Project Wish  
Project Wish
Project Wish
hardwired

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Radical play-time related idea
Jerky
post Apr 24 2008, 10:34 AM
Post #1


Former PW Project Manager
**********

Group: PW Admin
Posts: 1,608
Joined: 11-January 05
From: Dallas, GA
Member No.: 62



I've brought this up on IRC before, and I want to document it before I forget. I'll start with a little background:

One of the things we want to do with PW is really target and attract a certain type of gamer. This type is definitely a veteran RPG gamer, who is probably in college or older. They ideally do not have gobs of time, because they should be busy with studies and lives (jobs, families, etc). With most of our ideas, we are targeting this type of player, due to us designing the type of game we would like to play ourselves, and most of us fall into that category.

In thinking about how to nicely dissuade power-gamer types and farmers from trying to dominate our game, I've tried to think of ways on how to make it harder for them, while also catering to our target player type. The thought I had was to have a free, and a regular pay account have access to a certain number of hours per month of play time. The trick is finding the true sweet spot of what our target player really has, in terms of free time to play. The players who want to play more than that would have to pay more for it. This allows us to cash in a little more for players who are cashing in on our game, while also serving (hopefully) to dissuade them from trying to dominate our game, and thusly dillute the purity of the RPG experience.

The other problem is determining what play time is and what social time is. If a player just wants to log in to chat with the guild/friends, it would probably be in our best interest to not count such "play" towards their hours, should we try such a system.

What got me thinking of this system was cell phones. They have proved that an ala carte billing menu can work well with people. This could be along the same lines as a prepaid phone, which there are a lot of now.

I will add my disclaimer now that this could be a very bad idea, but I think with the right amount of finesse, it could end up becoming something viable.

Anyways, since I am at work, I don't have time to outline it further, so this is just the gist. I think we need a list of pros and cons in order to truly refine it, and make it viable.


--------------------
Erik Briggs (Jerky)
Project Manager
My Blog
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aria
post Apr 24 2008, 02:55 PM
Post #2


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 17-April 08
From: Portugal
Member No.: 1,146



I would not complain if the game had 2/3 hours free play time/day for each +1 hour/day, during a month, u would have to pay 1+ Euro/dollar/pound, u chose, in the end of the month.

U talked something about various kinds of players and i just had this idea some time ago;

1- thinking in ppl that love FPS(first person shooter) why cant we make the Ranger going that way whit a first person view and head shot system (the player could chose between that or the normal critical strike percentage system in third view)?

2- in some other topic i read some suggestion about, hiding the name or change the1 that is available to every1 to see over ur head or under u, this would put the game more realistic since in reality one can only tell others name if he asks or something.
Moving forward in this line of thinking i thought in the Assassin profession, when u move ur mouse in ur screen it fells like an auto-selecting target ability right? and u think 'if i didnt had my life facilitated this way i would have a really pain in the arse' and Assassin still suxs, but we cant take that.
So how to resolve this problem to make an Assassin more realistic whitout taking that? - Make a Stealth mode, were an Assassin, while unable to attack, can only use hiding skills and related to the 'shadows use', were no1 can just use the mouse to 'see' him/her, if he/she wants to attack would need to stop the stealth mode and any1 could 'see' him/her again and select him/her (ex:As long as u are using this stance u cannot be selected or seen by another player and you cannot attack, if you get nearby an enemy this stance only lasts 3 more secs, all your shadow skills are desabled for 30 secs when this stance ends), just like the 'shadow step' but realistic and donne by the player^^.
All this would make an Assassin player fell realy the rush of being one, whiteout making him/her any more or less powerful that already is ;p.
for visuals of the game the assassin could become a shadow in the ground, which means that in a light area any1 could see that shadow.

This post has been edited by Aria: Apr 24 2008, 03:09 PM


--------------------
IPB Image IPB Image IPB Image IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RicoSuave
post Apr 24 2008, 06:30 PM
Post #3


Master
******

Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 22-March 06
From: (Undisclosed)
Member No.: 585



I'll try my hand at generating a few pros/cons. This is, in no way, meant to be a position post. It's only meant to help get discussion moving in the right direction.

