If it's meant to be an item of which there is a justifiably limited number within the context of the game, then it doesn't bother me if even only one person has such an item (it actually bothers me less in that context if it were some kind of fabled/named item, as duplicates of something that supposed to be one of a kind actually irks me a lot).
If it's something that's not got any reasonable excuse as to being limited, then it bothers me when exclusivity is enforced.
I generally agree with your sentiments here, Deivos. I'm not really concerned about what the other guy has. If it is something that is functionally necessary for one character or another, or even mundane ("The Doormat of Ultimate Welcoming" which is larger than the normal Doormat, and comes in a different color), then justification for it's uniqueness comes into question for me. As you said, a mixed bag. (And difficult to pick an answer in yet another ill-formed poll).
Should
probably put it in the context that I believe all items should be
obtainable at any point in the game, just that certain items are
considerably harder to obtain because they possess a truly limited or
unique status in the game world.
I don't know about the 'obtainable at any point' part. Limiting an item by being 'considerably harder to obtain' appears to be contrary to the nature of MMORPGs as they currently exist. The 'Massively Multiplayer' aspect, coupled with seeming limitless hours of available playtime, works against 'difficulty to obtain' as something that makes for 'uniqueness'. Any automated means of distributing a unique item, or unique quest piece necessary for that unique item is subject to spawning a second, then a third, and so on, until the term 'unique' simply loses it's meaning. I really think this needs to have some manual input, even if it is a '1st time' switch. But even then, any '1st time' mechanism can be reset; it comes down to the development team's commitment to maintaining the uniqueness of an item.
I think you may be on the right idea for this part, just the expression of that idea slipped a bit.
---------- The other thing you didn't mention that troubles me about unique items is the favoritism issue. If one character gets all the truly unique items, such as those that might be awarded from a GM event, it starts to give the appearance of behind the scenes favoritism. Steve doesn't know GM_072, but Joe is a real life friend of GM_072, Steve might be fine with Joe winning a first unique item. But a second, from the same judge, starts to seem suspicious. That is going to influence Steve's opinion of the game, and possibly even his retention.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If it's meant to be an item of which there is a justifiably limited number within the context of the game, then it doesn't bother me if even only one person has such an item (it actually bothers me less in that context if it were some kind of fabled/named item, as duplicates of something that supposed to be one of a kind actually irks me a lot).
If it's something that's not got any reasonable excuse as to being limited, then it bothers me when exclusivity is enforced.
I generally agree with your sentiments here, Deivos. I'm not really concerned about what the other guy has. If it is something that is functionally necessary for one character or another, or even mundane ("The Doormat of Ultimate Welcoming" which is larger than the normal Doormat, and comes in a different color), then justification for it's uniqueness comes into question for me. As you said, a mixed bag. (And difficult to pick an answer in yet another ill-formed poll).
Should
probably put it in the context that I believe all items should be
obtainable at any point in the game, just that certain items are
considerably harder to obtain because they possess a truly limited or
unique status in the game world.
I don't know about the 'obtainable at any point' part. Limiting an item by being 'considerably harder to obtain' appears to be contrary to the nature of MMORPGs as they currently exist. The 'Massively Multiplayer' aspect, coupled with seeming limitless hours of available playtime, works against 'difficulty to obtain' as something that makes for 'uniqueness'. Any automated means of distributing a unique item, or unique quest piece necessary for that unique item is subject to spawning a second, then a third, and so on, until the term 'unique' simply loses it's meaning. I really think this needs to have some manual input, even if it is a '1st time' switch. But even then, any '1st time' mechanism can be reset; it comes down to the development team's commitment to maintaining the uniqueness of an item.
I think you may be on the right idea for this part, just the expression of that idea slipped a bit.
---------- The other thing you didn't mention that troubles me about unique items is the favoritism issue. If one character gets all the truly unique items, such as those that might be awarded from a GM event, it starts to give the appearance of behind the scenes favoritism. Steve doesn't know GM_072, but Joe is a real life friend of GM_072, Steve might be fine with Joe winning a first unique item. But a second, from the same judge, starts to seem suspicious. That is going to influence Steve's opinion of the game, and possibly even his retention.
Your concern on unique items is addressed with the statement "...they possess a truly limited or unique status in the game world."
IE, not subject to reproduction or exist in a fixed/limited quantity (either being entirely fixed in total sum, or relative to the total volume of users), meaning very simply that people can't claim copies of an item that's meant to be unique, and instead have to claim said item by obtaining it from it's current owner in some fashion.
