@Sebbulba
This idea has been presented before I think by Raidan in the form of a player (not NPC) consignment system. I thought it a good idea too. This along with a bulletin board that lists what players are selling would work for me. You would still need to meet face to face for the transaction. Oh and vendor NPC for selling trash. This way I can easily get rid of vendor trash. I can find common items quickly if I need to or if I want to search through each player individually to see what they have and make it a "shopping day" I can. Same with selling. If I want to do it myself I can. If I dont want to spend time trying to sell I can do it through a consignment agreement with another player with them taking a portion of profits.
@Sebbulba
Trying to simplify (perhaps overly) to get to the heart of what your system accomplishes. It provides players who desire to spend time in trading the ability to contract out their services. This contract comes in the form of selling goods for a set minimum price and collecting a percentage or flat fee. So the seller is paying a fee for convenience. The middleman is using time spent trading in order to earn the percentage or flat fee. However, there's only one situation in which this system can survive, and that's one with capital starved middlemen. Given that the middleman has to have the right to negotiate the seller's price (nobody is going to spend time trying to sell your bat wings for 100plat per), the middleman will negotiate the price down and buy the item themselves (or through a proxy if the game aims to prevent self-buying). The result is that the middleman then turns around and sells the item for a higher price and earns the full fee and the full sale margin. This is functionally equivalent to the old school EQ no AH system. Any middleman buying into your described system would be selling themself short, unless they just can't afford to shell out the capital for the inventory.
I just don't see how any system works that doesn't take a big chunk out of sales for any convenience provided. If the fees/percentages go to players, then I just don't see how the system can avoid having those players rearrange and create proxies and negate the intent of the system. If you're trying to take the total final sale price and distribute it amongst the players in a mechanic-determined fashion, I just don't see how that actually can work. If you have the fee/percentage structure implemented as a big ole money sink, then there's no getting around paying for your convenience and there's no loopholes. If they provided a pure auction house with a 40% tax, then players would still use it for convenience, but any player looking to optimize their profits would still be able to trade. Amazon and flea markets can survive alongside each other so long as Amazon takes a hefty chunk to disincentivize over use.
I like the idea of creating a niche for traders, I'm just not sold on any described application of it as of yet.
Forelis said:If you want to build a better community and have emergent gameplay, having NO AH is the best move. Yes it is a pain to go to East Commonlands tunnel, but once you are there, you see behavior that is unique to MMOs. Buff newbs, trading, training guards onto people.
My vote is for no system to facilitate player to player trading.
I got to meet some very helpful people in the tunnel in E.Commonlands. This for me is my preferred way to buy and sell. I am still looking forward to playing the game no matter what they decide.
Ainadak said:@Sebbulba
Trying to simplify (perhaps overly) to get to the heart of what your system accomplishes. It provides players who desire to spend time in trading the ability to contract out their services. This contract comes in the form of selling goods for a set minimum price and collecting a percentage or flat fee. So the seller is paying a fee for convenience. The middleman is using time spent trading in order to earn the percentage or flat fee. However, there's only one situation in which this system can survive, and that's one with capital starved middlemen. Given that the middleman has to have the right to negotiate the seller's price (nobody is going to spend time trying to sell your bat wings for 100plat per), the middleman will negotiate the price down and buy the item themselves (or through a proxy if the game aims to prevent self-buying). The result is that the middleman then turns around and sells the item for a higher price and earns the full fee and the full sale margin. This is functionally equivalent to the old school EQ no AH system. Any middleman buying into your described system would be selling themself short, unless they just can't afford to shell out the capital for the inventory.
I just don't see how any system works that doesn't take a big chunk out of sales for any convenience provided. If the fees/percentages go to players, then I just don't see how the system can avoid having those players rearrange and create proxies and negate the intent of the system. If you're trying to take the total final sale price and distribute it amongst the players in a mechanic-determined fashion, I just don't see how that actually can work. If you have the fee/percentage structure implemented as a big ole money sink, then there's no getting around paying for your convenience and there's no loopholes. If they provided a pure auction house with a 40% tax, then players would still use it for convenience, but any player looking to optimize their profits would still be able to trade. Amazon and flea markets can survive alongside each other so long as Amazon takes a hefty chunk to disincentivize over use.
I like the idea of creating a niche for traders, I'm just not sold on any described application of it as of yet.
