Angrypuffin's page

I appreciate that they wrote this blog on the release timeline, rather than doing the FAQs. I think that was a good decision.

I wonder: do you Goblinworks folks plan for the system designers to be the same people as the content designers? As the system programmers? I'm a little surprised at the "systems first, then content" plan: I thought you usually have a pipeline, with systems designers giving designs to system programmers and content architects (who in turn give their designs to content artists). And that way, you can work on both, though the content lags behind the systems somewhat.

That is to say, I wouldn't expect it to take much effort to populate some of the world with iron nodes in addition to copper and tin, once you've made the basic harvesting node system. Maybe later on you'll want there to be more differentiation between copper and iron (given iron's fantastically complicated phase diagram in real life), but that could be released as an upgrade to the "placeholder" iron, rather than only having copper and bronze available until iron's design is mature.

And it seems like a lot of Pathfinder's features are on the border between system and content. For instance, is any given type of player contract a system or content?

I am not at all interested in repeatedly rehashing the arguments against having any gear whatsoever in the Cash Shop.

[...]
Rather, I'm interested in analysis of what would actually happen inside the game.

Well, I hope you can be patient with the rest of us. Some of us do want to discuss those things. There are a number of different little sub-conversations flowing through this thread, and I'd like to think it's big enough for all of them.

So how about I consider yours?

I think part of my objection- which I believe is shared with others- is that cash-shop alternatives to in-game items, when bought and used, reduce the amount of "play" going on in the game.

When I buy a SkyMetal Sword, I go to the NPC settlement and I pick it up. (Or maybe even it appears in my backpack.) That doesn't involve a lot happening in the world at large. A hundred thousand people could do that and the world would still be empty and dead.

When I buy a Masterwork Steel sword, I go to a settlement and look at the auction house. On the way, I pass various merchants bringing their wares to town; I see a list of swords on sale, and note that there are a number of merchants competing for business. I know that my friend also will need a good sword some day, so I write down the name of one of the blacksmiths to mail him later. I buy my sword and go.

Yesterday, that merchant was in his settlement, meeting with some of his company-mates. He collected swords from the blacksmith and leather armor from the leatherworker. He then rounded up a ranger (to track humans) and a fighter, to protect from bandits; and he loaded the goods into a cart and began traveling. They traveled together for an hour before they made it to the major settlement. An assassin tried to kill the merchant on the way, but the ranger detected him and delayed him enough for the fighter to kill him.

The day before that, a smelter was in a nearby settlement. That settlement controls one of the only sources of flux for making steel; he was negotiating with some of the miners there. Then, he brought back his purchase to his own settlement (having to sneak around to avoid the goblin camp by the road). He took iron that he had bought on auction a few days before that, and spent a good while refining it until it was steel. Then, he looked up the mail his company leader had sent him; he was supposed to give some steel to two different blacksmiths (an armorsmith and a weaponsmith), and put the rest of it in the guild bank, for a rainy day.

The day before that, the miners were getting ready. The flux was their most valuable resource, and a spot for a camp had just opened up. They gathered the volunteers- two miners, a paladin, and a sorceress, and went off to mine. They had a hard time protecting the camp; goblins kept attacking in waves. In the end, they couldn't hold it; they filled their backpacks with what flux they had mined so far, and left the mining camp to be destroyed.

The day before that, the paladin was at an auction house. He began shopping for a Masterwork Steel Sword...

If you have a hundred thousand people doing that, the world will not be empty. It will be rich and full and exciting.

“I want GoblinWorks to make lots of money.”
I want GoblinWorks to be successful too. But it’s not because I arbitrarily selected them as objects of loyalty. My desire for them to succeed is based on their brilliant design, respect for the players, and willingness to courageously eschew industry fads. If they make decisions that erode those things, some in their core audience will care less; if they make enough of them, some will stop caring entirely.

“They’re going to have mounts and convenience items and cosmetics in the cash store; it’s inevitable.”
Perhaps, but-
“GoblinWorks does a great job of listening to their fans.”
This is a chance for them to put their (literal!) money where their mouth is. I understand that they are a business, and the business needs go first. I’m trying to persuade people that the (long-term) business needs are best served by maintaining the integrity of the world in every system. If people have to play and interact to get what they want, more people will keep subscribing.

