Gahta's page

Nihimon wrote:

Gahta wrote:

... you sidestepped material and other requirements...

Because they're irrelevant. I'm talking about the case where my Settlement already has a suitable stockpile of resources.

I feel I should elaborate on this a bit.

Your Vigor system creates the possibility that a project could be instantly completed. It is irrelevant that it is also possible that some project might not be instantly completed.

And still there is no reason to why it the construction time is of importance, bu i guess i was unclear in why i asked for the clarification of PVP. Sur eit is a pvp game, but i emphasized it that i spoke about the moment of the construction.

The second problem is that we dont have anything that we can use to base our assumptions of time requirement on since we dont know the choices involved in how they want to balance this aspect.

So till you expand on why it is of importance that someone might build a structure really fast generally and why the other 2 parts of construction cannot be used in balancing, then i just can point at above where i stated that in a pvp enviroment construction might still need time in a way to balance it.

Gahta wrote:

... i dont see why you wont have to plan ahead?

It's simple, really. If you can save up "Vigor" and then spend it in a burst, then you don't have to plan ahead because you can instantly build whatever you need. Even if you can't complete the entire building, you still have the ability to make significant progress immediately.

This is bad.

Hm then we havent moved a bit? Yes on itself i would see this as well, but you sidestepped material and other requirements like last time and also the question if youre referring mainly to PVP or if you see general concern in it, but both should involve a reason why those two parts of construction dont have enough impact in your view to balance that out.

So without knowing why you left out these two or answered if its a pvp or general concern, its hard to answer you since it isnt the case that one would be able to construct anything on vigor alone.

@Bringslite
No need for bold text, these are usually meant to emphasize certain parts, if used completely it loses its reason (unless of course you thought i oversee your post, nvm then)

Better is a subjective term, but it has the possibility to include parts that would be much harder to balance in regard to players. One example given was using it to fuel NPCs to provide services like acting as sales clerk or it could be used to establish communal services (like mail, or allow automated travel between two settlements).
But i wouldnt use "better" in a broad sense here, its about what could be done with as much synergy as possible.

This point was brought up by Decius and the same answer applies here as well: Its the choice of the developener if they wanted to have a RL_ingame cash exchange, but if they would choose to it would certainly use currency as anchor, and in this case the exchange would encompass everything tradable for currency, even ressources. So this is hyperbole and i dont see anything that links it with the premise.

This question implies i find that aspect "good". I stated before that if there is reason for time mattering, it should be considered here as well and if not then i dont see the harm. Using Vigor in construction is the part where it differentiates the least (as the other limiting factors are still inplace). Bbut im still not sure if i got this question right so if i missed your intent, just say so.

Again, i have no "system", this would need much more information on key aspects of the economy to accomplish. This thread started with a premise and reasons this premise caught my interest. It has potential to fill the time that one is hold inplace for something else, and encouraged others to discuss it. So there is no general better, it all depends on the context and doesnt lend itself to general discussion since a huge part of it hinges subjective standarts.

And keep the "Just answer them. No comment that you already have is needed. Work for your idea here." part next time.

Ah so our debatees still share the fun in sticking heads together and congratulating themselves on how good they have responded, im so touched.

The point of this thread is discussion of a certain premise. Its not about what its called (as the name was choosen to have something to adress) but the implied uses in a MMO economy.

If one does not see any merit in it, then its sufficent to point it out and why. The problem so far has been that those putting reasons for why it isnt of merit tend to either contradict previous statements or the claims made dont have a reasoning behind them that can be challenged.
And strangely enough even if i respond, the loudest here are skilled in dont adressing whats pointed out.

So its not wether i fit in here, its about wether the bunch inflating this thread with the same arguments again and again, without addressing what has been responded to, have really interest in debating a premise or rather are interesting in claptrapping.

I dont surrender a interesting topic and if you really see no point then feel encourage to stop contributing, or get to the point. Its certainly true that you clowns are the main reason its this big of a thread, so if youre want to exclude yourselve from this debate, by all means, do so.

Being, except that opinion is based on truth, so no, opinions are always exactly equal.

Gahta, your sincerity went out the window when you asked another forum member to "grow up".

I sincearly couldnt be of the opinion the one addressed has yet to mature enough to qualify my subjective standards? Either we are having different ideas of what "grow up" would describe in this context or do you want to explain why i cant be sincere with that?

But id like too keep further discussion of my person to PM, this is a discussion about a different topic and we should try not to derail further.

@Being
I dont see how you come to these conclusions and also do not see any answer to the questions forwarded to you, so what is your aim? It certainly isnt debating the premise setup at the beginning thats certain and i dont see any use in debating opinions. So if you are sincearly thinking i missed something, give me opportunity to adress it (that is to somehow show that there is a question unansered, not claiming that there is one hidden in here). I cant answer which i dont see.

Gahta, don't tell people what to do or to not do! You're not the boss of them.

If you post something here you and your Ideas are subject to criticism. If you don't like that go somewhere else.

Thats the point, he didnt critique the idea, he directly questioned my sincerity and acts like he has any claim to tell others where they belong.

The problem begins when people use popular opinion to justify misbehaviour and im perfectly fine to tell them as everyone else is.

The point is, is questioning the legitimacy of forum users something a fellow user has any right to? If one does so from opinion, its equally right to object it on opinion.

And if one does so and question the sincerity of a person and why he is here then thats over the line of misbehaviour and right into the realms of wrong. And since i was the person in question i do think i can tell him to stop.

