Aradune said:oneADseven said:Aradune said:Cosmetic items still have to be earned, either a drop, a quest reward, or bought for in-game currency. Please de-couple cosmetic items with the need for a cash shop -- unnecessary.
Thank you for the clarification and this is exactly the type of system that I was hoping to see.
I think we should probably add some clarification/additional info to the FAQ as this is such a volatile issue.
I don't think it would hurt to have some more details in there. When people see "cosmetic gear" they think cash shop ... maybe "appearance gear" would be a better term. I would like to see "cash shops" in particular mentioned in the FAQ. I know Rachael said that it has been mentioned time and time again that they won't exist in any shape or form, but I don't see that mentioned in the FAQ ... and if the topic has been discussed at that length, it should probably earn a spot on the list.
oneADseven said:Aradune said:oneADseven said:Aradune said:Cosmetic items still have to be earned, either a drop, a quest reward, or bought for in-game currency. Please de-couple cosmetic items with the need for a cash shop -- unnecessary.
Thank you for the clarification and this is exactly the type of system that I was hoping to see.
I think we should probably add some clarification/additional info to the FAQ as this is such a volatile issue.
I don't think it would hurt to have some more details in there. When people see "cosmetic gear" they think cash shop ... maybe "appearance gear" would be a better term. I would like to see "cash shops" in particular mentioned in the FAQ. I know Rachael said that it has been mentioned time and time again that they won't exist in any shape or form, but I don't see that mentioned in the FAQ ... and if the topic has been discussed at that length, it should probably earn a spot on the list.
I won't argue that some may think of a cash shop when reading this, as that's obviously what we're seeing to some degree. I'll just say that on a personal level, "cash shop" never even entered my mind.
Aradune (or any other dev!) could you tell us what exactly cosmetic items are?
Is this a set of "town clothes" or clothing that you equip in a separate slot to mask your normal items' appearance?
If so, I'd be concerned that people could wear the dreaded bikini while in combat.
Or is it like a "glamour"/"transmog"/"skin" that you apply to your normal items?
If it's this, then are we limited to only "glamouring"/"transmogging"/"skinning" items of the same armor grade? (i.e. plate can only be glamoured onto plate)
Just looking for a bit more detail into how this system will work!
Doesn´t this also lead to a discrepancy if these options were enabled for PVP?
Players could make themselves look a lot weaker than they actually are, which could be quite confusing and lead to an advantage.
Most players would then probably choose to view the actual gear, but it should be considered.
nefi said:Doesn´t this also lead to a discrepancy if these options were enabled for PVP?
Players could make themselves look a lot weaker than they actually are, which could be quite confusing and lead to an advantage.
Most players would then probably choose to view the actual gear, but it should be considered.
If you are PvPing you just turn off cosmetic option and you see everyones adventure gear.
I don't know any other cosmetic system other than transmog. and cash shops. I imputed these concepts to the cosmetic system alluded to in the FAQ. To the extent I misunderstood the cosmetic system and contributed to any unnecessary confusion or heartburn over it, I apologize.
Nikademis said:Rachael said:They have already stated time and again there will be no cash shop, of any kind for anything, arguing about what should be in this non-existent cash shop is pointless and detracts from the point of the thread.
Aradune said:Cosmetic items still have to be earned, either a drop, a quest reward, or bought for in-game currency. Please de-couple cosmetic items with the need for a cash shop -- unnecessary.
Well said Rachael. Thanks for clearing things up Brad (though I'm not convinced they needed to be >.<).
Aradune said:I think we should probably add some clarification/additional info to the FAQ as this is such a volatile issue.
I don't know that's necessarily the case Brad. If you look at this thread in its entirety, the majority of us are for choice in this instance. I'm all for additional information and clarification (and far be it from me to tell the team not to expand on a mechanic or idea) but at some point you just have to be ok with the fact that people, especially people on the internet, are going to find a way/reason to take exception with nearly anything.
