Added thread for new Goblinworks Blog: I Can See for Miles.
CEO, Goblinworks
|
@DM Andy - For obvious reasons we're focused on Early Enrollees as a function of backing the Kickstarter. Until its over we're not going to be talking about other ways to become an Early Enrollee.
Goblin Squad membership is about access to information and being a visible part of our community to help evangelize the game. Goblin Squad members are the first people we tell things to and the first to have access to information and opportunities when they become available.
Your help in backing the Technology Demo was invaluable, and the rewards we offered for that help we think were a fair way to show our thanks directly.
There will be many more ways for Goblin Squad members to be a part of the game in the future but I would ask your patience to let us maximize the impact of the Kickstarter for the present so that we have a better chance to get you the game bigger, better and FASTER.
Thanks!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the blog you talk about the end of the theme park era and the beginning of the sandbox era. I agree with you, but why has it taken the industry so long to realize this? Sandboxes existed in text based MMORPG's a long time ago and were quite popular. When EQ came out long ago I was perturbed at the game mechanics because all they did is took single player RPGs (theme parks) and added a ton of players. I wanted a sandbox then and was disappointed it wasn't the way the game was designed to start. Oh well I thought I'd wait and surely the next MMORPG would be a great sandbox game.
Follow the next 13+ years and we've received nothing but theme-park after theme-park. I did not think this model would be popular or sustainable by developers, and often it proved that it wasn't (sustainable) as players would sit at the level caps clamoring for more content to devour. Sure there has been 1 sandbox (EVE online) but in the meantime there's been 100 EQ clones.
I'm very excited that somebody in the industry finally "gets it". But I would like to hear your thoughts about why it took so long? Are developers and designers in the gaming industry that devoid of innovation, creativity, and a bit of common sense (when it comes to content vs. development time and why sandboxes are the only way to make a game devs can keep up with)?
Thanks for the blogs, I've really enjoyed them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the blog you talk about the end of the theme park era and the beginning of the sandbox era. I agree with you, but why has it taken the industry so long to realize this? Sandboxes existed in text based MMORPG's a long time ago and were quite popular. When EQ came out long ago I was perturbed at the game mechanics because all they did is took single player RPGs (theme parks) and added a ton of players. I wanted a sandbox then and was disappointed it wasn't the way the game was designed to start. Oh well I thought I'd wait and surely the next MMORPG would be a great sandbox game.
Follow the next 13+ years and we've received nothing but theme-park after theme-park. I did not think this model would be popular or sustainable by developers, and often it proved that it wasn't (sustainable) as players would sit at the level caps clamoring for more content to devour. Sure there has been 1 sandbox (EVE online) but in the meantime there's been 100 EQ clones.
I'm very excited that somebody in the industry finally "gets it". But I would like to hear your thoughts about why it took so long? Are developers and designers in the gaming industry that devoid of innovation, creativity, and a bit of common sense (when it comes to content vs. development time and why sandboxes are the only way to make a game devs can keep up with)?
Thanks for the blogs, I've really enjoyed them.
WoW happened. There really is no other explanation.
We are living in an alternate timeline where the makers of Blizzard stole the sports almanac and gave it to their younger selves creating an future for online gaming with WoW towering in the middle and an apocalyptic wasteland of WoW copies for as far as the eye can see.
I have no other explanation for how that model of gaming dominated the last decade.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no other explanation for how that model of gaming dominated the last decade.
As amusing as your explanation was...
I played EQ for years, then switched to WoW. It was just that much better, and is still, quite simply, fun. It doesn't hurt that it's always been highly polished, too.
Just saying, there's a real reason why so many companies modeled their games on WoW...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tyveil, I think that there are still a lot of customers in the MMO market who really want the game to provide them endless things to do, and who are extremely averse to entering into an Open PvP environment.
I know those are two of my wife's biggest concerns about PFO.
A true sandbox IMO simply HAS to offer open PVP. Otherwise you leave out a huge chunk of potential RP opportunities and immersion for both sides. It is not immersible (I would say realistic but in a fantasy MMO realism is not necessarily the goal) that player A cannot harm player B because some invisible force holds him back. Now when player A harms player B and is quickly descended upon by town guards, thrown in the dungeon, gains a negative reputation in the town, and loses all his possessions... THAT is immersible and engaging. Those same 2 players out in the wilds and it may be a different story. Both should be much more wary of their surroundings and interactions with would-be friends or villains.
I believe people so dislike this potential because they haven't seen a game with mechanics that properly support it. There should be consequences for every action. There is not a graphical MMORPG that has done it right yet. There are text games that have, and you do not see rampant player killing in those games.
I really hope they stick to their guns on the PVP. I know a lot of people will come around to it once they see it can and will work, and that the designs of other games were at fault (not PVP in general) for it not working in the past.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am one of those that has had a bad experience with PVP. I am really excited about this game and willing to give PVP a try again. Ultima Online just ruined it for me.... Yeah I know that was ancient history, but I can tell you Player Killers killed that game for me.
