contentious and frustrating topic. Hopefully it grinds out a diamond.
I would much prefer if Pantheon ushered me to quest and engage in the content of grouping (dungeons, raids, exploration, etc.) to acquire the great majority my gear needs.
Tradeskillers would be my second route for equipping my character.
And the AH, vendoring, auctioing, haggling the very smallest avenue of item acquisition.
I simply would rather spend most of my time getting my 'stuff' from playing the game than searching and purchasing it from someone who has alrready found it.
I am confused. I fail to see how an auction house would preclude you from engaging in ANY of those activities.
Martell said:OakKnower said:Such a contentious and frustrating topic. Hopefully it grinds out a diamond.
I would much prefer if Pantheon ushered me to quest and engage in the content of grouping (dungeons, raids, exploration, etc.) to acquire the great majority my gear needs.
Tradeskillers would be my second route for equipping my character.
And the AH, vendoring, auctioing, haggling the very smallest avenue of item acquisition.
I simply would rather spend most of my time getting my 'stuff' from playing the game than searching and purchasing it from someone who has alrready found it.
I am confused. I fail to see how an auction house would preclude you from engaging in ANY of those activities.
I suppose my point would be that the game didn't have much of a use for an AH to begin with.
Martell said:I want an auction house. I want one that is just like World of Warcraft's - fully automated, stand-alone and not tied down to any single geographic location.
I like convenience.
There are 100 titles that cater to those who require convenience. There are (arguably) none that cater to those that want most aspects to be of limited availabilty. I will concede that the group that desires convience far outweighs the group that wants the feeling of accomplishment gained by achieving what is rare. It is the nature of our culture today; instant gratification. However, I reject the notion that of the 10's of millions of MMO players there cannot be found many thousands who will not only play a game with more strict controls on consumption and aquisition, but in fact would rather not play an MMO at all than play another Pavlov game of "Press the buzzer to get a treat" level of difficulty. And will play not for 3-6 months, consume all the content and quit to move on to the next "challenge, but will instead stake their claim, call that difficult MMO home, and stay for years.