I think it wouldn't hurt. As Brad stated many people cannot remove Cosmetics from Cash Shop. They do not go hand in hand. One can exist without the other.
I think adding a bit about how cosmetics might be obtained as stated here couldn't hurt at all.
Im also going to guess that classes cant wear gear that they couldnt normally wear. So probably no Plate Wizards. More likely you could use existing gear in the game or vanity gear that has a certain look or style but is not beyond what a Wizard would normally wear. Though I dont know what the devs are planning but this could be a good compromise then just a complete breakdown of immersion and class/archetype recognition.
@Brad
Yes I think it might help seeing as I keep seeing cash shop come up on at least 3 different sites. Couldnt hurt anyway.
oneADseven said:... I know Rachael said that it has been mentioned time and time again that they won't exist in any shape or form, but I don't see that mentioned in the FAQ ...
FAQ : https://www.pantheonmmo.com/game/faqs/
PAYMENT MODEL:
15.0 What is Pantheon's Revenue Model? Will the game be pay to play, Freemium or what?
We are considering either using the traditional subscription based model or a model where the player buys the game and then has the option of purchasing mini-expansions or ‘modules’ after launch. Either way, the game’s world will continue to expand, more content will be added, as well as new features and mechanics. Visionary Realms strongly believes that the revenue model of an MMO needs to match the game’s target audience. Because of this, Pantheon will not be ‘freemium’ or have ‘cash shops’ -- building your character and advancing in-game will be based on time invested and tactics used, not on how much money the player has in real life.
It is already in the FAQ.
We farmed gnoll skin gear from ToFS for sooo long to get my Iksar Monk friend a full set of black cloth looking gear. Appearance is really important to some people. I said on reddit and I'll say it here... I love the direction they chose to go putting the options in the hands of the viewer not the viewee.
I personally will have mine off for the life of the game unless it disables illusions too.
Gnog said:I don't know any other cosmetic system other than transmog. and cash shops. I imputed these concepts to the cosmetic system alluded to in the FAQ. To the extent I misunderstood the cosmetic system and contributed to any unnecessary confusion or heartburn over it, I apologize.
No need to apologize it was really good conversation. I admit I'm not easy to talk too sometimes as I've very stubborn, but hearing this actually helps me understand more of where you were coming from. So sorry for being hard headed. :) Regardless your POV helped VR see we need to clear this up a little bit, so I'm actually going to say Thank you! Your different view on the little bit of information we have actually helped us gain some additonal insight from VR and will hopefully turn into even a more clear picture of the way this will work in the FAQ.
Saicred said:No need to apologize it was really good conversation. I admit I'm not easy to talk too sometimes as I've very stubborn, but hearing this actually helps me understand more of where you were coming from. So sorry for being hard headed. :) Regardless your POV helped VR see we need to clear this up a little bit, so I'm actually going to say Thank you! Your different view on the little bit of information we have actually helped us gain some additonal insight from VR and will hopefully turn into even a more clear picture of the way this will work in the FAQ.
^Well said. Everyone on these forums is passionate about Pantheon and there's nothing wrong with respectfully voicing a concern.
Evoras said:oneADseven said:... I know Rachael said that it has been mentioned time and time again that they won't exist in any shape or form, but I don't see that mentioned in the FAQ ...
FAQ : https://www.pantheonmmo.com/game/faqs/
PAYMENT MODEL:
15.0 What is Pantheon's Revenue Model? Will the game be pay to play, Freemium or what?
We are considering either using the traditional subscription based model or a model where the player buys the game and then has the option of purchasing mini-expansions or ‘modules’ after launch. Either way, the game’s world will continue to expand, more content will be added, as well as new features and mechanics. Visionary Realms strongly believes that the revenue model of an MMO needs to match the game’s target audience. Because of this, Pantheon will not be ‘freemium’ or have ‘cash shops’ -- building your character and advancing in-game will be based on time invested and tactics used, not on how much money the player has in real life.