I see GW's vision and get it, I just hope they can follow through with keeping the majority of griefing out of the game. I know they will not be able to abolish all of it... I just hope they can put a great big dent in it! =)
Valinar
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow happened indeed.
Blizzard saw the chance to get recurring monthly revenue (subscriptions) from customers via this new genre called "MMORPGs". What's more is they were sitting on THE gold mine of IPs, there own Warcraft RTS series of games. Millions upon millions of people played those games (raises hand) and as such it was a familiar world to a large potential customer base.
Getting those folks to try the game wouldn't really be a challenge as it was familiar. Getting them to stay in such numbers for such a length of time is a credit to Blizzard knowing its target audience.
My view as to why it dominated the last 8 years is that players don't want to play crap games. By "crap games" I mean games with low production values. Well, for the past 8 years any company with enough money to make an MMO of at least standard video game production values of the relevant time/technology were trying to imitate WoW and its success. Very few of them came close and many of them had to either change their business model (i.e., the F2P boom) or sunset altogether.
Meanwhile sandbox games (Ultima Online- 9/1997) and alternate advancement games (Asheron's Call- 11/1999) were still chugging along with healthy populations but in large being ignored because Blizzard chose to iterate on their themepark middle brother Everquest (3/1999).
The funny thing is Everquest had many sandbox elements to it. The "iterating" Blizzard did to make WoW cut the majority of those mechanics out. Looking at it it makes sense to an extent as the RTS crowd of Warcraft they were courting were used to click = instant gratification in some manner.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A true sandbox IMO simply HAS to offer open PVP.I couldn't agree more, but it's a challenge to communicate that to people who have a very negative view of PvP the way it's been offered in other games - but it looks like you already see that :)
I can agree that it should offer PvP, but I do not agree that a sandbox (I won't use true as it implies that the person is the only one who can define it, which isn't so) HAS to funnel players to PvP. EvE online is a good example to me where players aren't funneled to PvP. You can spend your entire time in High Sec and as long as you leave anything Yellow alone or don't fall for scams, no PvP. If someone does attack you, Concord blows them up.
On the other hand, you know exactly where to go if PvP is your thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A true sandbox IMO simply HAS to offer open PVP.I couldn't agree more, but it's a challenge to communicate that to people who have a very negative view of PvP the way it's been offered in other games - but it looks like you already see that :)
I can agree that it should offer PvP, but I do not agree that a sandbox (I won't use true as it implies that the person is the only one who can define it, which isn't so) HAS to funnel players to PvP. EvE online is a good example to me where players aren't funneled to PvP. You can spend your entire time in High Sec and as long as you leave anything Yellow alone or don't fall for scams, no PvP. If someone does attack you, Concord blows them up.
On the other hand, you know exactly where to go if PvP is your thing.
Agreed. I think the reasoning behind the safety of a zone should be for RP reasons, precisely what you described with EVE. I'm perfectly ok with that. What I don't like is games where you can't harm other players but can harm NPC's that are for all intents and purposes no different than the players just played by AI instead of a real person. Arbitrary game rules that disallow attacking completely break immersion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@V'rel Vusoryn, note that Tyveil said a sandbox has to "offer" open PvP, not "funnel" players into it. From what we know about PFO, players will be able to stay in safe areas in exactly the same way they can in EVE.
I did note that, however, there are many out there that believe offer and funnel to be one and the same. I'm not saying Tyveil is, just noting that there are those that do and that I disagree with them.
My friend that has been in EvE longer than I was telling me the other day that there is an uproar brewing amongst some EVE players because the majority of the wealth is in High Sec. because it is safer. The disgruntled want CCP to step in and introduce changes that will essentially funnel folks from High Sec to Low sec and Null.
That's the kind of stuff I'm against. The only thing I believe that should draw people out into PvP hot areas is their own desire to go there and partake in that kind of play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The disgruntled want CCP to step in and introduce changes that will essentially funnel folks from High Sec to Low sec and Null.
There's a whole lot I don't know about that situation, so I'm going to refrain from offering an opinion. However, it does raise a question about how much leeway you think the game developers should have in something like placing the most valuable resources in Null-Sec space...
The only thing I believe that should draw people out into PvP hot areas is their own desire to go there and partake in that kind of play.
Do you think it's okay for GW to design the game so that the only way to gain real wealth is to venture out into unsafe territory?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you want relative safety, you have the option to play classes that don't need to step in the way of danger often - crafters, healers (if there are injuries that cannot be healed in combat), merchants, bards, etc. I imagine there will be certain areas that contain desirable materials or destinations that will be pvp. If you're playing a trader, do you take the easy contract to a nearby town using a relatively safe and well traveled road, or do you take the high dollar contract that travels through known pvp territory? Sure you can sometimes get better things in pvp territory, but chances are you will die more and thus lose those gains quicker. It evens out. If you want to stay safe then do so and pay other players if you need some dirty work done.