Cons
- Static billing for dynamic free time (it doesn't account for surges in free time -- i.e. vacation, sick, etc.)
- Static billing for dynamic free time (doesn't account for surges in lack of free time -- i.e. work-travel, vacation, loss of network, etc.)
- MMO games are built on sense of community (need some way to stay logged in and interact)
- Getting in a groove/on a roll can be interrupted with demoralizing effects
- Favors the efficient/smarter/faster player (causes players to spend less time interacting and more time developing their character)


Pros
- Repels power-gamers to a degree (makes it uncomfortable to continue in some cases)
- Adds potentially-needed revenue (we have a thread somewhere with many ideas for income)
- Korean virtual guilds (yes, they exist) mitigation (unprofitable to farm resources)
- Normalization on game play across the board to a degree (less über players vs. new players)
- Causes players to actually have a life (principle is that players must do something during offline time)... most should already


Of course, both categories need to be prefaced with "To a degree" since they will always be those munchkins and others that either have the funds to beat the system or find some way to exploit the system. I think Jerky's main point to this thread, if I understand him correctly, is that this procedure will impede many power gamers, and the rest will generate income to offset whatever costs Jerky incurs from running the servers 24/7. tongue.gif I think we should definitely explore this area more, remembering that there is no "silver bullet" to fix the problem. Instead, like clothing in Utah, solutions must be applied in layers.

Tangent:I suggested something a while back that sort of applies to Jerky's concern that needs resolving. Since this world is bound to be huge, and if travel is an integral part to character development, then it would behoove the player the spend their offline time traveling. If travel takes upwards to 8-12 hours, that would allow for only 4-8 hours of play a day (assuming they traveled once per day). I'll see if I can find the thread and repost or edit.

Edit: http://www.projectwish.com/index.php?showt...=6282&st=20

This post has been edited by RicoSuave: Apr 24 2008, 06:35 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ethan
post Apr 25 2008, 04:35 PM
Post #4


Newbie
*

Group: PW Developer
Posts: 22
Joined: 11-August 07
Member No.: 1,101



Searching for a viable business model is a good idea. But as I understand your post, people who play a lot would pay a lot because we don't want them to play a lot. That's quite an is unusual model. (That's a huge simplification, yes.)

I assume there is no way to differentiate social time and play time. After all, playing can be a social activity. Attracting a certain type of gamer is -in my opinion- more related to game design than to business model.

The only way for that is rewarding social activity.

Rewarding sociability is a huge domain. Social networking is moving to that trend providing users real or artificial money if the user is creating popular content. I am not implying that PW should use the same technic but rather that if you want a certain type of gamer the game should provide advantages to them. (So far, I am only stating the obvious.)

One possibility would be e.g. to break the experience/time relation. The basic idea in every mmorpg is that you gain experience by playing. As a consequence, the more you play, the more experienced you will be. The game promotes the creation of über character. (See 'top ten players' lists.) Players want then to have one and so will either spend a lot of time to get one or pay for one. (That's the idea behind farming, you pay someone time.)

One idea to break the experience/time relation would be e.g. to cap the experience gained for a certain amount of real time. Enforcing a strict limit like "if xpgained > threshold then no more xp" would be a pretty bad way. It could be more dynamic way, like multiplying the gain by a ratio that would lessen the more experience you gain over a certain amount of real time. And the ratio should at the end tend towards a non null limit.

That sounds like mathematics. If you want an idea : K0, K1, K3 being strictly positive constants, x the total amount of experience gained over a given amount of time, and r your ratio, you would end up with something like r = K0/(x+K1) + K3 . K3 would be the limit, and the constants need to be fixed such as for every possible x 0 < r <=1 .

I would like to add that this way of implementing experience gain is more realistic. Three days without sleep in a classical moorpg can grant you -with the old experience/time relation- great 'powers' (call it whatever you want), but in real life that's not really the case. Even after only one night without sleep, you won't be as much productive as before.

PS : There is also the concept that gaining experience over one skill should lessen other skills. I think that this kind of experience gain should not be capped. That way a character will always be able to evolve, either by specializing or by changing his/her 'master' skills. But I have yet to think how to include that with the rule I mentioned. above.


--------------------
Want to discuss about MMO/RPG Design?
Then you might want to read
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RicoSuave
post Apr 25 2008, 05:34 PM
Post #5


Master
******

Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 22-March 06
From: (Undisclosed)
Member No.: 585



Ethan, I think that's a fantastic post. I've come to most all those conclusions as well, but I think that implementing a mix of ideas could be the best solution. If time played > xx hours or skills gained > xx points, enter fail mode. If time played > xx hours AND skills gained > xx points, enter observer mode. With Fail Mode being an increased rate of critical failure (destroying whatever materials with which you're working like food crops, metallurgy, lumber, etc.; awkward attack/defend patterns causing much less dmg dealt and much more received; restricted access to certain NPCs/quests; so forth) and Observer Mode being a state of either A) drunken stupor or 2) (B=smilie) 100% critical fail rate or C) movement and speech controls only.