It is already in the FAQ.
Thanks Evoras. I searched "cash" and "shops" and it didn't come up because of the " ' " at the end of each word, I guess. Thanks again for pointing that out.
oneADseven said:I would like some clarification on whether or not an AH system will be implemented as well. It's another very hot topic on the forum.
Aradune said:Well, first of all what I can say for certain is there will be no global auction house or bazarre. We want travel and remote regions to matter and for trade to take place in different areas and to see items fluctuate in value depending on how hard it was or wasn't to obtain and then bring to the area where you want to sell it. A player driven economy, as I've said many times, is paramount to Pantheon.
What you describe above, essentially the way EQ was set up in the beginning and players coming together themselves to trade, buy, and sell is an appealing idea. I generally like it when the players are driving things and places of commerce arise organically.
That said, there is something to be said about a basic system that allows you to sell your items while offline, or that allows you to search for an item for sale in the local area you are in...
This really touches on a bigger issue that we're still thinking very hard about: Vanilla EQ pretty much left everything up to the players.... want to find a group? Well, we had the /lfg flag, but not much more. Players were on their own to make friends, put groups together, to sell and buy items, etc. I guess the question that often comes up is: will players newer to MMOs or who didn't play the early more open and organic MMOs struggle too much without a little help? Also: do we create some sort of local UI that helps people buy and sell? Do we let people perhaps put an item on a merchant and sell it by consignment (e.g. someone can buy it while the owner is offline)? How about grouping? How about the community in general? Should we try to be a bit proactive and help people find groups and make friends, etc.?
I know one could say, well, EQ didn't need any help -- the players came together and did most of this kind of stuff themselves. But, at the same time, this isn't 1999. Many people who will try Pantheon will not have that perspective and will be coming from games that do make a proactive approach in many areas... that provide an interface, or tools, to help players with transactions, grouping, etc.
I'm personally of the opinion that there has been so much hand-holding in recent games that we should try to be proactive, within reason of course. And I say that because I know some of you are probably worried about what I am saying and that we would take this too far and start implementing dungeon-finders and such. Yes, I agree, it could be taken too far, but we won't let that happen.
So then, I open this question to all of you: What is too far? Do you think we should leave all of this completely to the players? Do you think we should have some functionality that assists players in doing item transactions, or finding people to group with, etc.? If so, what would be acceptable, and what would be taking it too far?
thanks in advance for your feedback and ideas,
-Brad
My thoughts on what 'cosmetic' items are:
Primarily they are items to change your characters appearance in a way that doesn't relate to combat -- they're for RP'ing and such, and are very important to many people in the Pantheon community.
They *could* also, post-launch, evolve into horizontal paths of advancement and have non-combat related stats and attributes.
Major restrictions requests for cosmetics now that the can is open:
1. If the class can't equip the item normally, they should not be able to equip it cosmetically. As in, no Wizards wearing leather/chain/plate.
2. Cosmetic slots should be locked to the same armor type currently equipped (cloth/leather/chain/plate). As in, if you are a Warrior wearing plate, you may only wear plate cosmetic items in those slots. If you want to wear cloth or leather cosmetic items as a Warrior you MUST equip real cloth/leather items in those slots. This will prevent a Warrior from appearing to wear a fancy cloth outfit into battle without suffering any penalties. Why should their cosmetic realism be any different from a Wizards?
Please keep things realistic. I beg of you VR, PLEASE!
Aradune said:My thoughts on what 'cosmetic' items are:
Primarily they are items to change your characters appearance in a way that doesn't relate to combat -- they're for RP'ing and such, and are very important to many people in the Pantheon community.
They *could* also, post-launch, evolve into horizontal paths of advancement and have non-combat related stats and attributes.
Diplomacy Confirmed 2017! I kid, I kid. But that does remind me of a certain system from Vanguard, sir. :) Hopefully that's what you're hinting at but can't talk about because nothing set in stone TBA later after game launches work in progress, Kratuk get lost. :p
Pantz said:Major restrictions requests for cosmetics now that the can is open:
1. If the class can't equip the item normally, they should not be able to equip it cosmetically. As in, no Wizards wearing leather/plate.