Hi Ainadak,
You have a valid point, I thought of that scenario myself for a while, too. But if you put a sell order out there, ranging price from x to y, yes, one middleman, who aims to exploit the buyer by haggling down the price and self-buy as you described, will say he won't trouble himself and ignore the contract, maybe pm the buyer to talk him into putting the price down. But another trader, who specializes in said product and sees the price and fee is reasonable, and he's standing in the market right now, would think "well, why the hell not? I know this guy who will buy those, no questions asked" and will approve and make easy money. It could also be possible the other way round. If you have good conditions and connections for a certain item, you would just put that on your trader profile "can sell X for Y gold" etc.
I think it's a bit of a questionnable assumption that every other player will create scams and proxys and multiple accounts to just get a better price on items. Then again, it would make the trading business as shady and tough as it is :-). In my experience, trust is something that helps you survive the most.
So I'd expect scammers to die out, or make a small percentage of the trading folk in the end.
With all the flaws and chaos it might bring, this system still sounds a lot more fun and engaging than an AH.
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.
We are most definitely creating a new game, this is nothing like an EQ or VG clone/sequel etc. and as much as that may disappoint some people, Pantheon is a new game, new IP, new ideas, based on its own lore, that involves some new and some familiar systems, mechanics and features that we thnk you will all enjoy a lot. :)
Kilsin said:We are most definitely creating a new game, this is nothing like an EQ or VG clone/sequel etc. and as much as that may disappoint some people, Pantheon is a new game, new IP, new ideas, based on its own lore, that involves some new and some familiar systems, mechanics and features that we thnk you will all enjoy a lot. :)
Now if only you could give us a spell to see into the future so we could discuss the merits of the mechanics that will actually be implemented. That would be nice!
sebbulba said:...I think it's a bit of a questionnable assumption that every other player will create scams and proxys and multiple accounts to just get a better price on items. Then again, it would make the trading business as shady and tough as it is :-). In my experience, trust is something that helps you survive the most.
So I'd expect scammers to die out, or make a small percentage of the trading folk in the end...
I wish I could say that my experience and expectations would be the same. However, there's a couple of things that would lead me to believe that it won't work out quite so nicely.
1) People who play to limits of the rules (it would be prohibitively difficult to consider proxies against the rules) get progressively better at playing the game. The more money they can get, the more they can expand their reach, and the more they can monopolize target markets. If Pantheon goes with regional trading (they've suggested, but not commited to, regional banking) then profit margins will be even more likely to be dictated by cornered markets.
2) There is no authority or community to oversee the behaviors that you see as negative. A seller would never know if his middleman sold to a proxy or a buyer, so there is no societal guilt/judgement in the action.
I can't think of any real life analogs that would indicate that "scammers" as you call them (I call them smart middlemen) would ever die out, but instead quite the opposite.
Ainadak said:2) There is no authority or community to oversee the behaviors that you see as negative. A seller would never know if his middleman sold to a proxy or a buyer, so there is no societal guilt/judgement in the action.
I can't think of any real life analogs that would indicate that "scammers" as you call them (I call them smart middlemen) would ever die out, but instead quite the opposite.
Plenty in the reverse... Ticket scalpers come to mind. :)
It is an intriguing idea, though, I will say this happens with or without an AH or even without an interface. Worked out that way in North Freeport all the time. I never minded the idea as I would get what I wanted out of the sale, the price and time saved. Do what you want with it after that... it's yours.
Ainadak said:sebbulba said:...I think it's a bit of a questionnable assumption that every other player will create scams and proxys and multiple accounts to just get a better price on items. Then again, it would make the trading business as shady and tough as it is :-). In my experience, trust is something that helps you survive the most.
So I'd expect scammers to die out, or make a small percentage of the trading folk in the end...
I wish I could say that my experience and expectations would be the same. However, there's a couple of things that would lead me to believe that it won't work out quite so nicely.
1) People who play to limits of the rules (it would be prohibitively difficult to consider proxies against the rules) get progressively better at playing the game. The more money they can get, the more they can expand their reach, and the more they can monopolize target markets. If Pantheon goes with regional trading (they've suggested, but not commited to, regional banking) then profit margins will be even more likely to be dictated by cornered markets.
2) There is no authority or community to oversee the behaviors that you see as negative. A seller would never know if his middleman sold to a proxy or a buyer, so there is no societal guilt/judgement in the action.
I can't think of any real life analogs that would indicate that "scammers" as you call them (I call them smart middlemen) would ever die out, but instead quite the opposite.
I acknowledge that this would happen, maybe frequently, especially when an item gets freshly available and the price is being "created" but in my opinion, you see it in a very theoretical way, assuming somehow automatically that everyone will be using proxies. The condition under which your proxy story works, is that no other seller will take the contract for the price the buyer suggests. And that all the buyers will just pay whatever the seller suggests after buying the wares over his proxy. And that all trading is done through middlemen, and that there are no direct traders.
