|
That's right, we are going to speculate, and complain about other models we have seen in other games, and be all anal about how we want do give Goblin Works, our money.
I figure what better way for your company to understand how their target audience wants to spend their money on your product than by asking them?
A couple ideas to think about here.
1) Pay to Win
2) Lottery Tickets Keys
3) What products/services do you want to see
4) Cash shop Auction House
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would be cool to see special requests be cash shopped to add content to the game, while funding the game.
Like a skilled blacksmith who has an idea for a unique sword design that he wants to be his signature style. He could cash-shop pay to have a developer model and render his idea and put it in game for him to make.
Then hitting this concept of 'achievers enabling the cash shoppers', the cash shoppers can then buy a cash-shop special crafting consumable. That can be placed in their backpack, for them to then locate a specialized achiever crafter of their choice, who can transform it into one of their unique signature styled weapons?
The signature style wouldnt have a mechanical effect that makes this a pay to win.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel
Now find enough others to do the same and GW won't need a cash shop. That would be fine with me. :)
As long as the items sold are cosmetic, not craftables, and can be sold for player earned gold (available to all) I see no problem.
Unfortunately, Ryan recently mentioned that players will be able to purchase "shortcuts". He did not really elaborate more, so.....? If these "shortcuts" are available for gold also, then I (tentatively) will not complain. Just want to see what, exactly, types of things are for sale before I "shoot down" or "shut up". :)
Cosmetics and convenience items only is my view
With actual items make it so that in game items have to be traded in to aquire
For example Cloak of Autumn requires a player tailor item called fine cloak and 3 goblin balls
Therefore in a way every cloak in game has been player made even if some of them have then been reskinned from the cash shop
Items like the Cloak of autumn should also be sellable in game via a sell order if you wished to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assuming GrumpyMel's $100/mo. proposal gains no traction (though I would not be averse to that model if the game and community warrant), I want to see approved, reviewed, and multi-part rated UGC offered on the cash shop. I think it would be best were the prices on said UGC low, but single-use.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Cosmetics and convenience items only is my view
With actual items make it so that in game items have to be traded in to aquire
For example Cloak of Autumn requires a player tailor item called fine cloak and 3 goblin balls
Therefore in a way every cloak in game has been player made even if some of them have then been reskinned from the cash shop
Items like the Cloak of autumn should also be sellable in game via a sell order if you wished to.
Personally, I'd rather see the cosmetic reskin used by crafters as a supplementary material to include in the crafting of the item, rather than something applied to an already existing item. I'd rather see it be a recipe they learn, but that's unlikely since it dramatically undercuts the amount GW can make on them. Of course, they should be tradable, so if my fighter wants Emerald-inlaid Mithril armor, I can buy the Emerald-inlay item and provide it to the crafter making my mithril armor.
@Dario
Whichever way round you do it doesn't make a lot of difference to the end result. However if the cosmetic reskin is an item you buy and have to pass on to the crafter to incorporate that does put you at risk of losing your cosmetic reskin to an unscrupulous player. I think it wouldn't necessarily be a large problem but there would be instances of people deciding to keep your money bought item and forfeit any coin in the contract which would wind people up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Dario
Whichever way round you do it doesn't make a lot of difference to the end result. However if the cosmetic reskin is an item you buy and have to pass on to the crafter to incorporate that does put you at risk of losing your cosmetic reskin to an unscrupulous player. I think it wouldn't necessarily be a large problem but there would be instances of people deciding to keep your money bought item and forfeit any coin in the contract which would wind people up.
To which I would argue that you should know who you're dealing with before you hand over any item of value to you, whether you bought it in a cash shop, with hours of your life hunting for a rare spawn, or anywhere else, in game or out.
@dario
While I would agree with you the simple fact of the matter is that a lot of people won't then the forums will be full of angst'y whines about how GW must do something to stop this theft etc.
There will be more than enough qq when the game goes live from people who suddenly realise the game isnt what they thought it was going to be without adding in that.
I approach things like this with a simple rule of thumb.