By itself, this is little more than an irritant. But combined with having to pay a bit of hard earned cash for minimal gains and maximum fails makes the habit of power gaming a bit more unappealing. Very rarely will a player stay logged in with Observer Mode turned on just to explore the countryside if they're shelling out bucks just to have exploration not count toward their cartography skill.

Or maybe, observer mode could be a mode where no payment is required after hours and one can simple stay logged in to interact with the populus.

All these are just ideas that will probably, eventually, be thrown away, but are meant to spawn ideas. What do you think about these Ethan? Jerky?

This post has been edited by RicoSuave: Apr 26 2008, 11:17 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jerky
post Apr 25 2008, 11:22 PM
Post #6


Former PW Project Manager
**********

Group: PW Admin
Posts: 1,608
Joined: 11-January 05
From: Dallas, GA
Member No.: 62



The same thing happened on irc last night. I was accused of having communist ideas, and all counter ideas ended up being just as (if not moreso) communist wink.gif.

Seriously though, I would love to be idealistic and just say that the gameplay will take care of it; howerver, lets face it, how many gold farmers or power gamers really care about the gameplay? For farmers they want a popular game that they can cash in on. They don't care whether the game is level-based or skill based. Some power gamers will, but others are after the "tabula rasa" (no pun intended) of a new game; that is to say, they want a new starting line where they can burst out and get the lead through pouring in endless hours of time.

In the end, gameplay or not, they will come in droves. It is our job to both design good gameplay that doesn't reward their kind(s) and come up with possible solutions.


--------------------
Erik Briggs (Jerky)
Project Manager
My Blog
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
echorev
post Apr 26 2008, 11:48 PM
Post #7


PW Sound Team
*****

Group: PW Developer
Posts: 132
Joined: 29-December 06
Member No.: 864



A kind-of musician's humble opinion:

- When I 'play' my game, I want to play, as in, it's an escape from real life
- Following that, I want my time spent in my escape to be better than my time spent out of my escape

- If I am frustrated in life, I'm going to be escaping more, especially if the cause is something I have no control over
- Therefore I'm going to be spending more time in my escape, and the game will be making me happy, even if nothing else is

So then there's the question, is the game a moral tool to tell people they can have X amount of time a day to enjoy themselves using the tool we created for them, or is it a gift to people saying that this is a tool we created and we are giving it to them to reap and sow whatever they can from it.

I am opposed to restricting time played, imposing restrictions, and deterring players from wanting to play longer periods of time because I know that I myself would want to spend as much time as I can in a fantasy world, regardless of the game creator's good intentions for my time.

I stopped playing WoW because of how much time it took to enjoy, in the end, with all these 'elite' guilds requiring people to play 20 hours a day. I didn't like that at all, and simply couldn't do it, but I did like that people had the choice to do that. I'm not eager to start impeding the player's freedom, and think that there might be actual mechanical/gameplay ways to normalize the playerbase, regardless of time played.

For example, notoriety. If a player plays more, there's more of a chance he'll be famous. Fact. This is a perk that doesn't affect gameplay, but still rewards someone for their time.

Another example, exploration. A player that plays more will have the opportunity to explore more land. Fact. While this player who plays much more will have the advantage in mapmaking and will know more about the enemies in the region, this doesn't directly affect their abilities to kill monsters, which I guess is where we are going with this.

Should players who play more become stronger players?

And my answer is yes, because they have put the time in to do that, and that is their escape and what they want to do.

However, then there is the question, 'why not just buy a really strong character instead of playing one?'

The answer here, I think, is the developer's job. Firstly if all levels are able to play with each other, it wouldn't matter different level brackets either. Secondly, if a major draw of the game is the environment, the beauty, the gameplay, this would also deter people from just wanting to fight stuff, regardless if that is what they really want to do. In the MMORPGs I have seen (which truthfully isn't too many) fighting is the major idea of the game. You run, you fight, you level up. You can have a profession on the side, but you're a hero, a fighter, a defender.

I am hoping PW will be different. You can fight, but you might still be less powerful than the rich baker, who can hire men to kill you.

