To be fair and honest, I never thought about this but I also remember Similar instances in my own adventures like your friend, the Enchanter. I don't know if you played Wildstar, but they had a raid system where if you didn't get the exact item you wanted or didn't win the roll for it, you could purchase it as long as you had killed the mob. Artifact items weren't available for purchase but in your example, the cloak would have been. Maybe you get a token for each boss you kill in said dungeon and after so many tokens you can then purchase the cloak. The key point here is you would actually have to be a part of the kill in order to obtain the item that you wanted via tokens. Thoughts?
I'm not a fan of a token system as I believe it trivializes gear acquisition. I "get" the idea behind it as RNGesus can be very punishing - I experienced that with both the cloak of flames and FBSS in EQ. However, I'd rather give the option of purchasing gear through game currency than introduce a token system (not all, but like a mix ala EQ like we discussed). The token system results in everyone getting the gear which then trivializes the prestige (much like your fear with purchasing the Excalibur example).
Wait.... You think token systems trivialize gear acquisition, but grinding mundane mobs for coin to do the very same thing isn't? By the way, where is the prestige in buying the item? What does it say about the person who buys the item off the market?
@Hrimnir ; - Edit: I just want to give an example of why not being able to buy an item you may want or need and HAVING to camp it is stupid. When I played EQ originally I played with a good friend who was an enchanter. He went quite literally from 53 to 60 in Sebilis, and spent as much of that time as possible in the camp that dropped the Hierophant's Cloak, to give you a point of reference, level 59 took him almost 90 hours of XPing. In that time he saw the cloak drop 4 times, and he lost the roll on it all 4 times. So we're talking about someone who spent several hundred hours trying to get an item and had no luck.
With your system he is just up the creek. He doesn't get to ever have the item, or he just has to endlessly bang his head against the wall trying to get the item at the mercy of RNGesus. What he ultimately was able to do was spend money he had gotten from selling items he won in sebilis, and used that to buy the cloak.
Forcing people to have to "earn" the items by being in the raid/dungeon only works when the items are relatively common, OR you put a token system in place, or some combination of the two like WoW did. When items are rare, having to play at the mercy of RNGesus is one of the most supremely frustrating and frankly stupid things in the world, and IMO it has no place in any MMO.
To be fair and honest, I never thought about this but I also remember Similar instances in my own adventures like your friend, the Enchanter. I don't know if you played Wildstar, but they had a raid system where if you didn't get the exact item you wanted or didn't win the roll for it, you could purchase it as long as you had killed the mob. Artifact items weren't available for purchase but in your example, the cloak would have been. Maybe you get a token for each boss you kill in said dungeon and after so many tokens you can then purchase the cloak. The key point here is you would actually have to be a part of the kill in order to obtain the item that you wanted via tokens. Thoughts?
These are good points on both sides for some key examples, they bring up issues that occurred in the game that are being overlooked and show how we led to the problem of systems today. For instance, in Hrimnir's example his complaint is that his friend spent an enormous amount of time camping the items, having them drop and losing out on the rolls.
Two issues here.
1) RNG was bad and certainly could be improved because there were issues of some people constantly getting lopsided results (ie defying statistical principal repeatedly).
2) Hrimnir is missing the point. An item being rare where not everyone has it, not everyone has the chance to get it is why EQ was addicting and why it meant so much to get an item.
This is why buying an item cheapens. I too had issues with some things that I just had bad rolls, terrible luck with camps, etc... and never got the chance to get the item. I was ok with that because that is what made getting some items so dang amazing. When player trade took off and become the go to "gear up" place for people, group gear was no longer valuable as it used to be. That was reserved for raid gear. So in a game where it was primarily designed for the group experience (raids were a very small part of early EQ), group gear was treated as common gear up options for those who used the player trade market.
This brings up your suggestion.
We have had lots of token systems in games, "pick your own loot" features, and various other types of conveniences in mainstream games over the years. When I first left EQ, I thought this was a great idea, because I too had been slighted by the RNG many of times and thought that this would be the perfect solution to removing all the fighting, the disappointment, and massive difficulty that came with loot drops.
After spending nearly 20 years playing MMOs, I can tell you that tokens, "pick your own loot" or other similar systems are bad for game play. They remove the desire, the entire concept of anticipation, of disappointment and rarity in obtaining something. It is the very thing that Hrimnir claims is bad about the loot issues that made loot so valuable and so amazing in reward in EQ. Token systems cheapen that, allowing players to pick their loot, through steady progression is a game killer, and why so many people game hop these days.
Loot should be rare, it should be coveted, people should have disappointment and not everyone should be able to have it so that those who do have it, have meaning in having it.
There is an old design principal that goes "never give the client what they want, give them what they need" and what it means is that what the client wants isn't always what they need. They may think they want something a certain way, but it may be lack of understanding how to express what that is or a misunderstanding in what it is that will satisfy their need (which is ultimately what they want).
If you have ever developed software, or handled similar style projects, you now how important properly establishing the requirements of the solution the client seeks. That if you simply give the client constantly what they ask for, the result is often you constantly redoing what you did because "they didn't mean that when they said that, that what they really wanted was... "
Point is, nothing is gained in sustainable game play if a player is served up what they want constantly and given what they want constantly. This is why mainstream games can't hold anyone, they reward people for simply showing up, allowing them to pick their prizes, and all risk/reward and anticipation in play is removed. Now if getting handed gear, always getting the prize, etc... with the reduced effort and lack of risk is what some want, then all I can do is point to the tenants and explain it doesn't seem to fit with what VR is attempting to achieve.
As you have said, what is the point in buying your item? Is there really any anticipation, risk/reward in simply counting up money until you go to buy the item? You know you are going to get it, you can even reasonably gauge exactly when that will be, what is the point in that?
From my experience, I personally would take being that enchanter in Hrimnir's example a 1000 times over than getting my items handed to me through mundane guaranteed means. That isn't the excitement of a game, of anticipation, or risk/reward, it is a mundane job of earning to buy widgets. /bleh
I should have explained better. In Wildstar when you purchased the item you wanted after not getting it in the raid, it had lesser stats. The raid drops were always better and it took quite a while to save up the tokens (maybe they were called gems?). The sword you wanted may have had health on it and not Crit or less damage than the one that was dropped in the raid. The tokens were mainly used to get the lesser pieces while you worked towards your main piece while still being viable in the raid party. I don't want anything handed to me, but I don't mind having a corvette while I work towards my Ferrari.
The token system trivializes gear acquisition because it introduces a ton more of the item into the market or game. Even if all the token items were /no drop, it still decreases the prestige as everyone has one or has the ability to obtain one; whereas purchasing the item could lessen the prestige of the item, but I'd argue to a lesser extent. And, I agree with you that there is nothing prestigious about buying an item.
An example: Player A camps and FBSS and sells it. Player B purchases FBSS - only 1 is introduced in game. Group of 6 Camp FBSS with a token system. All 6 players want it. 6 FBSS's are introduced into the game.
I would agree that there may be an uptick in supply due to people wanting to camp the item to sell which would slightly lower the prestige, but, it's still only one item that has dropped versus the "participation ribbon" type system (token system) of everyone obtaining an item simply from being present.
And, in my discussion with Kobin24, I had agreed that I would still want a healthy mix of No Drop/Droppable items ala EQlaunch (Cloak of Flames vs. Class Specific Armor) so there would definitely be items that maintained the prestige even moreso than the FBSS used in the example.
I should have explained better. In Wildstar when you purchased the item you wanted after not getting it in the raid, it had lesser stats. The raid drops were always better and it took quite a while to save up the tokens (maybe they were called gems?). The sword you wanted may have had health on it and not Crit or less damage than the one that was dropped in the raid. The tokens were mainly used to get the lesser pieces while you worked towards your main piece while still being viable in the raid party. I don't want anything handed to me, but I don't mind having a corvette while I work towards my Ferrari.
Yeah, still not a fan of that, it reminds me of the "participation trophy" manner of rewarding.
Maybe it is just me, but I think if you win, great, if you lose... keep hoping, keep dreaming, keep thinking "maybe this time will be my time!"
I should have explained better. In Wildstar when you purchased the item you wanted after not getting it in the raid, it had lesser stats. The raid drops were always better and it took quite a while to save up the tokens (maybe they were called gems?). The sword you wanted may have had health on it and not Crit or less damage than the one that was dropped in the raid. The tokens were mainly used to get the lesser pieces while you worked towards your main piece while still being viable in the raid party. I don't want anything handed to me, but I don't mind having a corvette while I work towards my Ferrari.
Yeah, still not a fan of that, it reminds me of the "participation trophy" manner of rewarding.
Maybe it is just me, but I think if you win, great, if you lose... keep hoping, keep dreaming, keep thinking "maybe this time will be my time!"
Might as well skip the raid and just throw in a slot machine if participation doesn't count for something. A famous saying that people constantly use, but completely ignore the meaning is "There is no I in team" Those who shine only do so because of the efforts of their teammates and if that doesn't deserve a reward in itself, then you my friend have a very warped sense of entitlement.
Might as well skip the raid and just throw in a slot machine if participation doesn't count for something. A famous saying that people constantly use, but completely ignore the meaning is "There is no I in team" Those who shine only do so because of the efforts of their teammates and if that doesn't deserve a reward in itself, then you my friend have a very warped sense of entitlement.
Your stance would be correct if the only reason you play a game is for gear acquisition. For me, personally, the reward is the sense of accomplishment in overcoming meaningful obstacles and challenges either solo (in a single player) or as a team (in an MMO) - and in your example, it would be taking down the raid mob. The slow gear acquisition is the carrot that makes fighting the same mob/raid mob feel less mundane.
*Edit* And most guilds implemented some form of Dragon Kill Point System as well which allowed a player to obtain an item, even if you may have never received the exact item you wanted due to unlucky RNG. So, outside of very early EQ where the guild leader basically handed out loot, I would imagine Pantheon guilds would adopt a similar semi-formal structure if no formal one was in place.
I should have explained better. In Wildstar when you purchased the item you wanted after not getting it in the raid, it had lesser stats. The raid drops were always better and it took quite a while to save up the tokens (maybe they were called gems?). The sword you wanted may have had health on it and not Crit or less damage than the one that was dropped in the raid. The tokens were mainly used to get the lesser pieces while you worked towards your main piece while still being viable in the raid party. I don't want anything handed to me, but I don't mind having a corvette while I work towards my Ferrari.
Yeah, still not a fan of that, it reminds me of the "participation trophy" manner of rewarding.
Maybe it is just me, but I think if you win, great, if you lose... keep hoping, keep dreaming, keep thinking "maybe this time will be my time!"
Might as well skip the raid and just throw in a slot machine if participation doesn't count for something. A famous saying that people constantly use, but completely ignore the meaning is "There is no I in team" Those who shine only do so because of the efforts of their teammates and if that doesn't deserve a reward in itself, then you my friend have a very warped sense of entitlement.
Well, not everyone puts in the same effort either. I led many raids in EQ and I can tell you not every role is equal and many are mundane and can be filled by anyone. Heck, organizing and leading the raids were an enormous amount of work both in getting people to their tasks as well as planning the strategies to apply to the raid. Then there are the sub roles of players in the raid who help to organize the smaller teams of focus. Then you have the key roles of healers, tanks, and pullers who are doing their part which are absolutely key to the success of an event. In all that, some roles are just "meh", they are just extra damage and often not even needed as you could last the fight a tad longer without them and be just fine. My guild often did raids with much less than was claimed that was needed because of this.
Point is, if we are going to be honest, not all should be rewarded equally as not all equally put in effort (once had a wizard bitch and moan about dying a couple of times as I had died so many times I de-leveld while pulling hate). So, why should "everyone" get a prize? As I said in a prior post, everyone winning makes winning pointless and then there is no point playing. When every single person puts the same effort into a raid, then every single person can demand every single person be rewarded with a boobie prize.
Edit:
Another thing to consider is this. Having people come back over and over and over to try and get certain items gives longevity to content. If everyone gets their value out of a raid on each visit, it makes content less valuable to keep working at.
I can tell you if I could get an item that was just a tad bit worse than the main item that dropped, It would make me less likely to want to put effort in going to a raid to get that "tad bit" of increase. I enjoy min/maxing, but I many raids in EQ, I have no desire to min/max with that amount of effort. If it is "close enough", it is "good enough" for me as my skill as a player makes up the rest if the game is anything remotely like EQ.
So, better to keep people wanting, coming back for more than filling their bellies so they are too lazy to come back.
The token system trivializes gear acquisition because it introduces a ton more of the item into the market or game. Even if all the token items were /no drop, it still decreases the prestige as everyone has one or has the ability to obtain one; whereas purchasing the item could lessen the prestige of the item, but I'd argue to a lesser extent. And, I agree with you that there is nothing prestigious about buying an item.
An example: Player A camps and FBSS and sells it. Player B purchases FBSS - only 1 is introduced in game. Group of 6 Camp FBSS with a token system. All 6 players want it. 6 FBSS's are introduced into the game.
I would agree that there may be an uptick in supply due to people wanting to camp the item to sell which would slightly lower the prestige, but, it's still only one item that has dropped versus the "participation ribbon" type system (token system) of everyone obtaining an item simply from being present.
And, in my discussion with Kobin24, I had agreed that I would still want a healthy mix of No Drop/Droppable items ala EQlaunch (Cloak of Flames vs. Class Specific Armor) so there would definitely be items that maintained the prestige even moreso than the FBSS used in the example.
Well, if tokens are served up in the same rarity as the drops and locations, it is still the same result. It really is just a balancing equation here (number of tokens allowed to drop, how often, where, etc...). So, named mob drops a token, player takes token to vending machine, turns in token for the gear item they wanted.
