Goblin Squad Member
|
As I pointed out somewhere else (too may cash store threads...I'm losing track), I think some big ticket items could be very popular and profitable for GW. The one I suggested was settlement skins (for buildings, roads, walls, etc.). If the regular structures were built by skilled players with generic architecture, then skins could be purchased to customize your settlement. Given the popularity of customized housing back in UO or more recently in the various Sims games, I think people would pay through the nose for these cosmetic items. However, given their high price, it would be handy if the cash store allowed people to chip in on the same purchase and thus, spread the cost throughout the settlement. In this way, it is still generating large sums for GW but at relatively small cost to each settlement member. Perhaps the leaders of a settlement would have the ability to initiate these purchases in the cash store, which when paid, places the skin in a settlement UI list, to finally be placed in-game by the settlement leaders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Consider:
If an item is to be offered thought the $ shop, there should be no more offers than are actually produced in the games, and the merchants in the game receive game recompencs for their production, it wished. Merchants will not be forced to sell, but will get full recompense for produced product they wish to sell which are sold thought $ shop.
Player produce; players are paid offering price; other players buy from $ shop. Produce benefits. Game benefits, Purchasing player is happy with purchase.
Game designers need to think what the $ shop price to game price asked by producer. This should change with time an item rarity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No matter what they come up with as a marketable product for the store I think somebody, somewhere will think of a problem for that thing. It was healing potions. Then it was star metal swords. Now it is unicorns. Almost anything is going to be objectionable to someone.
All those examples include gameplay functionality so I can see that some or all of them would be perceived as being objectionable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... it's not equitable, because one class of members in the political economy was treated differently than others.
Doesn't time matter?
Imagine you paid 8% sales tax on your house. A few years later, our State Legislature abolishes all sales taxes statewide. Now I buy a comparable house in your neighborhood, but I save $25,000 because I don't have to pay taxes. Why isn't that okay?
Unless you're paying the 8% tax at the same time that I'm not, I think it's still equitable.
If GW is selling a mount that has a visible appeal that no game tamed/bred horse has, is this not competing with the players who might be taming/breeding horses as part of their in-game income?
I think it's very important that Goblinworks not stamp out your ability to profitably play as a horse breeder. However, I think there is plenty of room for them to take some of that market for themselves. I think there is a lot of value in helping Goblinworks discover the proper market share for Cash Shop items. If 1% of all Red Horse sales were lost to Red Unicorns, could you live with that? It seems like 20% might be too much, but I'm not sure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like Ryan's idea of (using his example) only one of five types of horses available in the cash shop, and the difference is only cosmetic (the non-functioning "Unicorn" horn). I can live with that, especially if player crafters can tame and sell real Unicorns (not stated in his example, but still possible).
Such minor, non-game affecting differences are OK by me for such minor things. I am still against any items that would have effects that mimic gear, such as weapons, armor, potions, rings, staves, rods, magical clothing, etc... though. Cosmetic items are fine, as they add to the RP possibilities. Using the red horse with a Unicorn horn as an example, as long as it can't be used to breed more, but with real horns, fine. Someone wanting a mount that doesn't do anything more than a normal mount besides a minor cosmetic change, fine.
I realize potions will likely end up in the cash shop, along with other items I believe should only be Player crafter, but if they have to be included for GW to see more cash flow that will be reinvested into the game, please make sure they do less than a player crafted item of the same type. Using healing potions as an example, if a player made T1 healing potion heals 50 points of damage, then the cash shop version should only heal 30. It still aids the player who paid cash, but he/she would have been better off with a player made one. I understand that sometimes it will be hard to buy enough such items at player markets, hence GW's desire to sell them for cash, but please GW, make sure that player made ones still are better (to much better) than cash items. You still get to sell them to players who want to have a ready supply of them, especially when the local settlement markets don't have or don't have enough, but they don't unbalance the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if GW sold the ability to have your horses breed with different coat colors and different markings? IE your character with the horse-breeding skill buys a sort of "license" that then allows them to breed those variants? It's one way to fund greater graphical diversity. Of course properties (aka traits) such as endurance, top speed, encumbrance that have a mechanical component should be in-game only - to achieve.