I myself am accepting of two “holes” in the world’s integrity: selling Goblin Balls and possibly beginning-game “startup” resources. And that’s because those two could possibly reduce barriers to entry for some players, which is good for the game in the long term.

“GoblinWorks needs a way to make money off of ‘whales’”.
They already have that. If they allow in-game sale of Goblin Balls, then anyone can sell it on the auction house and make tons of gold. It’s just that the whales have to be take an extra step of selling on the auction house. Once the whales have the gold, they can use it to buy everything else: cosmetics, bounties, guild charters, potions, mounts. (Anecdote: This is already happening on The Old Republic. When I browse the auction house for microtransaction items, I see the same person with 20 different cash-shop items up for sale. They’re buying gold... from me!) Selling other stuff just isn’t necessary.

“I don’t mind if they sell cosmetic stuff as long as it doesn’t affect the real game.”
The people who say this imply that appearances aren’t part of the game. But what that actually means is that it isn’t something they value. In fact, some people play games for the art. Avatar appearances are somewhat intangible, and they’re subjective. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t real, just like a sense of exploration or a sense of anticipation, a sense of accomplishment, or attention from other players. Playing a game isn’t just about combat; it isn't just about numbers; it’s about experiences.

“It’s the buyer’s decision to buy or not; it doesn’t hurt you.”
Of course not; no change to any game can hurt me. But it can certainly hurt people’s enjoyment of the game. One way it can hurt the game is if “things to do” are removed so they can be in the cash shop. “There is no tailoring profession; town clothes are on the cash shop. There is no dye crafting profession; dyes are on the cash shop. There is no architecture profession; settlement appearances are in the cash shop.”

The other way it can hurt the game is by dissociating game systems. Goblinworks have said that they want people who have heavy armor to show it and not look like a lightly-armored person. They want that silhouette to convey information, and they’re absolutely right. Appearance should convey something: combat style, wealth, prowess, sociability, veterancy. If the most garish and attention-getting items are in the cash shop (per current industry standard), it starts to convey something else, and it’s something that I don’t really enjoy thinking about.

Please understand that I’m not overly bothered by the prospect of spending money. It’s my time that’s the limited resource; and I’d rather spend it in an immersive world, if I’m gaming at all.

Returning briefly to the original topic:

There will be both traditional harvesting nodes that you walk up to and mine for a bit of a resource, and larger sites where you can locate a camp to produce a larger amount over time, but which must be defended.

Ah, thanks for the reminder.

I thought a little bit more about selling low-level materials in the cash shop. Before, I was thinking about them selling copper ore, and said that would cause a distortion where early mining is discouraged and early crafting (with copper) is encouraged.

But I really overlooked the more likely possibility that they'd sell all kinds of low-level stuff in the store. (This would work well with the "generic crafting material" DeciusBrutus mentioned, a la Ryzom.) Not only would they sell copper ingots, but they'd also sell a low-level mining pick. This would reduce the blacksmith's early dependency on the miner (because they could buy from the cash shop); but for the same reason, it would reduce the miner's dependency on blacksmiths (because they wouldn't have to ask around to buy a pick).

This wouldn't cause the lopsided distortion of only selling copper. It would reduce the economic significance of low-level crafting and harvesting, as a whole; but it those low levels would become a "starter" period where you can easily try out crafting skills and find out whether they were something you wanted to do long-term.

It's possible the gameplay benefits of this accessibility would outweigh the loss of immersion and economic significance.

What does everyone think of a Coin (Not Gold or otherwise, Real world money) faucet in game? Think something along the lines of daily tasks for NPC factions that allows the f2per slowly (I mean something on the likes of 10 cents worth of Coin a day) build up the currency so he can eventually access the same features others can by simply giving GW their credit card.

One clever thing that Star Wars: The Old Republic is doing is awarding real-money currency (Cartel Coins) for grouping. I like this idea because it is directly rewarding players for what they contribute back to the company. That is: free players are there as content for the subscribers and cash shop players, as an audience. If they're grouping, then they're providing more content; and this is what they're rewarded for.

The amount is miniscule (I have something like 60 cents of real-money currency after constantly grouping for maybe 20 hours). It might also just be enough to make those same free-to-play players look at the shop, get antsy, and purchase real-money currency to speed up their acquisition.