So what you say contradicts yourselve, if you dont think someone has to be "the boss" of others to point at percieved misbehaviour, then you shouldnt speak up yourselves for the same reason.

@Nihimon
If you could take these 3 points and apply it to a situation ingame i think i could easier get your problem.

But since you based those on the first one, i dont see why you wont have to plan ahead?
First the other parts (material, building requirements) are still there, and then is Vigor itself limited in both limit and regain.

The underlying question would be if you generally dismiss basicly intant construction, then i would be interested why the other aspects of construction can not be used to balance that
or if you have PvP in mind.

@Quandary

Grow up, if you think i have to qualify in a way other then civilised conduct, youre wrong. I doubt you have the maturity of it in the foreseble future, but the time will come when you understand how adacious the ideas you just expressed where. Take part here or dont, but you have to change your behaviour.

Gahta wrote:

Being wrote:

If the proposal is 'a work in progress' it is definitively half-baked and half-baked criticisms are completely appropriate.

And unaddressed.

Then feel free to summarize them for me, but i would welcome you to give the previou sstatements more insight then your last comment implied.

No, I'll let you do your own work.

Interesting, but flawed.

You make a claim, i respond that i dont think this is the case, you reply that i have to support your claim because i have started the thread...hm

I have answered everything that needs one, meaning propositions structured like questions adressed to me or concerning something i proposed.

If there are still ones ive missed, i asked to have them pointed out so i can adress them.

So either we differ in what "unadressed" means or we dont qualify the same things as needing addressment, either way i am unable to determine this without knowing what youre talking about, which involves getting to know more about them then someone finding them "unaddressed".

So bare the burden you have shifted on your shoulders by making a claim or let it be, someone making a claim and insisting someone else else provides for it is just childish and will not be promoted by me.

@Decimus: Thats all fine, but if you dont think the proposal can be improved, then its enough to state ones opinion and be done. So please, get your priorities straight, take part in the discussio to improve it or state why you think its unable to.

But if you feel that you contributed too much, well then be assured, when you didnt speak about opinions, you failed to be consistant with prior statements and to date didnt follow up on prior questions to you. So, i doubt you understand the proposal on the most basic level, but if you have no interest in exploring it, then thats fine.

If you do, feel free to stop smuggling in meritless ideas (the whole RMT part you love so, as they apply to currency in general) and start reading for a change, you clearly didnt till now.

This thread is really great.

On a more constructive note: This may be relevant: Labor Points in the game ArcheAge

At least someone else that draws enjoyment out of this^^

Yes seems to have the same premise, will make an interesting read.

Now the fun part.

@Decius:

I havent encountered both RMT and Goblin Ball economy, so before id like to have some more to what they mean.

"through outside payment sites that have historically" - Has there been plans to make official RL to ingame currency possible or are we talking about the black market? If we do then you have to establish why they would use Vigor over currency (which is highly likely to be able to be distributed via ingamemail in some sort). In the current form, it wouldnt be desirable if they instead could sell currency.

Im not sure to what your "That" refers to and in turn cant make much sense of what follows, might to give me a bit more on that?

The system would allow for instaneous exchange as the "time" part is governed by the rate it refreshes, but i remember that i not long ago elaborated, that even if there is no longer a economic reason for timerestraints, there may as well be reasons originating in balance.
So if there are reasons for balancing (like construction speed against what kind of responses are thought to be possible) then i think those in charge would be able to appreciate it if there are two screws to work with when facing two different motivations, instead of one.

The last paragraph seems to formulate a conjecture based on those faulty assumptions above and so needs little addressing at this point, except that id like to note that youre really trying to defend having your character spend time essentially doing a "hold you inplace" action over spending an amount equal to "being hold inplace" from a abstract value.

I was assuming that the coin and material costs were covered, yes. If something other than labor is limiting, labor cost is not relevant to production rate.

I'm still not sure if the emergent behavior I foresee is good or bad.

An im still not seeing something i can adress, what about describing that behavious you foresee?

Gahta wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

It was clear as day to me, and fairly friendly and generous as far as scoldings go.

Youre right, but its not as contradictory as you assume. I wanted to seperate the economic aspects fom time exactly to have the opportunity to have those instances where time wasnt only a restrain in economic sense shine more.

In your case the Vulneraility would be a intended design part, so one could still have requirements that involve time.

This will again spoil oil in the redundancy debate, but its not about eficency, its about looking what has to affect what. And in case of PvP the economic aspect that was intended to be governed by Vigor is seperate from the time restraints that go into balancing of PvP.
If for example the time to employ a siege instrument has to be balanced, it wouldnt lessen the work to employ it if both are using different sources.

If I understand this right, you're suggesting that if a tower takes a day of time and 20 weekly rations of vigor to create, 20 people can create a tower in a day, once per week; 40 people could create two towers in a day per week. 140 people could create seven towers every Thursday.

If towers required 140 man-days of work each to build, 20 people build a tower in a week; 40 people build a tower in 3.5 days, and 140 build one tower each day.

I fail to see the point, assuming a building uses 140 times the alloted Vigor per day, then yes your show of basic math is indeed correct.

I would appreciate further explanation.

Gahta wrote:

Firstly, could we get away from "thats what GW alredy plans"?

We could if we didn't like it. But nobody except you seems to have a problem with it.