I'm assuming horse have a natural life-cycle (ie item degradation?) and can only be bred by a horse-training with a ranch etc, so the above "license" is exclusive to those who purchase and use it. Perhaps even GW taken a % of the players' profits or something more elaborate than fixed price?
If down the line a new breed of horse or mount is added, again the initial graphical costs of adding such, might be about purchasing a license to go out and skill-train them... I'm not really sure that far down the road, so to speak.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can only imagine the disappointment if GW doesn't put in horse-breeding, after all this discussion :).
Analogous to the modern car industry in some respects, so could be a good business if included in game. Then the horses need kit also: Horseshoes, saddles, armour etc. And who knows cavalry will need a lot of horses if they are ever used in battles?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it's very important that Goblinworks not stamp out your ability to profitably play as a horse breeder. However, I think there is plenty of room for them to take some of that market for themselves. I think there is a lot of value in helping Goblinworks discover the proper market share for Cash Shop items. If 1% of all Red Horse sales were lost to Red Unicorns, could you live with that? It seems like 20% might be too much, but I'm not sure.
Nihimon,
I fully agree that GW needs to be able to sell all kinds of items in their cash shop. I think the days of subscription play are numbered, and like it or not, cash shops and other forms of microtransactions are the way most MMOs will remain viable.
My question remains - if the red unicorn is purely cosmetic (has no extra attributes/abilities), then why not make it truly a cosmetic item - a horse skin rather than a horse? GW can still charge as much for it, people who want that look will still pay for it, and at the same time, the horse breeder/tamer (if the skill exists) will still have his sale of the standard horse to which the skin must be applied.
I am not in any way opposed to creating streams of revenue for GW or limiting the amount of goodies they sell in their cash shop. I am opposed to those categories of goods that imbalance play or cost crafters/harvesters in-game income. If we all put our heads together, I think we can generate a large enough list of sparkly doo-dads to keep GW happy, and thereby, all of us happy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My question remains - if the red unicorn is purely cosmetic (has no extra attributes/abilities), then why not make it truly a cosmetic item - a horse skin rather than a horse? GW can still charge as much for it, people who want that look will still pay for it, and at the same time, the horse breeder/tamer (if the skill exists) will still have his sale of the standard horse to which the skin must be applied.
This is effectively the same suggestion I made here:
2. Or, what if the item required an "equivalent" item to be destroyed at one of several SkyMetal Craters scattered around the map in Wilderness Hexes? Granted, this is more like a re-skin than buying an item, but it would potentially be able to change the keywords.
I am very interesting in having an open-minded conversation about this problem. There really are valid concerns that need to be brought up, but it's hard to have a good conversation about them because of the reflexive resistance to the general idea.
My question remains - if the red unicorn is purely cosmetic (has no extra attributes/abilities), then why not make it truly a cosmetic item - a horse skin rather than a horse? GW can still charge as much for it, people who want that look will still pay for it, and at the same time, the horse breeder/tamer (if the skill exists) will still have his sale of the standard horse to which the skin must be applied.This is effectively the same suggestion I made here:
2. Or, what if the item required an "equivalent" item to be destroyed at one of several SkyMetal Craters scattered around the map in Wilderness Hexes? Granted, this is more like a re-skin than buying an item, but it would potentially be able to change the keywords.I am very interesting in having an open-minded conversation about this problem. There really are valid concerns that need to be brought up, but it's hard to have a good conversation about them because of the reflexive resistance to the general idea.
No it is not effectively the same argument there is a subtle but very important difference
Hobs way is go and find crafter selling the colour horse you wish for. Buy skin to add horn.
Your way is buy the unicorn, somewhere magically a horse gets removed without you needing to go find one and appears as if by magic in your current location
In addition none of this changing keywords during the purchase. You want an item with specific keywords either look for one or if there are none available find someone who can make it. Once you have your preferred weapon buy the skin for it you want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your way is buy the unicorn, somewhere magically a horse gets removed without you needing to go find one...
No. My idea actually involved significantly more effort on the part of the purchaser than a simple reskin.
... what if the item required an "equivalent" item to be destroyed at one of several SkyMetal Craters scattered around the map in Wilderness Hexes?
