Liav said:I don't know if there is a hard line to be drawn, Feyshtey. Even so, I don't think there's a valid analogue to be made between the glowing tendrils for easy question completion, and mechanisms of player commerce. For instance, the Bazaar in EQ has a glowing tendril that leads you to the particular seller who's selling an item. I don't consider that to be analogous to the quest completion tendrils, either. Does that make the game easy? Should we have to walk uphill, both ways, in the snow to do something as trivial as finding a seller in the Bazaar?
This just sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me. Very base-level game functions don't need to be made complicated. You could easily remove Hit Points from the UI and make players have to guess what their current HP is. Would that make Pantheon a better game? Is that even analogous to this situation, either?
Not sure how you don't see the analogy between the two. You're asking for convenience in one area of the game, why not apply it to others as well? That's the analogy.
It's not a fallacy... plenty of evidence to show what happens when you begin adding convenience that eliminates player interaction.
Archaen said:Liav said:I don't know if there is a hard line to be drawn, Feyshtey. Even so, I don't think there's a valid analogue to be made between the glowing tendrils for easy question completion, and mechanisms of player commerce. For instance, the Bazaar in EQ has a glowing tendril that leads you to the particular seller who's selling an item. I don't consider that to be analogous to the quest completion tendrils, either. Does that make the game easy? Should we have to walk uphill, both ways, in the snow to do something as trivial as finding a seller in the Bazaar?
This just sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me. Very base-level game functions don't need to be made complicated. You could easily remove Hit Points from the UI and make players have to guess what their current HP is. Would that make Pantheon a better game? Is that even analogous to this situation, either?
Not sure how you don't see the analogy between the two. You're asking for convenience in one area of the game, why not apply it to others as well? That's the analogy.
It's not a fallacy... plenty of evidence to show what happens when you begin adding convenience that eliminates player interaction.
I would venture to say that crafting is made more convenient when the game features a crafting merchant where you can buy common ingredients. Crafting is made more convenient by allowing your character to memorize recipes as opposed to all of us needing to keep a spare recipe cheat sheet. There are plenty of ways that crafting or other features of the game have been made more convenient and intuitive without automating crafting or ruining it altogether. The same can be said about an Auction House. I'm not asking for the AH to be so simple as to allow me to set parameters for when a given item becomes available at a certain price point, I automatically buy it. I'm not asking the AH to be so convenient so that every time I loot something, it's automatically placed on the AH at a predetermined sale-price. I'm not asking for the AH to be so convenient that I can "Summon Broker" anywhere in the world and instantly buy stuff.
As far as finding a group goes for a dungeon, wouldn't the "LFG" command be an added convenience? Wouldn't the /who all 50 necro be an added convenience to people looking for a level 50 necro? My point is, both of these examples have "convenience" measures already applied to them but in a more traditional way without getting to the point where you have people bot-crafting 24/7 or instantly teleporting to a dungeon when their que pops. The AH is a means to an end when it comes to trading ... at the end of the day, you still have to spend time looking on the AH to get what you want. It just makes it more accessible ... the same as having crafting recipes memorized or crafting merchants that sell fuel, or having the "LFG" functionality or /who functionality when it comes to finding a group.
Personally I want nothing to do with auto que dungeon finder or raid finder. Does that make me a hypocrite? Is there a line drawn that says "if you want convenience here, you HAVE to have convenience EVERYWHERE?" or vice versa? Why couldn't it be fine tuned so that the decision is made in the best interest of the entire server population? If you're suggesting that AH are removed because of their "convenience" factor, what do you say about removing the LFG tag? Rather than people being able to search for other people who are LFG (Like an AH allows us to search for people looking to buy/sell) you instead have to wander from zone to zone shouting to people? Why have "class" labels in general? Why not take away that convenience factor and force people to specifically ask every single person they see what class they are since it will force people to interact with one another? Why have zone names? Why shouldn't we have to engage and interact with each other and come up with clever names like "the mountain area west of the green lake?" Why have guilds? Instead of making it convenient for players of similar playstyles to communicate with each other and align their focuses, cause them to seek each other out on a daily basis? Isn't guild chat a convenience? Since I like the convenience of guild chat, does that also automatically label me as someone in favor of a dungeon finder mechanism? I think not. I don't like the analogy because it goes both ways. You're saying "if you're going to make this convenient, you might as well make EVERYTHING convenient." Using your same logic, "If you're going to make this inconvenient, why not make EVERYTHING inconvenient?"
On another note ... people have to pay for the added convenience of an AH. The dungeon finder in WoW is free. Because of that, they're 2 totally different things and incomparable in my opinion. Start charging people 10-15% of their haul from a dungeon if they utilize the dungeon finder mechanism and then maybe you can compare them, otherwise it's apples vs oranges.
If they do have an AH I hope it has both buy and sell orders for reasons best described in the linked article. On top of that I hope it just sets you up/directs you to the seller/buyer instead of being an instant transaction. But overall I still would rather no AH at all.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134576/virtual_economic_theory_how_mmos_.php?print=1
"In a market with only sell orders, buyers have no power to influence the price point of items. Their only actions are to buy or not to buy, and not-buying does not indicate a desire to buy at a lower price any more than it indicates a desire not to buy at all. Prices in these markets are purely supply-driven. As a result, if there is insufficient exchange to drive the price of an item down to its opportunity cost, buyers either suffer unfairly high prices or the market stagnates and transactions fail to go through.