2. Cosmetic slots should be locked to the same armor type currently equipped (cloth/leather/plate). As in, if you are a Warrior wearing plate, you may only wear plate cosmetic items in those slots. If you want to wear cloth or leather cosmetic items as a Warrior you MUST equip real cloth/leather items in those slots. This will prevent a Warrior from appearing to wear a fancy cloth outfit into battle without suffering any penalties. Why should their cosmetic realism be any different from a Wizards?
Please keep things realistic. I beg of you VR, PLEASE!
Why does it matter? The system as currently declared allows you to turn off cosmetic items if you don't want to see them. So what does it matter if someone want to be a war wizard and wear plate? If you don't like it, turn the option off.
Gnog said: Yes, the idea of a "cosmetic" reality absolutely affects immersion. But, as I said before, and as I believe Brad himself acknowledged in his comments about the significance of having a full set of Mithril armor (and how cool it was, and how everyone recognized it), there is something important about tying a character's appearance to its accomplishments. A cosmetic reality has the potential to decouple a character's appearance from its accomplishments. I don't think that is good for the game in the long run. And it smacks of catering to the special snowflakes.
I always have to laugh when people claim raid/special/whatever gear looks the best, so we should all be forced to wear it. Many of us do not share the same style preferences. You may think something cool, I think it looks like crap.
If you want to judge someone's accomplishments and worth by looking at their gear, you can. If I want to look how I want, because I rarely like the appearance of most powerful items, I can. Even better, you don't have to see it if you don't want to. I dress my toons so that I like the appearance. I could care less how you see me.
VR chose the best system available.
Beefcake said:Why does it matter? The system as currently declared allows you to turn off cosmetic items if you don't want to see them. So what does it matter if someone want to be a war wizard and wear plate? If you don't like it, turn the option off.
It matters because right now, we're given the choice of two extremes. Either turn all cosmetics completely on or completely off. I believe the argument is for the choice of turning cosmetics on to be slightly less extreme. I think I can say with confidence that very few people in this community want to see excessive particle effects or garish costumes, period. I think the majority of people want at least some amount of realism, and I think the request is simply that VR doesn't take the cosmetic system too far away from that to appease what (I think?) would be a very slim minority.
I know for me personally, I'd probably choose to use the cosmetic system, but it would be a negative if it went too far off the deep end, into allowing people to wear cosmetic lingerie in battle or wizards wearing heavy plate.
Perhaps just changing the name from cosmetic to superficial/frivolous/artificial/illusory/ or appearance gear would be enough. Or adding that any gear used for this must first be earned/obtained as well as be equippable by your race/class, cosmetic not meaning statless empty shells of items.
Beefcake said:Why does it matter? The system as currently declared allows you to turn off cosmetic items if you don't want to see them. So what does it matter if someone want to be a war wizard and wear plate? If you don't like it, turn the option off.
It matters because by doing that you're saying that if you want cosmetics ON then you also must throw out all class based lore and armor type realism.
Lokispawn said:We should be doing forum polls to get a better sense of majority opinion on topics like this.
Forum polls are bad. They give bad data, represent too few, and spurn more arguements with people pointing at said polls as though they mean anything.
Pantz said:It matters because by doing that you're saying that if you want cosmetics ON then you also must throw out all class based lore and armor type realism.
If someone wants to roleplay as a leather wearing warrior then why is there anything wrong with that? This proposed system is the best compromise for both roleplayers and non-roleplayers. The cosmetic crowd and those that prefer to not have that kind of thing. And there is nothing yet to suggest warriors can even equip robes, they couldn't in EQ.
Man, this thread is an almost complete hydra. VR cuts one head off the beast and 5 more ravenous heads grow in it's place. I can understand the hesitancy to answer any questions.