The character who is getting the Cash Shop item would be the one who had to go and find an "equivalent" item on the market, and then transport it to a SkyMetal Crater to be destroyed/converted.
An equivalent item is not the same at all as you know which is why you referred to the changing of keywords.
There will often be a lot more effort buying a specific item with the correct keywords than just buying an item of the same class and tier from the nearest market to a crater and going for a short walk
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
<<Edited to include..."Blast it...I've been Decius-ized". That's what I get for taking too long to post>>
My understanding of the cash shop (granted, I've never actually bought anything in one), is that not only are you buying something that is not (I hope) available in the game, but that it provides convenience through immediate access. Part of the appeal of immediate access is that people may be more apt to make that purchase and provide GW with more income. In the case of our horse, having to find a person selling a regular horse to apply the red unicorn skin does take some time, and costs the extra price of a regularly obtained horse, but we may find that regular horses will be relatively cheap and common. My point is, I'm not looking to penalize cash shop users (in extra time/effort/expense)...I just don't want to penalize regular horse sellers either.
So again, it's finding that happy medium.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think that making any cash shop items more inconvenient to get than strictly required is a good business decision.
Nor do I.
My default position is that it should be possible to buy a SkyMetal Sword from the Cash Shop that is functionally equivalent to a high-end T3 player-crafted Sword and immediately appears in your inventory. I was trying to discover the implications of this, and see if there were any restrictions that I felt would be necessary to keep this from destabilizing the game. Dario and ZenPagan convinced me that there was a real problem with being able to resupply yourself from the Cash Shop during a Siege, when you wouldn't be able to resupply in-game. I was trying to feel around for the edges of that problem.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't think that making any cash shop items more inconvenient to get than strictly required is a good business decision.Nor do I.
My default position is that it should be possible to buy a SkyMetal Sword from the Cash Shop that is functionally equivalent to a high-end T3 player-crafted Sword and immediately appears in your inventory. I was trying to discover the implications of this, and see if there were any restrictions that I felt would be necessary to keep this from destabilizing the game. Dario and ZenPagan convinced me that there was a real problem with being able to resupply yourself from the Cash Shop during a Siege, when you wouldn't be able to resupply in-game. I was trying to feel around for the edges of that problem.
The problem being that in that circumstance, the besieging army has a chance to intercept all direct lines of communication but would not have a chance to intercept MTX?
I could see certain MTX (perhaps MTX which purchase a threadable item?) only being possible at a location that is currently a legal bind point. I'm not sure if allowing MTX to provide consumables to a city under siege would generate enough revenue to become a gameplay problem without also creating the solution: For every N bits of skymetal spent in a city you are besieging, the attacking army gains X bits of skymetal. (Or some other reward based on the amount of revenue associated with the war). This could be zero-sum if the cost of MTX performed from inside a siege were higher.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon,
Knowing that you have only the best of intentions for GW (you wish them to make lots of money, as does likely everyone on this forum), I'm sorry if people's reactions to your attempts to discover the implications of selling such an item seemed overly harsh/critical/etc. As I believe Pagan put it, it's hard for people to discuss how they might be accepting to the sale of a T3 sword if they don't even want to see a T1 sword for sale in the cash shop.
Instead of finding ways to make the T3 sword palatable, I still think it would be more productive to try to think of other categories/types of items that don't cause such a reaction in the player base, but would still generate sufficient income. True, being able to buy such an item might generate the most income for GW, but again, if it costs them players by selling it, then the sale might be causing more harm then good.
In that I try to provide suggestions, not just arguments, I plan to bring this up at the next PFO Fan TS session and see if we can generate a list of potential items/services that will increase revenue without decreasing the number of players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
ehhhhh it depends.
Lets say there are two unicorns in the game.
There is the red one which you can buy from the cash shop
Then there is the purple one that has to be breed. First the breeder needs to be max for animal breeding so that takes him two years. Then the mother of the unicorn has to be feed Tears of Demon Delight. Now Tears of Demon Delight can only be harvested once every thousand years if you tell the Demon of Sorrow a funny joke. If the joke is funny enough he will cry in laughter. Just be warned no one in the last 100,000 years has made him laugh. After that magical elf dust must be put into the super rare aquatic wheat that the mother must eat. Then the mother must be kept happy 100% of the time she is prego. If all that happens then a purple unicorn will be born.