By enabling both buy and sell orders, buyers compete to make the lowest highest offer and sellers compete to offer the highest lowest price. Yes, you read that correctly, and no, it's not as confusing as it sounds. Buyers want to pay the lowest price possible, but must offer a higher price than other buyers in order to make a successful transaction (otherwise the transaction will go to a higher bid). Likewise, sellers want to get the highest price possible, but must offer a lower price than other sellers.
These markets are both supply- and demand-driven. When both buyers and sellers compete within the same marketplace, any entrant to the market can see both the upper and lower bounds for transactions within that market. They can (presumably) make as much money as the lowest seller or pay as much money as the highest buyer should they wish to compete in that market. However, most players don't want to compete in the market: they just want to make their fair transaction and get on with the game. This is another point where a dual market really shows its strength."
oneADseven said:I would venture to say that crafting is made more convenient when the game features a crafting merchant where you can buy common ingredients. Crafting is made more convenient by allowing your character to memorize recipes as opposed to all of us needing to keep a spare recipe cheat sheet. There are plenty of ways that crafting or other features of the game have been made more convenient and intuitive without automating crafting or ruining it altogether. The same can be said about an Auction House. I'm not asking for the AH to be so simple as to allow me to set parameters for when a given item becomes available at a certain price point, I automatically buy it. I'm not asking the AH to be so convenient so that every time I loot something, it's automatically placed on the AH at a predetermined sale-price. I'm not asking for the AH to be so convenient that I can "Summon Broker" anywhere in the world and instantly buy stuff.
You are correct that convenience is found in all aspects of the game. Every element of a game has to offer a certain amount of "convenience". The main question when adding a feature should be "What is the cost vs reward of adding this?" Let's take your examples.
Crafting... what is the cost of having common ingredients and memorized recipes? Very little, and the reward is decent, if not substantial. What is the cost of automating crafting? Enormous, and ironically the reward is very little. If you'd like me to spell out why these are the cost/rewards I would be glad to do so.
Trading... what is the cost of providing an interface for people to trade items? Practically zero, and again the reward is substantial. What is the cost of adding an AH? The cost is substantial and affects all aspects of the game (directly and indirectly), while the reward is decent. So you're adding something with an enormous cost to the stability and longevity of the game and the reward of doing so is too small to compensate for that impact. That is essentially the problem with having an AH.
oneADseven said:Personally I want nothing to do with auto que dungeon finder or raid finder. Does that make me a hypocrite? Is there a line drawn that says "if you want convenience here, you HAVE to have convenience EVERYWHERE?" or vice versa? Why couldn't it be fine tuned so that the decision is made in the best interest of the entire server population? If you're suggesting that AH are removed because of their "convenience" factor, what do you say about removing the LFG tag? Rather than people being able to search for other people who are LFG (Like an AH allows us to search for people looking to buy/sell) you instead have to wander from zone to zone shouting to people? Why have "class" labels in general? Why not take away that convenience factor and force people to specifically ask every single person they see what class they are since it will force people to interact with one another? Why have zone names? Why shouldn't we have to engage and interact with each other and come up with clever names like "the mountain area west of the green lake?" Why have guilds? Instead of making it convenient for players of similar playstyles to communicate with each other and align their focuses, cause them to seek each other out on a daily basis? Isn't guild chat a convenience? Since I like the convenience of guild chat, does that also automatically label me as someone in favor of a dungeon finder mechanism? I think not. I don't like the analogy because it goes both ways. You're saying "if you're going to make this convenient, you might as well make EVERYTHING convenient." Using your same logic, "If you're going to make this inconvenient, why not make EVERYTHING inconvenient?"
The cost/reward question applies here as well, but I want to address the hightlighted part. It only makes you a hypocrite if you are arguing against those who want the convenience of a dungeon finder. My point was not that you have to have a dungeon finder if you have an AH. My point was that you will EVENTUALLY have a dungeon finder if you have an AH. For two reasons... 1) How do you say we allow this level of convenience in this aspect of the game, but not here? What is the argument for not having it? You can make it, but it's not rational. 2) The idea of having an AH means you are open to the idea of convenience in other parts of the game. This is what happened in every MMO that has ever existed. So it is important that you set down a philosophy for what you want the game to be, measure features against that philosophy and then add or don't based on that measure.
If VR's philosophy is group-centric, social then an AH is definitely not a good idea. It is extremely anti-social and breeds that philosophy into other parts of the game. It's not a matter of whether you want the convenience or not. If you want and have an AH, then Pantheon will go the way of all MMOs before it.
oneADseven said:On another note ... people have to pay for the added convenience of an AH. The dungeon finder in WoW is free. Because of that, they're 2 totally different things and incomparable in my opinion. Start charging people 10-15% of their haul from a dungeon if they utilize the dungeon finder mechanism and then maybe you can compare them, otherwise it's apples vs oranges.