The only reward should not be the desire to pvp, there should be tangible rewards. I don't always go into pvp territory to pvp, I want reasons to go there for other rewards. It makes no sense to have guards in every region and I imagine most of the world will be fairly open pvp.
Anyways, this belongs in a different thread..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The disgruntled want CCP to step in and introduce changes that will essentially funnel folks from High Sec to Low sec and Null.There's a whole lot I don't know about that situation, so I'm going to refrain from offering an opinion. However, it does raise a question about how much leeway you think the game developers should have in something like placing the most valuable resources in Null-Sec space...
The only thing I believe that should draw people out into PvP hot areas is their own desire to go there and partake in that kind of play.Do you think it's okay for GW to design the game so that the only way to gain real wealth is to venture out into unsafe territory?
In my opinion, I think eventually, you might not have to go venture out into unsafe territory.
The way I'm reading this, if you can manage to obtain enough money, you could eventually be self-sufficient: You can request various groups and people to obtain materials that are of high risk to obtain, and you could simply pay them for the materials. After you have obtained the materials, you can turn around and start using them to create various goods such as weapons, vehicles, or what have you, and then sell them at a increased price to make a profit.
I saw this happen a lot in Mabinogi: Even though it's not as risky to obtain materials, they are often needed in large sums. I saw one of the top blacksmiths in the server buy ingots for 1k each, needing 50 ingots as well as 75k worth of other materials to make one weapon, whom would then sell it for 200k or so (I don't have the exact amount). Even though he had the skills to go acquire the materials himself, he'd often purchase materials from others without putting himself at much risk (or in this case, taking a long time.) These goods were often not found in stores, would have better stats than store-bought items, or had cool colors (copper red, silver, or gold.)
Oh Mabinogi... If only Nexon didn't make you a majorly cash-shop oriented game. They seemed to shy away from the sandbox aspect as the gachapon items are often better than crafted items, or heck: you can only get good items from there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
MMORPGS started off as more sandbox type games (UO, EQ, SWG). The problem is, no one was used to that style of gameplay. People were used to RPGs with a set story, one you followed through to the end. And suddenly, along comes WoW to bridge the gap: you can play online with thousands of other people *and* have a story like you are used to! People flocked to the game because it was more familiar, because it felt more like what they are used to. Now, however, the MMORPG genre has grown, and people are used to playing with thousands of players. People now don't see MMO's as weird, they see them as fairly normal. Which means that we no longer need a bridge like WoW for people to play, which leads us back to the early MMOS: Sandbox gameplay.
Please note, the above is entirely my view, and may be totally skewed by the fact that I got started in MMOs at a young age with SWG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Marthian, I think you're right that there will be plenty of players who try to make their way in the world by being Crafters who stay in safe areas and buy all the materials they need. I'm not sure it's going to work very well, though.
We can't really know right now, but I expect the Harvesting and Transporting of goods to be the most frequent target of PC Bandit attacks. This will force the price of goods to go up based either on how far they travel, or on which areas they have to travel through. If that's the case, then the Crafters who set up their operations close to where the resources are being harvested will have a significant competitive advantage.
I will make this statement, and I will stand by it 100%: Open World PVP has not enhanced the play experience, or made the play experience more enjoyable for the bulk of players, in any MMO. Ever.
The closest successes to date were Dark Age of Camelot and UO. UO Backed off this model a few years into it's cycle, with the introduction of the "shards" of Felucca and Trammel. Dark Age backed off it and finally implemented Cooperative servers, which were a huge success.
Every MMO to date, without exception, has either backed off this model or, to put it rather bluntly, failed.
Open PVP is a very polarizing aspect of the game, and Open World PVP servers tend to demonstrate very visibily the ugliness humanity is more than willing to show the minute no one is watching. Short of making it physically unable to play the game in some manner, there is no sufficient deterrant available to prevent griefing. People don't care about being hated, or about being unable to go into towns - Heck, half the people in UO wore this fact as a badge of honor.
The concept of Open World PVP seems more popular than it is, because this group of players tends to be far more vocal than the normal playerbase, and the servers are always hugely successful - for the first few months of launch. After this, popularity wanes as the realization sets in that "No, it's not balanced between classes. And it never can or will be", and also as the bulk of players who were curious get tired of the constant antisocial behavior of 5-10% of the server base, who make it their life goal to make sure playing the game is not fun for the other 90%.
So, in a word I state simply "no." I firmly stand against Open World PVP on a whole, or at a minimum state that it needs to be on dedicated servers for this sort of behavior. If people want to be jerks and/or play with jerks, they can do it on a server I don't play on.
(And Yes, I understand that there is a PVP focus in PFO. I am trying to get my voice heard that I think this is a mistake, and that non-PVP options must be provided.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In EVE high sec covered a considerable amount of territory. I know PFO will have a high sec like area but how much territory it covers remains to be seen.
One thing I really DIDN'T like about high sec vs. low sec vs. null sec in EVE is how hard it seemed to transition from high sec to low sec. In high sec you can semi-afk mine, or rig up super-powerful mission ships to plow through level 4 missions almost casually at a pretty good profit.