So you see two people sitting in town. Person 1 is sitting on a red unicorn and person 2 is sitting on a purple unicorn.
purple unicorn is worth more. Even if there are 1000 red unicorns in the game. The reason for that is simple. purple unicorns are hard to get. They are a status symbol.
So does the red unicorn decrease the value of the purple player made unicorn. The answer is NO. The reason is that its purple and not red. Purple cannot be bought in the cash shop, as a end result its a status symbol. I have something that is super hard to make and most people cannot make it.
As long as GW doesnt sell a purple unicorn in the cash shop then all is well.
It is a fine line but it can be easily done. Anything bought in the cash shop will lose its value, due to ANYONE being able to get it if they have cash. While player made items will keep value due to them requiring more in game investment.
now you do run into a problem, with high end goods a system like this is easy to do, as the rarity of an item is what helps keeps its value (hey check out those noobs they bought red unicorns, mine is purple i EARNED IT). for normal goods they will need to take a look at how introducing regular item alternatives will affect the in game player market.
At the end of the day there are two reasons why in game items hold value. The first reason is mechanics. Item A is mechanically better than Item B, thus it is worth more. The second reason an item holds value in game is rarity. There are 10000 Item Cs in the game world and only 2 Item Ds. Item D is worth more only because people want what others CANNOT have or will not work hard enough to get.
I trust GW to make the correct choice with the cash shop. Their business plan means they do not want to harm their customer base. If you couple that with the small starting size of that base then they have to be very careful. A small niche game like this can tank easy if all the people who first play it say its horrible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem being that in that circumstance, the besieging army has a chance to intercept all direct lines of communication but would not have a chance to intercept MTX?
That was the problem as I understood it.
For every N bits of skymetal spent in a city you are besieging, the attacking army gains X bits of skymetal.
It seems like that would be ruthlessly gamed.
I tried to find a more organic solution that simply reintroduced the requirement for the purchaser to travel to a market outside of the besieged Settlement in order to take delivery of the MTX items. That seems close enough to traveling to another Settlement to resupply with in-game Coin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm sorry if people's reactions to your attempts to discover the implications of selling such an item seemed overly harsh/critical/etc.
Oh, don't worry about that. I have very thick skin :)
... I still think it would be more productive to try to think of other categories/types of items that don't cause such a reaction in the player base...
I think that brainstorming other categories/types of items that could be sold in the Cash Shop is a very valuable exercise, and I encourage you to do that.
This also reminds me of something ZenPagan said in another thread:
We should not be looking for the red lines of the most tolerant we should be looking for the red line of the majority.
The red line of the most tolerant is a waste of time finding because by then you have enraged the other 90% of less tolerant players
This is only true if the underlying assumption that 90% of the player base is adamantly opposed to it is also true. If instead the actual majority wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it didn't cross certain red lines, then I think that identifying those red lines is extremely valuable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a tangent thought and I apologize, but I didn't really think it was worth a thread.
You all brought up resupplying during siege, which made me think about broken weapons. The way things look like they are going to go, things like weapon crafting and re-forging will take a fair amount of time, so I think it will be interesting to see siege smiths whose sole job is to supply the army with weapons and armor when theirs break, or a group that can rapidly re-forge weapons and armor with penalties.
Carry on.
This also reminds me of something ZenPagan said in another thread:
We should not be looking for the red lines of the most tolerant we should be looking for the red line of the majority.
The red line of the most tolerant is a waste of time finding because by then you have enraged the other 90% of less tolerant players
This is only true if the underlying assumption that 90% of the player base is adamantly opposed to it is also true. If instead the actual majority wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it didn't cross certain red lines, then I think that identifying those red lines is extremely valuable.
That thread was originally getting lots of ideas, including from people like me as to what GW could sell that would be acceptable and what wouldn't. This thread was serving that purpose.
