But the premise still holds. Just because people are afraid of it, doesn't mean we should make policy decisions based on fear.
Lol.. the fact that you guys are comparing RMT and rich players to some rare 15 out of 315 million case is a testament to how intellectual dishonest you are being in this thread. P99, a server with maybe 5000 people that played regularly at one point or another, had massive RMT problems. TMO RMTed Kunark for years, after many IB players RMTed Kunark. To this day you can google search and find platinum purchasing sites, and the infamous platlord is still in business. You would be a fool to deny at least a few Rampage players are engaged in RMT. (btw: I last saw Zeelot about a month ago selling over a dozen lockets of escape for 300k a pop...so much for "deleting their characters.").
The problems are going to be worse, not better, in modern games with large player bases. This is not some irrational fear. It is very, very predictable to anyone being objective. It is also predictable that forums, logging sites, and price analysis will be available is the game is popular -- no matter if they have AH or not.
You guys are spinning some story of an idealistic golden age of trade that existed in 1999-2001 (which runs contrary to many stories about "ebaying" that existed then). You have not addressed the fact that the player base was vastly different the first few years of EQ compared to the rest of MMORPG history. Including but not limited to -- a lack of an established gold farming industry. Nor have you provided any example of a modern MMO with a manual trade system squashing problems you contend are caused by AHs.
My point was never that every noob on the server would have access to the best loot and power-leveling with an EQ-syle trade system. I'm not sure what your goal was in assigning that argument to me. I didn't even realize I would have to sit here and argue that a game with trade inherently makes lower levels and old content much easier in a relatively short period of time. Isn't it obvious considering it is easier to gear up on a server with an established economy than one where you have to go to each camp and get your own items? Don't you have any experience playing the market in order to get items you would never get by adventuring that level?
You guys are taking a small facet of MMO trade (the AH window // ability to sell while not present) and using it as a patsy for all modern MMO's economic woes. I never came to this thread to insist that there be no trade -- less the game be too easy. I simply think blaming the AH is not seeing the forest for the trees.
I was told by multiple people that the problems of universal AH are all agreed upon here. I'm just letting you know getting rid of it is unlikely to impact things much beyond a few months; with the exception of making it annoying for normal players and easy on trade barons.
BTW, not everyone agrees that haggling with strangers (some doing this for a living) is really "fun" and good for the community. Some people like talking to peddlers, I despise it. A business transaction really the kind of social engagement most people have in mind when talking about the importance of community.
I'm sorry but the only one being intellectually dishonest is you. All of us have admitted its going to happen, what we are trying to argue is the extent of it and how that extent will affect the lives of other players.
You and Sinist are trying to imply that there is functionally little to no difference between an AH system and a player trade system, and that in either situation RMT and people abusing the trade system would be so rampant that it would severely affect the other player. You are trying to drum it up and act like it was more commonplace than it was. The fact that you continually revert to P99 as an example to support your argument is honestly even more laughable as P99 is in no way relevant to this discussion for a variety of reasons which have been detailed in this thread, primarily that of which it is an extremely old, top heavy server, and is populated by a bunch of people who have already been there and done that, and know exactly how to "game the system".
What the reality is that both of you quite simply don't like the idea of someone being able to buy their "progression" even if they do it legitimately within the games systems.
And since we're being "honest" here, I feel that is no different than an ultra casual who complains to a dev in an effort to get them to change the game play to conform to what they like, to hell with everyone else.
What Dullahan and I (and many others) are proposing is a system which will ultimately provide a ton more player choice, and while it may have some downsides, we feel they are relatively minor. What you are suggesting is a system which completely and utterly limits an aspect of a game that a healthy portion of even the "bitter jaded vets" enjoyed about EQ and older style games. We are trying to figure out a system that still resembles old school MMOs, but that will satisfy more than the few hundred people.
Having no player trade WILL kill this game before it starts. We already have a massive mountain to climb in convincing some of the newer post EQ type players of the benefits of an "old school" style of mmo, and I 100% guarantee you that the vast majority of potential new players will try the game, see no way to trade items, and immediately peace out and never look back.
Think of it like this, a big sporting good's store would be like WoW, trying to capture as broad an audience as possible, they sell everything, tents, funs, boots, shoes, kayaks, fishing poles, golf clubs, football gear, blah blah blah. What we're trying to set up is maybe just an outdoor sportsman store, so maybe we still sells the guns, and kayaks, and fishing stuff, but not the basketballs and football and golfing, etc.
What you guys are suggesting is we setup a store that only sells golfing equipment and nothing else. Is there a place for it? Sure, but I don't think that's where VR is really looking to go with this game.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
NOTHING apart from "no drop" or "no trade at all" will stop RMT from happening.
There is no reason to screw over legit players due to something you can not stop anyways. And no, the "but we have to do SOMETHING" - argument does not help either.
This is really the core of the entire issue. You simply don't make a law or rule or whatever that harms the 99.9999% of people doing things legitimately because of the actions of a few.
That kind of reasoning boggles my mind. Lets make bleach illegal because a few dozen people a year kill themselves or others with it (whether accidentally or otherwise). Nevermind the hundreds of millions of people who use bleach on a regular basis with no issues...
Like he said, RMT'ers and cheaters ALWAYS find a way to cheat. The issue is to make it enough of a barrier that you are catching the bulk in the net. Think like people who are skilled enough to say hack into the pentagon, or some big corporations databases, versus some script kiddies. You don't go spend tens of thousands of dollars on security related firewall hardware for your home network because the only people you'll likely encounter is people trying to hijack your wifi, and basic firewalls and security procedures will protect you from the people looking for the easy fish in the sea.
Same thing applies, most of the constraints of a player trade system without an AH are going to filter out all but the most dedicated, who will frankly find a way to do it otherwise. And just eliminating all player trade to combat the likely less than 1/10th of % of the playerbase who will engage in that behavior is just asinine.
BTW Sinist, I know you said in another post you're not suggesting eliminating all player trade, so I wanted to credit you for that. Please know im not pissed or anything at you personally, im just (vehemently) disagreeing with your reasoning as well as the other guy, justi something.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never insisted on a no-trade MMO and I have made that very clear in two different posts. I making narrow argument that no-AH trade isn't a lot different from AH trade, and you guys are acting like it is night and day because when MMO's first came out things were different (anecdotally).
Buying and selling isn't complicated. And players like us on this forum are probably going to be pretty good at if we choose to play that way. I was agreeing with Sinist that the early game gets pretty trivial after awhile. The evidence for this is every MMO ever. I only brought up p99 because you deflated the presence of RMT severely on that server. Don't just take my word for it, anyone can feel free to ask around on the p99 forums. It simply isn't true that it barely existed or didn't impact the economy. Things were severely inflated around TMOs peak.
You guys are doing a lot of juxtaposition between WoW and Classic EQ, as if the main difference between those two games is that one had an Auction Hall in it. WoW was easy because WoW was easy, Auction Hall or Not. Last I played, the best items for leveling were bought with tokens from dungeons and were no drop. So the AH doesn't have a lot to do with it.
You can say p99 is a bad example, but I think Classic EQ is equally bad. We already discussed the reasons each example isn't perfect.
This -- in my mind -- means all we can do is speculate on is how the mechanics would work to discourage things in MMO economies. I have no idea why you guys have convinced yourself the answer to that is to take out the AH.
So, since my suggestion is not to remove trade, what can be done to make trade every bit the effort as camping and obtaining that item through game play? Maybe make a trade system that has pros/cons, risk/reward, required advancement, skill, and difficulties? Trade shouldn't be the easy out that it is today.
I think that's a bit shallow thinking when it comes to an MMORPG, you'd be cutting the entire population of the game down to one type of player (the achiever). Which can negatively impact a game substantially.
Seeking a certain demographic (old school players) is one thing, forcing a specific approach to a game is something else entirely. Besides...How can you make trade equal to the effort spent dungeon crawling? On a monetary level sure... (what the player deems their effort worth) which is basically typical trade, that's quite simply sensible from a gaming perspective. Hence why that's the way they typically handle it. Anything else would just be convoluted from a trade perspective.
It seems to me, you want a singular focus in a massively multiplayer game (everything centered around beating bosses and showing off rewards), that's not a very sound plan. It's a rather shallow one IMO.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So, since my suggestion is not to remove trade, what can be done to make trade every bit the effort as camping and obtaining that item through game play? Maybe make a trade system that has pros/cons, risk/reward, required advancement, skill, and difficulties? Trade shouldn't be the easy out that it is today.
I think that's a bit shallow thinking when it comes to an MMORPG, you'd be cutting the entire population of the game down to one type of player (the achiever). Which can negatively impact a game substantially.