In null sec you HAD to belong to an alliance. Solo play was suicidal play. And you had to CONSTANTLY be on guard while fighting NPCs or mining.
For me it ended up that high sec was more profitable because I could sit there solo and semi-afk (Doing things in another window or even chores around the house while I mined. Checking up occasionally to tell my ship to mine the next rock.)
If there is extensive safe area play in this game I would like to see:
1. Low profit potential in those areas.
2. An in-ability to safely play semi-afk for a prolonged period of time while turning a profit.
3. Easy movement between high sec and low sec from both directions.
4. Reasons to trade outside of high sec.
5. A system that doesn't encourage settlements and kingdoms to kill every neutral that comes through their territory/benefits to opening up their territory to neutral players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Robb Smith, Ryan has presented a lot of very detailed analysis of the success of other MMOs, including a chart that shows subscriber bases over time based on data that we in the general public simply don't have access to. As he said in the very first blog: "the last thing we want is a huge spike of players followed by a rapid decline. What we want instead is a slow, steady growth of players—the same kind of growth that EVE Online has experienced almost every year since its launch".
It's one thing to choose not to participate in an Open PvP world as a matter of personal taste.
It's another to say something like this:
Every MMO to date, without exception, has either backed off this model or, to put it rather bluntly, failed.
This is demonstrably untrue. EVE Online consistently stands out as the only steady-growth MMO in existence (WoW experiences a series of "spike & crash" events with each expansion).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will make this statement, and I will stand by it 100%: Open World PVP has not enhanced the play experience, or made the play experience more enjoyable for the bulk of players, in any MMO. Ever.
The closest successes to date were Dark Age of Camelot and UO. UO Backed off this model a few years into it's cycle, with the introduction of the "shards" of Felucca and Trammel. Dark Age backed off it and finally implemented Cooperative servers, which were a huge success.
Every MMO to date, without exception, has either backed off this model or, to put it rather bluntly, failed.
Except for EVE.
And maybe a couple more, but I am not plugged in to all of the MMO comings and goings.I would start a list of all of the 'themepark' consensual PvP only games that have "failed", but I really don't have the time. ;-)
So, in a word I state simply "no." I firmly stand against Open World PVP on a whole, or at a minimum state that it needs to be on dedicated servers for this sort of behavior. If people want to be jerks and/or play with jerks, they can do it on a server I don't play on.
If people want to be jerks, they will have to be jerks out in the wilderness where there aren't going to be guards ready to crush anyone that decides to attack someone else.
PvP may be there for the people that want it, but it doesn't mean that everyone wants it, and it doesn't mean that it is going to happen everywhere.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why has it taken the industry so long to realize this?
Ultima Online.
You have to remember than in the late 90s there were only a handful of teams able to even think about making an MMO. The money required for even what we would consider a "small" MMO today was quite large compared to the money required to do a game like Baldur's Gate.
Most of those people had worked together on a previous MMO or a MUD. But they all watched (and many worked on) Ultima Online. UO was envisioned as a "world simulator", and the guiding vision of the design was to try and take a "hand's off" approach, letting the society in the game develop purely based on what the players decided to do, in a world that would react to their actions logically.
Given the limits of the internet and video cards, Ultima Online was an atomic bomb of a success - especially when people started to do the math on what they were making on the monthly subscription price. Ultima Online is what got EQ funded and what got World of Warcraft underway at Blizzard. Pretty much anyone with half a brain could see that the "virtual world" genre was off to the races.
But Ultima Online got twisted. The in-game society wasn't anything like a "real world". And people were acting in really strange (and frankly horrifying) ways. Anonymity bred contempt for civility, and the small percentage of the population that is sociopathic found a safe outlet for their misbehavior. They could do things in UO that would get them arrested in the real world but which had no consequences of meaning in the virtual world.
Pretty soon the ethos in that game became all about abuse. Abuse of the players. Abuse of the mechanics. Abuse of the infrastructure (Famous anecdote: people used to line up on the edge of a zone boundary and coordinate walking across because the zone transfer software couldn't handle the load and it would crash the whole server. For fun. Regularly.)
So what happened is that "sandbox" got a really bad rep. And the people working on the other early MMOs took note and identified all the problems in UO and concluded that sandbox games were fundamentally degenerate. Letting people do what they want to whom they want without consequences takes you in one short step from the Lord of the Rings to Lord of the Flies.
Those early developers have gone on to lead many of the MMO teams that have launched games and their influence has been mighty. The people forged in that crucible have been busy iterating in the themepark model because of the experience they had with UO. The value of that approach was validated in spades first by EverQuest and then by World of Warcraft. Once you have a strategy that works, you don't change it, and for the most part they haven't changed.
Raph Koster and John Smedley tried to get back into a sandbox game with Star Wars Galaxies. It has brought them more pain than anything else they've ever worked on. When it failed (and it failed EARLY, long before they tried to fix it with things like the new combat system or new player experience), the rest of the industry figured that if those two guys couldn't make it work, it couldn't work.