The tax on goods for the AH is so negligible as to be funny. It has no bearing on comparing it with the dungeon finder. Your suggesting they add a feature, and then make it so burdensome to use that no one will. That's pointless. Additionally, whatever mechanic you establish as the standard for that part of the game will be used by 99% of the player base, so choosing the right one is extremely important.
The more I read through different threads and have these discussions with you all, the more I realize there are essentially two different camps. There are those who want something more akin to the original WoW... moderately difficult, with a lot of the modern mmo conveniences. And then there are those who want something more like original EQ... heavy difficulty with minimal convenience. Pretty easy to tell which way I lean.
I argue so vehemently for my point of view for two reasons:
1) If we are to ever get a game like original EQ, this is probably the "last best hope". Maybe it isn't fair that I push for this so hard, but I would love for it to happen.
2) I see the game as more of a world than a set of systems (dungeons, raiding, crafting, etc.). If the world is to come alive, then it must feel like we "exist" there, so to speak. So distances, places, history, lore, factions, exploration, interaction (combat or otherwise) all matter much more to me than dungeon design, game systems, etc. If I spend an afternoon travelling to a dungeon only to find I'm the only one there, it doesn't really bother me. It feels more like I'm there, than using an interface to find people who have tagged themselves as open to a dungeon crawl. If I have to travel back to town and do some talking to find people who will go with me, that is all part and parcel of the world and my being in it. I don't consider that as wasted time because tomorrow the world will be there, and next week, and next year. To me it just feels like so much of this request for different "game systems" misses the point to what the game could be.
To be fair to all those who want the game to be different, I understand this is my vision and desire. I understand you have your own and it doesn't really match with mine. I do however feel like it would be worth exploring the world I offer first. We can always add the modern conveniences if you all find the world is just not what you want. I think you would be surprised at how much it takes you in and engages you, even in the things that you dread dealing with.
Either way, please don't take my "lecturing" as denigrating... I mean it in the best way.
As much as I hate to do it, here's my 2 cents.
I would prefer to not see any form of auction house, or off-line system of selling via marketplace or anything like that at all...
I always have and always will love the idea that if I want to sell something, I have to actually go sell it, and if I want to buy something, I will have my best luck by going to the bazaar (EC Tunnel, or wherever it ends up being in Pantheon) and either patiently wait for what I want to be called out for sale, or shout that I am looking to buy an item, but hey, that's just me.
Long live EC tunnel!!
@Archaen
Its actually a whole lot more complcated than that. Different people have fond memories of different "oldschool" gameplay from about a half dozen or so MMOs. Its not all convenience vs time or challenge vs casual. Its also Immersion vs the practical, and Social vs Gameplay. The biggest problem with any of these opposite extremes is that no one wants to meet in the middle on things and those that do just get told it wont work because of the slippery slope which cuts off all discussion and basically re-enforces the extremes. Ultimately the devs will decide the appropriate mix and match of things. Of course we are all free to give them input. The only thing is people need to remember Pantheon will be its own game. So keeping that in mind there isnt really a way that its supposed to be. There will be things that it has in common with most oldschool MMOs, new concepts that it doesnt, and things that remind you of a specific MMO be it EQ or VG or whatever.
Archaen said:The more I read through different threads and have these discussions with you all, the more I realize there are essentially two different camps. There are those who want something more akin to the original WoW... moderately difficult, with a lot of the modern mmo conveniences. And then there are those who want something more like original EQ... heavy difficulty with minimal convenience. Pretty easy to tell which way I lean.
I argue so vehemently for my point of view for two reasons:
1) If we are to ever get a game like original EQ, this is probably the "last best hope". Maybe it isn't fair that I push for this so hard, but I would love for it to happen.
2) I see the game as more of a world than a set of systems (dungeons, raiding, crafting, etc.). If the world is to come alive, then it must feel like we "exist" there, so to speak. So distances, places, history, lore, factions, exploration, interaction (combat or otherwise) all matter much more to me than dungeon design, game systems, etc. If I spend an afternoon travelling to a dungeon only to find I'm the only one there, it doesn't really bother me. It feels more like I'm there, than using an interface to find people who have tagged themselves as open to a dungeon crawl. If I have to travel back to town and do some talking to find people who will go with me, that is all part and parcel of the world and my being in it. I don't consider that as wasted time because tomorrow the world will be there, and next week, and next year. To me it just feels like so much of this request for different "game systems" misses the point to what the game could be.
To be fair to all those who want the game to be different, I understand this is my vision and desire. I understand you have your own and it doesn't really match with mine. I do however feel like it would be worth exploring the world I offer first. We can always add the modern conveniences if you all find the world is just not what you want. I think you would be surprised at how much it takes you in and engages you, even in the things that you dread dealing with.
Either way, please don't take my "lecturing" as denigrating... I mean it in the best way.