In the camp situation, gear item is camped, item drops, it is put on the market this repeats as long as people want to keep putting them on the market. Player farms cash, picks an item they want on the market just like the vending machine example. Market still filled with tons of "in game" items.
I think the difference here is that the item sale example has a higher likelihood of increased items in the market as the token system, people only buy what they need with the token, so there is no gear inflation in the market because item creation is done at purchase.
Token systems solve a ton of problems in reality, just as the TLC code di, but... they kill all drive and excitement in acquisition and turn the game into some cheap marketing gimmick system.
I know, and like I have said in other threads and even here, I am discussing and will do so adamantly and without apology if I find someones argument is logically lacking. I still think that leaving the player trade system as it is (and only applying basically variations of the same already done things) will still result in as I said. Time will tell, and unfortunately being right isn't something that goes in my favor. I hope I am wrong, I just don't see it being the case with the status quot of design (ie ignoring that player trade is the loophole that infects the systems).
That said..
What about this... All drop items (first drop, not traded yet) all have a different look than when they are traded. So, it looks one way, but upon trading the item, it loses many aspects of its look, style and quality. It still is recognizable as the original item, but obvious it is the "hand me down" (maybe even have it look torn, tattered, faded, etc..). The stats stay the same, nothing else changes and if the player finds they like the "hand me down" look better, they can do a quick trade to cause the change, but otherwise the original look will be a sign the player camped and looted the item themselves, a symbol of that effort that no traded item can replicate.
What do you think? It doesn't fix the trade issues, it only fixes the "I earned this" issue and everyone gets to have their item, but not the look, which has no effect on game play.
The only issue with that is it means a metric shit ton more content creation for VR, which is already a small team. If they have to go through and create new textures for every single item in the game (or even a large portion) to have a "traded" vs "non traded" version, it is just a lot more work for them that IMO is not needed.
What bothers me about this whole argument is the "earning" it mentality. Everyone defines "earning" something differently. The way this discussion is being worded would be like me telling a guy who spent 20 years working his ass off so he could buy his family a nice 4000 sq ft house in the mountains that he didn't "earn" his house, because he didn't build it himself.
While its absolutely awesome if someone does do that, saying that he didn't earn it because he just did some rote, mundane task for 20 years to make the money to buy it is frankly asinine and insulting.
Someone else brought up a very good point, Sinist and a couple others are acting like buying items is somehow easier than getting it in the dungeon yourself. Rare items are expensive. Using an example of a fungi tunic, if it was worth 80kpp and someone wanted to make that money getting 600 or 700pp an hour mundanely killing hill giants, that means he spent over 100 hours "earning" the item, and IMO he deserves it just as much as the guy who went into the dungeon for 15 or 20 hours and got it from a drop and won the roll.
IMO the true "prestige" items should be no drop and no trade. That's how they should delineate what is what. There should also be some tradeable prestige items, think CoF or RBB, etc.
The other point of contention is this idea that being able to buy the item devalues the prestige and rarity of the item. That's horseshit, the rarity and value and prestige is determined by how common the item is. Nobody in the history of EQ EVER asked someone when they saw them run by with a CoF, "did you get that from the mob or did you buy it?", they simply said, "holy crap that guy has a CoF!".
"2) Hrimnir is missing the point. An item being rare where not everyone has it, not everyone has the chance to get it is why EQ was addicting and why it meant so much to get an item.
This is why buying an item cheapens. I too had issues with some things that I just had bad rolls, terrible luck with camps, etc... and never got the chance to get the item. I was ok with that because that is what made getting some items so dang amazing. When player trade took off and become the go to "gear up" place for people, group gear was no longer valuable as it used to be. That was reserved for raid gear. So in a game where it was primarily designed for the group experience (raids were a very small part of early EQ), group gear was treated as common gear up options for those who used the player trade market. "
This is just flat assed wrong. Like I said above, an item being rare is determined by how much it comes into the market. That's the definition of rare (1. coming or occurring far apart in time; unusual; uncommon).
Sinist is missing the point and is conflating desirability with rarity. They are two different things. Sinist feels that something is only desirable if it was "earned" via being dropped in the dungeon. The vast majority of people would disagree (even the "bitter old vets"). Something is rare because there isn't a lot of it. CoF were desirable because they were rare (and they were good items), not because they dropped from a dragon. People didn't care from where or how someone got an item, they cared that the person had the item.
While Sinist feels that an item obtained directly from a mob is more "rare" or desirable than one that is bought, not all people and I would argue the majority of people feel that way. I think its a bit underhanded to insinuate that people who buy the item, provided they do it within the means of the game and not by RMT or "cheating" are somehow less or undeserving of the item. Its that same type of bad elitism that pisses so many people off. There are people who may choose to play this game, and like the mechanics, who may not have 2 or 3 hours to invest at a time to go into a dungeon and camp and item, and while im certainly not suggesting that we change the games mechanics to make dungeon runs shorter and easier to accommodate that time constraint, I think its crazy to tell the person if they choose to do mundane tasks in the 30 or 45 minutes a day they get to play to make money to buy some item they want, that they are somehow undeserving of the item.
There were tons of people who were true casual players who played EQ and enjoyed the hell out of it, even if they didn't get BiS in every slot, and they never made max level, because they had OPTIONS. They could play the game how they wanted to. They weren't pigeonholed into playing the game the way a certain portion of the playerbase did.
Once again, saying that we "should" have to "earn" the items via them dropping off the mob in a dungeon because that's the way "the game was intended to be played", is no different than a solo content locust demanding that everything be soloable and content be quick and easy because that's how he feels the game was meant to be played.
I am for sandbox gameplay that allows for emergent gameplay, and player trading is simply another form of emergent gameplay.
There is a massive difference between feeling like you have to do market gimmicks in a game like WoW in order to stay competitive, vs you having a way of getting an item you want, and another person having a different way of getting the item, even if you don't *'like* that they got the item that way. Once again as long as they're not paying RL money for it, I really don't see the problem.
Also, please stop with the "buying progression" BS. Someone sitting around slaughtering hill giants all day to make money to buy an item doesn't mean they bought their progression, in fact, had they spent the time in the dungeon they would have had chances at other items, they would have been getting XP, they would have been making friends, making a name for themselves, etc. So in essence yeah, both parties might have ended up with the same item, but who really had the better experience?
"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."
The only issue with that is it means a metric shit ton more content creation for VR, which is already a small team. If they have to go through and create new textures for every single item in the game (or even a large portion) to have a "traded" vs "non traded" version, it is just a lot more work for them that IMO is not needed.
Doesn't have to be every item, I think the issue here is more about the rares to be honest and the graphic changes suggested were not major, minor adaptions, fading, etc.... I also find it odd that no matter what is suggested, you do not want any compromise here, even if it is something that has zero effect on game play.
Unless.. you are saying you are fine with this solutions, have no problem with it, but are just concerned about the devs time? If that is the case, fair enough, but is that it?
What bothers me about this whole argument is the "earning" it
mentality. Everyone defines "earning" something differently. The way
this discussion is being worded would be like me telling a guy who spent
20 years working his ass off so he could buy his family a nice 4000 sq
ft house in the mountains that he didn't "earn" his house, because he
didn't build it himself.
While its absolutely awesome if someone does do that, saying that he
didn't earn it because he just did some rote, mundane task for 20 years
to make the money to buy it is frankly asinine and insulting.
Irrelevant. You want to make an argument, use an in-game example of proper context to show the comparison of risk/reward. Mundane tasks of grinding money, or using various trade gimmicks on the market is not the same risk/reward as a person who camps the item in the dungeon with all the risk, cooperation, etc.. Considering the tenants state:
An expectation that with greater
risk will come greater reward.
I think that continuing to argue this point, dismissing any attempts to want to make trade more equivalent in play is essentially defying the very concept of this game and I can not see the logic in purporting to support these tenants while continuing to hold the position that you do.
Someone else brought up a very good point, Sinist and a couple others
are acting like buying items is somehow easier than getting it in the
dungeon yourself. Rare items are expensive. Using an example of a
fungi tunic, if it was worth 80kpp and someone wanted to make that money
getting 600 or 700pp an hour mundanely killing hill giants, that means
he spent over 100 hours "earning" the item, and IMO he deserves it just
as much as the guy who went into the dungeon for 15 or 20 hours and got
it from a drop and won the roll.
The risk vs reward for mundane farming of easy content or playing trade gimmicks while debatable in how easy it is (effort), it is obvious that risk vs reward balance of such an approach is not equivalent to that of earning the drop in actual game play. One of the problems of mainstream games today is that they have removed the risk from play and turned all "earning" into pointless mundane grinds that the lowest common denominator can achieve.
Risk vs reward, a key element of goal to which this game is designed on is not properly served by having a player take the risk to obtain an item with all the obstacles, required skill, people, etc... and the loss, recovery, etc.. that comes with it be invalidated by someone who takes the safe zero risk route of simply stacking widgets for a period of time to achieve the same reward.
So even if we do not get into the "how easy" is it for someone to do a mundane task that anyone could do in repetition for a period of time, the fact remains that such is never equal to the amount of risk that a player takes while obtaining such in a dungeon. So, there is no proper balance of risk/reward, and trade becomes a means to which those who wish to skip the risk can obtain the same level of reward.
IMO the true "prestige" items should be no drop and no trade. That's
how they should delineate what is what. There should also be some
tradeable prestige items, think CoF or RBB, etc.
There is nothing prestigious about buying an item in trade. It defies the whole point of the meaning of the word as there is no achievement in simply purchasing an item to which others must succeed in game play to achieve.
The other point of contention is this idea that being able to buy the
item devalues the prestige and rarity of the item. That's horseshit,
the rarity and value and prestige is determined by how common the item
is. Nobody in the history of EQ EVER asked someone when they saw them
run by with a CoF, "did you get that from the mob or did you buy it?",
they simply said, "holy crap that guy has a CoF!".
No, the prestige of an item is determined by the difficulty to obtain it, the amount of risk and effort associated with the success of achieving it. It conveys that the person who obtained it conquered the obstacles and requirements designed by the developers to achieve the item. Buying the item says a person farmed for cash, played market gimmicks, or even bought plat/items from an online RMT seller.
When people are able to achieve such without the attending to the properly designed risk/reward of an encounter to obtain it, they cheapen the effort by those who do. This can not be denied as to argue this point, you must establish that the risk/reward between the buying player and the camping player are equivalent, they are not.
This is just flat assed wrong. Like I said above, an item being rare is
determined by how much it comes into the market. That's the definition
of rare (1. coming or occurring far apart in time; unusual; uncommon).
The
player trade market is a side show, not the game. Without player trade,
the game would still exist, function without issues. Without the game,
player trade has no purpose, no use. Player trade does not dictate game
play it is a portion of the game, one I might add that has zero
structure and rule relation to the rest of the game(which is a problem I
was trying to point out and provide suggestions for).
Rarity is
established by the risk/effort and rate at which the camp provides the
item. Risk is also an element that constrains that rate as well which is
determined by the skill of the party that attempts to achieve that
drop. A player who buys such an item is not a part of that equation.
They gain the reward, but take no part in the requirement to achieve
that reward.
A group of lacking skill may make several attempts
to break the camp (time), they may have major issue holding the camp
(time) and they may have issues handling the named boss when it
does spawn causing several recoveries (time) and maybe failure (they leave
without a kill).
A group who farms the camp to supply the trade market for
sale may be skilled, able to break and hold the camp without issue and
handle the named as well, without downtime or loss of time which increases the number of
spawns to increase the chance of more rares dropping there by increasing
the rate of flow into the market which would not exist if every player
had to earn that rare themselves due to the very points I made just
above.
This I have seen personally. This however is completely
avoided by those who buy the item. You see, the lowest common
denominator can then achieve an item because the risk is removed and the
effort of safe activities is used to achieve something that may have
required great risk/effort and it is the supply of such as I explained above
that would be limited that reduces the rarity of obtaining an item and
invalidates the effort of those who actually do take the risk to achieve
it.
Sinist is missing the point and is conflating desirability with
rarity. They are two different things. Sinist feels that something is
only desirable if it was "earned" via being dropped in the dungeon. The
vast majority of people would disagree (even the "bitter old vets").
Something is rare because there isn't a lot of it. CoF were desirable
because they were rare (and they were good items), not because they
dropped from a dragon. People didn't care from where or how someone got
an item, they cared that the person had the item.
As
I explained in the prior points, it is the supply of items to a market
of buyers who are unwilling or lacking in ability to obtain such items
that increases the rate of acquisition and rewards those with out the
required risk associated with the items placement.
The CoF was
desirable because they were on raid bosses to which took skill to
organize and succeed in for the chance to obtain them. Not only was
there the issue of contest to organize it (ie being the first to the camp and start your raid) , but it took time and many
tries for such. Also, not every group who attempted was successful. A
failed Naggy or Vox raid by groups was not uncommon. There were many
times a group would attempt and go home empty handed.
Those who
bought the items took no part in this risk process, took no part in the
skill to defeat the encounter. It was not uncommon to see people in gear
who had no clue about the difficulties it took to win a given encounter
of the item they wore.
Again, all the player trade market did
was allow people who would not, or could not achieve successes in
actually playing the game past mundane grinding and/or working a trade
system that had zero system controls and balances as the very game
systems they circumvented, to gain their prize.
If we are not
going to attend to the problem of the trade system by making it more
like a game, then I would say NO raid items should EVER be traded. It is
a mockery to the risk and effort players take to have people buy their
progression. I would also extend this to all Rares on group mobs as well, leaving only uncommon/commons to be traded in the market.