You can be the most powerful banker in the game, but that one rogue still might be able to slip past your defenses and get your gold. This is the stuff I want to see, and so in the end my argument is for balance, and not for any normalization of player's times.

Sorry for the very long post, and I hope I didn't overlap on anything said before smile.gif I'm very tired and need sleep.


--------------------
IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jerky
post Apr 28 2008, 01:04 AM
Post #8


Former PW Project Manager
**********

Group: PW Admin
Posts: 1,608
Joined: 11-January 05
From: Dallas, GA
Member No.: 62



Wow echo, thanks for that thoughtful response. It was well thought out and mentioned many possible drawbacks. I will try to respond to these below.
QUOTE(echorev @ Apr 26 2008, 11:48 PM) *
When I 'play' my game, I want to play, as in, it's an escape from real life
- Following that, I want my time spent in my escape to be better than my time spent out of my escape

- If I am frustrated in life, I'm going to be escaping more, especially if the cause is something I have no control over
- Therefore I'm going to be spending more time in my escape, and the game will be making me happy, even if nothing else is

Escapism is definitely a common motivation for playtime. My idea, as you will see below, should not lessen this for you, or anyone else who just want to escape. Power gamers are not regular escapists, and neither are farmers. Keep that in mind.
QUOTE(echorev @ Apr 26 2008, 11:48 PM) *
So then there's the question, is the game a moral tool to tell people they can have X amount of time a day to enjoy themselves using the tool we created for them, or is it a gift to people saying that this is a tool we created and we are giving it to them to reap and sow whatever they can from it.

I do have to admit that I do have a problem designing a game meant to addict players, that is to say, a game that encourages them to use more time than they really should be spending. So, if it comes down to it, no, the game itself is not a moral tool, but the payment plan might be used to "persuade" players, who are otherwise too lazy to pay, to spend a "good" amount of time. My idea is to use the core gameplay and other tools (like offline play and muliple player management) to show that more time is not necessary. The idea here is that the only players really spending too much time are those who are abusing the game (either because they are a power gamer or because they are a farmer.

QUOTE(echorev @ Apr 26 2008, 11:48 PM) *
I am opposed to restricting time played, imposing restrictions, and deterring players from wanting to play longer periods of time because I know that I myself would want to spend as much time as I can in a fantasy world, regardless of the game creator's good intentions for my time.

I stopped playing WoW because of how much time it took to enjoy, in the end, with all these 'elite' guilds requiring people to play 20 hours a day. I didn't like that at all, and simply couldn't do it, but I did like that people had the choice to do that. I'm not eager to start impeding the player's freedom, and think that there might be actual mechanical/gameplay ways to normalize the playerbase, regardless of time played.

Well, there is a minor problem with what you are saying here. On the one hand, you don't want limits, but on the other, you hated how much time was needed to keep up in WoW. It's almost like you didn't like WoW because it had no limits. You had no limits, but disliked the fact that you needed to put in so much time. That's a little ironic.

What I am suggesting does not try and limit players that we want playing. Keep in mind that we will have free accounts. What I am saying is that the free and standard accounts might seem to have limits, but the gameplay we design shouldn't require more than the time given with those two options. By require, I mean "to keep up." It's the power curve in all current MMO's that I am referring to. (Time played = power). What I am saying about our gameplay is that this equation will not have the same magnitude. There are parts of it that are unavoidable, but others that can be changed to help.

Also, I am suggesting somehow calculating what type of play constitutes "play time." Merely logging in, IMO, shouldn't count against you, assuming we do use a payment system like the one proposed.
QUOTE(echorev @ Apr 26 2008, 11:48 PM) *
For example, notoriety. If a player plays more, there's more of a chance he'll be famous. Fact. This is a perk that doesn't affect gameplay, but still rewards someone for their time.

This is not necessarily true. If we limit the fame-making events to certain (random) times, players who play less are just as likely to be playing as players who are on all the time. It would be possible in this game to be famous, but not powerful. And this, at least to me, is what true Role Players are after. In other games, the only way to be famous is to be powerful, because they don't have real fame in their games. Actions in those games have no effect on the game world. In our game, every action has the potential to effect it. In this way, we can break the current mold, and provide players with something that they seek without forcing them to dump more time into the game.
QUOTE(echorev @ Apr 26 2008, 11:48 PM) *
Another example, exploration. A player that plays more will have the opportunity to explore more land. Fact. While this player who plays much more will have the advantage in mapmaking and will know more about the enemies in the region, this doesn't directly affect their abilities to kill monsters, which I guess is where we are going with this.