A lot of this hinges on making a different type of game balance when it comes to gear, gear progression, and any associated gameplay factors. You aren't going to be chucking these things in as rewards for a repeatable quest (which, I'm not fond of linear/static quests and worlds in the first place).
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Placing event items on cash shop removes all the point of events in my opinion. There was a time when you would see someone and go "hey, that dude did x headshots to get that helmet, better watch out" or "wow, you killed y boss?!". Being able to purchase makes it mundane, removing all its represents.
Not to the pay 2 win crowd, who think that it is fine not to earn things in games, and everything should be obtained through cash
To the OP this is not a good place to get that kind of research, because if you were to find some real numbers from corporations that run games, and put the event item in the cash shop. You would find that the majority of people buy it.
Your concern on unique items is addressed with the statement "...they possess a truly limited or unique status in the game world."
IE, not subject to reproduction or exist in a fixed/limited quantity (either being entirely fixed in total sum, or relative to the total volume of users), meaning very simply that people can't claim copies of an item that's meant to be unique, and instead have to claim said item by obtaining it from it's current owner in some fashion.
Actually, I don't think it says what you think (or intended) it says. The phrase 'harder to obtain' implies events surrounding an object entering the world. That implies that more than a single object will or can enter the world at some point in time, therefore not being unique. Your original statement, and subsequent explanation, merely suggests that the item is freely transferable between characters.
Uniqueness, in games anyway, depends entirely on the development team's continual discipline to not introduce a copy into the game, no matter how that happens.
I think I agree with the principle you're trying to convey, just not the way you expressed it. Semantics are important.
A lot of
this hinges on making a different type of game balance when it comes to
gear, gear progression, and any associated gameplay factors. You aren't
going to be chucking these things in as rewards for a repeatable quest
(which, I'm not fond of linear/static quests and worlds in the first
place).
How about rather than approach gear as a progression, simply reduce the value to a individual items with no distinction between an item's performance? I think that approach solves more problems than it creates. A shortsword is a shortsword is a shortsword. (The classic RPGs like to throw in materials, like a Bronze sword versus an Iron sword versus a Steel sword). In reality, a bronze, an iron or steel sword are each capable of making the same exact 1" x 4" x .5" slash to the other guy's stomach, which could kill them. Construction materials affect things like durability and usage factors, not damage delivered). I'd love to see something besides an MOBA break the reliance on progression.
The other thing, which I noticed in the other thread and again here, is the tendency to confuse story with storytelling. A story (plot) is a linear, chronological sequence of events, but the story may be told in a non-chronological order (storytelling). A good example is the movie, Iron Man, which starts at an action scene, but then switches back to the chronological order of the events to present the viewer with the complete whole. Quests are more akin to a plot than storytelling.
Without further elaboration, let's agree to disagree on the ability to create any form of quest, task, mission, etc. that presents a story in a game that doesn't follow some linear chronological plan. It could be possible for a player to experience it (sees another player on the quest and helps out) and starts it in an unusual manner.
I'm a known proponent of dynamic content generation, but I do not believe the computer AI is anywhere close to that kind of challenge. Dynamic dialog and story are incredibly difficult things to achieve, and no game has really invested in that kind of advances before. If you and Rav are going to attempt that, I wish you luck. You will need it.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
To the OP this is not a good place to get that kind of research, because if you were to find some real numbers from corporations that run games, and put the event item in the cash shop. You would find that the majority of people buy it.
This posting is my just my own personal and impromptu research.. I have some real corporate numbers, and am fully aware how much money cash shops generate.. I also hate them and the high probability for game problems that they can create.. Again.. Its all good.. Just posting for fun, not serious market research..
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
To me, exclusive, one-time-only items always struck me as a kind of a dick move. Mostly because I remember what happened to Runescape way back in the early 2000s where "novelty" items like Halloween masks, Easter eggs, Santa hats and god damn paper new-years party hats of all things became the most expensive, sought after and ludicrous items in the game.
Personally, it is a major bummer to find out some cool item or cosmetic (or god forbid, weapon) in a game will never, ever be obtainable again, except for maybe through an incredibly overpriced player market (and sometimes not even that.)
Even things like pre-order exclusives can kind of reek of this. I'd much rather be able to buy something from a cash shop then never, ever have the chance to own it just because I didn't preorder the game or whatever.
Keep in mind I'm fine with items and suchlike that are available at certain times of the year. This is honestly how this system should be done. Limited time and exclusive stuff is fine, just so long as everybody still has the chance to get it at some point.