Nobody but you seems to perceive any benefit to your system vs. the current one,
and many people perceive serious problems with your inherent approach.
Amount of Time (Potential Labor) you can save up: ZERO (use it in the moment or lose it)
Amount of Vigor/Whatever you can save up: MORE THAN ZERO (breaking locality of time and space)
(By the logic of this system, Vigor should also be used for Banditry or War, since those are other things a character can spend their time on, and which are equivalent competitive options for how to apply your time to economic endeavors. Excluding those activities from such a system would just further distort the game)

Cut the self-righteousness and attacks on others competence for criticizing your idea if you want to be treated as anything more than a troll. Especially when to merely communicate with you, others are having to make an extra generous effort to decipher your incoherent grammar, an extra effort which is NOT obligatory, so you should make an effort to return the good will (not that it's obligatory for anybody to consider your ideas, good grammar or not, that anybody deigns to respond to you - even with criticism or dislike of your idea - itself is a gesture of goodwill you should take into consideration and return the favor, rather than attacking those who don't laud your ideas). Nobody feels like the game has a problem that needs your solution to fix, regardless of the merits of your solution. Assuming it does, and that everybody must bow down to the importance of your solution doesn't convince anybody.

Slowly i seem to grasp why you constantly take part in something you neither have interest in improving nor can muster up enough interest to try to understand:

"nobody except you seems to have a problem with it"

You mistake someone proposing something he thinks of as interesting to debate for someone doing his best to zealously eradicate a plan of people you hold dear.

Let me tell you some you should take to heart:
- Taking part in a debate, is obligatory, nobody gets to make demands on the basis he has shown "good will" - because it defeats good will.
- Using absolute terms while accusing or defending "nobody, all", is no honest way of debate, one has to know he is wrong.
- Mind your manners, you wont be able to accept it, but your behaviour is rude, whereas i mightve shown contempt, but tried my best to meet standards.

It was clear as day to me, and fairly friendly and generous as far as scoldings go.

Youre right, but its not as contradictory as you assume. I wanted to seperate the economic aspects fom time exactly to have the opportunity to have those instances where time wasnt only a restrain in economic sense shine more.

This will again spoil oil in the redundancy debate, but its not about eficency, its about looking what has to affect what. And in case of PvP the economic aspect that was intended to be governed by Vigor is seperate from the time restraints that go into balancing of PvP.
If for example the time to employ a siege instrument has to be balanced, it wouldnt lessen the work to employ it if both are using different sources.

If the proposal is 'a work in progress' it is definitively half-baked and half-baked criticisms are completely appropriate.

And unaddressed.

Then feel free to summarize them for me, but i would welcome you to give the previou sstatements more insight then your last comment implied.

Can you define the difference between vigor and valor? I am confused as to the meanings.

A simple mistake by me, didnt meant to introduce a new term.

Gahta wrote:

Assuming we start at about a week of Vigor than can be saved up and there is a limit on Itemtransportation for players i find the logistics of getting what you exchange for to somewhere unsable (ressources to crafter) more of a limiter then the amount of Vigor one can spend.

You have mentioned that Vigor can be given from one player to another or even a project? This is much like the system that GW already plans.

The question would be (from your example): if Vigor can be "stored" or "collected" from separate characters/accounts (used as a currency of exchange), can it then be taken and used all at one time by a single character to build a project or item?

What would characters receive for their given vigor?

If it can be stored in a place of collection, can all of the stored vigor be spent at once? Even if single characters can only save 1 week of vigor at a time?

Firstly, could we get away from "thats what GW alredy plans"? The fact that they have similiar appriaches is what led to this in the first place, but at the current time its still to incomplete to really determine what will come out (at least till we know more about the economy).

The rest is accurate, but the more interesting part is thinking about what the person can spend Vigor on:
Resources, these are limited by how much a character can carry and how timeconsuming it is (chopping wood to mining metals for example): So that spending Vigor on a full load would be a about fraction of a days amount.
Crafting, here its mostly about what you make. As stated earlier, one could assume several tiers in it. First those things which can e constructed without/basic tool till we arive at local objects like foundries, worktables etc. And you still have to get the materials to this, which again with some sort of limiter on transport should be more limiting than simple vigor available.
Construction, here we should first arrive somewhere where one alone couldnt (dependant on size of course) have the amounts of Vigor needed and would result in others chipping in.

The exchange itself (if in a construction or by crafting stations working as baterry for crafters) could involve items, currency or a mixture of both.

Vigor shouldnt be used to trade directly with other players, but assuming palyers have a entity that needs to be fueled with valor one could barter for it.

Gahta wrote:

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I don't see a practical difference between the proposed vigor system and the current iteration of construction queues.

The main difference is that the Vigor can be saved up and spent in bulk.

So, it would be possible to "save up" two weeks worth of Vigor, and then start and immediately finish a 2-week project, rather than having to wait the two weeks after you start the project.

Ah. I think that has negative direct effects ("call off the attack, the tent is a castle now") and negative emergent effects (RMT or commoditized vigor).

It has, thats why i only described it has to be a finite amount, and one that should inconvinience one minding his own business but demonstrate in bigger projects (which 2 weeks of production would indicate) that more players are involved.

You still jump too easily on something that seems to support your case, yet fail to check the reference even though its a third source, please exhibit a bit more caution.

More accounts might be involved, but quite possibly the same number of players even in that case. If it takes 100 accounts 100 months to build a castle, one person with 280,000 accounts can build a castle each day.

