After reading the thread and people's comments about XP bonuses I'd like to suggest that incentives should *not* be XP-related.
I find it a turn *off* to be, effectively, rushed through my progression just for visiting a tavern (or whatever lol).
I like my incentives to lead me to play *more* not less and XP bonuses mean I end up spending less time in any particular area, not more, as I out-level it quicker...
I know it's somewhat the same thing, but I'd prefer a buff to ability rather than a plain XP bonus. The limited time ability buff would encourage me to get out there and fight while I have it and though, of course, I'm more effective with it and get more XP, it also means I could try more difficult encounters or win where I failed earlier. A little more interesting than just getting more XP for doing what I was already doing.
Incentives could also be to crafting success (if you spend time at a craft guild hall) or travel speed (if you spend time talking to a horse groom) or healing rate (if you spend time in a temple) or whatever...
The other day in P99 I completed a hand in and the NPC healed me, which could have been really handy if I'd timed it right.
Kalok said:Tralyan said:manofyesterday said:Radeon said:I'll keep it simple. I don't like taverns. I don't see why my character will be happy being in one. The mere act of giving a minor buff by going into a tavern implies that my character is not shaped by me and expects me to behave a certain way. My character should be getting a buff from going into a cave or tunnel instead since that's my prefered environment, but that is unlikely.
Small things like this are more damaging to one's creativity than one's time. There is no room for the imagination in modern games.
It's better to just give buffs for things people will do all the time like...sitting. If the game shapes my character then my interest in it will wane when the game's mechanics exhaust themselves. The game should simplify the expression of the imagination and one's social dynamic instead.
Oh, and we should not do things based on the rewards, because we will feel like we are working rather than playing. What we DO is the enjoyment, not what we get at the end. Staying at level 20 for 2 years can be more enjoyable than getting mountains of loot at max level like it was a job. The developers need to focus on making each class more enjoyable than make incentives that solve no gameplay issues.
Does this mean that players who play characters who don't enjoy killing should be given experience points for choosing not to engage enemies?
Your line of thinking is far too idealistic for contemporary games, but what you're suggesting will probably be the future of RPGs. In the future, players will be able to piece together in great detail the personality and being of their characters, which will dramatically alter the way in which they interact with the virtual world.
Unfortunately, I don't think our technology is quite there yet and so there will have to be compromises.
"The mere act of giving a minor buff by going into a tavern implies that my character is not shaped by me and expects me to behave a certain way."
You can apply this to anything though. 'I selected a mage and I've noticed that the game is forcing and expecting me to cast spells, this isn't right.'
Going back to what I wrote about compromises, I wouldn't mind the idea of certain races or classes gaining buffs for performing acts that conform to their archetypes. For example, a mage class gaining a buff for spending time in a library or a dwarf gaining a buff for adventuring in a cave.
"Oh, and we should not do things based on the rewards, because we will feel like we are working rather than playing."
This is how the world works though. If there is great enough incentive to perform X, then people will perform X. And if a given person feels like there isn't enough incentive to perform X, then they will not perform X. This applies to all aspects of life from work to play.
Your examples, however, are going against the grain of the core of MMO's (and dare I say, all video games); which is combat.
I play video games for the dungeons, the exploration, the immersion, and the combat. Combat is a core mechanic of every game I play. Taverns are not. It's implicit that our characters will engage in combat in an MMO. It's not implicit that they will enjoy taverns, any more than it is that they'd enjoy sewing or cricket.
With that in mind, I think it's perfectly acceptable to assume that a mage will cast spells and a warrior will kill monsters - and NOT to assume that any one character would enjoy activities outside of that core mechanic.
Just playing devils advocate here. The immersive cherry picking and mental acrobatic that goes on around here makes my head spin sometimes.
And you're missing the fact that they've already stated that there will be more to Pantheon than just combat. There will be nlots of non-combat related stuff to do, including crafting and harvesting.
Come on. That's just intellectually dishonest.
Doesn't matter what they stated, combat is what Pantheon is centered around. Without combat, there would be no groups, there would be no LFG, there would be no need for trading and no need for harvesting or crafting. Combat is the sun that the rest circles. Without combat, you'll just have a whole bunch of people running around, exploring and roleplaying and /emote-ing. It'll be 1993's Myst all over again. That might be a fun game in its own right, but it's not what Pantheon (or EQ, or WoW, or Vanguard, or, or, or, or) is. "lots of non-combat related stuff" is the same as going to a burger joint that advertizes they sell tater tots.