Seeking a certain demographic (old school players) is one thing, forcing a specific approach to a game is something else entirely. Besides...How can you make trade equal to the effort spent dungeon crawling? On a monetary level sure... (what the player deems their effort worth) which is basically typical trade, that's quite simply sensible from a gaming perspective. Hence why that's the way they typically handle it. Anything else would just be convoluted from a trade perspective.
It seems to me, you want a singular focus in a massively multiplayer game (everything centered around beating bosses and showing off rewards), that's not a very sound plan. It's a rather shallow one IMO.
This is especially a problem in a virtual world. Unlike most MMOs in recent years (catering to the achiever, or "adventurer"), they intend for Pantheon to hearken back to a time when players had more ways than one to play the game. I'd imagine they'd ideally like to increase the number of activities players can engage in (given the support), not remove them.
Unlike most MMOs in recent years (catering to the achiever, or "adventurer"), they intend for Pantheon to hearken back to a time when players had more ways than one to play the game. I'd imagine they'd ideally like to increase the number of activities players can engage in (given the support), not remove them.
I sure hope they do and don't try to fix stuff that is not broken by nuking it out of the game. We have had enough of those "soloing adv only games" where crafting or trading was a second thought at best.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Signing out of this thread, nothing further can be gained here, 1 side manned by Sinist and the AH wanters, the other side manned by EC tunnel advocates, and neither side is budging. Regardless of what you may say about not wanting instances, the only people agreeing with you are the ones who want them and an AH. Nobody will change their mind.
What? I never said I wanted an AH! It is obvious that you must resort to false claims to make your point known and it is exactly why you are running away from the thread. you can't deal with an honest discussion, all you can do is make false accusations and straw man posiitons as well as try to turn this into an "us vs them" by lumping me in with a group you know others dislike.
For the love of sanity, take a logic or critical reading class because right now, you can't even debate your way out of a paper bag.
Insulting him doesn't make your position look any stronger.
Oh so now you want to step in and defend against fallacies, when it serves to support your bias. Good job Dullahan, such integrity in the discussion. /golf clap
So, you provide no meaning rebuttal for the supply/demand point where I
can provide hundreds or more examples of it being the case - the Nasthar
Greatsword mentioned earlier on P1999 being one. Some of the items as I
had discussed fall outside that realm due to retaining their value as
"twink" items such as a fungi tunic so the demand is much higher.
Actually, I gave you an answer, I said that your use of economic principals as any definitive explanation is useless in a game world where no elements exist that drive those principals. You implied that it was a direct issue of supply and demand, but the fact is supply and demand is not simply a response to popularity. In reality it is a component of many elements that of cost of production, market expectations, etc... None of these exist in an MMO game world because there are no realistic functions.
You see a price drop or go up and you artificially attempt to claim it a component of supply and demand, but then use "excuses" to explain anything that diverges from that formula of evaluation. While a price may appear to be some minor relation to what supply and demand is, in reality it really isn't as there are many variables in a game world to which are ignored in order to purport a similarity to real systems.
If you are looking for an easy straw man for you to knock down, there is none. I was clear from my initial response that your attempt to do economic analysis to find cause and effect with the game was folly.
1.
You want no trade - so everyone can earn their gear the "right" way
through adventuring. However, this discounts the fact that players buy
level appropriate items as well and they are not always for twinks. Who
is to say that the player who earned money selling a Jade Mace (Karnors
Castle) didn't "earn" the money to buy the FBSS (Gukbottom -
lower level zone). Or, what about crafted gear? Or crafters that make
money and buy adventuring gear? There are so many repercussions to your
adventuring only stance that you're failing to realize. Should some
gear be "No drop?" Yes, most Raid items and epics were in EQ, no reason
that couldn't be the same.
False summary. I did not say I wanted "no trade", I used "no trade" as an example to explain the differences in effort of achievement to some who were getting hung up and making accusations of intent. I suggested making trade a game system where there are many elements of pros/cons, risk/reward, etc... to make it every bit of an effort in play as the adventure play, not a means to circumvent game play to gain an easier result.
2. You want no
RMT and a way to prevent RMT is to place restrictions on farming. Only
a select few are "ok" with RMT - I'm not one. Problem is, regardless
of the system, their will be RMT. And with your lore/timer system, it
won't effect RMT'ers. They'll just create 8 alts to loot the gear. Or
have guildies log in to loot it. Or have group members loot it. etc.
So, it's only a hindrance that would be used to create a nuisance for a
player that could easily be bypassed..
If you
want to control/eliminate RMT, you need to have a strict EULA and ban
the sellers/buyers and brainstorm new ways to track them. Could you
eliminate all? No, but it's better than creating artificial means that
will easily be bypassed.
Anyone who honestly supports the intent of VR and Pantheon wants no RMT. This is not a secret and this was not my main point. RMT results because of the trade portion of the game. I used RMT to explain to people who were dismissing that people wouldn't lock down camps or work market control gimmicks. The fact is, plat sellers have done this and continue to do this because it is how they increase their profits. This is common knowledge and something that does not need to be argued.
As for my plan, again.. spit balling here. Also if you were reading my points, I said that the idea was not to eliminate all possible abuse, as this really is impossible (build a better mouse trap, they build a better mouse). You can however make it so that such attempt to bypass such an implementation is obvious and easily noted. This allows VR a much easier time to seeking out the offenders. Normal players aren't likely to hit those implementations, leaving the people who do as a much smaller target for evaluation.
More rules mean nothing to a person who already breaks them. SoE had everything you mentioned and yet RMT was rampant in the game. Laws mean nothing to a law breaker. It is a pointless waste of time to think that this is the approach to resolve it. Besides, many of the offenders are not even under the jurisdiction of such discourse (another problem companies found out with plat farming).
3. Your concerned
about buying twink gear trivializing content (not just in this thread).
As we've discussed in other threads, you could have twink gear scale
based off stats/skills versus Raw Hps/Mana, etc. and have a "Recovery"
skill so items like the Fungi tunic wouldn't be gamebreaking. So yes,
the twink may have best in slot type gear for that level range, but they
can't mow down and trivialize content.
Yes, and I made those very suggestions. In fact, I gave a very clear and detailed explanation of such as a means to promote game play while still allowing players to achieve the powerful feel of adding gear to a lower level player (I also have an entire thread on character development systems that avoid devaluing of various progression mechanisms). That is another thread, better discussed in a thread that specifically related to that. My point about Twinks here was to show how it is a strong driver for RMT, extreme camping, etc... which are valid concerns for everyone. The solutions I provided for twinking will not change the desire to obtain gear for twinking, nor would I want that desire to be diminished by making the power of twinking pointless.
As I said, the idea is to promote game play, to ensure that players are playing the game with the spirit to which Pantheon is being developed. What point is there for them to spend all of the effort balancing systems and trying to achieve a proper risk/reward and even character progression if another system is completely ignoring it?
And, I
just don't share your stance on player bought gear through legitimate
means ruining the game. It was not a common occurrence for someone to
farm hill giants, buy a 1000 item, sell it for 1500, buy a 1500, sell a
2000, etc. And, even "if" it was, they're still spending a significant
amount of time playing the game.
Risk/reward is not the same and a game that is designed around this
concept, it is important that effort to obtain something be equal in
that time spent. You spending 20 hours mundanely grinding mobs you can
solo easily is not the same as the 20 hours I may spend breaking and
holding a given camp with a required solid group in a very difficult
area of the dungeon.
Do you realize that a lot of the people who
were running around in their twink Fungi Tunics didn't even have the
skill to break that camp? Though they had the cash to buy it on the
player trade market. Maybe explain to me how the risk/reward is
equivalent for such a case where the person would not have a chance of
getting it in the first place because they lacked the skill?
I
never had the luxury of picking up one, it was always camped (that and every time we did get a chance, it was to break it and then everyone had to leave after a couple of spawns), which was
fine, it was "supposed" to be an earned item, a status of skill of play,
but of course that was a load of crap as the player trade market was
the go to place for all those who wanted to bypass the risk in order to
gain all the reward. Also keep in mind, once you have a foot hold in the
player trade market, it is all gravy train from there and expansion
after expansion becomes a focus of players using it as an upgrade
component of the game, which yes.. ruins the game for those who are
earning their gear through play.
Eventually, this turns into a
point where every class in a group wants to roll on every item because
all items are now "useful" to everyone because they can be used to buy
ones progression. You have to remember this continued behavior over the
years from EQ on where it led to people demanding "Need/greed" roll
systems because someone always wanted to roll on the gear so they could
sell it on the player trade market? The player trade market drives the
game from then on, it becomes the center of play, which is why you get
people like Rattaman claiming it is the whole reason for MMOs. He is
wrong in the intent of the game, but actually right in what became of
MMOs over the years. Player trade affects the entire game.