Creating a system that provides that incentive for a player to create new accounts that do not meaningfully interact with the world is contrary to a specific design goal; that said, the construction system already announced does have that perverse incentive (train a character up enough to build things, then have him work for your settlement and give his wages back to the settlement for free labor). It also has the design goal of allowing for a freelance construction worker who is better at it than generalist characters, and goes to various locations where he can earn a premium for having better abilities than most people. A system where everyone is equal does not have the specialist premium incentive, offering only Marxist equal-value-labor in...

Well i cut the usual stuff you overread to come to this and take the crucial part you twist this time:

"Here is my Take on it:
Each Account (=accessible by each character) uses a finite (about a week) resource, further referred as Vigor. The refreshing should be fixed, making it more about the factor of usage (Ex: Characters with fitting skills Vigor should be more desirable)."

This seems to qualifiy for "worker who is better at it than generalist"

Incentiviying new accounts is also something thats not really an viable. the vigor is the basis for economic gain, as is time. The difference is how easily it can be applied to somthing where "time" does not sit very well, examples included mostly NPC as this is the easiest example.

Again, you show how easily you shoot of the rails in opposing an idea you neither comprehend, nor seem to have interest in exploring.

I did make it rather clear that this si a work in progress so instead of throwing halfbaked arguments (most involving current design can only be described such as we dont know very much about the economy at the point).

So i ask again, to think before posting and atleast have some arguments that dont take strawmans as starting point, but things i wrote.

@Nihimon Remember we already established that it would be needed to have a cap on the amount of Vigor that would be available (or rather can be saved up). So the question is more how much.
Would you elaborate which problems you think of? Assuming we start at about a week of Vigor than can be saved up and there is a limit on Itemtransportation for players i find the logistics of getting what you exchange for to somewhere unsable (ressources to crafter) more of a limiter then the amount of Vigor one can spend.

Gahta,

My point is this: if I get a fixed amount of valor and this valor is what I spend in order to gather, craft, build etc. then that amount since it is fixed places a limit on how much I can produce in a given time period.

If this system is also supposed to allow me to get greater results in shorter time (than it would have taken without the vigor system), surely that means that a dedicated gatherer, for example, will quickly run out of vigor and then find him/herself having to wait until the next day or the next week to get new vigor, and in the meantime will be unable to gather anything at all.

I do understand that in order to get wood, you would still have to go into the woods, find a good tree and start chopping. But what you suggest is that the woodchucker wouldn't get more wood the longer he/she keeps chopping, instead the amount of wood collected would depend on how much vigor the woodchucker chooses to spend, am I right? Spend all your vigor at one tree and you get a huge pile of wood in very short time and you'll be unable to gather/craft/build anything else until your vigor is refilled.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

Oh it seems we ae only a few steps apart then.

What i get the impression of is that you dont take into account that there will be some limit inplace for Characters storing Items, so that spending his entire Valor should be in itself rather tricky.

Have we gotten closer?

Nihimon wrote:

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I don't see a practical difference between the proposed vigor system and the current iteration of construction queues.

The main difference is that the Vigor can be saved up and spent in bulk.

So, it would be possible to "save up" two weeks worth of Vigor, and then start and immediately finish a 2-week project, rather than having to wait the two weeks after you start the project.

Ah. I think that has negative direct effects ("call off the attack, the tent is a castle now") and negative emergent effects (RMT or commoditized vigor).

It has, thats why i only described it has to be a finite amount, and one that should inconvinience one minding his own business but demonstrate in bigger projects (which 2 weeks of production would indicate) that more players are involved.

@Wurner
"I mean, gathering, transporting, crafting etc. may just be what I want to spend a lot of time and effort doing."
I still fail to see how this would be affected? Exchanging "time spent" as base for economic gain doesnt remove the fact that one would still go through the same steps or?
Youd still have to seek the ressource, still qualify for harvesting and logistic would also be a large part.
Ive emphathized that it shouldnt be a concern to selfsupply, taking what ones needs would be still restricted to what you can find and how to get it to where you use it.

So oerhaps elaborate on where this would even be noticable from your point, i suspect we just not gotten to a common point.

Gahta wrote:

ZenPagan wrote:

Given your answers above it becomes apparent to me that the proposed system would be of massive benefit to big organisations who can farm their members for vigor to keep their harvesters and crafters in business.

How can a finite, for everyone recharging the same, Reource be "farmed"?

The concept that it can be abused to put people to work, i e having them spend more time to archieve more economic gain, is with the one you defend, a time based one.

The way I would do it would be to calculate the maximum cash to vigor efficiency solution, which according to your base proposal would be to create F2P accounts that logged in for just long enough to contribute their vigor. If vigor requires that the character be gaining training time, it becomes a purchased resource and the large-scale game becomes pay-to-win.

I'm also going to point out that your language skills are negatively impacting communication; that's an observation, not a judgement, so don't be offended. I don't think it's effecting my opinion of your ideas, unless I'm misunderstanding what they are.

Well, since its that far off the charts and seems to be coming from confidence, lets dismantle your misconception:

What excels here seems to be the practice to point out something that appears a flaw, without the honesty of demonstrating the difference to what is defended.

So lets see with who this Vigor idea is competing, that is time spent.

Both are limited, one artifically that could made to suit game mechanics
and one thats limited by physique and time restraints (cooldowns etc).

So by being finite one cannot infer any statments made above.