I don't know, in the end, how it's working out for them, but I like the idea.

It seems like our guesses about availability of commodity items, market interactions between newbies and veterans, pricing, etc., are based on information we don't have yet.

If copper can be harvested solo, then a high price can simply entice new players to get out there and harvest. If it requires a party, we probably shouldn't assume newbies will instantly be able to organize that expedition.

If copper is used at all levels, from low to high (like tritium in EVE Online), then Elorebaen's concern about market interaction between veteran and new players is justified. If it's something that nobody uses after training level 2 blacksmithing (or whatever), then there wouldn't be much interaction either way.

If the market is global and instant, like World of Warcraft's auction house, we can assume that newbies will be able to use it proficiently to sell their own copper. But if it's hex-by-hex, then newbies may not be able to safely travel around to sell their own goods, and that may done by reselling merchants.

These are all good things to think about, though.

One thing I can imagine resulting from selling low-level crafting materials is a little market distortion resulting from increased competition: harvesters have their revenues decreased because they're competing with the cash shop, and crafters have their costs decreased. That could result in encouraging people into crafting early on, and discouraging people away from harvesting. That might have long-term effects on how many people harvest or craft at high levels.

The only point I'm unsure about is "convenience" items. It seems to me that it might be reasonable and acceptable to sell low-level resources in the Cash Shop. I'm still trying to think through the implications.

It seems to me that selling low-level resources causes the same problems as selling other resources; it's just that the impact is felt mostly by the low-level players.

If the cash shop sold a crate of copper ore, for example, people who buy ore off the cash shop will not need to buy it from other players. This depresses the value of copper ore on the open market; this makes mining copper less profitable, or maybe totally unprofitable. This makes it harder for someone to just be a miner. They'd have to subsidize the costs of those early parts of their development somehow. (This assumes that one will have to get copper as part of the achievement to unlock higher mining skills.)

Admittedly, the currently planned XP system isn't as bad as a typical MMO. You don't need to mine copper ore for the XP, only for the achievement/merit badge. If you're trying to be a dedicated miner, your mining progress will probably be limited by XP.

In the blog post “Money Changes Everything”, Mr. Dancey revealed an initial design for Pathfinder Online’s cash shop. It is my expectation that this initial design was based on the experience of theme-park MMOs, the pitfalls they have experienced, and the outspoken consensus of theme-park players that has resulted. In this thread, I suggest that the scope of cash shop should be narrowed from that initial design; the distinctively sandbox parts of the game suffer additional hazards from a conventional theme-park cash shop.

Principles

I have played a variety of MMOs over the years, and the presence of a cash shop has affected my perception of them in various detrimental ways. This is the core of my argument: the attitude changes wrought by an ill-implemented cash shop will hurt player attitudes, leading to them having less fun. This is projection based on my own experience; I hope that the developers will consider the possibilities seriously, and decide for themselves the truth or falsehood of them.

(I will use World of Warcraft for most of my examples. Mea culpa.)

1. Meaningful interactions require meaningful identity.

In World of Warcraft, when I queue in the Looking for Dungeon finder, I can be placed in a group of people and have a good chance of success at completing the dungeon. But those people are from other servers, and the chances are that I’ll never see them again. They don’t feel like people. They’re just as temporary as the rest of the dungeon environment. That’s why so many groups go by without so much as a word spoken.

2. Immersive worlds link player identity and character identity.

Some online friends ascend to become real-life friends. But usually, the character identity is a proxy for the personhood of the player. I don’t think of you as “the guy who has a terrible boss and works in IT tech support”; I think of you as “that awesome blacksmith who can make keen swords”. And that’s the point; that’s the role you wanted to play in the first place. That’s why you made that character how you did.

3. Meaningful character identity requires a consistent world.

“If anything can happen, it’s hard to care about what happens.” When World of Warcraft was first released, you would rarely run into a level 60 player (the level cap). When you did, it was awe-inspiring. They would often be surrounded by curious player characters inspecting them and their gear. That’s because it meant a lot- it meant that character was accomplished and powerful. And those are things that are inherently interesting in a game about progress. In contrast, in modern World of Warcraft, level-capped characters are the vast majority. Characters equipped in full “epic” gear are the norm. It’s not like you hate them; it just doesn’t provoke any reaction. The loot may say “epic”, but you as the player know that it’s actually very ordinary.