While Sinist feels that an item obtained directly from a mob is
more "rare" or desirable than one that is bought, not all people and I
would argue the majority of people feel that way. I think its a bit
underhanded to insinuate that people who buy the item, provided they do
it within the means of the game and not by RMT or "cheating" are
somehow less or undeserving of the item. Its that same type of bad
elitism that pisses so many people off. There are people who may choose
to play this game, and like the mechanics, who may not have 2 or 3
hours to invest at a time to go into a dungeon and camp and item, and
while im certainly not suggesting that we change the games mechanics to
make dungeon runs shorter and easier to accommodate that time
constraint, I think its crazy to tell the person if they choose to do
mundane tasks in the 30 or 45 minutes a day they get to play to make
money to buy some item they want, that they are somehow undeserving of
the item.
I used the example of RMT to point out
the process of avoiding the intended play requirement to achieve the
item. This is a fact that you can not dispute. This comes back to the
risk vs reward argument, one where the player uses means to obtain items
without the risk or requirements to which the content that provides it
was designed to require. RMT is a process of paying money to circumvent
requirements in content in order to achieve the rewards from it.
In
that very evaluation, they are exactly the same. That is, both allow
players to circumvent the content requirements to which those items are
obtained. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. The fact of it being
real money or in game money is irrelevant to that very point to which
again, invalidates the risk and effort a player spends to achieve that
item according to that content requirement.
There were tons of people who were true casual players who
played EQ and enjoyed the hell out of it, even if they didn't get BiS in
every slot, and they never made max level, because they had OPTIONS.
They could play the game how they wanted to. They weren't pigeonholed
into playing the game the way a certain portion of the playerbase did.
Once
again, saying that we "should" have to "earn" the items via them
dropping off the mob in a dungeon because that's the way "the game was
intended to be played", is no different than a solo content locust
demanding that everything be soloable and content be quick and easy
because that's how he feels the game was meant to be played.
That
very "casual" argument is used in every game today to justify
circumvention of content design requirements in order to serve a form of
entitlement that demands equal access to rewards, but not equal
required risk.
This is not an issue of being forced to play a
game a certain way, this is an issue of playing a game period. Look at
the logic you use here. You claim that trade acquisition and adventure
play are equal, then you claim that is it not fair to casual players to
require them to gain their rewards by the same risk that the games
content requires to obtain that reward. This is an admittance of the
fact that player trade is not equal, that there is less risk in
obtaining the item. By your own admission you defeat your own argument.
I
am not arguing whether it is fair to casuals, I am pointing out it is
not balanced appropriately in player trade to that of obtaining the item
through the required play of content that provides it. It obviously
bypasses it and allows players to circumvent it. The items all come from
there, so in reality of game play, every one must obtain it through
that process as the devs have deemed that the only means to which that
item can be obtained and required players to meet a certain level of
skill/level/ability/etc... in order to achieve it. Player trade
absolutely cirvumvents that risk/reward structure.
I am for sandbox gameplay that allows for emergent gameplay, and player trading is simply another form of emergent gameplay.
Emergent
game play is to play a game within the rules to apply solutions to meet
the requirements of a given contents design through clever adaptations
and applications of to succeed. These solutions can be exploits or they
can be creative "walk the line" forms of play.
You do realize
they were initially strongly against FD pulling when it began to occur?
You do realize that Brad even argued on the SoE forums once (before they
closed them for EQ at the time) that it circumvented content design
requirements that they intended an encounter to be done under a certain expectation, that by single pulling the encounter it completely trivialized the design?
So I understand the idea of emergent play, but
there is also a line as Brad was pointing out about FD pulling. They
designed content to be done a certain way and the "emergent play"
completely circumvented it. Brad was correct on that point, but... they
adapted and created code to deal with it to, to work it into their
content design so that it wasn't a cheap gimmick used to bypass the
intended difficulty of the encounters.
Player trading is here to
stay, Brad stated this, but he also asked for solutions that we could
come up with that would avoid abuses that player trade creates. Loot
control is one approach, and player trade control is another. Saying
that you want a free open world where if you find some approach that
allows you to circumvent content, that this is emergent play is a gross
misunderstanding of what emergent play is.
Content should never
be bypassed, it should never be circumvented. The developers intent
should still be seen through ultimately and I honestly can't see how the
trade system, with no controls, no systems that the developers can
tweak to adjust it, etc... is part of their intent. In fact, by reading
the tenants, we can see that proper risk/reward is the intent (which
player trade violates) and through Brads discussion, we can see there
are numerous problems with abuse of systems (plat trading, item
inflation, etc...) that they are concerned about to which an unregulated
trade system is primarily responsible for, so I can't see how you think
that open free play where there are no consequences is within the
"vision" of this game.
Proper risk/reward balance is not served
by systems that do not have consequence and using "sandbox" as a trump
card to justify such is not a valid support for ignoring it.
There is a massive difference between feeling like you have to do
market gimmicks in a game like WoW in order to stay competitive, vs you
having a way of getting an item you want, and another person having a
different way of getting the item, even if you don't *'like* that they
got the item that way. Once again as long as they're not paying RL
money for it, I really don't see the problem.
Again,
allowing people to circumvent the risk/reward balance diminishes the
reward for the person who obtained it through the required means of
content play. It is as simple as that and this is the very reason why
some of us won't play RMT games (it isn't about the money, it is about
what the money buys). Your argument here is exactly the argument they
use in those games. They don't understand why someone would be upset
about another who circumvents the required content to obtain the same
reward.
All I can say is in a game where the entire point is
risk/reward, where achievement of such is a social status, where simply
wearing an item is supposed to show the persons accomplishments,
allowing people to buy their items completely invalidates it. If you
can't understand that, then you don't understand the real reason why RMT
is bad.
Also, please stop with the "buying progression" BS. Someone
sitting around slaughtering hill giants all day to make money to buy an
item doesn't mean they bought their progression, in fact, had they spent
the time in the dungeon they would have had chances at other items,
they would have been getting XP, they would have been making friends,
making a name for themselves, etc. So in essence yeah, both parties
might have ended up with the same item, but who really had the better
experience?
Again, it is buying progression
because it is a currency enabled advancement to obtain an item that was
not achieved through the requirements of the content to which provides
that item. You can twist it anyway you like it, but it is still "buying"
your progression as you are not playing the progression to obtain it.
You did not go into that crypt, break that camp, hold that camp, survive
the encounter with that named and obtain that drop. You instead,
"bought" that item, circumventing that process. So yes, you "bought"
your way through progression, yes... sitting around all day farming mobs
to make cash so you can buy an item that you did not earn is exactly
that. /shrug
I'm not going to respond to every point because frankly its a waste of time as you and i have fundamentally different views on what defines earning something and what defines circumventing content.
A few points.
1. What the core you are missing here is that it is not circumventing anything. The person who engaged in the process of the proper risk and reward was the person who sat in the dungeon and "earned" the item. If they chose to turn around and sell it to someone, that's their prerogative, they earned it, its theirs to do with what the wish. The person buying it from the person who "earned" it doesn't change the fact that the item still entered the market via the proper means, because the item was already "earned" through "playing the game the way it was intended".
So unless you are going to start creating item decay or make all items no trade, then your whole "earning and playing the game the way it was intended" argument is completely and utterly moot.
2. Your comments about how player trade is a "side show" and your continued insinuations that people who engage in it are lesser beings shows how utterly incapable you are of looking at this issue objectively. You have a very "my way or the highway" mentality. You refuse to accept that anything other than your extremely myopic view of what the gameplay *should* be is a valid play style. Then you give an exaggerated claim that saying that this is a valid playstyle is akin to the type of people (we don't even consider MMO gamers) demanding that the game cater to their playstyle. The hilarious irony is you can't even see that this is precisely what you are doing.
3. Most of us aren't looking for a pendulum swing in the complete opposite direction. We see that MMO's have gone too far down the road of easy mode faceroll solo content. That doesn't mean that when someone like VR makes an old school game that they have to be the Yin to that Yang. There is this thing called middle ground. We're looking for something that hearkens back to the older days.
4. The primary premise of the these types of games is a return to incentivising group content, not forcing it, not requiring it. The idea is to make the reward proposition (significantly) better for grouping up, than for doing it solo. That doesn't mean you have to completely shitcan everything related to doing things solo, you just have to make it the less desirable option. I think most people would find that spending 100 hours alone farming coin to buy an item they could reasonably expect to get spending 20 hours in a dungeon with friends (getting XP and other potential items as well) to be a proper incentive to grouping.
This last point is where i think you have a severe disconnect and problem with understanding. You are looking at it as black and white, i.e. "this is the way the game is intended to be played, and anything else is unacceptable". The way you should be looking at it is that there are many ways to play the game, some with greater reward/efficiency of reward, etc, and that we should give proper incentive towards the style of gameplay we want to >>>promote<<<. We should never be telling people that their particular playstyle (provided its within the confines of the games rules) is invalid, or "lesser". Its all about choices, you choose to do it solo, then you choose the mundane, boring, etc. You choose to do it with group, you enjoy making friends, engaging and overcoming challenges together, and you bear greater reward as a result.
The issue with modern MMO's (one of them at least) is not that you *could* solo a lot of things, its that soloing it was far and away the preferred method. The issue was there was no reason to group, there was no benefit, whether it was items, xp, etc. In EQ i *could* go solo mobs running around EC and WC, however it was usually better to get in a group and kill them faster, etc. Then you add in dungeons having better items and XP modifiers, add in group XP modifiers, etc, and you have now incentivized grouping. Modern MMOs did not do this, there was no benefit, at all to not doing something alone. Particularly questing and leveling.
"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."
1. What the core you are missing here is that it is not circumventing anything. The person who engaged in the process of the proper risk and reward was the person who sat in the dungeon and "earned" the item. If they chose to turn around and sell it to someone, that's their prerogative, they earned it, its theirs to do with what the wish. The person buying it from the person who "earned" it doesn't change the fact that the item still entered the market via the proper means, because the item was already "earned" through "playing the game the way it was intended".
This is where your argument fails. The item "entering the market via proper means" is not earned by the one who buys it. The person who bought it did not earn it. It doesn't matter if it was obtained by someone who earned it, the person who bought it did not earned it which is why the player trade market is a means for players to bypass earning the item. The act of "earning" is not passed on to the one who it was given, that is not a logical point. The person buying the item circumvented the intended game play to gain the item.
Using your same logic, I could justify that my paying some guy real money has no real effect on the issue here because the guy that I paid real money to gain the item actually earned that item in game, and so... his "earning" that item was transferred to me when I paid him for the item.
The problem with your argument here is that you don't think "buying" achievement in the game is wrong, your only objection about RMT is that real money is involved, not that the player paid currency to circumvent the process of earning the item, ie PTW. The only difference between a person who buys his way using in game currency and that of a person who uses real money is the currency used. Both are essentially bypassing content.
Just be honest here, admit that this is exactly what is happening and this entire argument is over and we are done, but this whole dance about how it is still playing the game, that it is still being magically earned and is equal to the guy who camps it because he passes that on is intellectually dishonest, honestly to the point of absurdity. Your argument does not follow any proper logical support.
2. Your comments about how player trade is a "side show" and your
continued insinuations that people who engage in it are lesser beings
shows how utterly incapable you are of looking at this issue
objectively. You have a very "my way or the highway" mentality. You
refuse to accept that anything other than your extremely myopic view of
what the gameplay *should* be is a valid play style. Then you give an
exaggerated claim that saying that this is a valid playstyle is akin to
the type of people (we don't even consider MMO gamers) demanding that
the game cater to their playstyle. The hilarious irony is you can't
even see that this is precisely what you are doing.
Careful now, you are putting words in my mouth and making accusations of emotional attack. It is a side show in that it is not the main attraction, nothing more. It is to show that without the game, trade is nothing, that the game itself can completely survive without the trade but the trade can not survive without the game. This is an undeniable fact and the point is to show you that making trade the focal point of the game is making everyone dance around a small portion of the game to serve a component of play that is not a necessity in the over all design.
3. Most of us aren't looking for a pendulum swing in the complete
opposite direction. We see that MMO's have gone too far down the road
of easy mode faceroll solo content. That doesn't mean that when someone
like VR makes an old school game that they have to be the Yin to that
Yang. There is this thing called middle ground. We're looking for
something that hearkens back to the older days.
I am not either, I am saying that trade should have game play and actually be more than just a means to circumvent the main game. Trade has no rules, no structures, and there is little to no control the developers have over it and how it effects the main games system. That is why we have all these massive gimmicks like TLC, no drop, BOE, BOP, etc.... because trade is the main offender here, it has no game, no system of consequence in play, it is just a side element that players use to purchase advancement rather than doing so through the main game.
I am suggesting trade be a game, with rules, structures, winning and losing, competition, risk/reward, etc... which if properly implemented could go long way to help finding balance between it and the main game which does not exist in most games. Trade is one thing that truly has been stagnant in design development, it has not changed in MMOs since it began. Being that this is a game, and a world... would not having game play and world emulation be logical for trade?
4. The primary premise of the these types of games is a return to
incentivising group content, not forcing it, not requiring it. The idea
is to make the reward proposition (significantly) better for grouping
up, than for doing it solo. That doesn't mean you have to completely
shitcan everything related to doing things solo, you just have to make
it the less desirable option. I think most people would find that
spending 100 hours alone farming coin to buy an item they could
reasonably expect to get spending 20 hours in a dungeon with friends
(getting XP and other potential items as well) to be a proper incentive
to grouping.