If next to sell orders, buying orders could be made in the same way, I think a good price stability occur sooner or later, since when the scammers/smartguys/whatever start to sell their overpriced goods, a discrepancy will be visible if a direct trader or a fair middleman just keeps undercutting them.
Kilsin said: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.
Kilsin said:We are most definitely creating a new game, this is nothing like an EQ or VG clone/sequel etc. and as much as that may disappoint some people, Pantheon is a new game, new IP, new ideas, based on its own lore, that involves some new and some familiar systems, mechanics and features that we thnk you will all enjoy a lot. :)
Looking forward to more info on what is coming. Since so much about this is unkown, we refer to what has been. I guess it may be somewhat pointless if you've already settled on a direction, but given that Vanguard was the prior game most of you worked on I am concerned you don't see the issues with having an AH. That's not to question your competence or thought on this, just the community's current level of ignorance (my own included) on the specific direction of Pantheon leaves us all a bit apprehensive and anxious.
However, given that so much of what I've seen in dev discussions and streams is spot on, I'm more than willing to give you all the benefit of the doubt and wait patiently to see what comes in this area as well. It's definitely a difficult thing to manage, and you've done it so well so far.
I would pose a question. Most people here seem to be adamant that certain behavior prohibits having a good time in game. Part of the reason people want an auction house is to avoid being taken advantage of. The other is to be able to compete with others even though they have less time.
To me part of what made EQ fun was having people who didn't behave. It was fun to watch people trying to one up eachother. Sure it kind of sucked when you ended up as the victim of something, but it also created a memory you wouldn't quickly forgot. This is part of why I am looking for a game like EQ again. I like that it was a bit chaotic in general. I find structured things to be a bit boring even though they are safe. Most games these days are very structured and don't allow much freedom. I think not having an auction house would promote creativity by the players and add a little excitement. There is nothing like having a zone littered with people talking in chat. It makes the area feel alive. I got the same feeling from certain starting areas where people were running around competing over things like bats, beetles, orc pawns, etc. I know a lot of people look down on that type of behavior in this day and age. Everyone wants to be a moderator to tell everyone right and wrong. I am just saying fun sometimes comes out of letting go. Not everything has to be logical or right to be fun. Especially in a video game that is about the fantastical.
sebbulba said:I acknowledge that this would happen, maybe frequently, especially when an item gets freshly available and the price is being "created" but in my opinion, you see it in a very theoretical way, assuming somehow automatically that everyone will be using proxies. The condition under which your proxy story works, is that no other seller will take the contract for the price the buyer suggests. And that all the buyers will just pay whatever the seller suggests after buying the wares over his proxy. And that all trading is done through middlemen, and that there are no direct traders.
If next to sell orders, buying orders could be made in the same way, I think a good price stability occur sooner or later, since when the scammers/smartguys/whatever start to sell their overpriced goods, a discrepancy will be visible if a direct trader or a fair middleman just keeps undercutting them.
My mind had also wandered in the direction of having buy orders. However, I presumed that your system was predicated on the notion that information on buyers was scarce and knowledge of buyers was what middlemen brough to the table. If you can see sell orders and buy orders, then you have an auctionhouse that's informational, but not transactional. Middlemen in that case would just be people who keep track of the market to buy low and sell high, which they already do in systems with transactional auctionhouses. What that system would enable is deliverymen. Unfortunately given the danger of travel, deliverymen would probably have to be high level.
I still just don't see any system that beats a high tax auctionhouse. Everyone has the option to trade for profit and people can determine their own balance of how much trading to participate in. If you hate trading, then you'll probably only trade your most valuable finds. If you love trading, then you can play the markets and profit from it.
The problem was never that auctionhouses were introduced into MMOs. The problem was always that it had NO downsides to its use. Like any other mechanic, balance is required.
Edit: Tagging on a response.
@UnknownQuantity
Auctionhouse or no, the "getting ripped off" factor exists in both cases. If someone corners the market for rare purple pearls and you go to the auctionhouse to find that they're listed at 10plat, then you'll probably pay 10plat, even if their natural price point would be 10gold. The only thing that prevents getting ripped off is information and that can either come from knowing what it takes to get the goods, or the sale history of the item. I have never seen a game that actually included a sale history of items (there may well be an example though), but I can completely believe that third party websites have done this (I think Liav may have described a version of this for EQ in this thread). If your sticking point in this discussion is lack of information, then you would do best to argue for mechanics that keep people away from third party websites/programs.