Great, but tater tots aren't why 90% of the people are there, and it's not what the restaurant was built around.
After having read this entire thread, I want to go back and just respond to the OP.
manofyesterday said: I often see other players pejoratively using the word "forced" when referring to an action they must take in order to receive a reward or benefit.
I feel the problem here is that some players use this "I don't want to be forced to do this" argument incorrectly, in order to have an excuse for why they don't want a feature to be implented. But I do not think that this feeling of being "Forced" is invalid in any way. Part of the reason people have come to Pantheon is because it promises an open world where your choices make a difference in how the game plays out for you. Any feature that pushes the player away from making a different choice is going to make these people feel Pidgen-holed or Railroaded and they are going to complain about it.
[Blockquote]For instance, another community member had suggested that taverns grant special buffs. To me, this seems like a great idea. But I noticed that some other community members were saying things like, "Why should players be forced to enter traverns to receive this buff?"
In this particular example, this "Forced" argument is both right and wrong. As was mentioned in a later post, if a player feels the need to get this buff in order to play most effectively this creates a feeling that you "Must" go get this buff before you play. Where it is wrong is the fact that this idea could be implemented in many different ways that wouldn't create a "Must get" mentality. So using this "I don't want to be forced to do this" isn't really the best way to argue against this particular feature.
I'm not saying that it's a good feature, and in fact would argue against it myself. But I do agree with the OP that using the "I don't want to be forced" line is kind of a lazy way to get VR to not use the idea.
Nobody is being forced to do anything
This isn't entirely true, since there are inherent gameplay elements that you kinda have to do as part of the point of the game.
[Blockquote]There are incentives and if a player finds a particular incentive compelling enough, then they will freely choose the action required to gain whatever incentivized them
You use the word "Incentives", but there is a fine line between an incentive and a threat. "Wear this makeup and you will feel pretty" = Incentive. "Wear this makeup or you won't get a boyfriend!" = Threat.
"Come get this buff and you will have an easier time" = Incentive. "Come get his buff or you will be at a disadvantage" = Threat.
Some people may hear one rather than the other. The threat may never be intended, but some players will feel it all the same.
Nobody is forced to kill NPCs; yet, when you begin playing Pantheon, you will find most players freely choosing to kill them. This is because they've all agreed that there's a compelling enough incentive for killing them: gaining experience points. And it wouldn't make much sense for one of them to say, "Why am I being forced to kill NPCs for experience points?" You're free to not kill any NPCs, but don't expect your outcome to be equal to the player who freely chooses to kill them. Likewise, if you don't find the tavern-only buff a compelling enough incentive to enter a tavern, then don't enter any tavern and go about your buisiness. And instead of complaining about not having the tavern-only buff because you freely chose to not enter into any tavern, why don't you just enter a tavern?
I think your "Why am I being forced to kill NPCs for experience" is sort of a silly way to argue your point which is interesting since your entire point seems to be that you don't agree with the way people are arguing their point. While there is no instructions saying that Pantheon is specifically about killing monsters, I think that it's pretty much accepted that this is the main paradigm of the game play. So anyone who would say "Why am I being forced to kill monsters?" should just be asked "Why did you choose to play this game?"
Yes there are other parts of the game that don't require you to kill monsters, but this is the main aspect of the game. As I said before, this is one of those Inherent gameplay elements that everyone is going to take part in, or they probably wouldn't choose to play the game in the first place. Nobody is going to cry foul that they are being forced to do the thing they chose to play the game to do.
Back to your actual point though:
When you debate incentives creating a feeling of being forced or Not, it comes down to two questions: 1) Does this feature of the game make people feel that not taking part is making their experience less enjoyable. 2) Is there another feature of the game that would give you the similar results without requiring you to use the feature in question
I mean, what exactly is the argument here? You understand what needs to be done in order to receive the tavern-only buff, and you've freely decided that it isn't worth entering a tavern in order to receive it. Yet, you're complaining about not possessing the buff. Then you try to make it so other players can't receive this buff, even the ones who would have enjoyed entering a tavern in order to receive it. If this isn't selfishness and laziness, then I don't know what is.