Yep, and a very deep and rewarding trade system that has much game play involving player interaction and strategy in play against others, against the game, with factions and economic systems, lore based events, trade wars, variance in currency, etc.. as I have l mentioned goes a long way to achieve a very deep and rich game play system.
My ideas do not discourage grouping, or game play. They encourage it, they enrich the systems, and more importantly they bring something missing from the trade system... risk and reward balance, making trade more than a gimmick, more than a means for players to purchase content bypass, but actually have the chance to earn it in their own game play.
which sounds better... a player solo farming mundanely to basically buy an item that another had to work their arse off to gain? Or a player entering a trade market, playing the trade game, advancing through clever strategies, and dealing with various risks of loss and possible chances of great gain through their play to eventually obtain that item through very similar effort in risk/reward balance through game play?
This is one of the suggestions I brought up and all of you completely dismissed it, attacked it, and moved on. I have a hard time accepting you want game play when you guys keep looking to hold on to the elements of a system that allow for its circumvention. It makes me think you like the abuse that such a system offers?
This last point is where i think you have a severe disconnect and
problem with understanding. You are looking at it as black and white,
i.e. "this is the way the game is intended to be played, and anything
else is unacceptable". The way you should be looking at it is that
there are many ways to play the game, some with greater
reward/efficiency of reward, etc, and that we should give proper
incentive towards the style of gameplay we want to
>>>promote<<<. We should never be telling people that
their particular playstyle (provided its within the confines of the
games rules) is invalid, or "lesser". Its all about choices, you choose
to do it solo, then you choose the mundane, boring, etc. You choose to
do it with group, you enjoy making friends, engaging and overcoming
challenges together, and you bear greater reward as a result.
I
think that is a bit of an excuse to avoid dealing with the key aspects
of my points. You didn't quote anything I said, or deal specifically
with the invalid premises you gave to me in the previous discussion
(which is why I dislike people not quoting and attending specifically to
a point, it is too easy to ignore the key questions and weaknesses of a
given response).
I don't accept the "my style of play"
arguments, not when they dismiss the achievemnts of another player. You
see, as I said, people like me hate RMT because it invalidates our
efforts to see another buy their progression (which I explained is
similar in result to player trade purchase) . You telling me that it is
their "play style" that we should honor, well... Where is the play style
of those who want to solo everything? What about the play style of the
people who want actual RMT? What about the play style of people who want
no hard death penalties? What about all the various play styles that
this game is invalidating that exists in mainstream?
You see,
you are telling me that we should respect play styles that conflict with
the very premise to which VR has stated is as thier goals. Maybe Brad
can weigh in here because I am confused how VR can claim they are making
a game with specific focus to "greater risk, greater reward" and then
say that we need to respect the play styles of those who feel they
should be able to gain "great reward" with "reduced risk" and there is
no logical counter yet to my points about the balance between them? Can
you explain this to us here Brad? I mean, this is a VERY important point
here and I think it is key to your entire sell point to this game. What
is your take on such?
The issue with modern MMO's (one of them at least) is not that you
*could* solo a lot of things, its that soloing it was far and away the
preferred method. The issue was there was no reason to group, there was
no benefit, whether it was items, xp, etc. In EQ i *could* go solo
mobs running around EC and WC, however it was usually better to get in a
group and kill them faster, etc. Then you add in dungeons having
better items and XP modifiers, add in group XP modifiers, etc, and you
have now incentivized grouping. Modern MMOs did not do this, there was
no benefit, at all to not doing something alone. Particularly questing
and leveling.
I am not sure where this solo thing
is coming from. I never argued group vs solo as a point. My point was
about risk/reward balance, something that is paramount to this games
position and to be honest, one of the main factors to why I liked Brad's
development style in EQ and make no mistake, Brad did not create trade
in EQ, that was player driven, VR and SoE just facilitated it and tried
to clean up the messes it produced.
If trade is the entire point
of this game, to the detriment of risk/reward game play, then I know my
interest in it is beginning to wane as I didn't care for SWG and won't
for this game if it centers everything around it (mainly because I know
where this always ends with the numerous games out there).
I
tried to provide solutions on both sides (trade and camping) to help
keep earning worth the investment and to promote game play in all
systems, but if this game turns into a system where buying becomes
rampant, as it did in EQ, then... I don't know if I am interested to get
back into a game that really just dismisses the concept of risk/reward.
I loved EQ, but I hated what became of it due to the trade
systems. Many of you claim that was due to the Bazaar, but I experienced
otherwise and if that is what it is to become, well.. to take my own
advice in another game, maybe this game isn't for me?
So I guess I will wait and see how the trade system is to be designed and make my decision there. /shrug
Not to make this heated discussion seem simplified but wouldn't the answer to any sort of specific loot drop being monopolized be to have multiple locations it can drop?
Have each location have a different sort of team composition/build/item set up to allow multiple groups to go after the same item at the same time?
Its similar to why newer MMO's have phasing and instancing, they get stuck into this idea of only have one place drop this one thing, but if you make the same loot drop in multiple locations you get players having multiple instances of the loot dropping.
Best example I can give is Diablo 2, while not a MMO it allowed a player to choose how they wanted to farm, and what they wanted to farm. There was always a stepping stone of some sort into being able to get to the next boss/area to farm. There were also areas to farm in the game that were based on character build.
Its more work, and it seems like your just adding the same content again and again, but if the area and encounters are different while dropping similar loot I think a lot of the monopolization of lower level loot can be avoided.
Edit: Also wanted to add, having more locations in a world map with the same monsters isn't always bad. If this game is said to be more akin to EQ which to me older MMO's were more of a stepping stone into VR, then the same monsters and creatures are not going to be in just one location.
Not to make this heated discussion seem simplified but wouldn't the answer to any sort of specific loot drop being monopolized be to have multiple locations it can drop?
Have each location have a different sort of team composition/build/item set up to allow multiple groups to go after the same item at the same time?
If that was really the issue, it may be the proper solution. But having enough open camps for people is not the problem I am bringing up (as more spawns means more items dropping, or making drops even more rare as a solution which only harms honest players, just as the TLC does).
It is not to insure that players have more access to camps (camp competition is fine), it is to insure that no limited number of players have the "easy" ability to control a camp by creating solutions that make such action blatant and difficult (ie requiring coordination and extended effort). That is why the solutions discussed on this side of the fence have been about reducing the continuous farming of the same items, which is primarily done for the trade market.
Even with some of the solutions I and others have made, the camps may still be difficult to get (as they should be), and people may be camping them quite often, but... they shouldn't be monopolized by any limited parties for excessive purpose as I mentioned above and if people are circumventing those measures with large group efforts, it will be obvious and more easily handled by a GM if it gets out of hand.
As I said, this is not to make a given item more accessible (after all, a player farming the spot and selling it to the market already achieves this), it is rather to promote camping/farming as an element for those who are improving their characters themselves through game play, not farming cash items to purchase advancement on the trade market.
onlinenow25 said: Its similar to why newer MMO's have phasing and instancing, they get
stuck into this idea of only have one place drop this one thing, but if
you make the same loot drop in multiple locations you get players
having multiple instances of the loot dropping.
Best example I can give is Diablo 2, while not a MMO it allowed a player
to choose how they wanted to farm, and what they wanted to farm. There
was always a stepping stone of some sort into being able to get to the
next boss/area to farm. There were also areas to farm in the game that
were based on character build.
Its more work, and it seems like
your just adding the same content again and again, but if the area and
encounters are different while dropping similar loot I think a lot of
the monopolization of lower level loot can be avoided.
Yep that would be a solution (but not one in line with this game), the solution is to increase access to all and gear allow wide based gear acquisition. Instances definitely solve the problem with contested content, but the problem is not contested content here. It isn't the fact that there may be a high competition to get a given spawn and that item. In fact, this is what makes items more valuable as there is limited access to them, which slows the amount of gear being brought into the game and gives a means of accomplishment to have something that not everyone can obtain due to there being a competition to obtain it.
Instancing/phasing defies the entire point of such and is completely counter to the tenants of this games goals. It is not a solution that can even be considered.
The problem with offering too many choices is the issue of the "all choices are a winner" which really means "no choice is a loser" and that is counter to the concept of what a game is. There should be options, but a game is about overcoming obstacles and rules and conditions (ie limits on options) are how such is achieved. Also, all "options" must be balanced between each other with pros/cons in the idea of risk/reward. If any option is more ideal, then it becomes the only viable option as others will be more effort, more risk, etc... which translates to less reward. A game is not about giving people want they want all the time, it is about making them achieve what the want with proper risk/reward.
onlinenow25 said: Edit: Also wanted to add, having more locations in a world map with the
same monsters isn't always bad. If this game is said to be more akin to
EQ which to me older MMO's were more of a stepping stone into VR, then
the same monsters and creatures are not going to be in just one
location.
Well, I would imagine that multiple spawn locations can certainly help in limiting the "lock down a specific area" with ease issue and it may be that all that is needed is to put in the right mix of already previously used solutions to get the right result, this whole discussion was really about spit balling ideas. I am all for multiple "spawn" locations, but not multiple "spawns" as this runs into the issue of increasing accessibility to a drop and that is fine, IF that is the intended design for the risk/reward of that given item, but If such a solution is used as a base to solve any competition of an item, it defeats the concept of rare and uniqueness in such play.
Anyway, at first I thought the reactive side approach was best (ie putting in code, restrictions, etc... on camps, as mechanical walls), but then I thought
about what the main problem in the game is and it is the trade market.
It is what drives the desire to camp items over and over for sale on the
market because it can have lotto like pay outs due to it and there are numerous means to which money can be made through the practice both for players and professional plat farmers, which ultimately allows players the "option" to purchase advancement of items and gear over the need to obtain it in the content itself.
So,
if the trade system was attended to, making it more of a game system
similar to the risk/reward of the adventure game (ie risk of
loss of money, time, and increasing costs, etc...), this "might" adjust the
benefit of such approaches to play. Certainly if a system was created
for trade, the adventure side of the equation could be considered allowing some balance to the system to take place.
I
got to thinking about other things. What if the factions economic
systems had dictations on limits (just like they have for fishing,
hunting, etc...)? What if there were special seasons where the faction
allowed certain activities for trade, then disallowed at other times,
etc... This obviously could all change from time to time, as politics due (hint: Developers adjusting as needed due to market behavior). Combine this with other world like systems and balances and you could really have a depth of system that actually might make player trade as intellectually intriguing and exciting as games like Capitalism or other economic sim games.
It might be a way to really simulate a world environment
with the trade systems which also would allow the developers the much
needed means to access some control features to better balance the
economies when need and it could really give the opportunity for different lore insertions as well. Imagine having a deep and sophisticated economy with long lists of bureaucratic rules and structures for one race, but then a very primitive and harsh system in another. Each still interacts with each other depending on their relations and those relations will change and affect the exchange rates, various product and sale allowances, etc...
All of this could be integrated into systems like diplomacy and crafting. There could even be a "trader" sub class all to itself designed with many tools and features to which allows the player to "adventure" into world of trade markets, etc...
People keep asking for a "virtual world" and I can't see how this is not building a very rich and deep "virtual world" giving trade a real role in the game rather than just being a simple transaction element of trading trinkets.
As I said, by making it a truly integrated game system, you also finally give the developers the power they need to help manage the chaos that a disconnected trade market has to the rest of the game.
Oh, and by the way, you as a player could choose to defy some of those factions mandates, with consequences of course (which you could really make some fun and interesting risk play in this) which could even result in banning (and KOS to certain trade officials and such of a faction) that might even lead to a "outlaw" trade faction that is illegal, but has its own rules, structures, and conditions for membership.
You can still give people lots of freedom, but make those choices have consequences that the players will then have to operate under to excel. This makes it a game, and a "virtual world" of immersion and realism to play, not just a chat room with chat sale calls.
Not to make this heated discussion seem simplified but wouldn't the answer to any sort of specific loot drop being monopolized be to have multiple locations it can drop?
Have each location have a different sort of team composition/build/item set up to allow multiple groups to go after the same item at the same time?
My opinion on this is that it is not the solution. Part of the charm of EQ that has been lost in newer MMOs was having hand-placed loot on specfic "named" monsters that would only drop it. It added to their mystique. I can still remember camps in EQ and what they dropped - Ghoul Arch Magi : Shining Metallic Robes; the Ishva Mal : Robe of the Ishva; Frenzied Ghoul : FBSS and so on...Where did they get these items? Why do they have them? What is the backstory on them? I"m actually not huge on lore but that does interest me.
Warcraft and other MMOs have since tried to "fix" this issue with global drops which just further homogenize the world. It's really the same thing they did to classes and the interdependence between them by balancing every class just about to the point that the only difference is in ability names. If you start adding in global loot drops or drops with "affixes" it will just create a new problem that is, IMO, far worse than higher levels farming lower end zones.
I
think that is a bit of an excuse to avoid dealing with the key aspects
of my points. You didn't quote anything I said, or deal specifically
with the invalid premises you gave to me in the previous discussion
(which is why I dislike people not quoting and attending specifically to
a point, it is too easy to ignore the key questions and weaknesses of a
given response).
I don't accept the "my style of play"
arguments, not when they dismiss the achievemnts of another player. You
see, as I said, people like me hate RMT because it invalidates our
efforts to see another buy their progression (which I explained is
similar in result to player trade purchase) . You telling me that it is
their "play style" that we should honor, well... Where is the play style
of those who want to solo everything? What about the play style of the
people who want actual RMT? What about the play style of people who want
no hard death penalties? What about all the various play styles that
this game is invalidating that exists in mainstream?
You see,
you are telling me that we should respect play styles that conflict with
the very premise to which VR has stated is as thier goals.