Well played sir. I can tell you that I do not fall into either camp, as I never played original EQ and the only positive experiences I had with WoW (started playing at the end of Lich King expansion) was the AH and their PVP system. I think there are additional camps of players that played EQOA, EQ2, Vanguard, FFXI, (I played all 4 and enjoyed different aspects from all of them) and various other games. I feel that my lack of knowledge and actual in-game experience with original EQ prevents me from being able to fully appreciate the perspective of the players waving that banner. I try to be as open-minded as possible as often as I can, but a naturally stubborn demeanor usually gets in the way of that. As far as the particular topic at hand goes, I haven't seen any compelling evidence on why an AH should be killed from the game. I haven't really read all 24 pages either, so I'd love a summary of how a modern MMO could exist without utilizing an AH. I've seen plenty of reasons why people don't like an AH, but I haven't seen anybody come up with a better alternative or list any detailed information on how a better system could be implemented. The idea of people just sporadically trying to trade with one another and spamming trade channels with their wares doesen't particularly appeal to me. The AH has been a consistent theme since I started playing MMO's as a teenager more than 15 years ago. The only MMO that I have ever played that didn't utilize an AH was original FFXIV.
I really enjoy working the AH. Some people prefer to craft, some people prefer to farm, some people prefer to gather materials. Personally, I feel that I have a pretty strong grasp on how the economy works with supply and demand, and have always been an avid buyer/reseller. I made millions of gold in WoW without ever needing to craft, farm, or harvest for a profit. Rather, I'd let the people who enjoyed doing those things focus on that, while I mastered the ins and outs of the market and jumped on every opportunity I could find. I know some people probably hate players like me but the way I look at it is simple ... either way, someone will do it. If I have an opportunity to be the benefactor of cornering the market on some niche item, I'm going to take that opportunity. I'm always going to try and get the highest return or yield relative to the amount of time I spend in game. As a business owner and father, I'll never have the time to compete with full time crafters, farmers, or resource gatherers. I did that when I was a teenager. Now I am more in the business of exploiting other people's mistakes in the giant player-driven economy.
I totally understand that me saying all of this might open up a new can of worms on why the AH should be abolished. Why should someone like me be able to benefit from the hard work of crafters/farmers/resource gatherers? If I were asked that question, I would probably respond with "Why not?" Unlike a server driven economy where NPC merchants have a strong influence on the going rate of items, a player driven economy allows the concept of supply vs demand to truly shine, effectively enabling players to monopolize certain items/resources/crafts, and for those in high demand, sell said items for as high as another player is willing to pay. Some players will gain more than others, but again, that's how a player driven economy works. It's up to you to decide what type of role you want to carve out for yourself in the economy.
Oddly enough, most players naturally choose to sell their wares at a discounted rate of what would be considered a "fair" price. This is because they'd rather move on to adventuring than waste their time haggling with competition on the AH. This is but one of many of the types of opportunity that I would try to pounce on. At the end of the day, I realize a lot of people will think I'm just a greedy bastard, and I can live with that, but I'll tell you why it isn't true. I don't enjoy hording money for the sake of hording it. I actually enjoy helping my friends as much as possible. I generally like to keep my guild's bank completely stocked with important consumables, valuable resources/materials, and a huge chunk of cash to permanently pay for everybodies repairs. I like buying my wife every possible in game item that she could ever desire as it helps keep her interested in the game. She likes to look fancy. She likes to have rare toys or mounts. Any status symbol that she can get her hands on ... I'm going to try and provide that to her, if at all possible. It isn't easy to appease her fickle nature and for the most part she alone can end up draining the majority of profits ever acquired from my market endeavors. While my gains may come at the expense of other players, it's still a fundamental aspect of how a player driven economy works.
I hope everybody reading this does not mistake my intention on why I am saying all of this. I am not saying the Auction House should exist to accomodate players like me. I'm saying that people who do this sort of thing are a natural by-product of what a player driven economy represents, and it's going to happen regardless of whether or not an AH exists. As a matter or fact, the lack of an AH will only make things worse because the supply for merchandise will be incredibly lower than the demand without one. This opens up a huge gateway to further exploit the supply/demand chain and creates a much stronger likelihood of resources being monopolized. Even though I hated the way original FFXIV was designed, I had a stronger market presence in that game than any other that I have ever played. It got to the point where I just stopped leveling my monk around level 19 and instead decided I wanted to be the richest person on the server because of how easy it was to manipulate so many areas of the economy. When an AH isn't present in the game, it's more difficult for the average player to fully understand the value of their items. An AH at least gives them a baseline idea on what an item might be worth, and limits people like me from further saturating the market.
Moral of my story ... I'm really hoping to spend the majority of my time in game grouping and raiding. If Terminus is a world devoid of an AH system, I know I'll spend extra time working the economy because of the massive profit potential. It's not quite as fun for me, but at the end of the day, I know it's the most efficient way to leverage my playtime and accumulate the highest possible amount of resources.
The End.
Please remember that this is opinion based, there is not enough information to discuss this topic properly for Pantheon and using other games as examples will only end in disappointment, also please leave the personal attacks and targeted remarks out of these threads, if you have something to say in a mature fashion, please do it via Private Messages (PMs) and not on the development forums.
We will release more information on this system when we have done more work on it, for now, it is best to re-read these 24 pages and the streams/podcasts we have done where we have spoken about it.
I read through most of the thread, and mostly (sorry) it's just essays on why one's position is the right one. I don't think it's very constructive.
Both camps are right in their way and have valid reasons to enjoy what the enjoy and not enjoy what they don't.
So let's find a compromise. Let's give both the camps what they want, to some extent.