Ainadak said:sebbulba said:I acknowledge that this would happen, maybe frequently, especially when an item gets freshly available and the price is being "created" but in my opinion, you see it in a very theoretical way, assuming somehow automatically that everyone will be using proxies. The condition under which your proxy story works, is that no other seller will take the contract for the price the buyer suggests. And that all the buyers will just pay whatever the seller suggests after buying the wares over his proxy. And that all trading is done through middlemen, and that there are no direct traders.
If next to sell orders, buying orders could be made in the same way, I think a good price stability occur sooner or later, since when the scammers/smartguys/whatever start to sell their overpriced goods, a discrepancy will be visible if a direct trader or a fair middleman just keeps undercutting them.
My mind had also wandered in the direction of having buy orders. However, I presumed that your system was predicated on the notion that information on buyers was scarce and knowledge of buyers was what middlemen brough to the table. If you can see sell orders and buy orders, then you have an auctionhouse that's informational, but not transactional. Middlemen in that case would just be people who keep track of the market to buy low and sell high, which they already do in systems with transactional auctionhouses. What that system would enable is deliverymen. Unfortunately given the danger of travel, deliverymen would probably have to be high level.
I still just don't see any system that beats a high tax auctionhouse. Everyone has the option to trade for profit and people can determine their own balance of how much trading to participate in. If you hate trading, then you'll probably only trade your most valuable finds. If you love trading, then you can play the markets and profit from it.
The problem was never that auctionhouses were introduced into MMOs. The problem was always that it had NO downsides to its use. Like any other mechanic, balance is required.
Edit: Tagging on a response.
@UnknownQuantity
Auctionhouse or no, the "getting ripped off" factor exists in both cases. If someone corners the market for rare purple pearls and you go to the auctionhouse to find that they're listed at 10plat, then you'll probably pay 10plat, even if their natural price point would be 10gold. The only thing that prevents getting ripped off is information and that can either come from knowing what it takes to get the goods, or the sale history of the item. I have never seen a game that actually included a sale history of items (there may well be an example though), but I can completely believe that third party websites have done this (I think Liav may have described a version of this for EQ in this thread). If your sticking point in this discussion is lack of information, then you would do best to argue for mechanics that keep people away from third party websites/programs.
I feel that regardless of there being third party websites having no auction house will still limit information on items and their values quite a bit. Some people will go to third party websites, but it's unlikely everyone will as it's an inconvenience. Some people might, but if you consider that many people seem to complain about not having a lot of time it's less likely. The information will be less useful to people than having it directly accessible in game IMO.
I vote no Auction House and Save the Tunnel! I notice a lot of people focus on the selling aspect when the real issue is buying any gear from a central automated location drives down the desire and fun to adventure for gear in earlier game play. It makes it too easy to farm, sell, buy gear, OP, and grind upwards. Thus a focus on end game play, harder dungeons, and raids. Ignoring earlier content.
Longtime fan and first time poster, I am sorry if some of the following ideas have been suggested earlier, I tried to read through it all. Like many, played the original in 1999 and beyond. Played many other MMORPGs etc. I just discovered the 1999 server and brining back a desire for gaming agian. New games are to easy and borring. The evidence is there. Once they added the auction house in EQ and revamped old parts of the game it dramatically reduced any communication around buying stuff and selling. It is great to go up to the tunnel and have such a mix of players in one spot. Yes, the chat channel is not the most ideal place and linking goods etc but cool that everyone gathers to do it. Also, I think it helps make items rarer and harder to get.
Side note if we are lucky enough that the game gods go EC Tunnel route: I vote for taverns in far off locations with tiny towns / villages for people to gather, drink, and do dark trades of rare goods, recruit adventures for grouping, and common place to tell tales....Imagine coming out of a dangerous open zone and wondering down a path and coming up on a raining dark night (eq classic darkness) uppon an inn with a tavern. Find some local travelers that lost their cleric and looking for help to conquer a dungeon they heard about in another near by zone that is good for this level and some good drops. You say" Sure let me go see if anything is being sold in the market next door first, I could use better boots as mine are wearing out and a few arrows".
What happens is you got two options no drop, no trade or auction board, house, etc.
This all being said I could see a board or vendor you can sell most common goods to, set prices, attempt to haggle with an NPC based on the known local econ or region. Even better, like crafting, someone can choose to be a merchant. They could set prices of common goods to buy and sell, that automatically can be done when they setup the character to be a merchant as a trade skill. You need to work up your abilities to sell more expensive, rarer goods and need to focus in certain areas. Gems, Armor, weapons, spells, potions, etc. Instead of say crafting. Crafting people would sell to a merchant and they would in turn try to sell to the adventure at a higher price. You would only be allowed one merchant per subscription. The chat channel aucs would end up being rare goods...