Sinist, I can't speak from Hrimnir, but, I'm guessing the reason he didn't multi-quote you is the reason I haven't always either. Your posts are so long that multi-quoting literally either takes up about 3 posts when trying to give adequate rebuttal, or, an astronomical amount of time given the poor forum features to quote you (or at least I haven't found an easy way with these newer forums). I know I wasn't trying to be malicious with my previous posts (hence my disclaimers of don't take it personally.. my subjective opinion, etc.), and I'm sure his intentions aren't nefarious either to try to misquote you by not doing it.
Anyway, I said I wouldn't engage any further, but, like I said.. I have a tendency to be stubborn . And, I truly do think you want the best for Pantheon, but, you're so fearful that Pantheon will go mainstream that its clouding your perspective. Try to look at this objectively rather than personally - as an outsider rather than your personal experience.
It is you who is arguing that purchasing the gear with in-game currency dismisses others achievements, this is where the disconnect lies. We don't believe that it dismisses others achievements, but, rather offers another alternative, and often rather mundane way of playing the game comparatively to the adventuring group-focused. This is not me asking for solo content to be designed in the game, but designing group content and if players find ways (emergently) to solo and they choose to play that way - there's no harm in it. It gives options for gameplay rather than a strict linear path. Much like in the class-balance thread where you've stated you don't want all class archetypes (Tank/DPS/Healing/CC) to play the same, we're really using a very similar argument here that we don't want everyone's gameplay experience to "have" to be the same and forced into one little adventuring box.
And, regardless if someone purchased gear through in-game currency or not, it doesn't make any difficult achievement that you've accomplished any less valid - that is just your personal feelings of what allowing someone to purchase gear with in game currency does. A rare item is still rare regardless of how it entered the market/world - we're not asking for items to be less rare due to in-game trading.
Like I said in earlier postings and Hrimnir has echoed, if a player is only killing mundane mobs/named mobs to collect coin to buy a Fungi - through legitimate means, not RMT, they aren't gaining the skill, experience, friends, reputation, etc. that you would be leading a group killing the Myconid King and obtaining yours. The only thing that player killing mundane mobs is obtaining is the coin for the item, not any other aspect of the "reward." So, yes, there "may" be less risk depending on what mobs are being soloed (or grouped) for coin, but there's less overall reward as well. You're looking at it "only" from the perspective of the item, but there's much more than that. And, you're only looking at the example where a player is farming/selling lower level items to purchase a higher tier item. Many times people sold and purchase level-appropriate items as well from legitimate drops from their dungeon runs.
And, you discuss circumventing content. I consider it an alternative playstyle within the confines of the game. Very similar to if someone was able to find ways to solo in a game designed for group only content - i.e. necros fear kiting, root rotting, etc. It doesn't circumvent game content - it allows for sandbox style play. It allow players to find emergent/alternative ways to play - don't restrict all gameplay to again one very linear path. And, I know you continually say in-game trade is RMT with in-game currency - it's not. It's very different from RMT as real money is not within the confines of the game. RMT is not fair as not everyone has the same expendable income, whereas, everyone could potentially farm coin if they chose to. You're introducing external, real life resources to obtain an in-game advantage which not everyone has access to - that does give an unfair advantage which can trivialize the game.
And, you keep using the tenet with greater risk comes greater reward - again, you have to look at the complete picture of an MMO and not just viewing it through a Diablo lense. There is more "reward" in an MMO other than "just" loot. If your entire sense of achievement in an MMO is "only" based off what loot you've obtained, then, we won't agree. As stated previously, there's many more rewards that come from adventuring with a group other than just the drop, and, much of it isn't tangible, which is why people have such a difficult time explaining the magic of early EQ.
Anyway, not trying to ruffle your feathers, but I'm really trying to give you insight into my mindset at least and that me wanting in-game trade is not simply because I want a system introduced to circumvent gameplay.
Sinist, I can't speak from Hrimnir, but, I'm guessing the reason he didn't multi-quote you is the reason I haven't always either. Your posts are so long that multi-quoting literally either takes up about 3 posts when trying to give adequate rebuttal, or, an astronomical amount of time given the poor forum features to quote you (or at least I haven't found an easy way with these newer forums). I know I wasn't trying to be malicious with my previous posts (hence my disclaimers of don't take it personally.. my subjective opinion, etc.), and I'm sure his intentions aren't nefarious either to try to misquote you by not doing it.
Problem is Raidan, you yourself have failed to quote me and then made the mistake of arguing a point I had clearly explained just previously in our last response. Quoting would have made that blatantly obvious, so would have many responses by Hrimnir that kept ignoring the previous point to restate the same point over. You guys keep saying I repeat the same thing over and over, it is because some of you keep arguing a point as if I never stated it. Quoting helps to solve that as the reader is on key with where the discussion is at. Besides, cut and paste and multiple posts solves this issue.
Anyway, I said I wouldn't engage any further, but, like I said.. I have a tendency to be stubborn .
And, I truly do think you want the best for Pantheon, but, you're so
fearful that Pantheon will go mainstream that its clouding your
perspective. Try to look at this objectively rather than personally -
as an outsider rather than your personal experience.
Oh I have, I am well versed in the concept of logical evaluation through internal versus external perspective in order to see the perspective of the argument. I know your guys positions, I know why you think it is important, but I completely disagree as I have explained and gave examples of previously.
It is you who is arguing that purchasing the gear with in-game
currency dismisses others achievements, this is where the disconnect
lies. We don't believe that it dismisses others achievements, but,
rather offers another alternative, and often rather mundane way of
playing the game comparatively to the adventuring group-focused. This
is not me asking for solo content to be designed in the game, but
designing group content and if players find ways (emergently) to solo
and they choose to play that way - there's no harm in it. It gives
options for gameplay rather than a strict linear path. Much like in the
class-balance thread where you've stated you don't want all class
archetypes (Tank/DPS/Healing/CC) to play the same, we're really using a
very similar argument here that we don't want everyone's gameplay
experience to "have" to be the same and forced into one little
adventuring box.
And, regardless if someone purchased gear through in-game currency or
not, it doesn't make any difficult achievement that you've accomplished
any less valid - that is just your personal feelings of what allowing
someone to purchase gear with in game currency does. A rare item is
still rare regardless of how it entered the market/world - we're not
asking for items to be less rare due to in-game trading.
No disconnect at all. I argued using risk/reward, you agreed in past posts that purchase through the market can avoid risk. In a game that specifically states that "greater risk, should provide greater reward" and hammers the concepts of proper risk/reward balance, the act of player trading bypassing that is a direct violation of those goals of this game and the stated intent of its design.
In the class balance thread, I am stating that classes should be balanced vs the content, not vs each other, in this case the person using the player trade market is not balanced to the content, they bypass the content as the content requires them to camp the item with all the risk/reward in that contents design. Again, player trade bypasses this risk reward by having another player take that risk and then simply buys it from them.
In RMT, a player has another player take the risk and then pays them to avoid having them do it. The only difference is that real money is exchanges and the fact is... money being exchanged is not what "pay to win" really means, it means circumventing content to gain the reward.
If you want more options, I am fine with that, in fact I am great with that, but options with proper risk/reward balance and the fact is, there is no proper balance between such player trade acquisition and that of the one who earns it in play. Asking me to play the game for "personal feelings of accomplishment" in the face of such imbalance is no different than the arguments that are made for straight RMT behavior as they too claim... "who cares if I bought my way past it, making game play easier! You should play the game for your own accomplishment!".
If you can't understand why that is not acceptable, then there is really no point in furthering discussion.
Like I said in earlier postings and Hrimnir has echoed, if a player is
only killing mundane mobs/named mobs to collect coin to buy a Fungi -
through legitimate means, not RMT, they aren't gaining the skill,
experience, friends, reputation, etc. that you would be leading a group
killing the Myconid King and obtaining yours. The only thing that
player killing mundane mobs is obtaining is the coin for the item, not
any other aspect of the "reward." So, yes, there "may" be less risk
depending on what mobs are being soloed (or grouped) for coin, but
there's less overall reward as well. You're looking at it "only" from
the perspective of the item, but there's much more than that. And,
you're only looking at the example where a player is farming/selling
lower level items to purchase a higher tier item. Many times people
sold and purchase level-appropriate items as well from legitimate drops
from their dungeon runs.
Again, this does not make people who bypass required game play some how justified. As I said, this argument can be used to justify RMT stores as your argument is exactly the same line of reasoning, that it shouldn't matter if others circumvent content, cheat in play, or gain all the items without risk, you should enjoy what "you" do. Seen this argument quite often to justify RMT throughout the years. Your position is absolutely no different, you just think RMT is bad because it is real money, while I say that is irrelevant, it is the bypass of game play that such buys that is the issue here and why I will not play games that allow it.
And, you discuss circumventing content. I consider it an alternative
playstyle within the confines of the game. Very similar to if someone
was able to find ways to solo in a game designed for group only content -
i.e. necros fear kiting, root rotting, etc. It doesn't circumvent game
content - it allows for sandbox style play. It allow players to find
emergent/alternative ways to play - don't restrict all gameplay to again
one very linear path. And, I know you continually say in-game trade
is RMT with in-game currency - it's not. It's very different from RMT
as real money is not within the confines of the game. RMT is not fair
as not everyone has the same expendable income, whereas, everyone could
potentially farm coin if they chose to. You're introducing external,
real life resources to obtain an in-game advantage which not everyone
has access to - that does give an unfair advantage which can trivialize
the game.
Nothing "alternative" about it. There are no rules
in trade that govern it. This is why they always become unruly,
Pantheon will not be any different unless it deals with the real problem
here. Real money is irrelevant, the issue here is people buying their
progression.
What is the difference between a group of people
who farm tons of coin, give it to a person and they buy something on the
player trade market vs the same thing happening and him paying money?
The result is the same, real money didn't change the fact that money was
legally harvested in the game, a player was legally handed that money,
and he legally bought an item on the market. What they did outside the
game is irrelevant to the fact that the result is exactly the same.
As
I said, the issue wasn't paying real money, it was people buying their
progression in the game to which would normally require them to conquer
the content according to the risk that was required for its acquisition.
Whether the guy pays real money or sits watching TV farming coin to do
the same thing, both didn't participate in play. They circumvented the
content and calling it a play style is an excuse to avoid this fact.
Some people cheat as a form of play style, why are you infringing on
them?
And, you keep using the tenet with greater risk comes greater reward -
again, you have to look at the complete picture of an MMO and not just
viewing it through a Diablo lense. There is more "reward" in an MMO
other than "just" loot. If your entire sense of achievement in an MMO
is "only" based off what loot you've obtained, then, we won't agree. As
stated previously, there's many more rewards that come from adventuring
with a group other than just the drop, and, much of it isn't tangible,
which is why people have such a difficult time explaining the magic of
early EQ.
I look at the facts, vague references to reasoning is illogical and
irrelevant. The fact is, each encounter in the game is designed around
what I am speaking about. Do you think developers design an encounter
with "who cares if it is properly balanced, it is the bigger picture,
that there are more things to making sure the event is working to
risk/reward!"
No offense, but I have heard this argument over and
over with each release of a game I have beta tested and argued the
tenants of risk/reward. Telling me "feelings" and various other things
that are entirely subjective and without measure is my reward is
entirely illogical. A game system that has any worth in play will
properly balance risk/reward in that which will practically advance the
player in the actual game. A bunch of emotional reasons that are not
quantifiable is absolutely meaningless, it is an argument that defies
the concept of actual game risk/reward.
How about it Brad/Devs?
Make some big hard raid encounters, and then after weeks/months of
effort to beat it, drop nothing but a note and tell them... your
accomplishment is your true reward! Let us see how well that one goes
over.
Sorry Raidian, but you are not being logical to your point
here. Loot (or other forms of character development) is a key component
to cRPG games to which EQ and this game was designed after. Feeling of
accomplishment is not an appropriate reward in the face of a practical
reward that is meaningless because it is a dime store novelty at the
local trade house. Any game thinks that is risk/reward isn't a game, it
is a joke and to be honest, if that is Brads development strategy, then
he has sold me on not playing it because it defies every concept of what
risk/reward means in game design.
Anyway, not trying to ruffle your feathers, but I'm really trying to
give you insight into my mindset at least and that me wanting in-game
trade is not simply because I want a system introduced to circumvent
gameplay.
You aren't, I think you are wrong on some of your points and have
logically showed it so. Some things you make points on are subjective
and in that, all I can is strongly disagree. This is a very important
aspect of the games design and to be honest, it is a deal breaker if
Brad is designing along the lines of your discussion. I will not play a
game that hands out the same prize earned by those who took risks to
those who bypassed them claiming I should be content with the "feeling"
of my accomplishment. I don't work for free, and I don't play character
development games with the same mentality.
As I said, it may
just be my age and disconnect with most games these days. I don't see
them playing games, I see them trying to appeal to those who don't want
to play games. Until developers shed that need to appeal to the
"entertainment" crowd, games will always be a joke and a waste of time.
/shrug
This has gotten down to a nearly 3rd grade level, can we just let this go already, this crap is toxic enough to make someone interested in what Pantheon is about turn tail and run.
This has gotten down to a nearly 3rd grade level, can we just let this go already, this crap is toxic enough to make someone interested in what Pantheon is about turn tail and run.
Could you please refrain from the useless comments that do not attend to any real point in the discussion?
As I said before, quote something if you disagree, argue your point like an adult, or run along. It is your continued remarks of dismissing actual discussion just because you don't like it that is the definition of childish behavior.
Comments
Odd position to take.