By giving people the possibility to delegate their trading affairs safely and easily to other players, who are willing to invest time in trading,via an in-game interface at a cost that is negotiated by the two involved. That way, the people who are not interested in the trading game won't be forced to do so overly intense and have an easy way of getting rid of their stuff or buying things, and the people who enjoy trading can do so even more and with higher volumes, plus get some extra coin.
sebbulba said:I read through most of the thread, and mostly (sorry) it's just essays on why one's position is the right one. I don't think it's very constructive.
Both camps are right in their way and have valid reasons to enjoy what the enjoy and not enjoy what they don't.
So let's find a compromise. Let's give both the camps what they want, to some extent.
Not sure what else you expected it to be. None of us has true input or influence over how this game eventually comes together. The idea of stating a position on something is to explain why you want it the way you do. With very little information on some of these specific areas, these threads hopefully encourage the devs to make decisions in a certain direction. Yes, there are pointed discussions/arguments, but at the end of the day none of us holds any animosity personally toward another.
The idea of compromise is what tends to bring out the most vehement voices. For some of us, we've been arguing for a return to EQ-style gaming for more than a decade. The constructive nature of these threads is found in the chance to express your views and yes in some ways clash with others on ideas. It can get heated, but there is a gold mine of valuable ideas in the vast stretch of this thread alone.
Lastly, I don't think anyone considers another's ideas/opinions to not have merit. It's like I try to teach my children, cause and effect. I have no problem with someone wanting to have an AH, but to ignore its effects in the gaming world will only lead to disappointment and frustration down the road. In the end, I hold no ill will toward those who want the game to be different than I do, but currently voicing my opinion is the only recourse I have to attempt to make a difference in what I want out of an MMO.
Archaen said:sebbulba said:I read through most of the thread, and mostly (sorry) it's just essays on why one's position is the right one. I don't think it's very constructive.
Both camps are right in their way and have valid reasons to enjoy what the enjoy and not enjoy what they don't.
So let's find a compromise. Let's give both the camps what they want, to some extent.
Not sure what else you expected it to be. None of us has true input or influence over how this game eventually comes together. The idea of stating a position on something is to explain why you want it the way you do. With very little information on some of these specific areas, these threads hopefully encourage the devs to make decisions in a certain direction. Yes, there are pointed discussions/arguments, but at the end of the day none of us holds any animosity personally toward another.
The idea of compromise is what tends to bring out the most vehement voices. For some of us, we've been arguing for a return to EQ-style gaming for more than a decade. The constructive nature of these threads is found in the chance to express your views and yes in some ways clash with others on ideas. It can get heated, but there is a gold mine of valuable ideas in the vast stretch of this thread alone.
Lastly, I don't think anyone considers another's ideas/opinions to not have merit. It's like I try to teach my children, cause and effect. I have no problem with someone wanting to have an AH, but to ignore its effects in the gaming world will only lead to disappointment and frustration down the road. In the end, I hold no ill will toward those who want the game to be different than I do, but currently voicing my opinion is the only recourse I have to attempt to make a difference in what I want out of an MMO.
What I expected it to be? You have a fair point, since the thread isn't called "constructive game economy inputs", but "DEATH TO THE AUCTION HOUSE!" :-).
For a big part on this forum, I get the feeling that many people don't want EQ-style gaming back, they just want EQ back and all the emotions that are attached with it. And I find that position problematic, especially if one is not open for compromise and ideas that are "new school".
That being said, I see the two camps and as I stated, I see a third way that gives those convenience who want it, and those who want hardcore trading action - just that, even conjoining the two camps and making them dependent of each other.
sebbulba said:I read through most of the thread, and mostly (sorry) it's just essays on why one's position is the right one. I don't think it's very constructive.
Both camps are right in their way and have valid reasons to enjoy what the enjoy and not enjoy what they don't.
So let's find a compromise. Let's give both the camps what they want, to some extent.
By giving people the possibility to delegate their trading affairs safely and easily to other players, who are willing to invest time in trading,via an in-game interface at a cost that is negotiated by the two involved. That way, the people who are not interested in the trading game won't be forced to do so overly intense and have an easy way of getting rid of their stuff or buying things, and the people who enjoy trading can do so even more and with higher volumes, plus get some extra coin.
For many of us the issue is that every other game on the market has at best compromised, and at worst gone to the furthest extremes. An AH is simply one example of dozens of systems this is true of. Those of us that want the old-school and simplicity of EQ have no product to which we can go, whereas those who want the compromised systems or even the extremes have dozens of options. We are desperately trying to find one oasis in the desert, and even here in the one place we stand a chance of it finally becoming a reality we are told to compromise. Surely you can appreciate how maddening that could be?
Feyshtey said:For many of us the issue is that every other game on the market has at best compromised, and at worst gone to the furthest extremes. An AH is simply one example of dozens of systems this is true of. Those of us that want the old-school and simplicity of EQ have no product to which we can go, whereas those who want the compromised systems or even the extremes have dozens of options. We are desperately trying to find one oasis in the desert, and even here in the one place we stand a chance of it finally becoming a reality we are told to compromise. Surely you can appreciate how maddening that could be?