Consignment is kind of lame and high tax auc house.
Diablo 3 did the consignment thing basically and even tried the real money. The bottom line is the auction house drives down the value of goods and reduced the time required to purchase an item. Thus making it more productive to farm for money than adventure for fun.
Archaen said:Kilsin said: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.Kilsin said:We are most definitely creating a new game, this is nothing like an EQ or VG clone/sequel etc. and as much as that may disappoint some people, Pantheon is a new game, new IP, new ideas, based on its own lore, that involves some new and some familiar systems, mechanics and features that we thnk you will all enjoy a lot. :)
Looking forward to more info on what is coming. Since so much about this is unkown, we refer to what has been. I guess it may be somewhat pointless if you've already settled on a direction, but given that Vanguard was the prior game most of you worked on I am concerned you don't see the issues with having an AH. That's not to question your competence or thought on this, just the community's current level of ignorance (my own included) on the specific direction of Pantheon leaves us all a bit apprehensive and anxious.
However, given that so much of what I've seen in dev discussions and streams is spot on, I'm more than willing to give you all the benefit of the doubt and wait patiently to see what comes in this area as well. It's definitely a difficult thing to manage, and you've done it so well so far.
That is pretty much it, we have settled on lots of these decisions over the last 3 years, we started these forums back in FEB 2014 and have been collecting info and taking feedback and suggestions ever since, to the point that we have already pretty much decided on most things and need to work on them some more and see them through to completion so we can test them. Which makes it hard but more reason why it was important to get in early on a game like this in development.
We will still take feedback and suggestions and ask for specific feedback on certain things but for big mechanics like this, it has already been decided and we need to test it before we even consider changing anything.
Kilsin said:That is pretty much it, we have settled on lots of these decisions over the last 3 years, we started these forums back in FEB 2014 and have been collecting info and taking feedback and suggestions ever since, to the point that we have already pretty much decided on most things and need to work on them some more and see them through to completion so we can test them. Which makes it hard but more reason why it was important to get in early on a game like this in development.
We will still take feedback and suggestions and ask for specific feedback on certain things but for big mechanics like this, it has already been decided and we need to test it before we even consider changing anything.
Are you guys prepared to possibly do some large scale changes based on feedback from alpha/beta and what I'm assuming is the expectation of a mass influx of players at launch? The only reason I ask is everything could turn out to be completely fine and dandy, and obviously you guys don't want to change too much to remove much of what I would consider your guys mission statement, but let's take something you talked about a while ago with things like banks not all being the same. If this is greeted with significant negativity once there is actual hands own experience, are the majority of players just going have to deal with it? This is all hypothetical of course, not directly stating something is bad or not bad atm since although I like to participate in discussion, I really like to have the hands on experience first. I'm more or less trying to figure out how valuable feedback really is for those who came here after 2014. If the mentality, "it's my way or the highway" is going to become common practice.
Eliseus said:Are you guys prepared to possibly do some large scale changes based on feedback from alpha/beta and what I'm assuming is the expectation of a mass influx of players at launch? The only reason I ask is everything could turn out to be completely fine and dandy, and obviously you guys don't want to change too much to remove much of what I would consider your guys mission statement, but let's take something you talked about a while ago with things like banks not all being the same. If this is greeted with significant negativity once there is actual hands own experience, are the majority of players just going have to deal with it? This is all hypothetical of course, not directly stating something is bad or not bad atm since although I like to participate in discussion, I really like to have the hands on experience first. I'm more or less trying to figure out how valuable feedback really is for those who came here after 2014. If the mentality, "it's my way or the highway" is going to become common practice.
The answer is right there at the end of his post: "We will still take feedback and suggestions and ask for specific feedback on certain things but for big mechanics like this, it has already been decided and we need to test it before we even consider changing anything."
They are open to changing things, but not without testing and appropriate feedback from said tests.
Iksar said:Eliseus said:Are you guys prepared to possibly do some large scale changes based on feedback from alpha/beta and what I'm assuming is the expectation of a mass influx of players at launch? The only reason I ask is everything could turn out to be completely fine and dandy, and obviously you guys don't want to change too much to remove much of what I would consider your guys mission statement, but let's take something you talked about a while ago with things like banks not all being the same. If this is greeted with significant negativity once there is actual hands own experience, are the majority of players just going have to deal with it? This is all hypothetical of course, not directly stating something is bad or not bad atm since although I like to participate in discussion, I really like to have the hands on experience first. I'm more or less trying to figure out how valuable feedback really is for those who came here after 2014. If the mentality, "it's my way or the highway" is going to become common practice.