The token system trivializes gear acquisition because it introduces a ton more of the item into the market or game. Even if all the token items were /no drop, it still decreases the prestige as everyone has one or has the ability to obtain one; whereas purchasing the item could lessen the prestige of the item, but I'd argue to a lesser extent. And, I agree with you that there is nothing prestigious about buying an item.
An example: Player A camps and FBSS and sells it. Player B purchases FBSS - only 1 is introduced in game. Group of 6 Camp FBSS with a token system. All 6 players want it. 6 FBSS's are introduced into the game.
I would agree that there may be an uptick in supply due to people wanting to camp the item to sell which would slightly lower the prestige, but, it's still only one item that has dropped versus the "participation ribbon" type system (token system) of everyone obtaining an item simply from being present.
And, in my discussion with Kobin24, I had agreed that I would still want a healthy mix of No Drop/Droppable items ala EQlaunch (Cloak of Flames vs. Class Specific Armor) so there would definitely be items that maintained the prestige even moreso than the FBSS used in the example.
Maybe it is just me, but I think if you win, great, if you lose... keep hoping, keep dreaming, keep thinking "maybe this time will be my time!"
Might as well skip the raid and just throw in a slot machine if participation doesn't count for something. A famous saying that people constantly use, but completely ignore the meaning is "There is no I in team" Those who shine only do so because of the efforts of their teammates and if that doesn't deserve a reward in itself, then you my friend have a very warped sense of entitlement.
*Edit* And most guilds implemented some form of Dragon Kill Point System as well which allowed a player to obtain an item, even if you may have never received the exact item you wanted due to unlucky RNG. So, outside of very early EQ where the guild leader basically handed out loot, I would imagine Pantheon guilds would adopt a similar semi-formal structure if no formal one was in place.
Point is, if we are going to be honest, not all should be rewarded equally as not all equally put in effort (once had a wizard bitch and moan about dying a couple of times as I had died so many times I de-leveld while pulling hate). So, why should "everyone" get a prize? As I said in a prior post, everyone winning makes winning pointless and then there is no point playing. When every single person puts the same effort into a raid, then every single person can demand every single person be rewarded with a boobie prize.
Edit:
Another thing to consider is this. Having people come back over and over and over to try and get certain items gives longevity to content. If everyone gets their value out of a raid on each visit, it makes content less valuable to keep working at.
I can tell you if I could get an item that was just a tad bit worse than the main item that dropped, It would make me less likely to want to put effort in going to a raid to get that "tad bit" of increase. I enjoy min/maxing, but I many raids in EQ, I have no desire to min/max with that amount of effort. If it is "close enough", it is "good enough" for me as my skill as a player makes up the rest if the game is anything remotely like EQ.
So, better to keep people wanting, coming back for more than filling their bellies so they are too lazy to come back.
In the camp situation, gear item is camped, item drops, it is put on the market this repeats as long as people want to keep putting them on the market. Player farms cash, picks an item they want on the market just like the vending machine example. Market still filled with tons of "in game" items.
I think the difference here is that the item sale example has a higher likelihood of increased items in the market as the token system, people only buy what they need with the token, so there is no gear inflation in the market because item creation is done at purchase.
Token systems solve a ton of problems in reality, just as the TLC code di, but... they kill all drive and excitement in acquisition and turn the game into some cheap marketing gimmick system.
I know, and like I have said in other threads and even here, I am discussing and will do so adamantly and without apology if I find someones argument is logically lacking. I still think that leaving the player trade system as it is (and only applying basically variations of the same already done things) will still result in as I said. Time will tell, and unfortunately being right isn't something that goes in my favor. I hope I am wrong, I just don't see it being the case with the status quot of design (ie ignoring that player trade is the loophole that infects the systems).
That said..
What about this... All drop items (first drop, not traded yet) all have a different look than when they are traded. So, it looks one way, but upon trading the item, it loses many aspects of its look, style and quality. It still is recognizable as the original item, but obvious it is the "hand me down" (maybe even have it look torn, tattered, faded, etc..). The stats stay the same, nothing else changes and if the player finds they like the "hand me down" look better, they can do a quick trade to cause the change, but otherwise the original look will be a sign the player camped and looted the item themselves, a symbol of that effort that no traded item can replicate.
What do you think? It doesn't fix the trade issues, it only fixes the "I earned this" issue and everyone gets to have their item, but not the look, which has no effect on game play.
The only issue with that is it means a metric shit ton more content creation for VR, which is already a small team. If they have to go through and create new textures for every single item in the game (or even a large portion) to have a "traded" vs "non traded" version, it is just a lot more work for them that IMO is not needed.
What bothers me about this whole argument is the "earning" it mentality. Everyone defines "earning" something differently. The way this discussion is being worded would be like me telling a guy who spent 20 years working his ass off so he could buy his family a nice 4000 sq ft house in the mountains that he didn't "earn" his house, because he didn't build it himself.
While its absolutely awesome if someone does do that, saying that he didn't earn it because he just did some rote, mundane task for 20 years to make the money to buy it is frankly asinine and insulting.
Someone else brought up a very good point, Sinist and a couple others are acting like buying items is somehow easier than getting it in the dungeon yourself. Rare items are expensive. Using an example of a fungi tunic, if it was worth 80kpp and someone wanted to make that money getting 600 or 700pp an hour mundanely killing hill giants, that means he spent over 100 hours "earning" the item, and IMO he deserves it just as much as the guy who went into the dungeon for 15 or 20 hours and got it from a drop and won the roll.
IMO the true "prestige" items should be no drop and no trade. That's how they should delineate what is what. There should also be some tradeable prestige items, think CoF or RBB, etc.
The other point of contention is this idea that being able to buy the item devalues the prestige and rarity of the item. That's horseshit, the rarity and value and prestige is determined by how common the item is. Nobody in the history of EQ EVER asked someone when they saw them run by with a CoF, "did you get that from the mob or did you buy it?", they simply said, "holy crap that guy has a CoF!".
@Sinist said:
"2) Hrimnir is missing the point. An item being rare where not everyone has it, not everyone has the chance to get it is why EQ was addicting and why it meant so much to get an item.
This is why buying an item cheapens. I too had issues with some things that I just had bad rolls, terrible luck with camps, etc... and never got the chance to get the item. I was ok with that because that is what made getting some items so dang amazing. When player trade took off and become the go to "gear up" place for people, group gear was no longer valuable as it used to be. That was reserved for raid gear. So in a game where it was primarily designed for the group experience (raids were a very small part of early EQ), group gear was treated as common gear up options for those who used the player trade market. "
This is just flat assed wrong. Like I said above, an item being rare is determined by how much it comes into the market. That's the definition of rare (1. coming or occurring far apart in time; unusual; uncommon).
Sinist is missing the point and is conflating desirability with rarity. They are two different things. Sinist feels that something is only desirable if it was "earned" via being dropped in the dungeon. The vast majority of people would disagree (even the "bitter old vets"). Something is rare because there isn't a lot of it. CoF were desirable because they were rare (and they were good items), not because they dropped from a dragon. People didn't care from where or how someone got an item, they cared that the person had the item.
While Sinist feels that an item obtained directly from a mob is more "rare" or desirable than one that is bought, not all people and I would argue the majority of people feel that way. I think its a bit underhanded to insinuate that people who buy the item, provided they do it within the means of the game and not by RMT or "cheating" are somehow less or undeserving of the item. Its that same type of bad elitism that pisses so many people off. There are people who may choose to play this game, and like the mechanics, who may not have 2 or 3 hours to invest at a time to go into a dungeon and camp and item, and while im certainly not suggesting that we change the games mechanics to make dungeon runs shorter and easier to accommodate that time constraint, I think its crazy to tell the person if they choose to do mundane tasks in the 30 or 45 minutes a day they get to play to make money to buy some item they want, that they are somehow undeserving of the item.
There were tons of people who were true casual players who played EQ and enjoyed the hell out of it, even if they didn't get BiS in every slot, and they never made max level, because they had OPTIONS. They could play the game how they wanted to. They weren't pigeonholed into playing the game the way a certain portion of the playerbase did.
Once again, saying that we "should" have to "earn" the items via them dropping off the mob in a dungeon because that's the way "the game was intended to be played", is no different than a solo content locust demanding that everything be soloable and content be quick and easy because that's how he feels the game was meant to be played.
I am for sandbox gameplay that allows for emergent gameplay, and player trading is simply another form of emergent gameplay.
There is a massive difference between feeling like you have to do market gimmicks in a game like WoW in order to stay competitive, vs you having a way of getting an item you want, and another person having a different way of getting the item, even if you don't *'like* that they got the item that way. Once again as long as they're not paying RL money for it, I really don't see the problem.
Also, please stop with the "buying progression" BS. Someone sitting around slaughtering hill giants all day to make money to buy an item doesn't mean they bought their progression, in fact, had they spent the time in the dungeon they would have had chances at other items, they would have been getting XP, they would have been making friends, making a name for themselves, etc. So in essence yeah, both parties might have ended up with the same item, but who really had the better experience?
"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
Unless.. you are saying you are fine with this solutions, have no problem with it, but are just concerned about the devs time? If that is the case, fair enough, but is that it?
Irrelevant. You want to make an argument, use an in-game example of proper context to show the comparison of risk/reward. Mundane tasks of grinding money, or using various trade gimmicks on the market is not the same risk/reward as a person who camps the item in the dungeon with all the risk, cooperation, etc.. Considering the tenants state:
http://pantheonmmo.com/game/game_tenets/
I think that continuing to argue this point, dismissing any attempts to want to make trade more equivalent in play is essentially defying the very concept of this game and I can not see the logic in purporting to support these tenants while continuing to hold the position that you do.
The risk vs reward for mundane farming of easy content or playing trade gimmicks while debatable in how easy it is (effort), it is obvious that risk vs reward balance of such an approach is not equivalent to that of earning the drop in actual game play. One of the problems of mainstream games today is that they have removed the risk from play and turned all "earning" into pointless mundane grinds that the lowest common denominator can achieve.
Risk vs reward, a key element of goal to which this game is designed on is not properly served by having a player take the risk to obtain an item with all the obstacles, required skill, people, etc... and the loss, recovery, etc.. that comes with it be invalidated by someone who takes the safe zero risk route of simply stacking widgets for a period of time to achieve the same reward.
So even if we do not get into the "how easy" is it for someone to do a mundane task that anyone could do in repetition for a period of time, the fact remains that such is never equal to the amount of risk that a player takes while obtaining such in a dungeon. So, there is no proper balance of risk/reward, and trade becomes a means to which those who wish to skip the risk can obtain the same level of reward.
There is nothing prestigious about buying an item in trade. It defies the whole point of the meaning of the word as there is no achievement in simply purchasing an item to which others must succeed in game play to achieve.
No, the prestige of an item is determined by the difficulty to obtain it, the amount of risk and effort associated with the success of achieving it. It conveys that the person who obtained it conquered the obstacles and requirements designed by the developers to achieve the item. Buying the item says a person farmed for cash, played market gimmicks, or even bought plat/items from an online RMT seller.
When people are able to achieve such without the attending to the properly designed risk/reward of an encounter to obtain it, they cheapen the effort by those who do. This can not be denied as to argue this point, you must establish that the risk/reward between the buying player and the camping player are equivalent, they are not.
The player trade market is a side show, not the game. Without player trade, the game would still exist, function without issues. Without the game, player trade has no purpose, no use. Player trade does not dictate game play it is a portion of the game, one I might add that has zero structure and rule relation to the rest of the game(which is a problem I was trying to point out and provide suggestions for).
Rarity is established by the risk/effort and rate at which the camp provides the item. Risk is also an element that constrains that rate as well which is determined by the skill of the party that attempts to achieve that drop. A player who buys such an item is not a part of that equation. They gain the reward, but take no part in the requirement to achieve that reward.
A group of lacking skill may make several attempts to break the camp (time), they may have major issue holding the camp (time) and they may have issues handling the named boss when it does spawn causing several recoveries (time) and maybe failure (they leave without a kill).
A group who farms the camp to supply the trade market for sale may be skilled, able to break and hold the camp without issue and handle the named as well, without downtime or loss of time which increases the number of spawns to increase the chance of more rares dropping there by increasing the rate of flow into the market which would not exist if every player had to earn that rare themselves due to the very points I made just above.
This I have seen personally. This however is completely avoided by those who buy the item. You see, the lowest common denominator can then achieve an item because the risk is removed and the effort of safe activities is used to achieve something that may have required great risk/effort and it is the supply of such as I explained above that would be limited that reduces the rarity of obtaining an item and invalidates the effort of those who actually do take the risk to achieve it.
As I explained in the prior points, it is the supply of items to a market of buyers who are unwilling or lacking in ability to obtain such items that increases the rate of acquisition and rewards those with out the required risk associated with the items placement.
The CoF was desirable because they were on raid bosses to which took skill to organize and succeed in for the chance to obtain them. Not only was there the issue of contest to organize it (ie being the first to the camp and start your raid) , but it took time and many tries for such. Also, not every group who attempted was successful. A failed Naggy or Vox raid by groups was not uncommon. There were many times a group would attempt and go home empty handed.
Those who bought the items took no part in this risk process, took no part in the skill to defeat the encounter. It was not uncommon to see people in gear who had no clue about the difficulties it took to win a given encounter of the item they wore.
Again, all the player trade market did was allow people who would not, or could not achieve successes in actually playing the game past mundane grinding and/or working a trade system that had zero system controls and balances as the very game systems they circumvented, to gain their prize.
If we are not going to attend to the problem of the trade system by making it more like a game, then I would say NO raid items should EVER be traded. It is a mockery to the risk and effort players take to have people buy their progression. I would also extend this to all Rares on group mobs as well, leaving only uncommon/commons to be traded in the market.