Since you came back to this Tavern buff idea, I will give you my personal opinion on it. VR has said several times that one of the main goals of Pantheon is to bring back the community and social aspect of the MMORPG genre. This implies that they want players to play with each other and rely on each other. One way that players rely on each other is in the buffs that each class brings. This idea of Tavern buffs that you gain from an NPC seems to bypass the social aspect of getting your buffs from other players. You may argue that sometimes other players are not available to give you buffs and this NPC option is for those times, but in VR's vision they want you to be at a disadvantage when you do not have other players with you. They don't say that you cannot solo or that you cannot play the game on your own, but they will not likely want to implement a NPC buff system that could in any way encourage you to avoid other players.
And you see this "forced" argument used time and time again for almost every aspect of MMORPGs: raiding, PVP, tradeskills, you name it. It's obnoxious.
I do agree that it is tedious to see this tactic used over and over when it doesn't really apply. But I also feel that feeling "forced" is a valid problem in some situations and with some features being suggested.
As always, just my ¢ on the subject.
Incentives feel more rewarding when they are not tied to a boring, repetitive, routine. Then it becomes just part of the pre-out-the-door routine to just get you going and feel like a grind, or a bore.
Maybe some incentives need to be tiered, or shared, so that not everyone feel the need to "run to the tavern to get the 10% hp buff". What if the benefits to go to the tavern, harbor, temple not always the same from day to day ? What if it's not always just a personal buff ?
Let's say you are on your way to get a boat to travel. On the dock, there are 2 npc adventurers at that moment (they are not always there) having a conversation about traps in Dungeon A. You could get a 5% buff in trap detection for that dungeon only and for a short while. Now, you get in a group and go to Dungeon A. All your group members, as long you're in the group, get a 2% buff to finding traps as well because your character would share what he/she heard, but we all know the telephone game...of course some details are lacking, so while information (buff) is shared, it is less for the other members. That would be an example of a shared buff.
Maybe you meet a renown cunning gambler npc in an inn in a remote location. If you win a few rounnds of a game against him, it raises your confidence and assertion, and you get a 5% bonus when selling to an NPC on money you get from selling your stuff for a little while. That would be an example of an individual buff.
Maybe you go to the temple and the gods of fortune smiles upon you...you get 5% increased money drops for an hour. That would benefit either individuals or groups since groups with you in it would see a bit more coin on the splits.
What happens if the person in the first and third example end up in the same group ? They get increased money and increased awareness on traps for a while. It's not game breaking. It doesn't make it feel like it's absolutely necessary. It's fun to have. And if you make it so it's randomized a bit so that you don't always get the money buff every time you go to the temple regardless of when, or that those adventurers are not on the dock (they may be at the tavern in another city talking about another dungeon instead !), then nobody feels like they are forced to go buff gathering before heading out.
In the first example, it could help a group that can't find a rogue. 5% should be small enough that it doesn't deter from getting an actual rogue, just a small boost.
The second example requires more involvement from the player because the reward is for that particular individual.
The 3rd example is one that doesn't hurt anyone, and 5% money drops should not be too overpowered.
There could be a lot of other variations. Maybe that day you go to the temple, and nothing happens. Another day, you hear the plea of a farmer asking for help with vermin destroying his crops, giving you a small request. When completed, maybe you get an enhanced potion of healing or something useful.
I think there are plenty of ways to implement incentives without making them of the overpowered variety, yet be fun or give a slight advantage. But it can't be a static thing. If you always get a 10% hp boost by going to the Tavern of Radiant Slaughter anytime you go, then everybody will stop at the Tavern of Radiant Slaughter before heading out. I think most of us want to avoid that.
I always felt compelled to max/min or as near as i could because to not do so is to short change my guild/groupbut with regards to optional buffs: for example, in vanguard zaygius was a very hard heal for a cleric due to low mana regen and a complete mana wipe. if i spent 2-3 hours being borred out of my mind killing in the arena i could get mana pots that made the fight a rather trivial heal.
sure getting the mana pots was optional (unless you belonged to certain guilds) but if you have them the fight was first time kill every time.
the point being, if not already clear, fights need to be balanced for either having these optional buffs (in which case they are not optional,) or for those without the optional buffs, (n which case the optional buffs make them trivial.) the only other option is to have the buffs be meaningless.