The answer is right there at the end of his post: "We will still take feedback and suggestions and ask for specific feedback on certain things but for big mechanics like this, it has already been decided and we need to test it before we even consider changing anything."
They are open to changing things, but not without testing and appropriate feedback from said tests.
That answer is there you are right, my questions however involved more than that answer. I'm trying to find an understanding of how important feedback is really going to be. There has been a lot of responses lately involving comments like "the devs already decided how they wanted to do this thing a long time ago" type responses. So is many of these threads coming up with heated discussion really just pointless?
Eliseus said:That answer is there you are right, my questions however involved more than that answer. I'm trying to find an understanding of how important feedback is really going to be. There has been a lot of responses lately involving comments like "the devs already decided how they wanted to do this thing a long time ago" type responses. So is many of these threads coming up with heated discussion really just pointless?
I wouldn't say pointless, just not terribly impactful. The devs are likely still watching and taking things into consideration, but they know the direction they want to go and will implement said systems to let real testing be done before deferring to newer feedback, like the conversations had beyond 2014/15. Some good ideas can come from any conversation that might be noted, but I wouldn't expect anything to come from the discussions on the forums other than passionate gamers talking to one another and relating experiences and opinions.
But perhaps Kilsin will give his take.
Kilsin said:Archaen said:Kilsin said: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.Kilsin said:We are most definitely creating a new game, this is nothing like an EQ or VG clone/sequel etc. and as much as that may disappoint some people, Pantheon is a new game, new IP, new ideas, based on its own lore, that involves some new and some familiar systems, mechanics and features that we thnk you will all enjoy a lot. :)
Looking forward to more info on what is coming. Since so much about this is unkown, we refer to what has been. I guess it may be somewhat pointless if you've already settled on a direction, but given that Vanguard was the prior game most of you worked on I am concerned you don't see the issues with having an AH. That's not to question your competence or thought on this, just the community's current level of ignorance (my own included) on the specific direction of Pantheon leaves us all a bit apprehensive and anxious.
However, given that so much of what I've seen in dev discussions and streams is spot on, I'm more than willing to give you all the benefit of the doubt and wait patiently to see what comes in this area as well. It's definitely a difficult thing to manage, and you've done it so well so far.
That is pretty much it, we have settled on lots of these decisions over the last 3 years, we started these forums back in FEB 2014 and have been collecting info and taking feedback and suggestions ever since, to the point that we have already pretty much decided on most things and need to work on them some more and see them through to completion so we can test them. Which makes it hard but more reason why it was important to get in early on a game like this in development.
We will still take feedback and suggestions and ask for specific feedback on certain things but for big mechanics like this, it has already been decided and we need to test it before we even consider changing anything.
If it's already been decided on whether or not an AH is going to exist, I'd love to get some more info on the actual plan. Instead of people speculating on 100 different ideas or theories, we could provide more meaningful input that's in line with what's actually going to be implemented. I know a pretty big update is coming soon and I really hope there is some solid information in there in regards to the plan with this whole auction house fiasco.
oneADseven said:If it's already been decided on whether or not an AH is going to exist, I'd love to get some more info on the actual plan. Instead of people speculating on 100 different ideas or theories, we could provide more meaningful input that's in line with what's actually going to be implemented. I know a pretty big update is coming soon and I really hope there is some solid information in there in regards to the plan with this whole auction house fiasco.
But then we'd just have people arguing over the proposed system based purely on speculation and theoretical claims without any actual testing to provide real feedback. Que será, será.
Iksar said:oneADseven said:If it's already been decided on whether or not an AH is going to exist, I'd love to get some more info on the actual plan. Instead of people speculating on 100 different ideas or theories, we could provide more meaningful input that's in line with what's actually going to be implemented. I know a pretty big update is coming soon and I really hope there is some solid information in there in regards to the plan with this whole auction house fiasco.
But then we'd just have people arguing over the proposed system based purely on speculation and theoretical claims without any actual testing to provide real feedback. Que será, será.
I still think that would be better than people arguing over a variety of systems that literally have no chance of being implemented. At least then, we would know for sure that we aren't completely wasting our time. They're either going to have an AH or they aren't ... and if this has already been decided, we have people on either side of the equation that have been fighting for a lost cause. I think it would be rather merciful to be honest with you. This is a pretty sensitive topic here and there are passionate people arguing both for and against having an AH. This thread was started exactly 1 year ago today, and has received more than 600 replies/30k views and counting. If there is no chance of this energy having any sort of impact, let's put the poor guys out of their misery. Either way we'll all suck it up and hopefully be able to realign our focus on how to make the planned system work the best it possibly can. Personally, I am on the side of the fence that really wants to see an Auction House. If there isn't going to be one, I can live with that. I would then make an effort to contribute in any way I can to provide more meaningful imput that's in line with the true vision.