This is why EVE is unique. It was built in Iceland by a team of people who had almost no connection with the rest of the industry at all. They were free to innovate and experiment without the burden of "everyone knows that won't work". And so they made a game that has run for 7+ years and grew to more then 350,000 subscribing players. And is a sandbox.
My argument is that the past decade of history gives us the context we need to see how to avoid the problems that cause sandboxes to degenerate. And the NUMBER ONE thing is to build and nurture a culture in the community that is intolerant of a+###!$s.
Part of that is being honest that we're not building a "world simulator". We can, and will, interfere directly with players who are attempting to have fun by making other people feel bad. We don't see exploits as "clever", we see them as cheating. We don't want you to spend your time trying to figure out where the fragile parts of the infrastructure are and then using that knowledge to hurt our customers or us. We'll be quick, decisive, and ruthless about kicking those kinds of people out, and I think that will send a clear message to the community that we're not going to tolerate that kind of behavior and neither should they.
Another big part of that is focusing on making meaningful human interaction the center of our design. That means that we have to remove the temptation to interject ourselves into your stories. CCP is really, really good at this, and I learned a lot of lessons from them while I was there. Investing in features that let you do interesting things with each other is far better than investing in features that make the world look prettier, sound better, tell an NPC story, show off some new technological advance, etc. That focus will hopefully keep us from going down some of the detours that other sandbox MMOs have followed which took money and attention away from their core design at the expense of player satisfaction.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ryan. On the note of limiting anti-social behavior and increasing player interaction I have a question for you.
Something I found in common with EVE and Darkfall was the idea that when you control territory it is in your best interest to keep all neutral players out. At best, they have no reason to be there unless they were invited, and at worst they are there to kill your members and disrupt your operations.
While I wouldn't like to see you disallow this, my question to you is would you like to see this be the prevalent way of thinking, or do you intend to give settlements and kingdoms reasons not to shut themselves off to all but their own members and a few allies? To make neutrals more seen as bringers of trade and revenue and less as potential threats and resource stealers?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The disgruntled want CCP to step in and introduce changes that will essentially funnel folks from High Sec to Low sec and Null.There's a whole lot I don't know about that situation, so I'm going to refrain from offering an opinion. However, it does raise a question about how much leeway you think the game developers should have in something like placing the most valuable resources in Null-Sec space...
The only thing I believe that should draw people out into PvP hot areas is their own desire to go there and partake in that kind of play.Do you think it's okay for GW to design the game so that the only way to gain real wealth is to venture out into unsafe territory?
No, I don't. They should allow for a myriad of ways that aren't area dependent and leave it up to players to figure them out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
why has it taken the industry so long to realize this?...
Raph Koster and John Smedley tried to get back into a sandbox game with Star Wars Galaxies. It has brought them more pain than anything else they've ever worked on. When it failed (and it failed EARLY, long before they tried to fix it with things like the new combat system or new player experience), the rest of the industry figured that if those two guys couldn't make it work, it couldn't work.
...
As someone that was there for the whole ride I'll point out that it didn't "fail" which respect to the 200K plus subscribers (many of which had multiple subs). The game did not generate the millions of subs that World of Warcraft had and which from what I heard was a goal for SOE and LA, sure. Monetary fail for those two, okay.
That said in the realm of fun gameplay mechanics PFO would do well to take a few notes from SWG (pre NGE). There is a reason its crafting system is across the board on MMO gaming forums still heralded as the best crafting system in an MMO to date.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, I don't. They should allow for a myriad of ways that aren't area dependent and leave it up to players to figure them out.
I can't find a link right now, but I'm pretty sure Ryan intends to design the game so that only low-value, abundant resources are available in "secure" areas.
Although, I suppose there's still room them to do that and still not violate your principle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... PFO would do well to take a few notes from SWG (pre NGE). There is a reason its crafting system is across the board on MMO gaming forums still heralded as the best crafting system in an MMO to date.
For my part, I thought the actual mechanics of Crafting in SWG were nothing special, and that it was far too easy to "master" any particular skill. I think the real attraction of SWG's Crafting system was in the myriad items that could be created, and the freedom you had to place them inside your structures.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, I don't. They should allow for a myriad of ways that aren't area dependent and leave it up to players to figure them out.I can't find a link right now, but I'm pretty sure Ryan intends to design the game so that only low-value, abundant resources are available in "secure" areas.
Although, I suppose there's still room them to do that and still not violate your principle.
As long as it allows the avenue for a player then it isn't broken in my mind. The real point is that I do not subscribe to the line of thought that being in a PvP area is more risk because of other players attacking you and so you should get "more" or "better". "Different" rewards, sure.
While it hasn't been done in a major MMO yet, AI can be programmed to be even tougher without "cheating" and thus an even greater Risk vs, Reward option.
There might even be a few players who could be such an AI too. But that number would be tiny.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My big question would be why do people living in high sec areas need to make as much money as those in low sec ones? They don't have to worry about wars, replacing lost gear, rebuilding destroyed structures, hiring mercenaries, placing bounties, hiring assassins etc. Plain and simple Open World PVP is a resource dump.