Where you got the notion with your F2P and "that logged in for just long enough to contribute their vigor" comes from is mind boogling. I suggest another, calm read because shooting this much of the charts indicates quite the misunderstanding.

All that would be applied in "How" to exchange it (be it gathering, crafting, constructing etc) would still apply, merely changing from spending time (like X seconds to mine/chop) or cooldowns to a artificial Number.

The way this would be able to give it the proposed significance to act as a baseline of worth, was described above. If these lack a facette your pondering about, simply give me something to work with.

I just hope your next response will express more "valor" spent on actually not contradicting previous statements, not that i mind the continous discussion it provides, but it rarely gives much insight.

I think I get it now.

In essence, Vigor is "stored productivity" that can be spent to immediately accomplish some goal.

So, instead of starting a project and having to wait 2 weeks for it to complete, you could save up Vigor for 2 weeks and then accomplish it immediately.

Is that close?

Nail on, but i wouldnt just apply it to structures

This whole thread of yours kind of feels full of itself, in an extremely weird autistic sort of way.

I mean, the first post starts out with this weird 12345 chapter heading or something, and then gushes that you've been this lurker for months,
then in a wall of nigh incoherent bad grammar and lurching logic, you lay out this grand theory of yours.
Which nobody still can understand why it would be an improvement on the current game plan. Of note, the deep economic system tying together player crafting and other activities and ultimately time spent playing is pretty much the prime attraction of the game so far, and you're trying to change a major part of it, but still cannot formulate a reason why anything needs to be changed.
Guess what? You've written a whole ton of text, and still nobody is convinced of your idea.
Maybe your idea is just full of s@&#, maybe you're nuts, or maybe you're just a bad communicator. Maybe all of them. Who knows.
But probably calling people "full of themselves" for not accepting your idea is not the best approach at this point.

Contrary to popular belief do i like oposing ideas, the problem is if they are poorly thought out and full of contradiction with the base material.

Whether one agrees or not wasnt the idea here, its about proposing a idea and working out flaws and benefits, so people who can work with exempels, thus giving all participating something to work with, are welcome. Those who cant deliver something workable, well i can work my best to answer whats given.

And Quandary, work on your manners, if you get that riled up over someone, betiteling someone else of being "full of themselves" and it results in you relating others to autism plus other deragotary terms, well you dont seem to be a primary example for someone useful in any form of early community.

Given your answers above it becomes apparent to me that the proposed system would be of massive benefit to big organisations who can farm their members for vigor to keep their harvesters and crafters in business.

How can a finite, for everyone recharging the same, Reource be "farmed"?

The key is that this finite amount would have to be enough to satisfy one owns needs (basicly meaning if youre using it to outfit yourself, the valor needs shouldnt concern you) and that having to aquire from other players would come together where one can get use of the valor (crafting, buldings, evtl npc services like selling)

It is apparent that youve not put much thought into this, so please try to place your ideas into context of what i said, its one thing to be wrong, but being so full of yourself is infuriating if also done so poorly.

@Gahta

I am still trying to grasp your proposal. To really understand it.

Are you saying that "Vigor" would be a substitute for "man hours of labor"? Example: 5 "Vigor" = 5 building/crafting points?

Are you saying that "Vigor" would be a substitute for "coin"?

Are you saying that "Vigor" would be something to spend to create a resource? Example: 5 "Vigor" = 5 "Wood"?

Short Yes, no, no

The amount of course is redundant but basicly instead of a time requirement (while the technical steps of finding, qualifying and havesting still remain) harvesting etc, would have a valor corst.

The player would be able to measure easily what he could get for it, since its universal and with the entry to use it "nor others" relatively quick to get, it should fuel those who can get people together.

On second thought the coin question vould also get a little yes, if meant what i think would be the basis of economy. Coinage would remain something that lets one exchange goods easily but if valor would be used as the medium everyone uses for participating in the economy, how many valor (in form of players active in a reasonable area) is available locally would limit the supply side of the market.
This is of course the case with time driven concepts too, but it remains "undefined" in a sense that no decent expectations can be set, it all depends on personal dedication and knowledge, which per definition devalues the unexperienced ones if given otherwise equal footing.

On the last part i assumed you menat creating the resource node (or whatever they lastly choose to use) itself, it would create ressources the same way one would if he mined a node in WoW by using the timebased system.

I dont want to change how the process is taking place (ex: exploring, being able to and exploiting it) just what is used as a limiting factor at the roots of it.

Alright then: You idea is pointless because there are already finite resources available to pay for economic gain in the design. Adding another layer is a complication without adequate merit, and little return on extra developmental investment. It adds nothing that was not there initially, as nearly as I can tell. Please provide a clear example demonstrating why the developer should include your scheme.

Yeah, the idea is changing existing systems so that the finite ressource is one that sets Playes on qual footing, so not adding another layer, exchanging that layer.

So instead to look for improvement where it already works similiar (where you pointed out needlessness) the interesting part comes where we could reap benefits simply by having this in place.

Now er get to the intitial problem that hardly anything of merit is already in place, so i had to remain very theoretical.

The biggest merit of this would be that it would seperate involvement in economical gains from "playing" the game, essentially allowing people to be more aware of their impact, because it no longer is undefined "time" one would have to spend.
This ultimately would benefit newcomers the most, as they would be presented with their share of something that would have anywhere some worth.