Eliseus said:Kilsin said:That is pretty much it, we have settled on lots of these decisions over the last 3 years, we started these forums back in FEB 2014 and have been collecting info and taking feedback and suggestions ever since, to the point that we have already pretty much decided on most things and need to work on them some more and see them through to completion so we can test them. Which makes it hard but more reason why it was important to get in early on a game like this in development.
We will still take feedback and suggestions and ask for specific feedback on certain things but for big mechanics like this, it has already been decided and we need to test it before we even consider changing anything.Are you guys prepared to possibly do some large scale changes based on feedback from alpha/beta and what I'm assuming is the expectation of a mass influx of players at launch? The only reason I ask is everything could turn out to be completely fine and dandy, and obviously you guys don't want to change too much to remove much of what I would consider your guys mission statement, but let's take something you talked about a while ago with things like banks not all being the same. If this is greeted with significant negativity once there is actual hands own experience, are the majority of players just going have to deal with it? This is all hypothetical of course, not directly stating something is bad or not bad atm since although I like to participate in discussion, I really like to have the hands on experience first. I'm more or less trying to figure out how valuable feedback really is for those who came here after 2014. If the mentality, "it's my way or the highway" is going to become common practice.
We are on record saying a few times now that if something doesn't work, we will remove it completely and either go without it or find a suitable replacement, we will not, however, make such drastic decisions without first testing them out thoroughly as we have a lot of combined experience on this team with many of our systems, mechanics and features and some of them are weaved into one another.
So my best advice would be to let the developers, who are also gamers, get these systems, mechanics and features into testing before providing feedback, so we can at least give them a chance and see how they work, we don't just add these things randomly for no reason, or without thinking about all possible issues that could arise from them, so it is best to wait and test them for yourself as no opinion in the world is going to change our plans until we know if they work or not ;)
Kilsin said:Eliseus said:Kilsin said:That is pretty much it, we have settled on lots of these decisions over the last 3 years, we started these forums back in FEB 2014 and have been collecting info and taking feedback and suggestions ever since, to the point that we have already pretty much decided on most things and need to work on them some more and see them through to completion so we can test them. Which makes it hard but more reason why it was important to get in early on a game like this in development.
We will still take feedback and suggestions and ask for specific feedback on certain things but for big mechanics like this, it has already been decided and we need to test it before we even consider changing anything.Are you guys prepared to possibly do some large scale changes based on feedback from alpha/beta and what I'm assuming is the expectation of a mass influx of players at launch? The only reason I ask is everything could turn out to be completely fine and dandy, and obviously you guys don't want to change too much to remove much of what I would consider your guys mission statement, but let's take something you talked about a while ago with things like banks not all being the same. If this is greeted with significant negativity once there is actual hands own experience, are the majority of players just going have to deal with it? This is all hypothetical of course, not directly stating something is bad or not bad atm since although I like to participate in discussion, I really like to have the hands on experience first. I'm more or less trying to figure out how valuable feedback really is for those who came here after 2014. If the mentality, "it's my way or the highway" is going to become common practice.
We are on record saying a few times now that if something doesn't work, we will remove it completely and either go without it or find a suitable replacement, we will not, however, make such drastic decisions without first testing them out thoroughly as we have a lot of combined experience on this team with many of our systems, mechanics and features and some of them are weaved into one another.
So my best advice would be to let the developers, who are also gamers, get these systems, mechanics and features into testing before providing feedback, so we can at least give them a chance and see how they work, we don't just add these things randomly for no reason, or without thinking about all possible issues that could arise from them, so it is best to wait and test them for yourself as no opinion in the world is going to change our plans until we know if they work or not ;)
That's great. That is what I look forward to doing. More-or-less I was mostly just trying to figure out when we actually get to the test this stuff out on how worthwhile the feedback really would be. Not really a deterrence in playing this game since I'm looking forward to this game a lot, just trying to set expectations for myself when these testing phases begin.
oneADseven said:Iksar said:oneADseven said:If it's already been decided on whether or not an AH is going to exist, I'd love to get some more info on the actual plan. Instead of people speculating on 100 different ideas or theories, we could provide more meaningful input that's in line with what's actually going to be implemented. I know a pretty big update is coming soon and I really hope there is some solid information in there in regards to the plan with this whole auction house fiasco.
But then we'd just have people arguing over the proposed system based purely on speculation and theoretical claims without any actual testing to provide real feedback. Que será, será.