I agree with you. I'm not sure why people don't seem to like EQ/Vanguard/etc., but invest money in it and post to have modern day mechanics implemented. Even when there is a game built on old school mechanics and is advertised as such people come and try to make it modern so that it's more accessible.
It's amazing with all the MMOs out there that people still request yet another modernized game.
In most cases the argument is based on time, but even EQ could be played in small segments as long as you weren't raiding or grouping. Trading was always possible. The main problem is people want to be able to do everything in game. I was never able to complete everything in EQ and I think that's part of what made it great. Not everyone was going to commit to certain things that took a lot of time. It's amazing how driven people are to get the best loot and items in game. That is generally far from the premise of why these games were created originally. I think it's unfortunate that people feel this is the point of playing a fantasy game with other people online.
sebbulba said:For a big part on this forum, I get the feeling that many people don't want EQ-style gaming back, they just want EQ back and all the emotions that are attached with it. And I find that position problematic, especially if one is not open for compromise and ideas that are "new school".
This is part of the big problem. People want a remade EQ. Problem is that a remade EQ would flop in this day and age. Well not flop but wouldn't have a very big playerbase. You'd pull the people currently on EQ and some from P99 but as far as getting new people to come in, it wouldn't happen.
There will be, and rightfully so, modern upgrades to the EQ style. The game is about being social and difficult. That difficulty doesn't need to come from tedious stupidity. The EC tunnel was good back in the day but let's be honest here, who wants to spend their little time trying to buy or sell something? AH features give people freedom to actually play the game rather than sit in a tunnel half afk for hours on end. Even with something like the bazaar you either had to have 2 accounts or try to sell things while you slept. Which is what everyone else was doing so who would be buying then? Either way it goes it's a bad setup.
Let's say they go with the current plan which is multiple AHs, one for each region. A website would be created to track sales and people would search it to determine where to go beforehand. Unless they find a way to stop that from happening it too would simple just add a tedious extra step of going to an outside source. There's simply no way to recreate the environment from 1999 in 2017. Too many technological advances now and too many people with the knowledge of how to do these things.
UnknownQuantity said:I agree with you. I'm not sure why people don't seem to like EQ/Vanguard/etc., but invest money in it and post to have modern day mechanics implemented. Even when there is a game built on old school mechanics and is advertised as such people come and try to make it modern so that it's more accessible.
It's amazing with all the MMOs out there that people still request yet another modernized game.
Think people have different opinions about what the term 'old school' means to them. Most of us want the social gameplay that is challenging rather than soloing our way through. That doesn't mean that we want a game that looks like EQ/Vanguard. Also doesn't mean we want a vanilla wow.
EQ had a lot of unnessecary time sinks and hassles when it came to simple game functions and hell even UI. That thing was atrocious. There was a lot of things that can and should have been done way better than they were. Let's face it, EQ was mostly popular because at the time it was the best thing around. When wow dropped, so did EQs sub base. So asking for the same old thing is asking the dev's to be 'OK' with a minimal player base. Now it is a niche game and a lot won't go for it. But making simple compromises and fixing some of EQs biggest pitfalls could change that number from a couple thousand to a couple hundred thousand. Forcing people to waste their time on unmeaningful and arbitrary things doesn't make the game better. It simply makes it more tedious.
UnknownQuantity said:Feyshtey said:For many of us the issue is that every other game on the market has at best compromised, and at worst gone to the furthest extremes. An AH is simply one example of dozens of systems this is true of. Those of us that want the old-school and simplicity of EQ have no product to which we can go, whereas those who want the compromised systems or even the extremes have dozens of options. We are desperately trying to find one oasis in the desert, and even here in the one place we stand a chance of it finally becoming a reality we are told to compromise. Surely you can appreciate how maddening that could be?
I agree with you. I'm not sure why people don't seem to like EQ/Vanguard/etc., but invest money in it and post to have modern day mechanics implemented. Even when there is a game built on old school mechanics and is advertised as such people come and try to make it modern so that it's more accessible.
It's amazing with all the MMOs out there that people still request yet another modernized game.
In most cases the argument is based on time, but even EQ could be played in small segments as long as you weren't raiding or grouping. Trading was always possible. The main problem is people want to be able to do everything in game. I was never able to complete everything in EQ and I think that's part of what made it great. Not everyone was going to commit to certain things that took a lot of time. It's amazing how driven people are to get the best loot and items in game. That is generally far from the premise of why these games were created originally. I think it's unfortunate that people feel this is the point of playing a fantasy game with other people online.
I invested money in this without knowing the first thing of Everquest or Vanguard. I was drawn in on the promise of a NEW game with traditional values to be developed. Teamwork, immersion, challenge, and somewhat less convenience, I'm all aboard that.
If there's a paragraph somewhere stating that they're just gonna overhaul the graphics and make a clone of a game from the last millenium, I must have overread it and consider not throwing my money around like that. Otherwise, I have to assume that the developers want to give us a modern MMORPG with traditional values, which means evolving the ideas and features of these spiritual predecessors and even adding fresh features and mechanics.
It's kind of revealing how nobody commented on my idea and is just pulling his end of the rope.