I used the example of RMT to point out the process of avoiding the intended play requirement to achieve the item. This is a fact that you can not dispute. This comes back to the risk vs reward argument, one where the player uses means to obtain items without the risk or requirements to which the content that provides it was designed to require. RMT is a process of paying money to circumvent requirements in content in order to achieve the rewards from it.
In that very evaluation, they are exactly the same. That is, both allow players to circumvent the content requirements to which those items are obtained. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. The fact of it being real money or in game money is irrelevant to that very point to which again, invalidates the risk and effort a player spends to achieve that item according to that content requirement.
That very "casual" argument is used in every game today to justify circumvention of content design requirements in order to serve a form of entitlement that demands equal access to rewards, but not equal required risk.
This is not an issue of being forced to play a game a certain way, this is an issue of playing a game period. Look at the logic you use here. You claim that trade acquisition and adventure play are equal, then you claim that is it not fair to casual players to require them to gain their rewards by the same risk that the games content requires to obtain that reward. This is an admittance of the fact that player trade is not equal, that there is less risk in obtaining the item. By your own admission you defeat your own argument.
I am not arguing whether it is fair to casuals, I am pointing out it is not balanced appropriately in player trade to that of obtaining the item through the required play of content that provides it. It obviously bypasses it and allows players to circumvent it. The items all come from there, so in reality of game play, every one must obtain it through that process as the devs have deemed that the only means to which that item can be obtained and required players to meet a certain level of skill/level/ability/etc... in order to achieve it. Player trade absolutely cirvumvents that risk/reward structure.
Emergent game play is to play a game within the rules to apply solutions to meet the requirements of a given contents design through clever adaptations and applications of to succeed. These solutions can be exploits or they can be creative "walk the line" forms of play.
You do realize they were initially strongly against FD pulling when it began to occur? You do realize that Brad even argued on the SoE forums once (before they closed them for EQ at the time) that it circumvented content design requirements that they intended an encounter to be done under a certain expectation, that by single pulling the encounter it completely trivialized the design?
So I understand the idea of emergent play, but there is also a line as Brad was pointing out about FD pulling. They designed content to be done a certain way and the "emergent play" completely circumvented it. Brad was correct on that point, but... they adapted and created code to deal with it to, to work it into their content design so that it wasn't a cheap gimmick used to bypass the intended difficulty of the encounters.
Player trading is here to stay, Brad stated this, but he also asked for solutions that we could come up with that would avoid abuses that player trade creates. Loot control is one approach, and player trade control is another. Saying that you want a free open world where if you find some approach that allows you to circumvent content, that this is emergent play is a gross misunderstanding of what emergent play is.
Content should never be bypassed, it should never be circumvented. The developers intent should still be seen through ultimately and I honestly can't see how the trade system, with no controls, no systems that the developers can tweak to adjust it, etc... is part of their intent. In fact, by reading the tenants, we can see that proper risk/reward is the intent (which player trade violates) and through Brads discussion, we can see there are numerous problems with abuse of systems (plat trading, item inflation, etc...) that they are concerned about to which an unregulated trade system is primarily responsible for, so I can't see how you think that open free play where there are no consequences is within the "vision" of this game.
Proper risk/reward balance is not served by systems that do not have consequence and using "sandbox" as a trump card to justify such is not a valid support for ignoring it.
Again, allowing people to circumvent the risk/reward balance diminishes the reward for the person who obtained it through the required means of content play. It is as simple as that and this is the very reason why some of us won't play RMT games (it isn't about the money, it is about what the money buys). Your argument here is exactly the argument they use in those games. They don't understand why someone would be upset about another who circumvents the required content to obtain the same reward.
All I can say is in a game where the entire point is risk/reward, where achievement of such is a social status, where simply wearing an item is supposed to show the persons accomplishments, allowing people to buy their items completely invalidates it. If you can't understand that, then you don't understand the real reason why RMT is bad.
Again, it is buying progression because it is a currency enabled advancement to obtain an item that was not achieved through the requirements of the content to which provides that item. You can twist it anyway you like it, but it is still "buying" your progression as you are not playing the progression to obtain it. You did not go into that crypt, break that camp, hold that camp, survive the encounter with that named and obtain that drop. You instead, "bought" that item, circumventing that process. So yes, you "bought" your way through progression, yes... sitting around all day farming mobs to make cash so you can buy an item that you did not earn is exactly that. /shrug
"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
I'm not going to respond to every point because frankly its a waste of time as you and i have fundamentally different views on what defines earning something and what defines circumventing content.
A few points.
1. What the core you are missing here is that it is not circumventing anything. The person who engaged in the process of the proper risk and reward was the person who sat in the dungeon and "earned" the item. If they chose to turn around and sell it to someone, that's their prerogative, they earned it, its theirs to do with what the wish. The person buying it from the person who "earned" it doesn't change the fact that the item still entered the market via the proper means, because the item was already "earned" through "playing the game the way it was intended".
So unless you are going to start creating item decay or make all items no trade, then your whole "earning and playing the game the way it was intended" argument is completely and utterly moot.
2. Your comments about how player trade is a "side show" and your continued insinuations that people who engage in it are lesser beings shows how utterly incapable you are of looking at this issue objectively. You have a very "my way or the highway" mentality. You refuse to accept that anything other than your extremely myopic view of what the gameplay *should* be is a valid play style. Then you give an exaggerated claim that saying that this is a valid playstyle is akin to the type of people (we don't even consider MMO gamers) demanding that the game cater to their playstyle. The hilarious irony is you can't even see that this is precisely what you are doing.
3. Most of us aren't looking for a pendulum swing in the complete opposite direction. We see that MMO's have gone too far down the road of easy mode faceroll solo content. That doesn't mean that when someone like VR makes an old school game that they have to be the Yin to that Yang. There is this thing called middle ground. We're looking for something that hearkens back to the older days.
4. The primary premise of the these types of games is a return to incentivising group content, not forcing it, not requiring it. The idea is to make the reward proposition (significantly) better for grouping up, than for doing it solo. That doesn't mean you have to completely shitcan everything related to doing things solo, you just have to make it the less desirable option. I think most people would find that spending 100 hours alone farming coin to buy an item they could reasonably expect to get spending 20 hours in a dungeon with friends (getting XP and other potential items as well) to be a proper incentive to grouping.
This last point is where i think you have a severe disconnect and problem with understanding. You are looking at it as black and white, i.e. "this is the way the game is intended to be played, and anything else is unacceptable". The way you should be looking at it is that there are many ways to play the game, some with greater reward/efficiency of reward, etc, and that we should give proper incentive towards the style of gameplay we want to >>>promote<<<. We should never be telling people that their particular playstyle (provided its within the confines of the games rules) is invalid, or "lesser". Its all about choices, you choose to do it solo, then you choose the mundane, boring, etc. You choose to do it with group, you enjoy making friends, engaging and overcoming challenges together, and you bear greater reward as a result.
The issue with modern MMO's (one of them at least) is not that you *could* solo a lot of things, its that soloing it was far and away the preferred method. The issue was there was no reason to group, there was no benefit, whether it was items, xp, etc. In EQ i *could* go solo mobs running around EC and WC, however it was usually better to get in a group and kill them faster, etc. Then you add in dungeons having better items and XP modifiers, add in group XP modifiers, etc, and you have now incentivized grouping. Modern MMOs did not do this, there was no benefit, at all to not doing something alone. Particularly questing and leveling.
"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 where your argument fails. The item "entering the market via proper means" is not earned by the one who buys it. The person who bought it did not earn it. It doesn't matter if it was obtained by someone who earned it, the person who bought it did not earned it which is why the player trade market is a means for players to bypass earning the item. The act of "earning" is not passed on to the one who it was given, that is not a logical point. The person buying the item circumvented the intended game play to gain the item.
Using your same logic, I could justify that my paying some guy real money has no real effect on the issue here because the guy that I paid real money to gain the item actually earned that item in game, and so... his "earning" that item was transferred to me when I paid him for the item.
The problem with your argument here is that you don't think "buying" achievement in the game is wrong, your only objection about RMT is that real money is involved, not that the player paid currency to circumvent the process of earning the item, ie PTW. The only difference between a person who buys his way using in game currency and that of a person who uses real money is the currency used. Both are essentially bypassing content.
Just be honest here, admit that this is exactly what is happening and this entire argument is over and we are done, but this whole dance about how it is still playing the game, that it is still being magically earned and is equal to the guy who camps it because he passes that on is intellectually dishonest, honestly to the point of absurdity. Your argument does not follow any proper logical support.
Careful now, you are putting words in my mouth and making accusations of emotional attack. It is a side show in that it is not the main attraction, nothing more. It is to show that without the game, trade is nothing, that the game itself can completely survive without the trade but the trade can not survive without the game. This is an undeniable fact and the point is to show you that making trade the focal point of the game is making everyone dance around a small portion of the game to serve a component of play that is not a necessity in the over all design.
I am not either, I am saying that trade should have game play and actually be more than just a means to circumvent the main game. Trade has no rules, no structures, and there is little to no control the developers have over it and how it effects the main games system. That is why we have all these massive gimmicks like TLC, no drop, BOE, BOP, etc.... because trade is the main offender here, it has no game, no system of consequence in play, it is just a side element that players use to purchase advancement rather than doing so through the main game.
I am suggesting trade be a game, with rules, structures, winning and losing, competition, risk/reward, etc... which if properly implemented could go long way to help finding balance between it and the main game which does not exist in most games. Trade is one thing that truly has been stagnant in design development, it has not changed in MMOs since it began. Being that this is a game, and a world... would not having game play and world emulation be logical for trade?
Yep, and a very deep and rewarding trade system that has much game play involving player interaction and strategy in play against others, against the game, with factions and economic systems, lore based events, trade wars, variance in currency, etc.. as I have l mentioned goes a long way to achieve a very deep and rich game play system.
My ideas do not discourage grouping, or game play. They encourage it, they enrich the systems, and more importantly they bring something missing from the trade system... risk and reward balance, making trade more than a gimmick, more than a means for players to purchase content bypass, but actually have the chance to earn it in their own game play.
which sounds better... a player solo farming mundanely to basically buy an item that another had to work their arse off to gain? Or a player entering a trade market, playing the trade game, advancing through clever strategies, and dealing with various risks of loss and possible chances of great gain through their play to eventually obtain that item through very similar effort in risk/reward balance through game play?
This is one of the suggestions I brought up and all of you completely dismissed it, attacked it, and moved on. I have a hard time accepting you want game play when you guys keep looking to hold on to the elements of a system that allow for its circumvention. It makes me think you like the abuse that such a system offers?
I think that is a bit of an excuse to avoid dealing with the key aspects of my points. You didn't quote anything I said, or deal specifically with the invalid premises you gave to me in the previous discussion (which is why I dislike people not quoting and attending specifically to a point, it is too easy to ignore the key questions and weaknesses of a given response).
I don't accept the "my style of play" arguments, not when they dismiss the achievemnts of another player. You see, as I said, people like me hate RMT because it invalidates our efforts to see another buy their progression (which I explained is similar in result to player trade purchase) . You telling me that it is their "play style" that we should honor, well... Where is the play style of those who want to solo everything? What about the play style of the people who want actual RMT? What about the play style of people who want no hard death penalties? What about all the various play styles that this game is invalidating that exists in mainstream?
You see, you are telling me that we should respect play styles that conflict with the very premise to which VR has stated is as thier goals. Maybe Brad can weigh in here because I am confused how VR can claim they are making a game with specific focus to "greater risk, greater reward" and then say that we need to respect the play styles of those who feel they should be able to gain "great reward" with "reduced risk" and there is no logical counter yet to my points about the balance between them? Can you explain this to us here Brad? I mean, this is a VERY important point here and I think it is key to your entire sell point to this game. What is your take on such?
I am not sure where this solo thing is coming from. I never argued group vs solo as a point. My point was about risk/reward balance, something that is paramount to this games position and to be honest, one of the main factors to why I liked Brad's development style in EQ and make no mistake, Brad did not create trade in EQ, that was player driven, VR and SoE just facilitated it and tried to clean up the messes it produced.
If trade is the entire point of this game, to the detriment of risk/reward game play, then I know my interest in it is beginning to wane as I didn't care for SWG and won't for this game if it centers everything around it (mainly because I know where this always ends with the numerous games out there).
I tried to provide solutions on both sides (trade and camping) to help keep earning worth the investment and to promote game play in all systems, but if this game turns into a system where buying becomes rampant, as it did in EQ, then... I don't know if I am interested to get back into a game that really just dismisses the concept of risk/reward.
I loved EQ, but I hated what became of it due to the trade systems. Many of you claim that was due to the Bazaar, but I experienced otherwise and if that is what it is to become, well.. to take my own advice in another game, maybe this game isn't for me?
So I guess I will wait and see how the trade system is to be designed and make my decision there. /shrug
Have each location have a different sort of team composition/build/item set up to allow multiple groups to go after the same item at the same time?
Its similar to why newer MMO's have phasing and instancing, they get stuck into this idea of only have one place drop this one thing, but if you make the same loot drop in multiple locations you get players having multiple instances of the loot dropping.
Best example I can give is Diablo 2, while not a MMO it allowed a player to choose how they wanted to farm, and what they wanted to farm. There was always a stepping stone of some sort into being able to get to the next boss/area to farm. There were also areas to farm in the game that were based on character build.
Its more work, and it seems like your just adding the same content again and again, but if the area and encounters are different while dropping similar loot I think a lot of the monopolization of lower level loot can be avoided.