4. World consistency is broken by exterior commerce.

In a consistent game, when you see someone with an awesome piece of gear, you’re naturally curious. It excites your imagination about the possibilities that lie ahead. But in most games today, I find myself having a different reaction: I shrug. “Probably some microtransaction thing.” The developers need money; and to make money, their products must sell. So they make products people will want to buy. And what will people buy? Powergamers will buy power. But social players? They will buy attention. So the developers make big sparkly things that shower the area in particle effects. And they sell. But I notice in myself that it reduces my enjoyment of the game. I no longer get excited about the possibilities for my own character; I get cynical about the world that my character is living in.

And I don’t stay long.

These issues will affect Pathfinder Online more than most games. The detrimental effects will hit it harder because they compromise things closer to the heart of the game. Put another way, in World of Warcraft I may roll my eyes, but queue for another dungeon- something that will take me away from the offending player and engage me in some excellent theme park content. In Pathfinder Online, this isn’t an option. The nature of the game will drive people closer together. If you get cynical about the world, or annoyed with its players, that’s it. There’s not much left to keep you.

Principles for Cash Shops

0. Cash shop items should not provide power.

This is part of the theme-park consensus; I include it here for completeness.

1. Cash shop items should remain “outside the world”, or “meta-game”, as much as possible.

a. Play time is an obvious example. Everybody understands that you must pay to play. I can also accept trading these on the open market, so that Goblinworks can regulate and tax the gold-seller market, and allow players to try the game before spending too much on it.

b. Additional character slots are another example; it won’t break my suspension of disbelief to see an extra character in the world; because I’ll have no idea whether it’s a first character or a third character.

2. In-world items from the cash shop should NOT be alternatives.

a. Consider a big, sparkly, cash-shop mount. This is an alternative to brown horses, available in game, and unicorns, also available in game (but only with Exotic Animal Taming, requiring months of training). In this case, the sparkly mount devalues all mounts. I will not always know whether a mount is a cash shop mount; so if it is big, sparkly, or “special”, I will assume it is a cash shop item, roll my eyes, and maybe think, “Whatever they have to do to keep the lights on”. If, however, there is no cash shop mount, and I see a unicorn mount, I will say, “WHOA! That’s awesome! I want one! Can I pay that character to train me one? Do I need to start training my character for that proficiency?” I consider the second outcome much more desirable.

b. Consider a character slot which is enabled to use a “special” race. This is not achievable in-game. If I see this character in game, I will say, “Ah, they’re a sylph. I haven’t unlocked the special races yet, so I can’t make one.” It feels more like an expansion. It doesn’t call into question other cosmetic things, because I can clearly separate what is bought with cash and what is earned in-game.

c. Consider a wedding dress item, available at the cash shop. This is the sort of thing that a tailor would reasonably expect to be able to make. But if they are offered on the cash shop, they probably will not be available to tailors. This, then, encroaches on the territory of the crafter in order to expand the territory of the cash shop. By reducing the territory of the crafter, the core appeal of the game is reduced. Since the crafter will probably be the lifeblood of the game and a pillar of community, this will harm the game in the long run.

3. Cash shop items should not provide convenience.

Since the game design, to this point, attributes lots of risk to travel time, and since logistics is being mentioned as a serious player concern, and a source of value leading to price differences, this translates to power. Then, this follows from Rule #0.

A Consistent Cash Shop

What, then, is allowed?

1. Playing the game. This includes skill training time, character slots, etc.

2. Restricted categories. This is whatever Goblinworks is willing to stake out at the beginning as being “cash shop material”. It could include guild creation, “character legacies” like in The Old Republic, etc.

I'm not guaranteeing that any of these things will be good for the game overall; I imagine lots of people would be disappointed to have to pay to charter a company. I merely suggest that it will not break the consistency of the world and harm immersion.

3. Expansion content. This is a combination of 1 and 2; it is game content that simply cannot be accessed without paying. It could also include weekly passes for new dungeons, either developer- or user-made.

One final note: if training time (the PLEX equivalent) will be a tradeable item, I suggest that all cash shop items should be tradeable. It will have no effect on those who wish to buy gold, save perhaps a slightly better exchange rate; however, it will make the game more attractive for free-to-play players, and that may be good for the game in the long run.