But then again, maybe I'm just bitter.
You do sound jel. Maybe you need to go to jelly school. M'kay.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Your concern on unique items is addressed with the statement "...they possess a truly limited or unique status in the game world."
IE, not subject to reproduction or exist in a fixed/limited quantity (either being entirely fixed in total sum, or relative to the total volume of users), meaning very simply that people can't claim copies of an item that's meant to be unique, and instead have to claim said item by obtaining it from it's current owner in some fashion.
Actually, I don't think it says what you think (or intended) it says. The phrase 'harder to obtain' implies events surrounding an object entering the world. That implies that more than a single object will or can enter the world at some point in time, therefore not being unique. Your original statement, and subsequent explanation, merely suggests that the item is freely transferable between characters.
Uniqueness, in games anyway, depends entirely on the development team's continual discipline to not introduce a copy into the game, no matter how that happens.
I think I agree with the principle you're trying to convey, just not the way you expressed it. Semantics are important.
A lot of
this hinges on making a different type of game balance when it comes to
gear, gear progression, and any associated gameplay factors. You aren't
going to be chucking these things in as rewards for a repeatable quest
(which, I'm not fond of linear/static quests and worlds in the first
place).
How about rather than approach gear as a progression, simply reduce the value to a individual items with no distinction between an item's performance? I think that approach solves more problems than it creates. A shortsword is a shortsword is a shortsword. (The classic RPGs like to throw in materials, like a Bronze sword versus an Iron sword versus a Steel sword). In reality, a bronze, an iron or steel sword are each capable of making the same exact 1" x 4" x .5" slash to the other guy's stomach, which could kill them. Construction materials affect things like durability and usage factors, not damage delivered). I'd love to see something besides an MOBA break the reliance on progression.
The other thing, which I noticed in the other thread and again here, is the tendency to confuse story with storytelling. A story (plot) is a linear, chronological sequence of events, but the story may be told in a non-chronological order (storytelling). A good example is the movie, Iron Man, which starts at an action scene, but then switches back to the chronological order of the events to present the viewer with the complete whole. Quests are more akin to a plot than storytelling.
Without further elaboration, let's agree to disagree on the ability to create any form of quest, task, mission, etc. that presents a story in a game that doesn't follow some linear chronological plan. It could be possible for a player to experience it (sees another player on the quest and helps out) and starts it in an unusual manner.
I'm a known proponent of dynamic content generation, but I do not believe the computer AI is anywhere close to that kind of challenge. Dynamic dialog and story are incredibly difficult things to achieve, and no game has really invested in that kind of advances before. If you and Rav are going to attempt that, I wish you luck. You will need it.
Fewer objects in the world and their status on possession can directly impact how hard they are to obtain.
IE limited quantities of a product makes that product harder to obtain. Not complex logic there.
You can see in this sentence;
"certain items are considerably harder to obtain because they possess a truly limited or unique status in the game world."
"because"
The use of a conjunction there had a point. the statement of something being harder to do wasn't stated nebulously, it was stated with an explicitly provided reason. For you to actively ignore half of the statement made in order to make up your own meaning is known as "cherry picking", and you are doing it here by removing the phrase "harder" from the context it has been given and making yourself subsequently confused by your applied assumptions failing to fit the context of the dialogue.
Hence again, why I re-quoted the second half of that sentence which explicitly stated there were limited quantities of a given item. Reading half of a sentence and pretending that's the entire sentence is not a valid excuse to change half of the sentence. Semantics would point out you read the whole sentence to understand the context of the statement being made. On your story argument, stories are only linear in experience, but that does not dictate it's structure in the least and a story can be very non-linear in it's structure (such as being a story that is assembled using segments of events that can be randomly sequenced or done in different orders). Storytelling is the means of conveying said story mechanics/components. I've also linked multiple things about non-linear narrative and storytelling in the thread on the matter, including to an international conference on the development and concepts around those tools, AI, and games that are produced with such technology.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Comments
I don't know about the 'obtainable at any point' part. Limiting an item by being 'considerably harder to obtain' appears to be contrary to the nature of MMORPGs as they currently exist. The 'Massively Multiplayer' aspect, coupled with seeming limitless hours of available playtime, works against 'difficulty to obtain' as something that makes for 'uniqueness'. Any automated means of distributing a unique item, or unique quest piece necessary for that unique item is subject to spawning a second, then a third, and so on, until the term 'unique' simply loses it's meaning. I really think this needs to have some manual input, even if it is a '1st time' switch. But even then, any '1st time' mechanism can be reset; it comes down to the development team's commitment to maintaining the uniqueness of an item.