But cartographers can also sell their maps to players who do not devote the same time. With ideas like that, both sides are satisfied, are they not? The explorer gets to explore, and the guy with limited time gets what he needs without spending the same amount of time. Now, the explorer may feel his accomplishment diminished, but there are other ways to take care of that.

QUOTE(echorev @ Apr 26 2008, 11:48 PM) *
Should players who play more become stronger players?

And my answer is yes, because they have put the time in to do that, and that is their escape and what they want to do.

I would also agree. But will "stronger" characters necessarily be "better" characters? In current games, yes. In our game, I hope not. I would hope that there are enough viable alternatives in our game to the standard "kill, loot" loop. Sure, some players will come expecting that, and we will surely have it, but it will be one small part of our game.

QUOTE(echorev @ Apr 26 2008, 11:48 PM) *
However, then there is the question, 'why not just buy a really strong character instead of playing one?'

The answer here, I think, is the developer's job. Firstly if all levels are able to play with each other, it wouldn't matter different level brackets either. Secondly, if a major draw of the game is the environment, the beauty, the gameplay, this would also deter people from just wanting to fight stuff, regardless if that is what they really want to do. In the MMORPGs I have seen (which truthfully isn't too many) fighting is the major idea of the game. You run, you fight, you level up. You can have a profession on the side, but you're a hero, a fighter, a defender.

I absolutely agree. If our game is just kill, loot, rinse, repeat, then I quit. Current games don't go a lot farther because they don't need to. Their goal is to make money. Ours is not. That puts us in the unique situation of doing whatever the heck we want with this game. We get to push the boundaries like noone else can/has.

Real Money Transactions (RMT's) belong in their own thread. I would like to also cut some of this out, or at least, diminish their returns a little. The idea presented in this thread does it somewhat. As I suggested, I would hope only the true time leeches (powergamers and farmers) would need the highest level account. The time limit should really only effect them, otherwise it is a bad idea, as you said. Also, RMT's are a result of games that focus on level and gear (which both come from time played). If the most important thing in our game comes from fame, and other things which are not given just to players who dump in endless amounts of time, the demand for RMT also lessens (if not disappears altogether). It's hard to think this way because no other game does it. There is no precedence to this way of thinking. Imagine though if most gear in the game were unique. There would be no set measuring stick like it is in WoW, or in other games. There would be no such thing as Tier 1 epic blah blah blah. Boring. Anyways, this stuff is a long ways down the road, but now you have a small window into my brain.

QUOTE(echorev @ Apr 26 2008, 11:48 PM) *
I am hoping PW will be different. You can fight, but you might still be less powerful than the rich baker, who can hire men to kill you.

You can be the most powerful banker in the game, but that one rogue still might be able to slip past your defenses and get your gold. This is the stuff I want to see, and so in the end my argument is for balance, and not for any normalization of player's times.

Sorry for the very long post, and I hope I didn't overlap on anything said before smile.gif I'm very tired and need sleep.
Amen. PW better live up to this, otherwise I (and the rest of us) am/are just wasting time. I also think that this is the fix, but no fix is truly going to put a stop to power gaming and farming. Both those things still will have the potential to negatively effect our game unless we try to lessen it some.

Thanks for the good post. Hopefully you understand where I am coming from a little better.


--------------------
Erik Briggs (Jerky)
Project Manager
My Blog
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Minthos
post Apr 28 2008, 02:40 AM
Post #9


PW Programmer
******

Group: PW Developer
Posts: 316
Joined: 12-January 05
Member No.: 198



There's a point to keep in mind here; if free accounts can concievably be used by farmers, they will. In great quantities. So placing play-time limits on them is futile because they will just make more accounts and rotate between them. Filtering out IP addresses isn't really a viable answer to this, for several reasons.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
njpaul
post Apr 28 2008, 03:33 PM
Post #10


PW Client Team Lead
******

Group: PW Team Leader
Posts: 202
Joined: 27-June 06
From: Mukwonago, Wisconsin
Member No.: 611



Eh, I didn't read through nearly everything. I like the idea Ethan had about the longer you're logged into the game, the less skill you gain. Now if we make it relate to the amount of game time, instead of real time, we have something interesting. We can then simulate the player being awake for days at a time.