As far as
solutions go, Dullahan provided a solution a few pages back that there
needs to be 3 FBSS camps instead of one, which I agreed with. And Hmrir
expanded on it when you said something to the effect but that
trivializes gear! And, Hmrir provided the simple solution of having the
FBSS drop rates drop at 1/3 the amount of there were 3 camps so the
"drop" would not be trivialized.
I don't have a problem with Dullahan's suggestion, as long as it doesn't
trivialize the drop, but I don't think that is trying to limit the
problem as much as it is trying to just make up for it. This approach
has been done quite a bit in mainstream and it usually ends up with
everyone having their cake and eat it too. Having alternatives
throughout the game is fine, but a rarity stops being rare if it is more
easily accessible and adding more of an item is what that can end up
doing.
As for Hrimnir's
point, the issue I have with that is it actually increases the rarity
of the drop. Nothing wrong with having rare, or even ultra rare, but the
solutions should not make something harder to get in order to deal with
abusers, that is back to putting in code that slaps the normal player,
they aren't the issue here, the extreme exploiting behavior is.
So, since my suggestion is not to remove trade, what can be done to make trade every bit the effort as camping and obtaining that item through game play? Maybe make a trade system that has pros/cons, risk/reward, required advancement, skill, and difficulties? Trade shouldn't be the easy out that it is today.
I think that's a bit shallow thinking when it comes to an MMORPG, you'd be cutting the entire population of the game down to one type of player (the achiever). Which can negatively impact a game substantially.
Seeking a certain demographic (old school players) is one thing, forcing a specific approach to a game is something else entirely. Besides...How can you make trade equal to the effort spent dungeon crawling? On a monetary level sure... (what the player deems their effort worth) which is basically typical trade, that's quite simply sensible from a gaming perspective. Hence why that's the way they typically handle it. Anything else would just be convoluted from a trade perspective.
It seems to me, you want a singular focus in a massively multiplayer game (everything centered around beating bosses and showing off rewards), that's not a very sound plan. It's a rather shallow one IMO.
I want game play. It is as simple as that. The adventure potion of the game is structured with rules and obstacles for character progression. There are levels, skill caps, constraints, etc.... rules that guide play to the limitations and expectations of the developers. These systems are balanced and tested for a reasonable risk/reward in play. If something is imbalanced with this risk/reward, they attempt to balance it to achieve this game play, something that they describe in the tenants to achieve in spirit of proper risk/reward.
There is no such attention to player trade. There are no structures, no rules, no means to guide a given result of balance in risk/reward to insure that players are have consequence in choice, properly designed effort in acquisition, etc.. There are no controls, and those lack of controls seriously imbalance the adventure portion of the game. As I said, all those rules, structures, guide of play and progression carefully balanced for the sake of risk/reward and it is all for nothing due to the player market. A player can circumvent many of its requirements in play.
To make it equal in risk/reward as adventure, there are many ways. One is to simulate many real life elements that have an effect on economies. Obviously, players can not dire permanently, so many risks that would effect timing and urgency in the economies that exist in RL can't be applied directly, but concepts of it can. Again, this is spit balling, but you can put in taxes, fines, fees,rent, regulatory compliance measures (activities, etc..), commission costs, product degradation, etc... You can have them reoccurring so as to create need to move products. Things like reoccurring storage costs can cause sitting on a product to be costly.
You can even change these from city to city, culture to culture to reflect the lore and mood of the race and their politics. These things can change too (all controlled by the devs to help influence and spur events wihtin the economy, good and bad).
You can have levels, skills, etc... put in strategy elements that causes players to apply character development aspects, and thinking to succeed. Barting game systems of play, etc... The sky is the limit, but doing so makes it an actual game, putting in risk/reward, win/loss, and all of the pros/cons of various strategy approaches.
This doesn't have to be controlled by a centralized system either. There really is no need, any player transaction of trade can easily be a part of the system. So, the design and structure and all its requirements come up with something as simple as you trading to another player. The point is not to get hung up on the details I am giving, but to realize there is a way to make trading a game and not just a gimmick that circumvents the rest of the games systems.
If that is infringing on peoples "play style", then we are back to the mainstream argument of claiming that a game should cater to multiple "play styles" and saying that player trade that circumvents the rest of the game is limiting options is the very same argument I have heard from players defending the "options" of being able to use a store to circumvent aspects of the game (ie exp/buff potions, gear, etc...). Same argument, different package, I am just surprised that those who seem to be supporting your argument here agree with it.
What if they were able to make it less valuable if passed on by one or more characters? Hear me out. Let's say you're farming a mob and it drops that new shiny sword you've been looking for. That sword happens to have Dmg 10 Delay 18 and Str +10. Now let's say you purchased that same sword from someone who had been camping it (damn mages camping my swords!) but when offering to trade the stats went down Dmg 9, Delay 19 and Str+8. Would that be possible? This is really a win/win. If you really want that sword for lesser stats, you can buy it, if you need to have it at max, you have to camp it. That would also deter some of the people from camping it non-stop unless it was for them specifically. Thoughts?
What if they were able to make it less valuable if passed on by one or more characters? Hear me out. Let's say you're farming a mob and it drops that new shiny sword you've been looking for. That sword happens to have Dmg 10 Delay 18 and Str +10. Now let's say you purchased that same sword from someone who had been camping it (damn mages camping my swords!) but when offering to trade the stats went down Dmg 9, Delay 19 and Str+8. Would that be possible? This is really a win/win. If you really want that sword for lesser stats, you can buy it, if you need to have it at max, you have to camp it. That would also deter some of the people from camping it non-stop unless it was for them specifically. Thoughts?
Hmm... that would make seeking items from your own efforts more valuable, but still allow people to play the trade game and get their gear easier as they desire. It would support the whole "status symbol" of earning gear yourself. I would even say... maybe put a appearance change on gear when it is traded as well. So, if you originally loot it, it looks a certain way, and has the better stats, etc... but when you trade it, the look changes slightly or something, and the stats degrade.
I have to say, that is a very interesting suggestion. Good thought.
Edit:
Couple of thoughts...
1. Would it slow or have an effect on the camping abuses? That would be an interesting thing to consider. I mean, the trade market items would be inferior, you would think that would spur more interest in camping to get an item ones self. Camping may increase (but for self obtaining reasons), there would likely still be a market for the degraded item, but it wouldn't compete with the dropped item... It really is hard to say. I am biased, but I do like the idea of an "earned" drop being better than a sold one.
2. It doesn't fix the gimmick or circumvention aspect of game play over all. That is, players are still able to purchase advancement in the trade market over seeking it out in the game, but... it would definitely limit the direct effect that player trade has on risk/reward making the person who spent the effort not feel as if they wasted time.
Over all, the trade offs of not having really fixed the problems may still achieve some viable solutions.
I still like the idea of making trading its on full gaming system, but that is just because I think it would be fun to actually play a trade game where there is real risk of loss and chance of reward through skill in play.
This is especially a problem in a virtual world. Unlike most MMOs in recent years (catering to the achiever, or "adventurer"), they intend for Pantheon to hearken back to a time when players had more ways than one to play the game. I'd imagine they'd ideally like to increase the number of activities players can engage in (given the support), not remove them.
So game play is now "achiever" mentality? So, wanting trade to have a game system that is equal in effort, with risk/reward, pros/cons, etc... is "achiever" mentality?
What is the mentality of the person who wants to be able to circumvent game play so they can have easy rewards over having to earn them? What is that again? I can't remember that term... hmm.... Oh, that is right, it is called "entitled".
Here is a thought. Those who don't want to play a game, well... I might suggest that what they are looking to achieve (oops I used a bad word), is best served not in a game? I know... I am being crazy and all... /boggle
I have no idea why you guys have convinced yourself the answer to that is to take out the AH.
I think the benefit of not having an AH is more than simply trying to curb that behavior. We both know it won't stop it and it will only slow down the average player, not the dedicated, but I think the issue is more of giving a sense of need to travel and explore in game play.
Which is kind of funny, because the more you listen to these guys, the more I question if they think the whole abuse of markets, RMT, etc... is even an issue at all. They certainly argue against most forms of evaluation of it being true.
Personally, I don't want an AH. I like the small localized trading over that. That is, if they can achieve keeping trade markets broke up over the world rather than having everyone all gravitating to the same place. Fact is, I think it will be just like EQ, they will all pick a single spot and flood that area for trades.