I'm with you, guys! I don't want an automatic AH. I want a player driven economy with people actually trading! But I want the people who are not into that to have a possibility to get their trading done anyway, in a fast and easy way, but still depending on and interacting with other players primarily.
sebbulba said:UnknownQuantity said:Feyshtey said:For many of us the issue is that every other game on the market has at best compromised, and at worst gone to the furthest extremes. An AH is simply one example of dozens of systems this is true of. Those of us that want the old-school and simplicity of EQ have no product to which we can go, whereas those who want the compromised systems or even the extremes have dozens of options. We are desperately trying to find one oasis in the desert, and even here in the one place we stand a chance of it finally becoming a reality we are told to compromise. Surely you can appreciate how maddening that could be?
I agree with you. I'm not sure why people don't seem to like EQ/Vanguard/etc., but invest money in it and post to have modern day mechanics implemented. Even when there is a game built on old school mechanics and is advertised as such people come and try to make it modern so that it's more accessible.
It's amazing with all the MMOs out there that people still request yet another modernized game.
In most cases the argument is based on time, but even EQ could be played in small segments as long as you weren't raiding or grouping. Trading was always possible. The main problem is people want to be able to do everything in game. I was never able to complete everything in EQ and I think that's part of what made it great. Not everyone was going to commit to certain things that took a lot of time. It's amazing how driven people are to get the best loot and items in game. That is generally far from the premise of why these games were created originally. I think it's unfortunate that people feel this is the point of playing a fantasy game with other people online.
I invested money in this without knowing the first thing of Everquest or Vanguard. I was drawn in on the promise of a NEW game with traditional values to be developed. Teamwork, immersion, challenge, and somewhat less convenience, I'm all aboard that.
If there's a paragraph somewhere stating that they're just gonna overhaul the graphics and make a clone of a game from the last millenium, I must have overread it and consider not throwing my money around like that. Otherwise, I have to assume that the developers want to give us a modern MMORPG with traditional values, which means evolving the ideas and features of these spiritual predecessors and even adding fresh features and mechanics.It's kind of revealing how nobody commented on my idea and is just pulling his end of the rope.
I'm with you, guys! I don't want an automatic AH. I want a player driven economy with people actually trading! But I want the people who are not into that to have a possibility to get their trading done anyway, in a fast and easy way, but still depending on and interacting with other players primarily.
I think you ignore the point that people really don't need to trade in game. Perhaps if they find it tedious to trade then they could just play through the game without trading at all. It's a novel concept I guess in this day and age, but trading really isn't needed to progress. It's something you can do if you enjoy it.
sebbulba said:It's kind of revealing how nobody commented on my idea and is just pulling his end of the rope.
I'm with you, guys! I don't want an automatic AH. I want a player driven economy with people actually trading! But I want the people who are not into that to have a possibility to get their trading done anyway, in a fast and easy way, but still depending on and interacting with other players primarily.
Your idea has merit and adds another side of playing the game. However, the devs would have to develop a system to prevent abuse since we all know how many D-bags there are in this genre. But even if it did go through I'd still be running 2 accounts so I have a trader bot to avoid paying any 'fee'.
sebbulba said:I invested money in this without knowing the first thing of Everquest or Vanguard. I was drawn in on the promise of a NEW game with traditional values to be developed. Teamwork, immersion, challenge, and somewhat less convenience, I'm all aboard that.
If there's a paragraph somewhere stating that they're just gonna overhaul the graphics and make a clone of a game from the last millenium, I must have overread it and consider not throwing my money around like that. Otherwise, I have to assume that the developers want to give us a modern MMORPG with traditional values, which means evolving the ideas and features of these spiritual predecessors and even adding fresh features and mechanics.
It's kind of revealing how nobody commented on my idea and is just pulling his end of the rope.
I'm with you, guys! I don't want an automatic AH. I want a player driven economy with people actually trading! But I want the people who are not into that to have a possibility to get their trading done anyway, in a fast and easy way, but still depending on and interacting with other players primarily.
There's no paragraph saying this is is a remake of EQ, or of Vangaurd for that matter. There are plenty of paragraphs discussing that this is its own game with its own systems. But the core tenents are from the successful components and knowledge learned from mistakes of EQ and Vangaurd and a host of other games. And some of the fundimental reasons that EQ was so compelling and had such great staying power were rooted in the fact that it wasnt convenient, and so people felt a real sense of accomplishment when they reached a milestone. If by "modern" you mean that there be AH's, and fast travel, etc., or some form thereof, it stands the potential to break much of that sense of accomplishment, and with that much of its potential staying power.
Progress isnt always positive. Modern isnt always best. They can be, and sometimes they are. But just because I can buy a brand new plastic widget and Walmart for $20 with all kinds of cool bells and whistles, it doesnt mean it's going to last more than a year, or do what it's designed to do better than the cast iron widget I inherited from my Grandpa that he used for 50 years.
[edit] And I didnt comment on your system because it's quite similar to others that have been suggested on this forum. I cant remember if it was this thread (this has been going for months), but in at least one thread that it came up in I was offering ways in which it could be actually be implemented and could interesting, balanced and satisfying for most. So yes, your suggesting is not without merit. [edit2] And I promise you there are several right now thinking that it's not remotely convenient enough, and just a PITA.