Your stance in this however has been assume they are going to sell T3 gear how do we make that acceptable, innoculating people to the idea being the phrase you used. Turning the thread from a what do you and don't you mind being sold conversation into a "how do we get people to accept this" conversation is not in my view helpful
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Selling anything with gameplay functionality that affects not only yourself is incredibly shortsighted.
In my opinion that if you sell a optically different item you should only sell the skin and it should require to earn the item itself with gameplay means before applying the skin. Akin to Path of Exile
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My question is this - items that will be purchased in-game with coin earned by the purchase of Goblin Balls...I spewed my drink when I read this. Please tell me PF's cash shop currency isn't actually called goblin balls.
Nope, the cash shop currency is "Skymetal Bits". For an explanation of Goblin Balls, consult Nihimon's helpful thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At this point, I'm sort of hoping the term will pick up enough social momentum that even if GW tries to name them something else, everyone still calls them Goblin Balls. Because it amuses me. =P
I think we're already there. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Ryan & Co embraced the term. I can just imagine the fun their art department would have painting the advertising icon. I'm imagining an image of a wickedly grinning Goblin casually tossing a ball - or two - in the air.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In My Opinion,
In order to make the cash shop sale of certain types of items, say our hypothetical T3 Skymetal sword, not significantly harmfull to the games intent and palatable to many of us who do have serious reservations in those regards we would have to design so many limiting/balancing factors that the item would no longer be particularly attractive to most buyers.
This becomes a self-defeating effort and a wasted allocation of resources. Figuring out how to produce items with limited sales appeal comes at the opportunity cost of not using those resources to figure out how to produce items of greater sales appeal.
For example; we could hypotheticaly figure out how to manufacture a balloon out of lead that would float(saw this on an episode of MythBusters actually). That might be an interesting intellectual excersize and we have enough smart people here that we probably could do it. However if the real objective of the balloon manufacturer is to simply have a balloon that floats well then the whole excersize is a wasted allocation of resources since there are a plethora of materials available for balloon manufacture that achieve that same objective more effectively and with far less work involved then lead.
Likewise, I assume that GW's real objective is NOT to figure out how to impliment 1 specific item or 1 specific class of items in the cash shop but rather to figure out how to maximize the proffit coming from the cash shop without imposing significant negative impact upon the game and significant negative reaction from it's core audience. I believe that there are a plethora of options more suited to that effect and without the same complications as the one which has been repeatedly discussed here on the boards and our efforts are better allocated toward a discussion of those.
In short, why aren't we focusing on things that are attractive to buyers and don't come with the same negative impact and same stigma as our hypothetical T3 Skymetal sword?
We had a big discussion on TS last night between a few of us brainstorming cash shop items. I believe Hobs will be posting what we came up with at some point today.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem being that in that circumstance, the besieging army has a chance to intercept all direct lines of communication but would not have a chance to intercept MTX?
I could see certain MTX (perhaps MTX which purchase a threadable item?) only being possible at a location that is currently a legal bind point.
Following up on this: I'm still interested in finding ways to allow people to use cash to buy stuff in-game; a fair way to allow shortcuts to player-made items. So looking back on a Ryan comment about player-owned shops:
Each Settlement will have a central market. In order to place a buy or sell order on that market you will have to physically visit that market. Information about the buy & sell orders on the market will be visible to you depending on the state of your character's abilities. Everyone will be able to go to a Settlement and see it's market orders, but some characters may be able to get that information at a distance.
So I'll just riff off your comment about some MTX only being possible at special locations...
What if the basic cash shop, available anywhere, shows a basic set of purchasable stuff: training time, special skins, stuff that mostly has minimal effect on the game. BUT if the character is inside a settlement with an active central market, then cash can be used to buy stuff in that market, at whatever exchange rate and markup GW sets.
So if I am a settlement, and Nihimon is selling a T3 sword at that settlement, then if I have no coin, I can get the sword through a section of the cash shop. Nihimon gets paid in coin. If no one is selling a sword at that settlement, then I'm out of luck.