Putting any measures to stop that starts a bunch of tantrums about "freedom" and how having rules and structures in game /gasp is so infringing on their play. I mean, I would suggest that players be limited by a certain number of licenses to sell in a given city which has a reoccurring costs, fees, regulator measures by faction, etc... that the developers manage according to a theme of that faction, but... we are getting into game play now, and that could be termed an evil word like "achiever", we must pass participation trophies for all because everyone should be winner! /facepalm
What if they were able to make it less valuable if passed on by one or more characters? Hear me out. Let's say you're farming a mob and it drops that new shiny sword you've been looking for. That sword happens to have Dmg 10 Delay 18 and Str +10. Now let's say you purchased that same sword from someone who had been camping it (damn mages camping my swords!) but when offering to trade the stats went down Dmg 9, Delay 19 and Str+8. Would that be possible? This is really a win/win. If you really want that sword for lesser stats, you can buy it, if you need to have it at max, you have to camp it. That would also deter some of the people from camping it non-stop unless it was for them specifically. Thoughts?
Hmm... that would make seeking items from your own efforts more valuable, but still allow people to play the trade game and get their gear easier as they desire. It would support the whole "status symbol" of earning gear yourself. I would even say... maybe put a appearance change on gear when it is traded as well. So, if you originally loot it, it looks a certain way, and has the better stats, etc... but when you trade it, the look changes slightly or something, and the stats degrade.
I have to say, that is a very interesting suggestion. Good thought.
Edit:
Couple of thoughts...
1. Would it slow or have an effect on the camping abuses? That would be an interesting thing to consider. I mean, the trade market items would be inferior, you would think that would spur more interest in camping to get an item ones self. Camping may increase (but for self obtaining reasons), there would likely still be a market for the degraded item, but it wouldn't compete with the dropped item... It really is hard to say. I am biased, but I do like the idea of an "earned" drop being better than a sold one.
2. It doesn't fix the gimmick or circumvention aspect of game play over all. That is, players are still able to purchase advancement in the trade market over seeking it out in the game, but... it would definitely limit the direct effect that player trade has on risk/reward making the person who spent the effort not feel as if they wasted time.
Over all, the trade offs of not having really fixed the problems may still achieve some viable solutions.
I still like the idea of making trading its on full gaming system, but that is just because I think it would be fun to actually play a trade game where there is real risk of loss and chance of reward through skill in play.
I like your idea of changing the appearance. I'd like for them to make it similar to the item but distinct enough to be able to decipher it's different from the more powerful version. Not only do you change the appearance and lower the stats, but I think a taxing system would help as well. One of my greatest memories of early EQ was that the items and gear actually meant something. You wanted to show off that SMR or FBR! If you were lucky enough to get a Yak or a FBSS, you kept it for long periods of time. I've never been an alt-aholic but I do understand why people want to experience every character. Obviously, more characters = more items throughout the game. By "taxing" the item every time the item changed hands, this would greatly reduce the market for said item. This would encourage you to group with players instead of having a character that handed you all of your loot. Just thoughts
I like your idea of changing the appearance. I'd like for them to make it similar to the item but distinct enough to be able to decipher it's different from the more powerful version. Not only do you change the appearance and lower the stats, but I think a taxing system would help as well. One of my greatest memories of early EQ was that the items and gear actually meant something. You wanted to show off that SMR or FBR! If you were lucky enough to get a Yak or a FBSS, you kept it for long periods of time. I've never been an alt-aholic but I do understand why people want to experience every character. Obviously, more characters = more items throughout the game. By "taxing" the item every time the item changed hands, this would greatly reduce the market for said item. This would encourage you to group with players instead of having a character that handed you all of your loot. Just thoughts
Yeah, it doesn't have to be a dramatic change in look, but obvious enough that there is no question.
I remember the very early days too, before EC trading took off to any real extent and people actually had to earn their items. Having a certain item or look really meant something, a sign of accomplishment, but when trading took over, it really had no meaning anymore.
I remember before trading took off, explaining how to handle a given encounter to this player and I used a certain encounter based on what I saw he was wearing to relate it to them. They said "I never did that... I bought this from another player."
Not sure about the tax idea, such things you really have to be careful with as they can easily have unintended consequences (as does any system like this), which is why TLC code is such a hated thing.
How about continuing with the item degradation line of thinking. So, at first, the moment the item drops it acts kind of like a bind to the player for the stat purposes you suggested. On the first trade, the item changes to its slightly different graphic as we discussed and degrades the item by a certain amount.
Now, that player can then trade that item freely, with no more worries about the item changing unless it is equipped as this will flag it again to the player. Then, if the player trades it to another person after having equipped it, it then step wise degrades the item once more on the trade. The item can now be traded without issue until someone equips it again, which... again flags it for degradation upon it being traded.
This way, items are not as good as the drops for the person who is actually going to use them and continuous use AND trading results in the item getting worse over time.
I think I read this in either the Pantheon forums by someone or somewhere else, I can't remember (might have been a twinking discussion thread or something). Anyway, the idea is that it makes the item of more value the closer it is to its original drop, yet still provides a market for trade, but also works to remove items out of the game over time so you don't have the issues of tons of items in the game.
Combine this with the various features they have planned for making people want to hold on to their items and it could really work well across the board.
Again, this is an early evaluation, obviously there could be a ton of major problems with this we aren't seeing as of yet.
What if they were able to make it less valuable if passed on by one or more characters? Hear me out. Let's say you're farming a mob and it drops that new shiny sword you've been looking for. That sword happens to have Dmg 10 Delay 18 and Str +10. Now let's say you purchased that same sword from someone who had been camping it (damn mages camping my swords!) but when offering to trade the stats went down Dmg 9, Delay 19 and Str+8. Would that be possible? This is really a win/win. If you really want that sword for lesser stats, you can buy it, if you need to have it at max, you have to camp it. That would also deter some of the people from camping it non-stop unless it was for them specifically. Thoughts?
Shards of Dalaya EQ private server used/uses this mechanic, and to be honest it is bad. All you're accomplishing with this mechanic is to create even MORE fighting over camps, which is the exact opposite of what TLC is all about. This is also what the trade system is designed to alleviate, when players can purchase items rather than camp them, it takes pressure off the camps and allows players to disperse into the world to camp all different kinds of things to yield them an item that may be hotly contested.
What if they were able to make it less valuable if passed on by one or more characters? Hear me out. Let's say you're farming a mob and it drops that new shiny sword you've been looking for. That sword happens to have Dmg 10 Delay 18 and Str +10. Now let's say you purchased that same sword from someone who had been camping it (damn mages camping my swords!) but when offering to trade the stats went down Dmg 9, Delay 19 and Str+8. Would that be possible? This is really a win/win. If you really want that sword for lesser stats, you can buy it, if you need to have it at max, you have to camp it. That would also deter some of the people from camping it non-stop unless it was for them specifically. Thoughts?
Shards of Dalaya EQ private server used/uses this mechanic, and to be honest it is bad. All you're accomplishing with this mechanic is to create even MORE fighting over camps, which is the exact opposite of what TLC is all about. This is also what the trade system is designed to alleviate, when players can purchase items rather than camp them, it takes pressure off the camps and allows players to disperse into the world to camp all different kinds of things to yield them an item that may be hotly contested.
It is a contested content game. The point is earning your gear in play, having it say you put in the effort, things being highly sought after and less common.
Your argument is the exact argument current mainstream gamers make to demand they have easier access to gear.
I don't get you people, you labor to claim you want a contested content game, then bitch and moan if there is actually a reward for getting something from a camp.
FFS, you accused me in several posts about wanting it easy, and then make this argument? /boggle
I swear, the more and more you guys defend against any suggestion here, the more it makes me think you guys are using RMT anyway.
What if they were able to make it less valuable if passed on by one or more characters? Hear me out. Let's say you're farming a mob and it drops that new shiny sword you've been looking for. That sword happens to have Dmg 10 Delay 18 and Str +10. Now let's say you purchased that same sword from someone who had been camping it (damn mages camping my swords!) but when offering to trade the stats went down Dmg 9, Delay 19 and Str+8. Would that be possible? This is really a win/win. If you really want that sword for lesser stats, you can buy it, if you need to have it at max, you have to camp it. That would also deter some of the people from camping it non-stop unless it was for them specifically. Thoughts?
Shards of Dalaya EQ private server used/uses this mechanic, and to be honest it is bad. All you're accomplishing with this mechanic is to create even MORE fighting over camps, which is the exact opposite of what TLC is all about. This is also what the trade system is designed to alleviate, when players can purchase items rather than camp them, it takes pressure off the camps and allows players to disperse into the world to camp all different kinds of things to yield them an item that may be hotly contested.
It is a contested content game. The point is earning your gear in play, having it say you put in the effort, things being highly sought after and less common.
Your argument is the exact argument current mainstream gamers make to demand they have easier access to gear.
I don't get you people, you labor to claim you want a contested content game, then bitch and moan if there is actually a reward for getting something from a camp.