Edit: Also wanted to add, having more locations in a world map with the same monsters isn't always bad. If this game is said to be more akin to EQ which to me older MMO's were more of a stepping stone into VR, then the same monsters and creatures are not going to be in just one location.
It is not to insure that players have more access to camps (camp competition is fine), it is to insure that no limited number of players have the "easy" ability to control a camp by creating solutions that make such action blatant and difficult (ie requiring coordination and extended effort). That is why the solutions discussed on this side of the fence have been about reducing the continuous farming of the same items, which is primarily done for the trade market.
Even with some of the solutions I and others have made, the camps may still be difficult to get (as they should be), and people may be camping them quite often, but... they shouldn't be monopolized by any limited parties for excessive purpose as I mentioned above and if people are circumventing those measures with large group efforts, it will be obvious and more easily handled by a GM if it gets out of hand.
As I said, this is not to make a given item more accessible (after all, a player farming the spot and selling it to the market already achieves this), it is rather to promote camping/farming as an element for those who are improving their characters themselves through game play, not farming cash items to purchase advancement on the trade market.
Yep that would be a solution (but not one in line with this game), the solution is to increase access to all and gear allow wide based gear acquisition. Instances definitely solve the problem with contested content, but the problem is not contested content here. It isn't the fact that there may be a high competition to get a given spawn and that item. In fact, this is what makes items more valuable as there is limited access to them, which slows the amount of gear being brought into the game and gives a means of accomplishment to have something that not everyone can obtain due to there being a competition to obtain it.
Instancing/phasing defies the entire point of such and is completely counter to the tenants of this games goals. It is not a solution that can even be considered.
The problem with offering too many choices is the issue of the "all choices are a winner" which really means "no choice is a loser" and that is counter to the concept of what a game is. There should be options, but a game is about overcoming obstacles and rules and conditions (ie limits on options) are how such is achieved. Also, all "options" must be balanced between each other with pros/cons in the idea of risk/reward. If any option is more ideal, then it becomes the only viable option as others will be more effort, more risk, etc... which translates to less reward. A game is not about giving people want they want all the time, it is about making them achieve what the want with proper risk/reward.
Well, I would imagine that multiple spawn locations can certainly help in limiting the "lock down a specific area" with ease issue and it may be that all that is needed is to put in the right mix of already previously used solutions to get the right result, this whole discussion was really about spit balling ideas. I am all for multiple "spawn" locations, but not multiple "spawns" as this runs into the issue of increasing accessibility to a drop and that is fine, IF that is the intended design for the risk/reward of that given item, but If such a solution is used as a base to solve any competition of an item, it defeats the concept of rare and uniqueness in such play.
So, if the trade system was attended to, making it more of a game system similar to the risk/reward of the adventure game (ie risk of loss of money, time, and increasing costs, etc...), this "might" adjust the benefit of such approaches to play. Certainly if a system was created for trade, the adventure side of the equation could be considered allowing some balance to the system to take place.
I got to thinking about other things. What if the factions economic systems had dictations on limits (just like they have for fishing, hunting, etc...)? What if there were special seasons where the faction allowed certain activities for trade, then disallowed at other times, etc... This obviously could all change from time to time, as politics due (hint: Developers adjusting as needed due to market behavior). Combine this with other world like systems and balances and you could really have a depth of system that actually might make player trade as intellectually intriguing and exciting as games like Capitalism or other economic sim games.
It might be a way to really simulate a world environment with the trade systems which also would allow the developers the much needed means to access some control features to better balance the economies when need and it could really give the opportunity for different lore insertions as well. Imagine having a deep and sophisticated economy with long lists of bureaucratic rules and structures for one race, but then a very primitive and harsh system in another. Each still interacts with each other depending on their relations and those relations will change and affect the exchange rates, various product and sale allowances, etc...
All of this could be integrated into systems like diplomacy and crafting. There could even be a "trader" sub class all to itself designed with many tools and features to which allows the player to "adventure" into world of trade markets, etc...
People keep asking for a "virtual world" and I can't see how this is not building a very rich and deep "virtual world" giving trade a real role in the game rather than just being a simple transaction element of trading trinkets.
As I said, by making it a truly integrated game system, you also finally give the developers the power they need to help manage the chaos that a disconnected trade market has to the rest of the game.
Oh, and by the way, you as a player could choose to defy some of those factions mandates, with consequences of course (which you could really make some fun and interesting risk play in this) which could even result in banning (and KOS to certain trade officials and such of a faction) that might even lead to a "outlaw" trade faction that is illegal, but has its own rules, structures, and conditions for membership.
You can still give people lots of freedom, but make those choices have consequences that the players will then have to operate under to excel. This makes it a game, and a "virtual world" of immersion and realism to play, not just a chat room with chat sale calls.
Warcraft and other MMOs have since tried to "fix" this issue with global drops which just further homogenize the world. It's really the same thing they did to classes and the interdependence between them by balancing every class just about to the point that the only difference is in ability names. If you start adding in global loot drops or drops with "affixes" it will just create a new problem that is, IMO, far worse than higher levels farming lower end zones.
Sinist, I can't speak from Hrimnir, but, I'm guessing the reason he didn't multi-quote you is the reason I haven't always either. Your posts are so long that multi-quoting literally either takes up about 3 posts when trying to give adequate rebuttal, or, an astronomical amount of time given the poor forum features to quote you (or at least I haven't found an easy way with these newer forums). I know I wasn't trying to be malicious with my previous posts (hence my disclaimers of don't take it personally.. my subjective opinion, etc.), and I'm sure his intentions aren't nefarious either to try to misquote you by not doing it.
Anyway, I said I wouldn't engage any further, but, like I said.. I have a tendency to be stubborn
. And, I truly do think you want the best for Pantheon, but, you're so fearful that Pantheon will go mainstream that its clouding your perspective. Try to look at this objectively rather than personally - as an outsider rather than your personal experience.
It is you who is arguing that purchasing the gear with in-game currency dismisses others achievements, this is where the disconnect lies. We don't believe that it dismisses others achievements, but, rather offers another alternative, and often rather mundane way of playing the game comparatively to the adventuring group-focused. This is not me asking for solo content to be designed in the game, but designing group content and if players find ways (emergently) to solo and they choose to play that way - there's no harm in it. It gives options for gameplay rather than a strict linear path. Much like in the class-balance thread where you've stated you don't want all class archetypes (Tank/DPS/Healing/CC) to play the same, we're really using a very similar argument here that we don't want everyone's gameplay experience to "have" to be the same and forced into one little adventuring box.
And, regardless if someone purchased gear through in-game currency or not, it doesn't make any difficult achievement that you've accomplished any less valid - that is just your personal feelings of what allowing someone to purchase gear with in game currency does. A rare item is still rare regardless of how it entered the market/world - we're not asking for items to be less rare due to in-game trading.
Like I said in earlier postings and Hrimnir has echoed, if a player is only killing mundane mobs/named mobs to collect coin to buy a Fungi - through legitimate means, not RMT, they aren't gaining the skill, experience, friends, reputation, etc. that you would be leading a group killing the Myconid King and obtaining yours. The only thing that player killing mundane mobs is obtaining is the coin for the item, not any other aspect of the "reward." So, yes, there "may" be less risk depending on what mobs are being soloed (or grouped) for coin, but there's less overall reward as well. You're looking at it "only" from the perspective of the item, but there's much more than that. And, you're only looking at the example where a player is farming/selling lower level items to purchase a higher tier item. Many times people sold and purchase level-appropriate items as well from legitimate drops from their dungeon runs.
And, you discuss circumventing content. I consider it an alternative playstyle within the confines of the game. Very similar to if someone was able to find ways to solo in a game designed for group only content - i.e. necros fear kiting, root rotting, etc. It doesn't circumvent game content - it allows for sandbox style play. It allow players to find emergent/alternative ways to play - don't restrict all gameplay to again one very linear path. And, I know you continually say in-game trade is RMT with in-game currency - it's not. It's very different from RMT as real money is not within the confines of the game. RMT is not fair as not everyone has the same expendable income, whereas, everyone could potentially farm coin if they chose to. You're introducing external, real life resources to obtain an in-game advantage which not everyone has access to - that does give an unfair advantage which can trivialize the game.
And, you keep using the tenet with greater risk comes greater reward - again, you have to look at the complete picture of an MMO and not just viewing it through a Diablo lense. There is more "reward" in an MMO other than "just" loot. If your entire sense of achievement in an MMO is "only" based off what loot you've obtained, then, we won't agree. As stated previously, there's many more rewards that come from adventuring with a group other than just the drop, and, much of it isn't tangible, which is why people have such a difficult time explaining the magic of early EQ.
Anyway, not trying to ruffle your feathers, but I'm really trying to give you insight into my mindset at least and that me wanting in-game trade is not simply because I want a system introduced to circumvent gameplay.
Oh I have, I am well versed in the concept of logical evaluation through internal versus external perspective in order to see the perspective of the argument. I know your guys positions, I know why you think it is important, but I completely disagree as I have explained and gave examples of previously.
No disconnect at all. I argued using risk/reward, you agreed in past posts that purchase through the market can avoid risk. In a game that specifically states that "greater risk, should provide greater reward" and hammers the concepts of proper risk/reward balance, the act of player trading bypassing that is a direct violation of those goals of this game and the stated intent of its design.
In the class balance thread, I am stating that classes should be balanced vs the content, not vs each other, in this case the person using the player trade market is not balanced to the content, they bypass the content as the content requires them to camp the item with all the risk/reward in that contents design. Again, player trade bypasses this risk reward by having another player take that risk and then simply buys it from them.
In RMT, a player has another player take the risk and then pays them to avoid having them do it. The only difference is that real money is exchanges and the fact is... money being exchanged is not what "pay to win" really means, it means circumventing content to gain the reward.
If you want more options, I am fine with that, in fact I am great with that, but options with proper risk/reward balance and the fact is, there is no proper balance between such player trade acquisition and that of the one who earns it in play. Asking me to play the game for "personal feelings of accomplishment" in the face of such imbalance is no different than the arguments that are made for straight RMT behavior as they too claim... "who cares if I bought my way past it, making game play easier! You should play the game for your own accomplishment!".
If you can't understand why that is not acceptable, then there is really no point in furthering discussion.
Again, this does not make people who bypass required game play some how justified. As I said, this argument can be used to justify RMT stores as your argument is exactly the same line of reasoning, that it shouldn't matter if others circumvent content, cheat in play, or gain all the items without risk, you should enjoy what "you" do. Seen this argument quite often to justify RMT throughout the years. Your position is absolutely no different, you just think RMT is bad because it is real money, while I say that is irrelevant, it is the bypass of game play that such buys that is the issue here and why I will not play games that allow it.
Nothing "alternative" about it. There are no rules in trade that govern it. This is why they always become unruly, Pantheon will not be any different unless it deals with the real problem here. Real money is irrelevant, the issue here is people buying their progression.
What is the difference between a group of people who farm tons of coin, give it to a person and they buy something on the player trade market vs the same thing happening and him paying money? The result is the same, real money didn't change the fact that money was legally harvested in the game, a player was legally handed that money, and he legally bought an item on the market. What they did outside the game is irrelevant to the fact that the result is exactly the same.
As I said, the issue wasn't paying real money, it was people buying their progression in the game to which would normally require them to conquer the content according to the risk that was required for its acquisition. Whether the guy pays real money or sits watching TV farming coin to do the same thing, both didn't participate in play. They circumvented the content and calling it a play style is an excuse to avoid this fact. Some people cheat as a form of play style, why are you infringing on them?
I look at the facts, vague references to reasoning is illogical and irrelevant. The fact is, each encounter in the game is designed around what I am speaking about. Do you think developers design an encounter with "who cares if it is properly balanced, it is the bigger picture, that there are more things to making sure the event is working to risk/reward!"
No offense, but I have heard this argument over and over with each release of a game I have beta tested and argued the tenants of risk/reward. Telling me "feelings" and various other things that are entirely subjective and without measure is my reward is entirely illogical. A game system that has any worth in play will properly balance risk/reward in that which will practically advance the player in the actual game. A bunch of emotional reasons that are not quantifiable is absolutely meaningless, it is an argument that defies the concept of actual game risk/reward.
How about it Brad/Devs? Make some big hard raid encounters, and then after weeks/months of effort to beat it, drop nothing but a note and tell them... your accomplishment is your true reward! Let us see how well that one goes over.
Sorry Raidian, but you are not being logical to your point here. Loot (or other forms of character development) is a key component to cRPG games to which EQ and this game was designed after. Feeling of accomplishment is not an appropriate reward in the face of a practical reward that is meaningless because it is a dime store novelty at the local trade house. Any game thinks that is risk/reward isn't a game, it is a joke and to be honest, if that is Brads development strategy, then he has sold me on not playing it because it defies every concept of what risk/reward means in game design.
You aren't, I think you are wrong on some of your points and have logically showed it so. Some things you make points on are subjective and in that, all I can is strongly disagree. This is a very important aspect of the games design and to be honest, it is a deal breaker if Brad is designing along the lines of your discussion. I will not play a game that hands out the same prize earned by those who took risks to those who bypassed them claiming I should be content with the "feeling" of my accomplishment. I don't work for free, and I don't play character development games with the same mentality.
As I said, it may just be my age and disconnect with most games these days. I don't see them playing games, I see them trying to appeal to those who don't want to play games. Until developers shed that need to appeal to the "entertainment" crowd, games will always be a joke and a waste of time. /shrug
As I said before, quote something if you disagree, argue your point like an adult, or run along. It is your continued remarks of dismissing actual discussion just because you don't like it that is the definition of childish behavior.