If we have 4 game days in a real day, it means the average player probably won't play over 2 game days in a day, leaving plenty of time to recover when he comes to play the following (real) day. It essentially allows about 4 hours of game time each day where the player will receive the full skill level he is entitled to. After that, the game character starts to get tired, loses reaction times and coordination, and gains less skill. Could even throw in something fun where if the player is logged on for 5 or 6 game days, he'll just pass out and you're forced offline for 7 or 8 game hours (about 2 hours real time). It's a minor penalty and will keep people from playing for too long. You could also make the health deteriorate after 4 days.

OT: When Jerky brought up gold farming I got a crazy idea in my head. What if we make the amount of resources in the game finite? Over time we'll be simulating what will happen on earth when our resources run out. If things don't work out we can always add a new area with more resources, or even just respawn the old ones.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RicoSuave
post Apr 29 2008, 11:02 AM
Post #11


Master
******

Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 22-March 06
From: (Undisclosed)
Member No.: 585



QUOTE(njpaul @ Apr 28 2008, 04:33 PM) *
OT: When Jerky brought up gold farming I got a crazy idea in my head. What if we make the amount of resources in the game finite? Over time we'll be simulating what will happen on earth when our resources run out. If things don't work out we can always add a new area with more resources, or even just respawn the old ones.
I think NJPaul wants to see Jerky's head explode. laugh.gif
Heheh, this is going to create havoc on the economy... but maybe this is what you're shooting at, right?
- Limited liquid assets (gold, etc.)
- Limited metal (mines)
- Limited lumber (forests/trees)
- Limited farm land (thus, limited food)
- Limited animal skins (since wildlife IS limited)
- Limited living space
- Limited air ohmy.gif

Makes me kind of want to be a thief to steal some of these limited assets away from others. ph34r.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aria
post Apr 29 2008, 12:27 PM
Post #12


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 17-April 08
From: Portugal
Member No.: 1,146



You are all saying "Time = Power" but im not familiar whit this think. My MMORPG experience resumes to 'Guild Wars' and there once you get to lvl 20 theres no more.
Farmers can have VERY GOOD LOOKING armor and weapons and lots of money, but their stats are the same has a any other finished (lvl 20) character.
Once you unlock the skills you find better for you, you can only use 8 to go battle whit.
So for me all that 'Power' resumes to is your own ability to chose a built (the 8 skills you chose to go battle whit) and to use it in battle, and your skill to actually battling.

Power = ability to use your mouse and keyboard in a battle (GW rocks^^)

PS. has u can see from my avatar i farm a bit tongue.gif

This post has been edited by Aria: Apr 29 2008, 12:29 PM


--------------------
IPB Image IPB Image IPB Image IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Minthos
post Apr 29 2008, 10:49 PM
Post #13


PW Programmer
******

Group: PW Developer
Posts: 316
Joined: 12-January 05
Member No.: 198



QUOTE(RicoSuave @ Apr 29 2008, 07:02 PM) *

I think NJPaul wants to see Jerky's head explode. :lol:
Heheh, this is going to create havoc on the economy... but maybe this is what you're shooting at, right?
- Limited liquid assets (gold, etc.)
- Limited metal (mines)
- Limited lumber (forests/trees)
- Limited farm land (thus, limited food)
- Limited animal skins (since wildlife IS limited)
- Limited living space
- Limited air :o

Makes me kind of want to be a thief to steal some of these limited assets away from others. :ph34r:

I think what njpaul was getting at was not the "constant sum of resources in the hands of players and NPCs at all times" that UO tried, but rather "constant sum of resources in the hands of players/npcs and hidden away in the game world, ready to be discovered/extracted/mined" - but for this to be realistic, it shouldn't cover renewable resources like lumber and wildlife - come on, wildlife is also a renewable asset as long as it's not exterminated or driven away from its natural habitat. Limited gold is one thing, but limited currency is another. I don't think limiting currency is really viable - it's not even limited in the real world.