FFS, you accused me in several posts about wanting it easy, and then make this argument? /boggle
Because you are working on the false premise that trading for items in a working economy is somehow easier than getting the item yourself: something classic EQ proved to be untrue.
Only you seem to believe that playing the game as a trader is somehow a bad thing that trivializes "gameplay." News flash, trading is gameplay.
What if they were able to make it less valuable if passed on by one or more characters? Hear me out. Let's say you're farming a mob and it drops that new shiny sword you've been looking for. That sword happens to have Dmg 10 Delay 18 and Str +10. Now let's say you purchased that same sword from someone who had been camping it (damn mages camping my swords!) but when offering to trade the stats went down Dmg 9, Delay 19 and Str+8. Would that be possible? This is really a win/win. If you really want that sword for lesser stats, you can buy it, if you need to have it at max, you have to camp it. That would also deter some of the people from camping it non-stop unless it was for them specifically. Thoughts?
Shards of Dalaya EQ private server used/uses this mechanic, and to be honest it is bad. All you're accomplishing with this mechanic is to create even MORE fighting over camps, which is the exact opposite of what TLC is all about. This is also what the trade system is designed to alleviate, when players can purchase items rather than camp them, it takes pressure off the camps and allows players to disperse into the world to camp all different kinds of things to yield them an item that may be hotly contested.
It is a contested content game. The point is earning your gear in play, having it say you put in the effort, things being highly sought after and less common.
Your argument is the exact argument current mainstream gamers make to demand they have easier access to gear.
I don't get you people, you labor to claim you want a contested content game, then bitch and moan if there is actually a reward for getting something from a camp.
FFS, you accused me in several posts about wanting it easy, and then make this argument? /boggle
I swear, the more and more you guys defend against any suggestion here, the more it makes me think you guys are using RMT anyway.
I wasn't going to respond to you anymore but this is just ridiculous, imagine if this is how things worked IRL, where if I wanted some milk I would need to buy the cow and milk it, or if I wanted some bread I would need to grow it myself, because it's "too easy" for me to earn the money my way and buy these things.. You are just crazy.
What if they were able to make it less valuable if passed on by one or more characters? Hear me out. Let's say you're farming a mob and it drops that new shiny sword you've been looking for. That sword happens to have Dmg 10 Delay 18 and Str +10. Now let's say you purchased that same sword from someone who had been camping it (damn mages camping my swords!) but when offering to trade the stats went down Dmg 9, Delay 19 and Str+8. Would that be possible? This is really a win/win. If you really want that sword for lesser stats, you can buy it, if you need to have it at max, you have to camp it. That would also deter some of the people from camping it non-stop unless it was for them specifically. Thoughts?
Shards of Dalaya EQ private server used/uses this mechanic, and to be honest it is bad. All you're accomplishing with this mechanic is to create even MORE fighting over camps, which is the exact opposite of what TLC is all about. This is also what the trade system is designed to alleviate, when players can purchase items rather than camp them, it takes pressure off the camps and allows players to disperse into the world to camp all different kinds of things to yield them an item that may be hotly contested.
It is a contested content game. The point is earning your gear in play, having it say you put in the effort, things being highly sought after and less common.
Your argument is the exact argument current mainstream gamers make to demand they have easier access to gear.
I don't get you people, you labor to claim you want a contested content game, then bitch and moan if there is actually a reward for getting something from a camp.
FFS, you accused me in several posts about wanting it easy, and then make this argument? /boggle
Because you are working on the false premise that trading for items in a working economy is somehow easier than getting the item yourself: something classic EQ proved to be untrue.
Only you seem to believe that playing the game as a trader is somehow a bad thing that trivializes "gameplay." News flash, trading is gameplay.
You have no way of even validating that claim. You can say that my premise is unsound, and use anecdotal means to support it, but that does not invalidate my own experiences and what is more is that we have P1999 that counters your claim, but then you have to use an excuse of "its not the same" while pinning it all on stagnating content release. So far, we have my word against yours and your buddies here arguing for being able to buy their way in the game.
There is no false premise. If you are going to use logical argument constructs, use them correctly. Or, well, continue on with the fallacies, you sure love to accuse others of them.
It is no wonder gaming turned into RMT PTW crap, with people defending the systems that supported it. Bring up any means of having people earn through actually playing the game and the go on about how moving widgets and manipulated impatient people in the trade markets is "weal hurd gammin!" It is no wonder gaming today is in the crapper.
Edit:
Maybe you can answer me this one on risk vs reward. A guild took down the AoW, one of the monks won the leggings and then rather than use them, turned around and sold them on the bazaar for over 2 million plat, it was one of the highest price items on the market. With that money, he bought numerous items at good prices and played the market a bit. In less than a week he nearly doubled that amount. It wasn't jhard, most people will sell at a much lower price to get quick cash.
Now with that money, the next expansion came out. With that enormous amount of money, he was able to buy some of the first hot sought after items, from both groups, and some from raids (ie others realizing that the markets money was more useful than a single item). Some of these camps were extremely competitive to get, and some were in areas rough to get a group to.
So explain to me how a single kill of the AoW in a raid as a class that wasn't even the main puller or any major responsibility is equal in effort and risk/reward of multiple camps and mobs in a new expansion?
What is that? Oh... didn't happen? Going to call me a liar again and say this isn't true? Going to tell me they are equal because it was the AoW?
What if they were able to make it less valuable if passed on by one or more characters? Hear me out. Let's say you're farming a mob and it drops that new shiny sword you've been looking for. That sword happens to have Dmg 10 Delay 18 and Str +10. Now let's say you purchased that same sword from someone who had been camping it (damn mages camping my swords!) but when offering to trade the stats went down Dmg 9, Delay 19 and Str+8. Would that be possible? This is really a win/win. If you really want that sword for lesser stats, you can buy it, if you need to have it at max, you have to camp it. That would also deter some of the people from camping it non-stop unless it was for them specifically. Thoughts?
Shards of Dalaya EQ private server used/uses this mechanic, and to be honest it is bad. All you're accomplishing with this mechanic is to create even MORE fighting over camps, which is the exact opposite of what TLC is all about. This is also what the trade system is designed to alleviate, when players can purchase items rather than camp them, it takes pressure off the camps and allows players to disperse into the world to camp all different kinds of things to yield them an item that may be hotly contested.
It is a contested content game. The point is earning your gear in play, having it say you put in the effort, things being highly sought after and less common.
Your argument is the exact argument current mainstream gamers make to demand they have easier access to gear.
I don't get you people, you labor to claim you want a contested content game, then bitch and moan if there is actually a reward for getting something from a camp.
FFS, you accused me in several posts about wanting it easy, and then make this argument? /boggle
I swear, the more and more you guys defend against any suggestion here, the more it makes me think you guys are using RMT anyway.
I wasn't going to respond to you anymore but this is just ridiculous, imagine if this is how things worked IRL, where if I wanted some milk I would need to buy the cow and milk it, or if I wanted some bread I would need to grow it myself, because it's "too easy" for me to earn the money my way and buy these things.. You are just crazy.
If it's been tried and tested and it doesn't work, I could see that. I was honestly just throwing ideas out. Playing devils advocate to your cow and bread theory...there would be obvious benefits of doing them yourself. The milk cheaper, fresh and same for the bread. There would absolutely be benefits of doing them yourself but yes that is highly illogical. I think the main point is we want a game where heroic armor isn't thrown at you in droves. When you get an item, you should keep it for awhile, not just replace it minutes later because you've already found something better. MANY things need to be done to make that happen, risk vs reward, skill, time, etc etc etc.
What if they were able to make it less valuable if passed on by one or more characters? Hear me out. Let's say you're farming a mob and it drops that new shiny sword you've been looking for. That sword happens to have Dmg 10 Delay 18 and Str +10. Now let's say you purchased that same sword from someone who had been camping it (damn mages camping my swords!) but when offering to trade the stats went down Dmg 9, Delay 19 and Str+8. Would that be possible? This is really a win/win. If you really want that sword for lesser stats, you can buy it, if you need to have it at max, you have to camp it. That would also deter some of the people from camping it non-stop unless it was for them specifically. Thoughts?
Shards of Dalaya EQ private server used/uses this mechanic, and to be honest it is bad. All you're accomplishing with this mechanic is to create even MORE fighting over camps, which is the exact opposite of what TLC is all about. This is also what the trade system is designed to alleviate, when players can purchase items rather than camp them, it takes pressure off the camps and allows players to disperse into the world to camp all different kinds of things to yield them an item that may be hotly contested.
It is a contested content game. The point is earning your gear in play, having it say you put in the effort, things being highly sought after and less common.
Your argument is the exact argument current mainstream gamers make to demand they have easier access to gear.
I don't get you people, you labor to claim you want a contested content game, then bitch and moan if there is actually a reward for getting something from a camp.