The 2 biggest points would be more "why is it player/accountbound and not actually spending the time" and "Why making it finite"

Both are reasoned for in the OP.

So if something seems off, give me an example where you would argue for it being of lesser benefit as what you hold dear, because it doesnt get easier second guessing what people "didnt get".

Cervantes said reading a translation is like trying to admire a tapestry from the back. It is difficult to translate from one language to another. It is excruciating in my experience to try and translate my thoughts into language everyone can read... and at times I fail to adequately render my senses and layers intelligibly. Yet this is the duty of someone who wishes to share ideas, so it is our burden to shoulder.

I do not presume to know what you mean or whether that may be different from what we are reading, but knowing that at least some of us are inadequately grasping the fullness of your concept does move us in the right direction, where 'right' = understanding.

Nice effort, but rather pointless. I did my best to decribe the idea and have yet to answer questions that "having a finite ressource to pay for economic gain" and try to ponder about possible downsides.

Aside from that, i wholeheartly agree that discussing something thats mainly theoretical has a big cliff so i asked for examples where it may seem inferior to an alternative.

So yes, im at fault if it is not easily understandable, but im not to blame if people cant give a debatable example.
So if you want to make a difference, give me a example to work with instead of adding to the pool of people eloquently pointing out they didnt get it, as i dont see any way to change that withouth having a insight what it is that prohibits understanding.

Gahta wrote:

Hopefully a bit easier to grasp.

I now understand what you said, and I am left with trying to work out why you said it. I was pointing out that you shouldn't assume that everyone enjoys the same thing. Your response doesn't seem to correlate with that at all.

Gahta wrote:

and i hope you see why "white knighting" without actual taking part in the topic is detrimental to the discussion.

I would have thought that mentioning that you were making large and incorrect assumption in your argument was 'taking part'. However, you are evidently taking it as some form of attack rather than a genuine attempt to help the discussion along, and are taking it personally rather than addressing the point.

Given that and the fact that I really struggle to understand what you are writing, I shall follow Bringslite's lead and back away from this thread.

The problem her eis, you are fond of assuming something hardly representative in my words. I dont take it personal,. but have shown you that xoure attempt to take part did evidently derivate from the topic. I dont question it as genuine, but i hoped i could show you the damage it did. So if you dont want to take part now that personal assumptions on me are hopefully out of the way, no problem, but atleast have the dignity not to blame others for imaginative "taking it personally".

Since i dont want a third one derivating, i do not claim knowledge of personal enjoyment but tdo try to give reason for my assumptions, and since you didnt question these i doubt your "sincerity" in opposing.

Gahta wrote:

So you just object the notion that i might be able to relate to him and assume i have a idea what he meant based on what?

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by this.

Gahta wrote:

Its all nice to encourage not dismissing othersin whats enjoyable, but you seem to have it not given much thought.

What I meant by the post was that you are dismissing something that you don't find interesting, and proclaiming that it isn't fun. Now that may be true for you, and may be true for some others. It is not true for everyone, however. Your claim that 'youll [sic] find its the rest that usually makes it fun' does not apply to everyone, and I was merely pointing this out to you.

Gahta wrote:

On top of that we also have now some clowns running a unrelated chitchat, is this really the extent some are cabable of?

We have clowns here? Are there dancing horses and acrobats as well?

"So you just object the notion that i might be able to relate to him and assume i have a idea what he meant"

Hopefully a bit easier to grasp.

YOu seem to have made the common mistake to assume i am personally against something therefore i object it and as people with that idea usually roll didnt give me any quotation where you mightve gotten the idea from.

And i intentionally used "usually" as an indiciative that i claim majority (which is likely since most people dont refer to "watching the timer go down while harvesting" as the peak of their experience, even most explorertypes) not total unopposedness.

I hope this does satisfy bette rthen my last attempt, and i hope you see why "white knighting" without actual taking part in the topic is detrimental to the discussion.

@Gahta

One problem that I can see is that crafting, building, gathering, etc... already take time and need not necessarily be attended during the process. So the proposal of "player vigor" would introduce a redundant mechanic and a competing source for exchange with coin that is also redundant.

Please, can you tell me what you think about the above paragraph?

Thank You :)

Well i am at a loss where people see redundancy if both are able to do different things, so hard to say.

Regarding Quandary complexety, its the opposite, it would reduce complexety as it would refer economic interactions always back to this. It seems we would advance easier if people would start giving a example with their take on it, it should be easier to talk about the benefits on a case by case basis.

You're getting distracted:

You seem to have a great CONCEPT, but to propound your theory, you could do with improving your COMMUNICATION of it:-

Go for it! :)

And i need input to see where i lack the capabilities to comunicate because if i was able to determine how to comunicate it on my own i wouldve done so^^

So please, pep talk is nice, but here it dilutes from the issue if we already have problems with people derailing, so if you have a personal angle on this we can try to accomodate that.

Gahta wrote:

Sadurian wrote:

Gahta wrote:

Think about it, how is the act of skinning your prey, mining the node really the apex of your experience^^ youll find its the rest that usually makes it fun.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge what others find fun, in an MMO or another other aspect of life and gaming.

So you just object the notion that i might be able to relate to him and assume i have a idea what he meant based on what?

Its all nice to encourage not dismissing othersin whats enjoyable, but you seem to have it not given much thought.
On top of that we also have now some clowns running a unrelated chitchat, is this really the extent some are cabable of? Well, atleast i know i have to polish my proposition alot more

Gahta - Can I just point out:

1. You seem to have a very interesting idea
2. It's very difficult to understand exactly what you are saying/suggesting because of your language skills with English.