@Urman
That effectively generates coin out of thin air for cash. Goblin balls do not as they are exchanged for cash already in the game
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if the basic cash shop, available anywhere, shows a basic set of purchasable stuff: training time, special skins, stuff that mostly has minimal effect on the game. BUT if the character is inside a settlement with an active central market, then cash can be used to buy stuff in that market, at whatever exchange rate and markup GW sets.
So if I am a settlement, and Nihimon is selling a T3 sword at that settlement, then if I have no coin, I can get the sword through a section of the cash shop. Nihimon gets paid in coin. If no one is selling a sword at that settlement, then I'm out of luck.
I very much appreciate your willingness to continue this conversation. I am acutely aware of the personal courage it takes to come out in favor of selling player-crafted-equivalent items in the Cash Shop in the present atmosphere.
That said, I'm not sure allowing direct Cash -> Coin conversions is a good idea. A large part of Ryan's stated rationale for allowing the sale of Goblin Balls is that other players will have to buy them in order for the original purchaser to convert them to Coin.
I would like to think there's a possibility that Ryan will eventually sell something like a SkyMetal Sword that is equivalent to the Red Unicorn in that he doesn't also offer (at least not at the same time) a SkyMetal Mace, a SkyMetal Staff, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure allowing direct Cash -> Coin conversions is a good idea. A large part of Ryan's stated rationale for allowing the sale of Goblin Balls is that other players will have to buy them in order for the original purchaser to convert them to Coin.
Coin has to flow from somewhere. It might be found on squirrel corpses by lucky hunters or it might be fed into the economy by mystery shoppers buying up stuff at the markets. As the game progresses and the player population increases, there will be a need for more coin, some moderate rate of inflation. Without a good supply of available coin, the player economy will suffer.
The advantage of buying stuff up in the market, rather than just buying coin for cash, is that everything in the market has been harvested, processed, crafted, and transported; multiple players have had input and interaction before someone gets new coin for an item.
The disadvantage... Well, there's probably a risk of coin/currency manipulation. Any such market of goods for cash that resulted in a player getting coin would need some barriers/controls to block manipulation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last evening, a number of PFO community members gathered together on PFO Fan TS and chatted about the topic of alternative cash shop items. Some were only able to stay for an hour, others popped in and out from other meetings, and still others stayed the entire duration of the discussion, but the attempt was made to be as inclusive as possible. Those present at some point included Dario, Pagan, Milo Goodfellow, Deianira, LordJessiah, Harad Navar, "drive-bys" by Bringslite and Bjorn, and myself (who somehow got stuck as secretary). Though not every member listed was able to have input into the full list shown below depending on their time constraints, what follows is the accumulation of the ideas generated last evening.
First - those of us who were there for the majority of the discussion mutually agreed that cosmetic items purchased in the cash shop that are not threaded should have the same chance of being looted or destroyed upon death. Paying real money for the item should not earn that item any special protection.
Extra Character Slots
• Though we have no idea how many initial character slots will be granted to an account, buying slots over this amount could be done via the cash shop.
Account Shared Bank Slots
• Especially if we are unable to mail items to alts, being able to buy shared bank slots would be a convenience we thought people would certain buy. We thought these slots should only be bought for NPC settlements and the items placed in them can only be accessed in the particular settlement for which they were purchased.
Bank Slots
We had a long discussion about how banking, especially in settlements could play out. However, that topic is worthy of its own thread.
1. Can buy extra NPC Starter Town bank slots
• Some of us thought that once purchased, those slots would remain in that starter town and if you wished to obtain the same in another starter town, you would need to make another purchase.
• Others believed that you should be able to transfer them, though the slots would have to be emptied before doing so.
2. Settlement
• Settlements can purchase extra bank space for members or guest purchase and either grant them to people or sell that space to people as a means of earning settlement revenue.
• Another suggestion was that individuals could buy bank slots and transfer these to settlements (with appropriate permission). If the character was then are banned or the settlement was destroyed, the items would be lost, but the slots could be transferred.
Race & Gender Changes
1. Core Races
• After people use their "free race change" ability as promised by GW, they could then buy another core race change for that character if they wished to change core race again.
2. Non-Core Races
• When non-core races are introduced (e.g. Drow), players could buy the race token and apply it to an existing character who has a "free race change" remaining or to a new character. Note - we stressed that any new race should not have racial bonuses or abilities that gave that race a game advantage such that buying the race amounts to a "pay to win" scenario.