Archaen said:Liav said:I don't know if there is a hard line to be drawn, Feyshtey. Even so, I don't think there's a valid analogue to be made between the glowing tendrils for easy question completion, and mechanisms of player commerce. For instance, the Bazaar in EQ has a glowing tendril that leads you to the particular seller who's selling an item. I don't consider that to be analogous to the quest completion tendrils, either. Does that make the game easy? Should we have to walk uphill, both ways, in the snow to do something as trivial as finding a seller in the Bazaar?
This just sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me. Very base-level game functions don't need to be made complicated. You could easily remove Hit Points from the UI and make players have to guess what their current HP is. Would that make Pantheon a better game? Is that even analogous to this situation, either?
Not sure how you don't see the analogy between the two. You're asking for convenience in one area of the game, why not apply it to others as well? That's the analogy.
It's not a fallacy... plenty of evidence to show what happens when you begin adding convenience that eliminates player interaction.
1Relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position, voltage, etc.:
1.1 (of a clock or watch) showing the time by means of hands or a pointer rather than displayed digits.
Enitzu said:sebbulba said:It's kind of revealing how nobody commented on my idea and is just pulling his end of the rope.
I'm with you, guys! I don't want an automatic AH. I want a player driven economy with people actually trading! But I want the people who are not into that to have a possibility to get their trading done anyway, in a fast and easy way, but still depending on and interacting with other players primarily.
Your idea has merit and adds another side of playing the game. However, the devs would have to develop a system to prevent abuse since we all know how many D-bags there are in this genre. But even if it did go through I'd still be running 2 accounts so I have a trader bot to avoid paying any 'fee'.
edit: less offensive phrasing.
Well, if you use something like a trading bot, that's kind of exploiting in my book. Of course there has to be an interface that ensures that the goods in trade are only changing possession after business is concluded etc. and that the conditions are clear before the "contract" is up running.
If you're running two accounts, one for a full time trading charachter, all day going about his business, and an adventrurer character going about HIS business, you are the reason why this system would work. You will still invest a lot of time in trading.
sebbulba said:I read through most of the thread, and mostly (sorry) it's just essays on why one's position is the right one. I don't think it's very constructive.
Both camps are right in their way and have valid reasons to enjoy what the enjoy and not enjoy what they don't.
So let's find a compromise. Let's give both the camps what they want, to some extent.
By giving people the possibility to delegate their trading affairs safely and easily to other players, who are willing to invest time in trading,via an in-game interface at a cost that is negotiated by the two involved. That way, the people who are not interested in the trading game won't be forced to do so overly intense and have an easy way of getting rid of their stuff or buying things, and the people who enjoy trading can do so even more and with higher volumes, plus get some extra coin.
This is one of the best ideas I've seen posted on this board.
It also makes being a trader or merchant an actual part of the game.
I'm not sure that citing dictionary entries is very productive to this conversation, but just in case, "analog(ue)" can also be used as a noun, colloquially.
"There is no analogue to be made." is equal to "There is no analogy to be made." and is also equal to "These are not analogous,"
Now I've experienced semantic satiation and the word analog(ue)(ous)(y) means absolutely nothing to me.
Iksar said:If they do have an AH I hope it has both buy and sell orders for reasons best described in the linked article. On top of that I hope it just sets you up/directs you to the seller/buyer instead of being an instant transaction. But overall I still would rather no AH at all.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134576/virtual_economic_theory_how_mmos_.php?print=1
"In a market with only sell orders, buyers have no power to influence the price point of items. Their only actions are to buy or not to buy, and not-buying does not indicate a desire to buy at a lower price any more than it indicates a desire not to buy at all. Prices in these markets are purely supply-driven. As a result, if there is insufficient exchange to drive the price of an item down to its opportunity cost, buyers either suffer unfairly high prices or the market stagnates and transactions fail to go through.
By enabling both buy and sell orders, buyers compete to make the lowest highest offer and sellers compete to offer the highest lowest price. Yes, you read that correctly, and no, it's not as confusing as it sounds. Buyers want to pay the lowest price possible, but must offer a higher price than other buyers in order to make a successful transaction (otherwise the transaction will go to a higher bid). Likewise, sellers want to get the highest price possible, but must offer a lower price than other sellers.
These markets are both supply- and demand-driven. When both buyers and sellers compete within the same marketplace, any entrant to the market can see both the upper and lower bounds for transactions within that market. They can (presumably) make as much money as the lowest seller or pay as much money as the highest buyer should they wish to compete in that market. However, most players don't want to compete in the market: they just want to make their fair transaction and get on with the game. This is another point where a dual market really shows its strength."
This how STEAM sales work afaik, and I'm pretty sure it is one of the reasons they are as successful as they are with CS:GO skin sales, TF2 hat sales etc. Every sale gets them a percentage as seller, and the more an item sells for, the higher cut they get. Some of those skins sell for hundreds of dollars, some even hit the 4 digit mark. Patient people win, impatient people... not so much, but they still get to make their purchase on their own terms, which is fair.
While I can see this system working well for an MMORPG, I agree with you Iksar. I would prefer no AH at all, but if an AH is going to be in the game, I do hope it is something like this