FFS, you accused me in several posts about wanting it easy, and then make this argument? /boggle
I swear, the more and more you guys defend against any suggestion here, the more it makes me think you guys are using RMT anyway.
I wasn't going to respond to you anymore but this is just ridiculous, imagine if this is how things worked IRL, where if I wanted some milk I would need to buy the cow and milk it, or if I wanted some bread I would need to grow it myself, because it's "too easy" for me to earn the money my way and buy these things.. You are just crazy.
You really like your fallacies don't you? Hey Dullahan, you going to come in with your neat little pictures for this one or is it acceptable because he is on your side?
You really shouldn't have responded. This has to be the biggest stretch of an argument I have ever seen, wait... No..It is a common mainstream argument, and one used to dismiss game play in order to serve a player desire for convenience.
I would say that if you want to play a game that is designed around the entire idea of playing a character who develops skills, learns to apply them, braves the dungeons and explores to obtain rare and unique items as rewards for their efforts, that you would.. I don't know do that?
You however would rather be able to go to a player trade market with no levels, no rules, no restrictions, no requirements of game play and then use that as a means to purchase advancement in the other side of the game that has all those rules.
Crazy? By today's standard of gamers, I am absolutely nuts, bonkers... I mean.. I expect people to play a game! /gasp
there, but then that would probably be mean because then you would actually have to play a game where there are rules, restrictions, conditions, winning and losing and boy does that get in the way of "fun" am I right? /derp
What if they were able to make it less valuable if passed on by one or more characters? Hear me out. Let's say you're farming a mob and it drops that new shiny sword you've been looking for. That sword happens to have Dmg 10 Delay 18 and Str +10. Now let's say you purchased that same sword from someone who had been camping it (damn mages camping my swords!) but when offering to trade the stats went down Dmg 9, Delay 19 and Str+8. Would that be possible? This is really a win/win. If you really want that sword for lesser stats, you can buy it, if you need to have it at max, you have to camp it. That would also deter some of the people from camping it non-stop unless it was for them specifically. Thoughts?
Shards of Dalaya EQ private server used/uses this mechanic, and to be honest it is bad. All you're accomplishing with this mechanic is to create even MORE fighting over camps, which is the exact opposite of what TLC is all about. This is also what the trade system is designed to alleviate, when players can purchase items rather than camp them, it takes pressure off the camps and allows players to disperse into the world to camp all different kinds of things to yield them an item that may be hotly contested.
It is a contested content game. The point is earning your gear in play, having it say you put in the effort, things being highly sought after and less common.
Your argument is the exact argument current mainstream gamers make to demand they have easier access to gear.
I don't get you people, you labor to claim you want a contested content game, then bitch and moan if there is actually a reward for getting something from a camp.
FFS, you accused me in several posts about wanting it easy, and then make this argument? /boggle
I swear, the more and more you guys defend against any suggestion here, the more it makes me think you guys are using RMT anyway.
I wasn't going to respond to you anymore but this is just ridiculous, imagine if this is how things worked IRL, where if I wanted some milk I would need to buy the cow and milk it, or if I wanted some bread I would need to grow it myself, because it's "too easy" for me to earn the money my way and buy these things.. You are just crazy.
If it's been tried and tested and it doesn't work, I could see that. I was honestly just throwing ideas out. Playing devils advocate to your cow and bread theory...there would be obvious benefits of doing them yourself. The milk cheaper, fresh and same for the bread. There would absolutely be benefits of doing them yourself but yes that is highly illogical. I think the main point is we want a game where heroic armor isn't thrown at you in droves. When you get an item, you should keep it for awhile, not just replace it minutes later because you've already found something better. MANY things need to be done to make that happen, risk vs reward, skill, time, etc etc etc.
SoD that he mentioned is a server with around 50 people average that play. His claim is bullshit as the economy in SoD is so screwed up it is ridiculous due to many other means. He doesn't like it because it is the same problem he is whining about here, that he would have to camp the item and he thinks he shouldn't have to. His only rebuttal is that people would fight over camps, which by the way is going to happen regardless because there will BE contested camps.
What is also silly about his argument is that "someone" has to camp that item anyway, so those camps will be heavily contested regardless as people buying them or camping them for sale still have to produce the same number of drops. It is like they don't even think their arguments through. At least with your suggestion, those camping them will be those who are wearing them (that is if they want the higher stat version).
He wants to be able to avoid the competition of contested camps so he can buy his items on the player trade market (better someone else camp for hours, not him). So I would be careful listening to his dismissals (make him reason his arguments properly or put little weight in them), some of these guys here are very adamant supporters for completely game free trade (ie rules, structures, conditions, requirements, etc....) where the players just do as they will. It is a lucrative feature in games that some have gotten very good at manipulating and would be very upset if they changed.
SoD that he mentioned is a server with around 50 people average that play. His claim is bullshit as the economy in SoD is so screwed up it is ridiculous due to many other means. He doesn't like it because it is the same problem he is whining about here, that he would have to camp the item and he thinks he shouldn't have to. His only rebuttal is that people would fight over camps, which by the way is going to happen regardless because there will BE contested camps.
What is also silly about his argument is that "someone" has to camp that item anyway, so those camps will be heavily contested regardless as people buying them or camping them for sale still have to produce the same number of drops. It is like they don't even think their arguments through. At least with your suggestion, those camping them will be those who are wearing them (that is if they want the higher stat version).
He wants to be able to avoid the competition of contested camps so he can buy his items on the player trade market (better someone else camp for hours, not him). So I would be careful listening to his dismissals (make him reason his arguments properly or put little weight in them), some of these guys here are very adamant supporters for completely game free trade (ie rules, structures, conditions, requirements, etc....) where the players just do as they will. It is a lucrative feature in games that some have gotten very good at manipulating and would be very upset if that changed.
I shall take it with a grain of salt then. Personally, I see 0 fun, immersion or role-play in buying dropped game loot. If I had it my way (and I know i'll be burnt at the stake for this) i'd have no trading of any mob dropped loot. I like the idea of trading potions, crafts, or anything player made, but I feel you should have to risk the adventure yourself if you want that loot. You don't pull Excalibur out of the stone to trade for a few gold pieces...just sayin.
Comments
I'm sorry but the only one being intellectually dishonest is you. All of us have admitted its going to happen, what we are trying to argue is the extent of it and how that extent will affect the lives of other players.
You and Sinist are trying to imply that there is functionally little to no difference between an AH system and a player trade system, and that in either situation RMT and people abusing the trade system would be so rampant that it would severely affect the other player. You are trying to drum it up and act like it was more commonplace than it was. The fact that you continually revert to P99 as an example to support your argument is honestly even more laughable as P99 is in no way relevant to this discussion for a variety of reasons which have been detailed in this thread, primarily that of which it is an extremely old, top heavy server, and is populated by a bunch of people who have already been there and done that, and know exactly how to "game the system".
What the reality is that both of you quite simply don't like the idea of someone being able to buy their "progression" even if they do it legitimately within the games systems.
And since we're being "honest" here, I feel that is no different than an ultra casual who complains to a dev in an effort to get them to change the game play to conform to what they like, to hell with everyone else.
What Dullahan and I (and many others) are proposing is a system which will ultimately provide a ton more player choice, and while it may have some downsides, we feel they are relatively minor. What you are suggesting is a system which completely and utterly limits an aspect of a game that a healthy portion of even the "bitter jaded vets" enjoyed about EQ and older style games. We are trying to figure out a system that still resembles old school MMOs, but that will satisfy more than the few hundred people.
Having no player trade WILL kill this game before it starts. We already have a massive mountain to climb in convincing some of the newer post EQ type players of the benefits of an "old school" style of mmo, and I 100% guarantee you that the vast majority of potential new players will try the game, see no way to trade items, and immediately peace out and never look back.
Think of it like this, a big sporting good's store would be like WoW, trying to capture as broad an audience as possible, they sell everything, tents, funs, boots, shoes, kayaks, fishing poles, golf clubs, football gear, blah blah blah. What we're trying to set up is maybe just an outdoor sportsman store, so maybe we still sells the guns, and kayaks, and fishing stuff, but not the basketballs and football and golfing, etc.
What you guys are suggesting is we setup a store that only sells golfing equipment and nothing else. Is there a place for it? Sure, but I don't think that's where VR is really looking to go with this game.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
This is really the core of the entire issue. You simply don't make a law or rule or whatever that harms the 99.9999% of people doing things legitimately because of the actions of a few.
That kind of reasoning boggles my mind. Lets make bleach illegal because a few dozen people a year kill themselves or others with it (whether accidentally or otherwise). Nevermind the hundreds of millions of people who use bleach on a regular basis with no issues...