So there's going to be a lot of confusion. I suggest you try to tidy up your ideas and explain, explain, explain with patience. This probably means expanding what you are saying with further examples as well as structure it again to make more sense?

I'm still trying to understand exactly what you are proposing as it's very interesting but - very confusing.

I wont go away if thats what youre fearing^^

If youre unsure about certain interactions, then just take the premise of "having a finite ressource to pay for economic gain" and employ it, then we can try to solve the confusion together.

I also doubt that upholding certain "laws" wil be much problem.
Sure you have a bunch of people who have the options to do harm, but they are in the vicinity for a reason. If the reason involves the settlement as a funcioning gearwork, they will respect the entities that keep the town running, to a extent^^.

It would most likely end up in a group that on the one hand are trusted to shield those who are useful/wealthy and is feared/able enough to enforce this. If it works one has a melting pit for really able veterans, if not one has at least a nice dramatic slaughter at one point^^

Gahta wrote:

Think about it, how is the act of skinning your prey, mining the node really the apex of your experience^^ youll find its the rest that usually makes it fun.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge what others find fun, in an MMO or another other aspect of life and gaming.

So you just object the notion that i might be able to relate to him and assume i have a idea what he meant based on what?

Is not the OP wish mostly granted by the 'building manager' system?

-each building in a settlement gives increased benefits if there is a character (passively) managing it.
-each character can only manage one building at a time.
-you can train certain skills to better manage certain building.

Since my attention was focused on the econmical aspect and barelöy scratch structures, i dont see how that would be the case, can you elaborate on that a bit?

Gahta wrote:

Ive been rather basic in relating it to resource gathering mainl ybecause of the lack of actual information of it. Again ive to stress it isnt meant to limit the interaction itself (between you and the resource itself) so if it would be employed between you and a animal to skin or you picking berries etc doesnt really matter.

Regarding time, yeas its essentially a idea to exchange that but its not nearly where it has to be to really warrant that.

If you feel that my criticisms were completely off-topic then I am afraid I completely misunderstood you. It annoys me when I can't understand something so I will try to interpret you in another way:

Do you mean that every action that a player can perform that will ~increase value~ of the economy will have to be payed for in a limited currency (vigor)?

So to ensure that a single player doesn't affect the economy too much in too short a time, you place some sort of cap based on 'vigor' to limit how much that player can craft/gather/construct?

I have come to accept and actually look forward to time capped character development, the reason I can accept this is because I will be able to focus my gaming time on economical progression. If you make that time capped as well, what do I have left to spend my time and energy on in-game?

Thats pretty much the gist of it, but perhaps see it as every action a player could take economical (generating items, structures or currency) would be involve Vigor. By making the amount available to a player finite it would allow to polish whats usually left out.

Think about it, how is the act of skinning your prey, mining the node really the apex of your experience^^ youll find its the rest that usually makes it fun.
I also now gotten where youve misunderstood my commentt about PVE/PVP, of course i meant it mor ebasic as players interacting with either other players or the gameenviroment. Hope i could at least clear up some things, but keep at it it there is some left.

Sounds to me like you want to shift gathering from an active process to a game you play from a menu, sort of like how followers go do your gathering in SWTOR.

I want to go out in the wilderness to get hides, wood, gemstones and whathaveyou. If someone is not interested in that kind of gameplay, I'd suggest they should spend their time doing something else and leave gathering to those who enjoy it.

While out there, doing my gathering, I expect to run into competition, predators (Bluddwolf & co.) and possible new friends, thus allowing me to enjoy interaction with other players.

Gahta wrote:

Something that gives Player power over effort and influence of settlements while giving pwer to those running s&%~, therefore empowering PVP in all its beautiful, deceptive facets?

Do you by this mean that gathering and other 'menial tasks' should be performed behind the curtains so that people can focus on smashing each others' heads in? Because in that case I disagree, I don't want a big PvP arena world where people just run around killing each other. I want a world where people go about their business, PvP combat should not be the primary goal but should arise occasionally when there are conflicting player interests surfacing. It should not be the default interaction.

It is very possible I have misunderstood your intentions, I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what you mean.

Ive been rather basic in relating it to resource gathering mainl ybecause of the lack of actual information of it. Again ive to stress it isnt meant to limit the interaction itself (between you and the resource itself) so if it would be employed between you and a animal to skin or you picking berries etc doesnt really matter.

Regarding time, yeas its essentially a idea to exchange that but its not nearly where it has to be to really warrant that.

Time is a commodity in the game enabling training. If I am not mistaken, Goblinworks intends to market such time to the players. It sounds to me as if Gahta is proposing another type of time commodity he/she calls 'vigor', and which is specific to crafting/marketing.

I am unsure whether this will be seen as competing with GW.

I would see it more as taking what they intended in regards to training and employing it on the economy at large, the name i used is merely exemplary.

It is a means to replace time investment as the driving force in economics, not necessary because its better in all but specificly because it would enable a shift to the interaction itself.

Resources one encounters (be they freely accessible or perhaps a player owned node offering resources for vigor) would no longer need to be restriced by how long player cdan grind upon and transport the haul back, but simply if its worth their effort.