3. Gender
• Players could change their gender, though they would retain their unique name (we assume names will be unique).
Appearance Changes
All changes to appearance short of race and gender change should be available both in the cash shop and in-game for gold.
Titles
Some titles could be purchased, especially if they have more of a role-played use such the "Honored Title" add-ons . We believe other titles, such as achievement titles, should remain in-game to be earned rather than purchased.
Special Emotes
• Emotes that can only be purchased (e.g. a casting animation that has no real effect, a weapon flourish, sharpening a weapon, whittling, etc.)
Special Effects
• Personalized colors/effects for spells (e.g. Sam the Purple Mage has his signature purple fireballs instead of the usual orange). We were initially concerned about this feature being used to disguise particular spell effects that might normally alert others as to what spell is being cast, but we agree that a spell craft spell should exist in game to identify spells, thus negating this concern. You're buying the visual/auditory effect, not a spell disguise.
Non-Combat Pets
• Though we aren't all equally "thrilled" with vanity pets, we know they do generate a tremendous amount of cash for a game company, and we are trying to help GW make money. Our only concern was the number of pets the game has to track. The suggestion was made that only one pet could be functioning at a time (eg. class pet, vanity pet, etc.).
Racial Languages
• Being able to speak/understand a racial language. We thought it should also be available as a skill if you want to spend the experience and training on it.
Instrument Skill
• Being able to play a particular instrument. Again, it can also be trained in-game.
Group Purchases
Given the emphasis on settlements and group play in PFO, we think that a new avenue for cash shop revenue is to allow group purchases by player organizations (e.g. CC's, settlements, kingdoms, etc.). In this way, big ticket items can be sold (perhaps too large for most individual buyers), but with the buying power of a group, the cost to individuals in that group can be mitigated. For instance, an item might cost $100.00, but if shared by the members of a 200 person settlement, that's only .50 cents per player. We are not detailing the mechanics of group purchases here (the list is already long enough), but we could certainly do so elsewhere.
1. Settlement Skins
• Just as skins are purchased for weapons, armor, etc., cosmetic skins could be purchased for your settlement - building facades, roofs, roads, walls, trees/bushes/fountains, etc.
2. CC/Settlement/Kingdom Tabards
• A player organization could buy for their crafters the ability to create an organizational tabard.If these crafters leave that organization, they lose the ability. We agreed that these tabards would be a lootable item.
3. Player Created Artwork
• Icons/symbols/sigils used on various items (tabards, shields, banners, etc.) that are created by players and vetted by GW to be placed in-game for the creator's character/CC/settlement use. Though an individual might be able to afford this, the work load for GW to vet this artwork would potentially become overwhelming if not limited to groups, though how large that group would need to be - CC, settlement, kingdom - is uncertain..
4. Settlement Town Crier
• NPC that can be programmed with desired information to be accessed by players (e.g. upcoming events, directory of settlement craters/services/etc.).
5. Festival/Event Kit
• Similar to a settlement skin, this temporary kit could be used to change the appearance of a portion of the settlement to resemble various festival or event grounds (the tents and banners of a tournament, the stalls of a carnival, a temporary shrine/monument to a particular deity, etc.). Based on the type of festival or event, the kit would also include a appropriate mini-game or mini-activity and some novel cosmetic rewards/prizes. We thought that such a kit could be used by itself or to augment player run events. For instance, a town market kit might provide market stalls and a temporary corral for livestock to help provide an authentic backdrop for a player organized market where real goods and services are being exchanged.
In essence, instead of buying an instanced experience that removes players from the world (e.g. an instanced dungeon), you would be buying a localized experience to share with the community.
By no means is this an exhaustive list, but we hope it does illustrate the creativity within our community for generating viable cash shop commodities that do not provide any particular player or group with a mechanical advantage (i.e. play to win). We encourage others to continue brainstorming more options for GW and thank you for your patience in reading such a lengthy post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Coin has to flow from somewhere.
You're right, and you're making me reconsider it.