Like he said, RMT'ers and cheaters ALWAYS find a way to cheat. The issue is to make it enough of a barrier that you are catching the bulk in the net. Think like people who are skilled enough to say hack into the pentagon, or some big corporations databases, versus some script kiddies. You don't go spend tens of thousands of dollars on security related firewall hardware for your home network because the only people you'll likely encounter is people trying to hijack your wifi, and basic firewalls and security procedures will protect you from the people looking for the easy fish in the sea.
Same thing applies, most of the constraints of a player trade system without an AH are going to filter out all but the most dedicated, who will frankly find a way to do it otherwise. And just eliminating all player trade to combat the likely less than 1/10th of % of the playerbase who will engage in that behavior is just asinine.
BTW Sinist, I know you said in another post you're not suggesting eliminating all player trade, so I wanted to credit you for that. Please know im not pissed or anything at you personally, im just (vehemently) disagreeing with your reasoning as well as the other guy, justi something.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Buying and selling isn't complicated. And players like us on this forum are probably going to be pretty good at if we choose to play that way. I was agreeing with Sinist that the early game gets pretty trivial after awhile. The evidence for this is every MMO ever. I only brought up p99 because you deflated the presence of RMT severely on that server. Don't just take my word for it, anyone can feel free to ask around on the p99 forums. It simply isn't true that it barely existed or didn't impact the economy. Things were severely inflated around TMOs peak.
You guys are doing a lot of juxtaposition between WoW and Classic EQ, as if the main difference between those two games is that one had an Auction Hall in it. WoW was easy because WoW was easy, Auction Hall or Not. Last I played, the best items for leveling were bought with tokens from dungeons and were no drop. So the AH doesn't have a lot to do with it.
You can say p99 is a bad example, but I think Classic EQ is equally bad. We already discussed the reasons each example isn't perfect.
This -- in my mind -- means all we can do is speculate on is how the mechanics would work to discourage things in MMO economies. I have no idea why you guys have convinced yourself the answer to that is to take out the AH.
Seeking a certain demographic (old school players) is one thing, forcing a specific approach to a game is something else entirely. Besides...How can you make trade equal to the effort spent dungeon crawling? On a monetary level sure... (what the player deems their effort worth) which is basically typical trade, that's quite simply sensible from a gaming perspective. Hence why that's the way they typically handle it. Anything else would just be convoluted from a trade perspective.
It seems to me, you want a singular focus in a massively multiplayer game (everything centered around beating bosses and showing off rewards), that's not a very sound plan. It's a rather shallow one IMO.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
You see a price drop or go up and you artificially attempt to claim it a component of supply and demand, but then use "excuses" to explain anything that diverges from that formula of evaluation. While a price may appear to be some minor relation to what supply and demand is, in reality it really isn't as there are many variables in a game world to which are ignored in order to purport a similarity to real systems.
If you are looking for an easy straw man for you to knock down, there is none. I was clear from my initial response that your attempt to do economic analysis to find cause and effect with the game was folly.
False summary. I did not say I wanted "no trade", I used "no trade" as an example to explain the differences in effort of achievement to some who were getting hung up and making accusations of intent. I suggested making trade a game system where there are many elements of pros/cons, risk/reward, etc... to make it every bit of an effort in play as the adventure play, not a means to circumvent game play to gain an easier result.
Anyone who honestly supports the intent of VR and Pantheon wants no RMT. This is not a secret and this was not my main point. RMT results because of the trade portion of the game. I used RMT to explain to people who were dismissing that people wouldn't lock down camps or work market control gimmicks. The fact is, plat sellers have done this and continue to do this because it is how they increase their profits. This is common knowledge and something that does not need to be argued.
As for my plan, again.. spit balling here. Also if you were reading my points, I said that the idea was not to eliminate all possible abuse, as this really is impossible (build a better mouse trap, they build a better mouse). You can however make it so that such attempt to bypass such an implementation is obvious and easily noted. This allows VR a much easier time to seeking out the offenders. Normal players aren't likely to hit those implementations, leaving the people who do as a much smaller target for evaluation.
More rules mean nothing to a person who already breaks them. SoE had everything you mentioned and yet RMT was rampant in the game. Laws mean nothing to a law breaker. It is a pointless waste of time to think that this is the approach to resolve it. Besides, many of the offenders are not even under the jurisdiction of such discourse (another problem companies found out with plat farming).
Yes, and I made those very suggestions. In fact, I gave a very clear and detailed explanation of such as a means to promote game play while still allowing players to achieve the powerful feel of adding gear to a lower level player (I also have an entire thread on character development systems that avoid devaluing of various progression mechanisms). That is another thread, better discussed in a thread that specifically related to that. My point about Twinks here was to show how it is a strong driver for RMT, extreme camping, etc... which are valid concerns for everyone. The solutions I provided for twinking will not change the desire to obtain gear for twinking, nor would I want that desire to be diminished by making the power of twinking pointless.
As I said, the idea is to promote game play, to ensure that players are playing the game with the spirit to which Pantheon is being developed. What point is there for them to spend all of the effort balancing systems and trying to achieve a proper risk/reward and even character progression if another system is completely ignoring it?
Risk/reward is not the same and a game that is designed around this concept, it is important that effort to obtain something be equal in that time spent. You spending 20 hours mundanely grinding mobs you can solo easily is not the same as the 20 hours I may spend breaking and holding a given camp with a required solid group in a very difficult area of the dungeon.
Do you realize that a lot of the people who were running around in their twink Fungi Tunics didn't even have the skill to break that camp? Though they had the cash to buy it on the player trade market. Maybe explain to me how the risk/reward is equivalent for such a case where the person would not have a chance of getting it in the first place because they lacked the skill?
I never had the luxury of picking up one, it was always camped (that and every time we did get a chance, it was to break it and then everyone had to leave after a couple of spawns), which was fine, it was "supposed" to be an earned item, a status of skill of play, but of course that was a load of crap as the player trade market was the go to place for all those who wanted to bypass the risk in order to gain all the reward. Also keep in mind, once you have a foot hold in the player trade market, it is all gravy train from there and expansion after expansion becomes a focus of players using it as an upgrade component of the game, which yes.. ruins the game for those who are earning their gear through play.
Eventually, this turns into a point where every class in a group wants to roll on every item because all items are now "useful" to everyone because they can be used to buy ones progression. You have to remember this continued behavior over the years from EQ on where it led to people demanding "Need/greed" roll systems because someone always wanted to roll on the gear so they could sell it on the player trade market? The player trade market drives the game from then on, it becomes the center of play, which is why you get people like Rattaman claiming it is the whole reason for MMOs. He is wrong in the intent of the game, but actually right in what became of MMOs over the years. Player trade affects the entire game.
I don't have a problem with Dullahan's suggestion, as long as it doesn't trivialize the drop, but I don't think that is trying to limit the problem as much as it is trying to just make up for it. This approach has been done quite a bit in mainstream and it usually ends up with everyone having their cake and eat it too. Having alternatives throughout the game is fine, but a rarity stops being rare if it is more easily accessible and adding more of an item is what that can end up doing.
As for Hrimnir's point, the issue I have with that is it actually increases the rarity of the drop. Nothing wrong with having rare, or even ultra rare, but the solutions should not make something harder to get in order to deal with abusers, that is back to putting in code that slaps the normal player, they aren't the issue here, the extreme exploiting behavior is.
I want game play. It is as simple as that. The adventure potion of the game is structured with rules and obstacles for character progression. There are levels, skill caps, constraints, etc.... rules that guide play to the limitations and expectations of the developers. These systems are balanced and tested for a reasonable risk/reward in play. If something is imbalanced with this risk/reward, they attempt to balance it to achieve this game play, something that they describe in the tenants to achieve in spirit of proper risk/reward.
There is no such attention to player trade. There are no structures, no rules, no means to guide a given result of balance in risk/reward to insure that players are have consequence in choice, properly designed effort in acquisition, etc.. There are no controls, and those lack of controls seriously imbalance the adventure portion of the game. As I said, all those rules, structures, guide of play and progression carefully balanced for the sake of risk/reward and it is all for nothing due to the player market. A player can circumvent many of its requirements in play.
To make it equal in risk/reward as adventure, there are many ways. One is to simulate many real life elements that have an effect on economies. Obviously, players can not dire permanently, so many risks that would effect timing and urgency in the economies that exist in RL can't be applied directly, but concepts of it can. Again, this is spit balling, but you can put in taxes, fines, fees,rent, regulatory compliance measures (activities, etc..), commission costs, product degradation, etc... You can have them reoccurring so as to create need to move products. Things like reoccurring storage costs can cause sitting on a product to be costly.
You can even change these from city to city, culture to culture to reflect the lore and mood of the race and their politics. These things can change too (all controlled by the devs to help influence and spur events wihtin the economy, good and bad).