And for this to work, the amount of available resources should be so high that even if we get wow's playerbase they wouldn't be able to gather all of it in 5 years - in other words, they would hardly feel the effects at all until quite long into the game's lifetime. Of course the resources would have to require a bit of work to discover and extract, to ensure the world isn't stripped of resources too fast.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jerky
post May 1 2008, 11:54 PM
Post #14


Former PW Project Manager
**********

Group: PW Admin
Posts: 1,608
Joined: 11-January 05
From: Dallas, GA
Member No.: 62



QUOTE(RicoSuave @ Apr 29 2008, 11:02 AM) *

I think NJPaul wants to see Jerky's head explode. laugh.gif
Heheh, this is going to create havoc on the economy... but maybe this is what you're shooting at, right?
- Limited liquid assets (gold, etc.)
- Limited metal (mines)
- Limited lumber (forests/trees)
- Limited farm land (thus, limited food)
- Limited animal skins (since wildlife IS limited)
- Limited living space
- Limited air ohmy.gif

Makes me kind of want to be a thief to steal some of these limited assets away from others. ph34r.gif

Naw, my head will not explode. I have already spend some time on the limited resources idea. As minthos points out, UO tried this. I use past tense because it did not work. They changed it because it was too hard to balance. Also, Eve almost does it, but they found that controlling the economy themselves provides a better experience for the players. I think a system with limited resources would work only in the ideal game we are making for the ideal players. Unfortunately, we don't really get to choose who our players will be, and we all know the types of players we will get, whether we like it or not (hence I started this thread).

Going into a little more depth on UO, from what I remember in my reading, they found it took a lot of effort to try and keep things fair. They ended up having to continually raising the limit because they didn't originally account for player hording (players keep tons of stuff, even if they don't use it).

QUOTE(Aria @ Apr 29 2008, 12:27 PM) *

You are all saying "Time = Power" but im not familiar whit this think. My MMORPG experience resumes to 'Guild Wars' and there once you get to lvl 20 theres no more.
Farmers can have VERY GOOD LOOKING armor and weapons and lots of money, but their stats are the same has a any other finished (lvl 20) character.
Once you unlock the skills you find better for you, you can only use 8 to go battle whit.
So for me all that 'Power' resumes to is your own ability to chose a built (the 8 skills you chose to go battle whit) and to use it in battle, and your skill to actually battling.

Power = ability to use your mouse and keyboard in a battle (GW rocks^^)

PS. has u can see from my avatar i farm a bit tongue.gif

Well, that is a good point, but it still holds true for GW, just in a slightly different way. Guild Wars is hard to compare to our game because it is so simple in that regard. They truly did a smart thing in their design, but their model is not an MMO model. Their game is totally instanced, most of the actual content is solo-able, groups are limited to 4, 6, then 8 players (as you progress), you can learn as many skills as you want, but can only ever carry around 8 (iirc, its been a while) while you are out playing. This really caters to players who do not have a lot of time to play, so it ends up being more like a hybrid FPS game than an MMORPG in my opinion. Even though the exact equation of time played = more power doesn't obviously fit, it does in the end because the players who are the best have played more. They have learned the best "builds" through endless hours of playing and tinkering with their builds. This is what is meant by that equation.

The equation itself is one of the best and worst ideas in MMO's. It is only fair that someone who has spent more time ends up being better, but at the same time, it doesn't help to encourage players who were not here since the very beginning. GW does take away the obvious progression limits by placing the cap very low, and easily attainable, but still the best loot comes to players who play the longest (because of the mathematics of chance (probability)). So, just like in WoW, although not as obvious, players who play more in GW get better gear and are more powerful at the game.

QUOTE(Minthos @ Apr 29 2008, 10:49 PM) *

I think what njpaul was getting at was not the "constant sum of resources in the hands of players and NPCs at all times" that UO tried, but rather "constant sum of resources in the hands of players/npcs and hidden away in the game world, ready to be discovered/extracted/mined" - but for this to be realistic, it shouldn't cover renewable resources like lumber and wildlife - come on, wildlife is also a renewable asset as long as it's not exterminated or driven away from its natural habitat. Limited gold is one thing, but limited currency is another. I don't think limiting currency is really viable - it's not even limited in the real world.

And for this to work, the amount of available resources should be so high that even if we get wow's playerbase they wouldn't be able to gather all of it in 5 years - in other words, they would hardly feel the effects at all until quite long into the game's lifetime. Of course the resources would have to require a bit of work to discover and extract, to ensure the world isn't stripped of resources too fast.

I would tend to agree with minthos. A limit would be a cool idea, and has been tried before, but it would need to be very high. Even then, I am not sure that having a high limit would really serve any purpose. The only reason to have a limit is to have players reach it. If they never reach it, it is moot and has no effect whatsoever. To have players reach the limit is going to lead to some obvious griefing, but assuming we are expecting it/planning for it, we may be able to encourage more player interactions with it. On the other hand, it could just bomb wink.gif.

Anyways, it is still on my list of things to be discussed more, thanks for the suggestion.