There's a huge difference between:
"I buy something on-demand from the cash shop, and it is immediately available to my character and instantly usable."
vs
"I buy something on demand from the cash shop. Then I put it up for sale on an in-game market, where I receive Coin in return at an exchange rate set by market demand not developer fiat. Then, I have to negotiate for and purchase the uber-cool stuff I want in game, which may, or may not, be available at the time & place of my choosing. I may have to buy it in one place and transport it to another place. I may have to travel to a very dangerous place to make the purchase, and then return from that very dangerous place to wherever I want to use that purchase.
It seems to me that the major justifiable objections to buying gear in the Cash Shop are those which are centered around the traits Ryan describes in the first case above. Namely, "immediately available" and "instantly usable". This jibes with what we've already discussed about not wanting a Settlement under siege to be able to resupply from the Cash Shop without facing the same constraints they would face if they resupplied from an in-game market.
For me, the big questions are whether addressing those traits and removing them from Cash Shop Gear purchases also removes the justifiable objections to Cash Shop Gear, and how to accomplish that goal.
So far, I am personally convinced that requiring the purchaser to travel to an NPC Settlement to take delivery of the item does in fact accomplish that goal, and I have not heard any arguments directly addressing that.
@All - I think I feel comfortable saying that nothing you buy for Skymetal should be lootable.
This is probably fairly relevant and brings up some questions, such as "Will it be possible to buy extra Threads in the Cash Shop"?
On one hand, I don't really see a problem with the SkyMetal Sword being Soulbound, since there will almost certainly be a Soulbinding system for Cash Shop-bought Healing Potions. This would also seem to mitigate the concern about resupplying.
On the other hand, if the SkyMetal Sword can't be looted, then that in itself would make it significantly more powerful than player-crafted "equivalent" gear.
Perhaps the SkyMetal Sword forces one of the character's Threads to be used on it? That would actually serve to make it a less valuable option for players who would rather use their Threads for other purposes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Especially if we are unable to mail items to alts...
We should not be able to mail items at all, I would think. I also expect that we'll have Storage Facilities we can build/buy at our Settlements, and that we'll be able to share access with other characters regardless of whether or not they're our alts.
I think I'll hold off on commenting on that post anymore right now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"I buy something on demand from the cash shop. Then I put it up for sale on an in-game market, where I receive Coin in return at an exchange rate set by market demand not developer fiat."
I'd note under my proposal that the exchange rate that GW might offer by fiat on an item sale *should* be less advantageous than the current [training time:coin] rate. The reality is that some time-rich/cash-poor players will add a lot of content to the game. The community is better served when the cash-rich player buys and sells the training time to a time-rich player.
But sometimes the cash-rich guy just wants those 100 copper ingots in the market and is willing to pay GW now. GW should be ready to make a deal, as long as it's not unfair to the rest of us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me that the major justifiable objections to buying gear in the Cash Shop are those which are centered around the traits Ryan describes in the first case above. Namely, "immediately available" and "instantly usable". This jibes with what we've already discussed about not wanting a Settlement under siege to be able to resupply from the Cash Shop without facing the same constraints they would face if they resupplied from an in-game market.
For me, the big questions are whether addressing those traits and removing them from Cash Shop Gear purchases also removes the justifiable objections to Cash Shop Gear, and how to accomplish that goal.
So far, I am personally convinced that requiring the purchaser to travel to an NPC Settlement to take delivery of the item does in fact accomplish that goal, and I have not heard any arguments directly addressing that.
I have really tried to stay out of this, as I don't feel that I have anything further to contribute. I find myself strangely compelled back in to dispute the above.
The major objections to "craftables" in the cash shop are not just about resupply in siege cases. They are really about limiting player, in-game, opportunities to supply those products. It is creating resources, refined materials, and finished products out of "thin air". I realize that, to you, it is not a justifiable argument. It is to many, though.
About the "NPC town" pick up point. Why not have my slain PC and all of the "besieged and slain" respawn near the town, buy our cash shop refits, and charge back to the battle. We can attack and harry the enemy from outside their siege camp until we fight back in?
Sieges will last for REAL DAYS already. When the player local market runs out, resupply runs out. Not possible with cash shop refit.