You can have levels, skills, etc... put in strategy elements that causes players to apply character development aspects, and thinking to succeed. Barting game systems of play, etc... The sky is the limit, but doing so makes it an actual game, putting in risk/reward, win/loss, and all of the pros/cons of various strategy approaches.
This doesn't have to be controlled by a centralized system either. There really is no need, any player transaction of trade can easily be a part of the system. So, the design and structure and all its requirements come up with something as simple as you trading to another player. The point is not to get hung up on the details I am giving, but to realize there is a way to make trading a game and not just a gimmick that circumvents the rest of the games systems.
If that is infringing on peoples "play style", then we are back to the mainstream argument of claiming that a game should cater to multiple "play styles" and saying that player trade that circumvents the rest of the game is limiting options is the very same argument I have heard from players defending the "options" of being able to use a store to circumvent aspects of the game (ie exp/buff potions, gear, etc...). Same argument, different package, I am just surprised that those who seem to be supporting your argument here agree with it.
Hmm... that would make seeking items from your own efforts more valuable, but still allow people to play the trade game and get their gear easier as they desire. It would support the whole "status symbol" of earning gear yourself. I would even say... maybe put a appearance change on gear when it is traded as well. So, if you originally loot it, it looks a certain way, and has the better stats, etc... but when you trade it, the look changes slightly or something, and the stats degrade.
I have to say, that is a very interesting suggestion. Good thought.
Edit:
Couple of thoughts...
1. Would it slow or have an effect on the camping abuses? That would be an interesting thing to consider. I mean, the trade market items would be inferior, you would think that would spur more interest in camping to get an item ones self. Camping may increase (but for self obtaining reasons), there would likely still be a market for the degraded item, but it wouldn't compete with the dropped item... It really is hard to say. I am biased, but I do like the idea of an "earned" drop being better than a sold one.
2. It doesn't fix the gimmick or circumvention aspect of game play over all. That is, players are still able to purchase advancement in the trade market over seeking it out in the game, but... it would definitely limit the direct effect that player trade has on risk/reward making the person who spent the effort not feel as if they wasted time.
Over all, the trade offs of not having really fixed the problems may still achieve some viable solutions.
I still like the idea of making trading its on full gaming system, but that is just because I think it would be fun to actually play a trade game where there is real risk of loss and chance of reward through skill in play.
So game play is now "achiever" mentality? So, wanting trade to have a game system that is equal in effort, with risk/reward, pros/cons, etc... is "achiever" mentality?
What is the mentality of the person who wants to be able to circumvent game play so they can have easy rewards over having to earn them? What is that again? I can't remember that term... hmm.... Oh, that is right, it is called "entitled".
Here is a thought. Those who don't want to play a game, well... I might suggest that what they are looking to achieve (oops I used a bad word), is best served not in a game? I know... I am being crazy and all... /boggle
Which is kind of funny, because the more you listen to these guys, the more I question if they think the whole abuse of markets, RMT, etc... is even an issue at all. They certainly argue against most forms of evaluation of it being true.
Personally, I don't want an AH. I like the small localized trading over that. That is, if they can achieve keeping trade markets broke up over the world rather than having everyone all gravitating to the same place. Fact is, I think it will be just like EQ, they will all pick a single spot and flood that area for trades.
Putting any measures to stop that starts a bunch of tantrums about "freedom" and how having rules and structures in game /gasp is so infringing on their play. I mean, I would suggest that players be limited by a certain number of licenses to sell in a given city which has a reoccurring costs, fees, regulator measures by faction, etc... that the developers manage according to a theme of that faction, but... we are getting into game play now, and that could be termed an evil word like "achiever", we must pass participation trophies for all because everyone should be winner! /facepalm
I remember the very early days too, before EC trading took off to any real extent and people actually had to earn their items. Having a certain item or look really meant something, a sign of accomplishment, but when trading took over, it really had no meaning anymore.
I remember before trading took off, explaining how to handle a given encounter to this player and I used a certain encounter based on what I saw he was wearing to relate it to them. They said "I never did that... I bought this from another player."
Not sure about the tax idea, such things you really have to be careful with as they can easily have unintended consequences (as does any system like this), which is why TLC code is such a hated thing.
How about continuing with the item degradation line of thinking. So, at first, the moment the item drops it acts kind of like a bind to the player for the stat purposes you suggested. On the first trade, the item changes to its slightly different graphic as we discussed and degrades the item by a certain amount.
Now, that player can then trade that item freely, with no more worries about the item changing unless it is equipped as this will flag it again to the player. Then, if the player trades it to another person after having equipped it, it then step wise degrades the item once more on the trade. The item can now be traded without issue until someone equips it again, which... again flags it for degradation upon it being traded.
This way, items are not as good as the drops for the person who is actually going to use them and continuous use AND trading results in the item getting worse over time.
I think I read this in either the Pantheon forums by someone or somewhere else, I can't remember (might have been a twinking discussion thread or something). Anyway, the idea is that it makes the item of more value the closer it is to its original drop, yet still provides a market for trade, but also works to remove items out of the game over time so you don't have the issues of tons of items in the game.
Combine this with the various features they have planned for making people want to hold on to their items and it could really work well across the board.
Again, this is an early evaluation, obviously there could be a ton of major problems with this we aren't seeing as of yet.
Your argument is the exact argument current mainstream gamers make to demand they have easier access to gear.
I don't get you people, you labor to claim you want a contested content game, then bitch and moan if there is actually a reward for getting something from a camp.
FFS, you accused me in several posts about wanting it easy, and then make this argument? /boggle
I swear, the more and more you guys defend against any suggestion here, the more it makes me think you guys are using RMT anyway.
Only you seem to believe that playing the game as a trader is somehow a bad thing that trivializes "gameplay." News flash, trading is gameplay.
There is no false premise. If you are going to use logical argument constructs, use them correctly. Or, well, continue on with the fallacies, you sure love to accuse others of them.
It is no wonder gaming turned into RMT PTW crap, with people defending the systems that supported it. Bring up any means of having people earn through actually playing the game and the go on about how moving widgets and manipulated impatient people in the trade markets is "weal hurd gammin!" It is no wonder gaming today is in the crapper.
Edit:
Maybe you can answer me this one on risk vs reward. A guild took down the AoW, one of the monks won the leggings and then rather than use them, turned around and sold them on the bazaar for over 2 million plat, it was one of the highest price items on the market. With that money, he bought numerous items at good prices and played the market a bit. In less than a week he nearly doubled that amount. It wasn't jhard, most people will sell at a much lower price to get quick cash.
Now with that money, the next expansion came out. With that enormous amount of money, he was able to buy some of the first hot sought after items, from both groups, and some from raids (ie others realizing that the markets money was more useful than a single item). Some of these camps were extremely competitive to get, and some were in areas rough to get a group to.
So explain to me how a single kill of the AoW in a raid as a class that wasn't even the main puller or any major responsibility is equal in effort and risk/reward of multiple camps and mobs in a new expansion?
What is that? Oh... didn't happen? Going to call me a liar again and say this isn't true? Going to tell me they are equal because it was the AoW?
You really shouldn't have responded. This has to be the biggest stretch of an argument I have ever seen, wait... No..It is a common mainstream argument, and one used to dismiss game play in order to serve a player desire for convenience.
I would say that if you want to play a game that is designed around the entire idea of playing a character who develops skills, learns to apply them, braves the dungeons and explores to obtain rare and unique items as rewards for their efforts, that you would.. I don't know do that?
You however would rather be able to go to a player trade market with no levels, no rules, no restrictions, no requirements of game play and then use that as a means to purchase advancement in the other side of the game that has all those rules.
Crazy? By today's standard of gamers, I am absolutely nuts, bonkers... I mean.. I expect people to play a game! /gasp
You want to play the cool trader?
http://www.gog.com/game/capitalism_plus
there, but then that would probably be mean because then you would actually have to play a game where there are rules, restrictions, conditions, winning and losing and boy does that get in the way of "fun" am I right? /derp
What is also silly about his argument is that "someone" has to camp that item anyway, so those camps will be heavily contested regardless as people buying them or camping them for sale still have to produce the same number of drops. It is like they don't even think their arguments through. At least with your suggestion, those camping them will be those who are wearing them (that is if they want the higher stat version).
He wants to be able to avoid the competition of contested camps so he can buy his items on the player trade market (better someone else camp for hours, not him). So I would be careful listening to his dismissals (make him reason his arguments properly or put little weight in them), some of these guys here are very adamant supporters for completely game free trade (ie rules, structures, conditions, requirements, etc....) where the players just do as they will. It is a lucrative feature in games that some have gotten very good at manipulating and would be very upset if they changed.