I still think that would be better than people arguing over a variety of systems that literally have no chance of being implemented. At least then, we would know for sure that we aren't completely wasting our time. They're either going to have an AH or they aren't ... and if this has already been decided, we have people on either side of the equation that have been fighting for a lost cause. I think it would be rather merciful to be honest with you. This is a pretty sensitive topic here and there are passionate people arguing both for and against having an AH. This thread was started exactly 1 year ago today, and has received more than 600 replies/30k views and counting. If there is no chance of this energy having any sort of impact, let's put the poor guys out of their misery. Either way we'll all suck it up and hopefully be able to realign our focus on how to make the planned system work the best it possibly can. Personally, I am on the side of the fence that really wants to see an Auction House. If there isn't going to be one, I can live with that. I would then make an effort to contribute in any way I can to provide more meaningful impact that's in line with the true vision.
Both actually slow me down from gathering actual useful feedback, as opinions do not help with development, only experience, factual evidence and personal testing feedback within Pantheon will, so if I seem a little grumpy when replying to a lot of these threads, it is because I have to endure the pain of reading through these petty arguments over nothing but baseless opinions, which most of the time are either wrong, misinformed or theorising over things that I can't talk about publicly yet but that we already have answers for, which can be frustrating for both of us, I assure you. :)
If these were Pantheon game forums, I wouldn't care one bit, I could brush through and speed read for anything needing moderation and move on, but they are development forums, they are an important tool for us to collect information, and arguments over who likes what better or had the better time in another game 10 years ago or who dislikes X mechanic because of their experience in a different game 5 years ago or listing 10 issues or problems with someone opinion event hough it has no chance of being implemented in Pantheon doesn't actually help me or the team at all ;)
I don't mind you all discussing and theorising things at all, I enjoy reading a lot of it but the arguing over opinions and turning simple opinion based posts into in-depth counter arguments and multiple paragraph statements are just unnecessary. If I post my opinion on a public forum and someone disagrees with me, I try to find out why as sometimes I may be a bit too focussed on my own personal view and if I am able to understand their point of view and still disagree with it, I simply and politely move on, nothing anyone says on a public forum will affect my life or stop me from liking a game or change my own playstyle and nothing any single person says will be chosen by the dev team to implement and ruin the game for thousands of others, so it is best to take a breath and walk away sometimes, rather than let opinions and wishes of others cause you to react and get upset/angry. :)
Eliseus said:Kilsin said:Eliseus said:Kilsin said:That is pretty much it, we have settled on lots of these decisions over the last 3 years, we started these forums back in FEB 2014 and have been collecting info and taking feedback and suggestions ever since, to the point that we have already pretty much decided on most things and need to work on them some more and see them through to completion so we can test them. Which makes it hard but more reason why it was important to get in early on a game like this in development.
We will still take feedback and suggestions and ask for specific feedback on certain things but for big mechanics like this, it has already been decided and we need to test it before we even consider changing anything.Are you guys prepared to possibly do some large scale changes based on feedback from alpha/beta and what I'm assuming is the expectation of a mass influx of players at launch? The only reason I ask is everything could turn out to be completely fine and dandy, and obviously you guys don't want to change too much to remove much of what I would consider your guys mission statement, but let's take something you talked about a while ago with things like banks not all being the same. If this is greeted with significant negativity once there is actual hands own experience, are the majority of players just going have to deal with it? This is all hypothetical of course, not directly stating something is bad or not bad atm since although I like to participate in discussion, I really like to have the hands on experience first. I'm more or less trying to figure out how valuable feedback really is for those who came here after 2014. If the mentality, "it's my way or the highway" is going to become common practice.
We are on record saying a few times now that if something doesn't work, we will remove it completely and either go without it or find a suitable replacement, we will not, however, make such drastic decisions without first testing them out thoroughly as we have a lot of combined experience on this team with many of our systems, mechanics and features and some of them are weaved into one another.
So my best advice would be to let the developers, who are also gamers, get these systems, mechanics and features into testing before providing feedback, so we can at least give them a chance and see how they work, we don't just add these things randomly for no reason, or without thinking about all possible issues that could arise from them, so it is best to wait and test them for yourself as no opinion in the world is going to change our plans until we know if they work or not ;)That's great. That is what I look forward to doing. More-or-less I was mostly just trying to figure out when we actually get to the test this stuff out on how worthwhile the feedback really would be. Not really a deterrence in playing this game since I'm looking forward to this game a lot, just trying to set expectations for myself when these testing phases begin.
I wish I could give a date but we don't have one just yet, we are still working hard on implementing the things that we need tested, I can say that it won't be too far away for Pre-Alpha, we will announce it with plenty of notice, though, so don't worry :)