If you aren't taking part in it you don't need to generate extra resources to dump into it, and allowing you those extra resources to dump into a war you take no part in simply unbalances things. For that reason I would like the economic opportunities in high sec kept very limited.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... PFO would do well to take a few notes from SWG (pre NGE). There is a reason its crafting system is across the board on MMO gaming forums still heralded as the best crafting system in an MMO to date.For my part, I thought the actual mechanics of Crafting in SWG were nothing special, and that it was far too easy to "master" any particular skill. I think the real attraction of SWG's Crafting system was in the myriad items that could be created, and the freedom you had to place them inside your structures.
Well, I will agree to disagree with you on the "master" part of things as from my view part of that was making the "best" items on your respective server and only the players could determine that by them buying from you.
I also factor in their dynamic resource spawning system which required effort (not saying it was hard or easy) to find the right stat resources to maximize whatever trait you were going to punch on a given item. This I know due to the PA I ran in which my best bud was in the top 3 weapon crafters on the server and I was in the same bracket making Stim-Ds and other medical supplies.
Sure, the actual motions of making something were simple, and I feel that's as they should be. I hated (and stated it multiple threads in beta) EQ2's initial crafting system. Crafting shouldn't be a minigame. Developers need to spend less time trying to make gimmiky crafting and focus on the scope and utility of what can be crafted.
And SWG was a solid base on that principle in my view.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My big question would be why do people living in high sec areas need to make as much money as those in low sec ones? They don't have to worry about wars, replacing lost gear, rebuilding destroyed structures, hiring mercenaries, placing bounties, hiring assassins etc. Plain and simple Open World PVP is a resource dump.
If you aren't taking part in it you don't need to generate extra resources to dump into it, and allowing you those extra resources to dump into a war you take no part in simply unbalances things. For that reason I would like the economic opportunities in high sec kept very limited.
If anything, just an off the cuff, those people could be RPing a faction that finances wars in the PvPing areas. While they themselves have no interest in PvPing, they simply might enjoy the idea of being "gunrunners" who provide the means for those who like to get dirty to do so.
There are other RP examples out there as well. Bottom line is that it can ba another faucet that spills into every other facet of the game if the plumbing allows the avenue for such creative RP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[]If anything, just an off the cuff, those people could be RPing a faction that finances wars in the PvPing areas. While they themselves have no interest in PvPing, they simply might enjoy the idea of being "gunrunners" who provide the means for those who like to get dirty to do so.
There are other RP examples out there as well. Bottom line is that it can ba another faucet that spills into every other facet of the game if the plumbing allows the avenue for such creative RP.
My point is I don't want people sitting in the safe areas making a killing and then dumping that money into war resources for their buddies or alts. If there is a major source of funding backing someone I am at war with, I want the option to destroy that source off funding and cut the gravy train off. If you want to effect Open World PVP then it needs to effect YOU.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hated (and stated it multiple threads in beta) EQ2's initial crafting system. Crafting shouldn't be a minigame. Developers need to spend less time trying to make gimmiky crafting and focus on the scope and utility of what can be crafted.
I totally agree. EQ2 Crafting consistently - and literally - put me to sleep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everyone seems to think because pvp is allowed that is all anyone will be doing. You enter open pvp areas with the intent of doing pvp. That should not be the case. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, but it should always be an option. Straight out griefing should warrant reprimand from the devs, leading to things such as account bans if the behavior is not stopped. Game enforced consequences (guards in safe areas, jail time, etc) should discourage most griefing in starter areas. Players will also form "good" groups to help fight off player villains. Those things together are enough to ensure pvp will not run rampant and unjustified.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point is I don't want people sitting in the safe areas making a killing and then dumping that money into war resources for their buddies or alts. If there is a major source of funding backing someone I am at war with, I want the option to destroy that source off funding and cut the gravy train off. If you want to effect Open World PVP then it needs to effect YOU.
I doubt people will be sitting in safe areas making tons of money, if GW is doing things right the 3 safe npc zones will not be setup to function as major trading hubs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everyone seems to think because pvp is allowed that is all anyone will be doing. You enter open pvp areas with the intent of doing pvp. That should not be the case. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, but it should always be an option. Straight out griefing should warrant reprimand from the devs, leading to things such as account bans if the behavior is not stopped. Game enforced consequences (guards in safe areas, jail time, etc) should discourage most griefing in starter areas. Players will also form "good" groups to help fight off player villains. Those things together are enough to ensure pvp will not run rampant and unjustified.
And they have already announced they plan to have systems in place to prevent these kinds of deaths. As well as that, as someone mentioned, in a open PVP world, whatever you can do to someone, they can do back to you.
On the random slaughter of people, no doubt your alignment will shift towards Chaotic/Evil (or both), making you unwanted in certain settlements. On top of that, it sounds like there will be a bounty system in place as well. So that poor guy Frank Craftesman you just killed? He just put a bounty on you, how does it feel to be randomly slaughtered NOW?