--------------------
Erik Briggs (Jerky)
Project Manager
My Blog
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ghedipunk
post May 3 2008, 06:36 PM
Post #15


PW Programmer
***

Group: PW Developer
Posts: 65
Joined: 3-May 06
Member No.: 596



World-wide limit = hoarding.

Supply and demand say that if a resource is scarce, those with the resource can set the price... ergo, it makes perfect financial sense for people to stockpile and hit the world limit as quickly as possible, then slowly sell their stock while controlling the points where the resources spawn.

A per-player limit would make it impossible for people to hoard.

I don't think that there should be a limit on money, but if someone is collecting 300 rabbit skins, then they're no longer a productive member of the economy. If there is only one time per year that a resource can be gathered, such as fruit, etc., then it makes sense to have enough of a stockpile to last through the expected shortage. Otherwise, the most efficient economy is one where a good is consumed as quickly as possible.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jerky
post May 3 2008, 11:13 PM
Post #16


Former PW Project Manager
**********

Group: PW Admin
Posts: 1,608
Joined: 11-January 05
From: Dallas, GA
Member No.: 62



QUOTE(ghedipunk @ May 3 2008, 06:36 PM) *

World-wide limit = hoarding.

Supply and demand say that if a resource is scarce, those with the resource can set the price... ergo, it makes perfect financial sense for people to stockpile and hit the world limit as quickly as possible, then slowly sell their stock while controlling the points where the resources spawn.

A per-player limit would make it impossible for people to hoard.

I don't think that there should be a limit on money, but if someone is collecting 300 rabbit skins, then they're no longer a productive member of the economy.

What if we just made some resources decay over time, so they couldn't be hoarded. That would take away the hard cap, but also serve the purpose of keeping the economy flowing. In the rabbit skin example, they would rot if they weren't used, or become brittle, etc. A per-player limit sounds to artificial, imo. At least we could blame realism for the decay.


--------------------
Erik Briggs (Jerky)
Project Manager
My Blog
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Minthos
post May 4 2008, 03:37 AM
Post #17


PW Programmer
******

Group: PW Developer
Posts: 316
Joined: 12-January 05
Member No.: 198



Players like hoarding; who are we to deny them that part of the gameplay? Besides, limited storage has been done in nearly every previous mmo, and all it does is encourage people to create mules.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jerky
post May 4 2008, 04:23 PM
Post #18


Former PW Project Manager
**********

Group: PW Admin
Posts: 1,608
Joined: 11-January 05
From: Dallas, GA
Member No.: 62



QUOTE(Minthos @ May 4 2008, 03:37 AM) *

Players like hoarding; who are we to deny them that part of the gameplay? Besides, limited storage has been done in nearly every previous mmo, and all it does is encourage people to create mules.

Heh, actually, we are the "God's" of our world, so we can deny them whatever we want. Keep in mind, though, that I said make some resources decay. Mainly, I would think that that would be those things that need refining, like raw lumber, raw ore, pelts, etc; anything that needs to be refined to be used. This wouldn't stop hoarding, it would just keep resources moving in and out of the economy (keeping it from becoming stagnant). I don't want to stop players from becoming wealthy, that's part of what makes MMO's fun to a lot of players.


--------------------
Erik Briggs (Jerky)
Project Manager
My Blog
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RicoSuave
post May 4 2008, 08:34 PM
Post #19


Master
******

Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 22-March 06
From: (Undisclosed)
Member No.: 585



What about the idea of a tax on taxable items? It could be a money-sink as well as a way to keep the concept of decayable income active.
Of course there are pros and cons to this like anything else.

Taxable items:
Revenue (liquid assets like coins)
Increase (farm produce, fatlings)
Land (owning/building upon it)

Perishable items:
Bio-matter (skins, etc.)
Consumables (food, drink, potions, elixirs)
Collectables (wood, herbs, metals)

Like always, different items having different decay rates...
Just some ideas to keep this thread off-topic. tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jerky
post May 5 2008, 12:59 AM
Post #20


Former PW Project Manager
**********

Group: PW Admin
Posts: 1,608
Joined: 11-January 05
From: Dallas, GA
Member No.: 62



I agree. I've had taxes in the design for quite a while now. I think its another step in the right direction.


--------------------
Erik Briggs (Jerky)
Project Manager
My Blog
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th May 2021 - 07:36 AM
Original skin by: b6gm6n | Conversion by: Chris Y
hardwired
  hardwired
hardwired hardwired
hardwired hardwired