So while a player concerned with himself should always have vigor to spare, those trying to meet demands in some way would have to give something of value for the vigor.
The vigor should be accountbound, usable by all characters of them, having a global replenishment rate (same for all).

So resources could be accessible in a certain area by exchange for vigor. Owning a resource patch for that matter (like a field) could allow for vigor against crop exchanges.

I honestly think this could at one hand help having a more constant view on player economy (as late night resource grinding would become a minor issue).

It would imply a kind of chain in exchange for vigor:
Player gets
Resources - harvesting or gathering
Currency - provinding crafters with "fuel" or fueling the assembling of structures

Here the idea was It should be a universal measurement for player involvement, so how it could be worked into the processes involving player is the interesting part i think.

Crafting itself could be tiered that way:

First - We have all those things one can assemble with his hands, provided the material. Translating to recepts requiring just vigor and are rather cheap (stoneknive, suitible flinstone+a bit vigor)

Second - Those requiring a tool, which needs to be replaced on a regular pace.

Third - Those requiring objects, like ambosses, worktables and the like. Here i would argue could storing and exchanging vigor could start within a small area but noticable from afar. It could sell the usage for others for a small vigorfee, sparing others the hassle for getting it just for meeting their own needs, while supplying the owner a bit.

It allows players to think of their weekly "impact" seperately to the social and personal kinks. So one coul include a weekly marketstrol into his adventourus lifestyle to get some coin for his accumulated vigor and suit himself.

Although I admit, I don't really understand the premise of this OP. I do pull one concept that you hold, and disagree with it.

"Its here the age-old Player vs Nonplayer characters debate comes into play, alongside with automation. We do like to "provide" certain services, but not neccessarily ourselves (like shopkeeping or working the fields) yet filling it with npc devalues players."

What would devalue the player-character is forcing them to perform these mundane functions for themselves. Having NPCs do this tasks, frees the PC to do things that PCs are meant to do. The object is for the PC to interact with the world in ways that the common peasant or town folk can not.

It also seems to me that your whole concept of a Vigor system can be achieved through the use of crafted consumables.

It seems youre not disagreeing^^

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that each player(!) get one "vigor" per week, that vigor is consumed in the performance of some tasks, and that vigor be transferable and storable?

Would your proposal result is incentivisizing the creation of a large number of accounts by a small number of people?

I doubt i specified the amount, the basic idea was a finite storable amount (incentivicing structures to store more for those using more) per account. The amount itself is something more suited to a intermediate amount (three digit would feel suitable representating a weeks supply making the individual Vigor representating perhaps "couple of minutes" spirit.

Of course everything that doesnt involve manual work incentivices to a extent creating accounts, but if providing basic structures would allow theyre drade and storage (like crafting stations) there is little doubt it would make new accounts "worth" it on their own.

Summary

1 - Introduction

2 - Percieved Problem

3 - Proposed Solution

4 - Exemplary Interactions

5 - Final

1 Introduction

Hiho, been mostly a passive observer since a couple months out of curiosity and a little hgope^^. Lately ive found a instance in a post that got me thinking.

It described something about how a finite Playerbound resource could be applied to the situation at hand. (Couldnt find it again for quotation, the origin will surely know^^)

What follows is my approach and i hope it at least does gives us some insights in how the Devs percieves this.

2 Percieved Problem

It breaks down to how a Player himself, beyound crude skills or assets impacts the game. This gets here with the settlement mechanics and the open world approach a interesting dynamic to what players want and dont want to do with whats beneficial.

Its here the age-old Player vs Nonplayer characters debate comes into play, alongside with automation. We do like to "provide" certain services, but not neccessarily ourselves (like shopkeeping or working the fields) yet filling it with npc devalues players.

So how to establish a common denominator? Something that gives Player power over effort and influence of settlements while giving pwer to those running s++*, therefore empowering PVP in all its beautiful, deceptive facets?

3 Proposed Solution

Here is my Take on it:
Each Account (=accessible by each character) uses a finite (about a week) resource, further referred as Vigor. The refreshing should be fixed, making it more about the factor of usage (Ex: Characters with fitting skills Vigor should be more desirable).

So idealy this would work as anchor of the economy (stepping away from copper/silver/gold) giving crafting, gathering, building, possible even pvp a new tool to work with - Playereffort.

Imagine establishing a Settlemeant means gathering people that want to get something for their effort. Crafters would consume it so it would mean setting up a crafting station where others could use their own Vigor, but the owner can also try to buy it for himself (the Stations, or houses in general could then also act as storage fordonating/trading it).
It would enable to seperate the impact one as a player can have to the impact one a s a person has time to.

4 Exemplary Interactions

Services - Here it becomes interesting. Lets imagine popular mmo services like crafting stations, a structure with certain conditions, storing Vigor and allowing trade for it. With this establishing more structural like postal, transportation, trading or even homeservice become viable as player driven aspect.

Lets say one wants to quicktravel to a certain point, then it could allow for someone settign up the Service , buying Vigor in the vicinity and selling you a nicely animated palanquin ride from A to B. A pattern that allows communal services in playerhands, driven by the effort needed in maintaining it.

Crafting - Those building for themselves should neverer be really bothered while someone who wants to meet demands has to aquire additional hands.

Slaves - We could have them require certain conditions and consumable and then act as Vigor source. So they would actually give those benefits that can feed them, while being no menace to employment and allows a mechanic to aquire those sometimes.

5 Final

Congratiolations enduring my many mistakes in grammer and id be happy for a response.