Also, from the sound of it, you will be able to recruit help in transferring goods, and if things go wrong, you will learn from it (IE "These bandits constantly patrol this area. Let's find another way to our location." "These mercenaries are recommended by many.")
And from my experience in another MMO, with enough gold, it is quite possible if you aren't for dying, that you may not even have to risk your life, just have to pay for materials.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point is I don't want people sitting in the safe areas making a killing and then dumping that money into war resources for their buddies or alts. If there is a major source of funding backing someone I am at war with, I want the option to destroy that source off funding and cut the gravy train off. If you want to effect Open World PVP then it needs to effect YOU.[]If anything, just an off the cuff, those people could be RPing a faction that finances wars in the PvPing areas. While they themselves have no interest in PvPing, they simply might enjoy the idea of being "gunrunners" who provide the means for those who like to get dirty to do so.
There are other RP examples out there as well. Bottom line is that it can ba another faucet that spills into every other facet of the game if the plumbing allows the avenue for such creative RP.
There are other avenues they can spend said money and frankly it is only their business what they are. This can't be about only what you want. There are other folks out there that want gameplay mechanics that won't affect you (A player that wants to spend time building a sword making business and becoming rich off it so he/she can throw lavish parties) that completely justify them making tons of cash that have nothing, immediately, to do with PVP.
They are playing the game a different way that is no less valid than PvPing and as such should not be hampered in their goals to earn coin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to suggest there's a lesson learned available in the 2d Kickstarter. I'm totes down with it--even though I was surprised by it, I thought it through and it made enough sense for me to get in at the Crowdforger Buddy level.
But clearly a lot of folks didn't, or at least have had some real trouble, getting over the surprise part of this. It appears to have been a rhetorical error (an ethos violation) to spring this on the audience you want to be evangelists.
I'm not sure when GW started planning to do a second Kickstarter, but by holding that information back you left yourself open to the possibility that your audience would see you as lacking eunoia (goodwill) towards them, and even that you lack arete (virtue, integrity). In the future it might be a wiser course not to spring this sort of contested plan on the community as a surprise.
That being said, I'm more than willing to be an evangelist, and hope to recruit more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are other avenues they can spend said money and frankly it is only their business what they are. This can't be about only what you want. There are other folks out there that want gameplay mechanics that won't affect you (A player that wants to spend time building a sword making business and becoming rich off it so he/she can throw lavish parties) that completely justify them making tons of cash that have nothing, immediately, to do with PVP.
They are playing the game a different way that is no less valid than PvPing and as such should not be hampered in their goals to earn coin.
Quite frankly there are plenty of games not catered to Open World PVP. You can't effectively woo an Open World PVP and a "I never want to see PVP EVER unless I consent to it!!!" crowd at the same time. You're right it isn't just about me but the devs have a consistent pattern of straying away from features that will diminish our PVP experience. Allowing players hidden from PVP to make massive profits is such a feature. I would like to remind you that I am arguing in favor of a quote of Ryan's that Nihimon posted.
This game will allow PVEers and crafting enthusiasts and really offer them a lot of great features. We have a community and developers that are ready to make sure those players get something other than a griefer filled gankfest but you WILL have to deal with occasional non-consentual PVP. Anyone who can't handle that... I'm sorry but this isn't Harvest Moon Online, and it is simply not the game for you.
Edit: Oh wait Nihimon couldn't find the quote?! What's the matter? Are you ok????
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As long as it allows the avenue for a player then it isn't broken in my mind. The real point is that I do not subscribe to the line of thought that being in a PvP area is more risk because of other players attacking you and so you should get "more" or "better". "Different" rewards, sure.While it hasn't been done in a major MMO yet, AI can be programmed to be even tougher without "cheating" and thus an even greater Risk vs, Reward option.
There might even be a few players who could be such an AI too. But that number would be tiny.
In low risk areas there will be no shortage of people willing to harvest whatever resource.
Resources located in higher risk areas are going to have fewer people working them.
The result is that they could put a diamond and gold mine in a safe zone and a copper mine out in no man's land, and copper would end up being more valuable than gold or diamonds absent some market manipulation.
Nothing is stopping a player from becoming a wealthy merchant that has never left the city/safe areas, but expecting to be able to harvest everything for yourself without ever setting foot outside of the city/safe areas is unrealistic, I think.
If it is all right there for everyone to grab at little or no risk, then how is any of it valuable?
Your proclaimed willingness to fight against AI (and claiming that they could make smarter AI for just that purpose) for resources but not other players just makes me ask why?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are players in Eve who almost never leave the station. It's possible to set buy, sell, and transport orders region-wide without setting foot in a ship.
They are playing a different game than the other players, and their game doesn't (directly) involve PvP at all. I expect that there will be room for a (small) number of similar merchant characters, and a much larger number of characters who are specialized porters or caravan drivers, working mainly for the merchants.