I think you may be on the right idea for this part, just the expression of that idea slipped a bit.
----------
The other thing you didn't mention that troubles me about unique items is the favoritism issue. If one character gets all the truly unique items, such as those that might be awarded from a GM event, it starts to give the appearance of behind the scenes favoritism. Steve doesn't know GM_072, but Joe is a real life friend of GM_072, Steve might be fine with Joe winning a first unique item. But a second, from the same judge, starts to seem suspicious. That is going to influence Steve's opinion of the game, and possibly even his retention.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
IE, not subject to reproduction or exist in a fixed/limited quantity (either being entirely fixed in total sum, or relative to the total volume of users), meaning very simply that people can't claim copies of an item that's meant to be unique, and instead have to claim said item by obtaining it from it's current owner in some fashion.
A lot of this hinges on making a different type of game balance when it comes to gear, gear progression, and any associated gameplay factors. You aren't going to be chucking these things in as rewards for a repeatable quest (which, I'm not fond of linear/static quests and worlds in the first place).
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
To the OP this is not a good place to get that kind of research, because if you were to find some real numbers from corporations that run games, and put the event item in the cash shop. You would find that the majority of people buy it.
Uniqueness, in games anyway, depends entirely on the development team's continual discipline to not introduce a copy into the game, no matter how that happens.
I think I agree with the principle you're trying to convey, just not the way you expressed it. Semantics are important.
How about rather than approach gear as a progression, simply reduce the value to a individual items with no distinction between an item's performance? I think that approach solves more problems than it creates. A shortsword is a shortsword is a shortsword. (The classic RPGs like to throw in materials, like a Bronze sword versus an Iron sword versus a Steel sword). In reality, a bronze, an iron or steel sword are each capable of making the same exact 1" x 4" x .5" slash to the other guy's stomach, which could kill them. Construction materials affect things like durability and usage factors, not damage delivered). I'd love to see something besides an MOBA break the reliance on progression.
The other thing, which I noticed in the other thread and again here, is the tendency to confuse story with storytelling. A story (plot) is a linear, chronological sequence of events, but the story may be told in a non-chronological order (storytelling). A good example is the movie, Iron Man, which starts at an action scene, but then switches back to the chronological order of the events to present the viewer with the complete whole. Quests are more akin to a plot than storytelling.
Without further elaboration, let's agree to disagree on the ability to create any form of quest, task, mission, etc. that presents a story in a game that doesn't follow some linear chronological plan. It could be possible for a player to experience it (sees another player on the quest and helps out) and starts it in an unusual manner.
I'm a known proponent of dynamic content generation, but I do not believe the computer AI is anywhere close to that kind of challenge. Dynamic dialog and story are incredibly difficult things to achieve, and no game has really invested in that kind of advances before. If you and Rav are going to attempt that, I wish you luck. You will need it.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
You do sound jel. Maybe you need to go to jelly school. M'kay.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
IE limited quantities of a product makes that product harder to obtain. Not complex logic there.
You can see in this sentence;
"certain items are considerably harder to obtain because they possess a truly limited or unique status in the game world."
"because"
The use of a conjunction there had a point. the statement of something being harder to do wasn't stated nebulously, it was stated with an explicitly provided reason. For you to actively ignore half of the statement made in order to make up your own meaning is known as "cherry picking", and you are doing it here by removing the phrase "harder" from the context it has been given and making yourself subsequently confused by your applied assumptions failing to fit the context of the dialogue.
Hence again, why I re-quoted the second half of that sentence which explicitly stated there were limited quantities of a given item. Reading half of a sentence and pretending that's the entire sentence is not a valid excuse to change half of the sentence. Semantics would point out you read the whole sentence to understand the context of the statement being made.
On your story argument, stories are only linear in experience, but that does not dictate it's structure in the least and a story can be very non-linear in it's structure (such as being a story that is assembled using segments of events that can be randomly sequenced or done in different orders). Storytelling is the means of conveying said story mechanics/components.
I've also linked multiple things about non-linear narrative and storytelling in the thread on the matter, including to an international conference on the development and concepts around those tools, AI, and games that are produced with such technology.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
When "$$$" price tag is attached, it ain't really exclusive.
If "only a few ever made" and "unfair advantage" are combined, players (rightly) raise a stink.