Those groups provide the structure which the gatherers use to sell their gains; the buy orders near the gathering sites (mostly posted by the merchants) will have lower prices, but the gatherers will make more coin per unit time by going to the closest trading post rather than traveling to a hub. They will also be able to buy consumables there (at a premium, but not so high that it is worth their time to go to where they are cheaper).
Then the porter groups will transport the raw materials to the hub (taking consumables back out to the mine's trading post). Crafters will buy the materials at the hub and sell their consumables there; merchants buy the consumables and send them out to the various trading posts.
The open world PvP is what makes this system fun, rather than an exercise in basic economics; when the hub and trading posts are all player-owned destructible structures, there will come a time when one of the merchants realizes that he can make significantly more money using darker techniques
He drops the offered price of iron at the trading post. When an enterprising individual sees room for arbitrage, the merchant hires bandits to intercept the competing convoys and raises the price of iron at the hub. Part of the bandit's pay comes from coin provided to reduce the competition, and part of it comes from selling the looted iron at the inflated prices.
Then the miners get organized, and refuse to sell iron ore at the depressed price. Scab miners head out, desperate for any work (and many of them with dreams of smuggling even a small amount through the blockage for massive profit, as there is now a major shortage of iron).
Now there is a fight at the mine, between the people who want to strike and the people who want to work. Neither of these people are colluding with the original instigator.
Now a mercenary company, absolutely disgusted with the rising cost of equipment, comes to a conclusion about the nature of the shortage. They chase off the bandits (being better equipped and practiced in fighting PvP players than the bandits, who prey on the poorly trained and equipped porters), set up reasonably priced buy orders (or use force to allow the scab miners to work unopposed, escort their own caravan into town and hire a crafter to make their stuff. With their near-future needs met, they ride off to their next battle, never penetrating the original intention.
The players ARE the content!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are other avenues they can spend said money and frankly it is only their business what they are. This can't be about only what you want. There are other folks out there that want gameplay mechanics that won't affect you (A player that wants to spend time building a sword making business and becoming rich off it so he/she can throw lavish parties) that completely justify them making tons of cash that have nothing, immediately, to do with PVP.
They are playing the game a different way that is no less valid than PvPing and as such should not be hampered in their goals to earn coin.
Quite frankly there are plenty of games not catered to Open World PVP. You can't effectively woo an Open World PVP and a "I never want to see PVP EVER unless I consent to it!!!" crowd at the same time. You're right it isn't just about me but the devs have a consistent pattern of straying away from features that will diminish our PVP experience. Allowing players hidden from PVP to make massive profits is such a feature. I would like to remind you that I am arguing in favor of a quote of Ryan's that Nihimon posted.
This game will allow PVEers and crafting enthusiasts and really offer them a lot of great features. We have a community and developers that are ready to make sure those players get something other than a griefer filled gankfest but you WILL have to deal with occasional non-consentual PVP. Anyone who can't handle that... I'm sorry but this isn't Harvest Moon Online, and it is simply not the game for you.
Edit: Oh wait Nihimon couldn't find the quote?! What's the matter? Are you ok????
I think it is pretty well known that the intent is to have "safer" areas but there is the possibility to be attacked anywhere. At least that is the point from which I am talking. If you read "I never want to see PVP EVER unless I consent to it!!!" in anything I've written then that is an unfortunate perception. I'm not coming from that angle.
That said someone who chooses to operate in the safer areas should be able to make their fortunes there and be as wealthy as anyone elsewhere. They may not have the exact same things, but comparable. I stand by that.
Decius' post above this one illustrates my stance very, very well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In low risk areas there will be no shortage of people willing to harvest whatever resource.
Resources located in higher risk areas are going to have fewer people working them.
The result is that they could put a diamond and gold mine in a safe zone and a copper mine out in no man's land, and copper would end up being more valuable than gold or diamonds absent some market manipulation.
Nothing is stopping a player from becoming a wealthy merchant that has never left the city/safe areas, but expecting to be able to harvest everything for yourself without ever setting foot outside of the city/safe areas is unrealistic, I think.
If it is all right there for everyone to grab at little or no risk, then how is any of it valuable?
Your proclaimed willingness to fight against AI (and claiming that they could make smarter AI for just that purpose) for resources but not other players just makes me ask why?
I never stated that I expect players to be able to harvest everything for themselves alone. If that is what you perceived , well, as with Andius, that is unfortunate. It's not my stance, however. I only stated that a person operating in safer (there are no safe zones as I understand it) should be able to make a comparable fortune. It may not be in the Copper trade, but might be in the Green Beans trade.
Risk, or perceived risk especially when talking PvP, should not be the defining article of wealth.
As for the AI matter, let's not make this personal. As far as I know I have never discussed my personal view on PvPing with you. Lets talk in generals. That established my point was that trying to make out that PVP's "riskiness" is grounds for generating more wealth in my view is false as an AI can be created that puts up an tougher fight (read: even more risk) than the majority of humans. Developers choose not to do so, but it can be done. (and no, I'm not suggesting they do so with PFO, I'm just pointing the fact out)