Is there an advantage to doing it one way or the other and if so do the one where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages
I can see absolutely no advantage to having a crafter apply the skin over the crafter supplying a garment you can purchase a skin for tbh. Perhaps you would care to explain the advantage you perceive in it.
Both ways require a player to get the crafter to do something so interaction as a benefit is out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In mine, it becomes another service crafters can offer. In mine, it involves interaction whenever a skin is applied, rather than just the initial purchase of the item. In mine, it promotes the economy of crafted items (particularly those that are commonly threaded, as I suspect weapons and armor/clothing are going to be the most visible on your character's avatar, and thus more likely to be reskinned) because a new item has to be crafted each time a skin is applied.
It makes no difference the tailor makes an item in each case. I wasn't proposing that the item could be reskinned over and over. That wouldn't make any sense in any case who would be wanting to buy an item for cash then discard it and buy a new one.
So in effect the only difference between your system and mine is who applies the skin
Care to try again?
The only difference I can see is in mine you apply the skin to the crafted item, in yours the skin is applied by the crafter.
Number of garments remain the same
Number of players interacted remains the same
Economic interaction remains the same
The only difference is that in your system it is possible for the crafter to steal your skin. That I agree is a player interaction my way does not allow but is it one we want? I would say no.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't realize you were suggesting limiting an item to reskinning once prior to this. That is not the way I am accustomed to seeing purchased reskins work (I, personally, have never seen a game do so), so I did not assume that in your suggestion. I don't see anything wrong with either route in that case. I'd still like it be done by the crafter, but not for any mechanical reason, rather because I think it makes more sense for an item's appearance to be set at creation, rather than being poofed into something else six months down the line. Magic shapeshifting armor is certainly possible in the setting, and I wouldn't be upset to see it go the other way, it's just personal preference at that point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unfortunately, Ryan recently mentioned that players will be able to purchase "shortcuts". He did not really elaborate more, so.....? If these "shortcuts" are available for gold also, then I (tentatively) will not complain. Just want to see what, exactly, types of things are for sale before I "shoot down" or "shut up". :)
I guess that might refer to those consumables that we'll be slurping down regularly if we enjoy some furious combat then log off according to our own particular schedules. In contrast I guess well-run settlement's will be able to outfit their members with such things for lower cost. That was my guess.
I mean an organisation would be operating parties of players to a more strict plan, whereas some players who pop in and out might just want to go dungeoneering for 30mins and kill as many "bad guys"/"shoot off as many live rounds" as possible?!
@Dario
Ah I think I understand the miscomprehension now then.
I was talking about the cosmetics you commonly purchase in cash shops, for instance many coloured robe. Has no bonus just cosmetic looks for rp sort of thing.
The WOW style reskinning or lotro cosmetic outfits I would rather avoid frankly as I don't personally think they make sense. What I would rather see is that a crafter for instance can make various style breastplates for instance. You can purchase one of these and then apply an extra cosmetic on top of the style like for instance gilt edging, green enamel, some sort of crest.
It would be the cosmetic that is sold in the cash shop, the armour still comes from the smith. Want a different style? Buy a new breast plate in that style from the smith then buy a new cosmetic from the shop.
I certainly don't want to see however people in full plate armour looking like they are wearing a silk tunic and trousers like you sometimes see in lotro
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I certainly don't want to see however people in full plate armour looking like they are wearing a silk tunic and trousers like you sometimes see in lotro
Definitely not. I remember the devs commenting on this somewhere, but I can't recall if it was Ryan, or if it was in the latest Gobbocast, but they were pretty firmly against that, since they want armor to be something that conveys information at a decent range.
Ticket to Ride - Purchase tickets which grant temporary access to Theme Park elements. The value should be more in the fun of the experience than in the loot that drops, which should be no better than that you could get from an Escalation of similar difficulty.
Thank you. That was the thing about WOW, the rides were all the game was. A ride can be cool a couple of times, but it's boring to go through the same one 30 times for relatively worthless loot.
I wouldn't mind a run through the dungeon to fight memorable villains and monsters, just don't make me run it 100 times for the Socks of Infinite Power.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want any item or activity in the cash shop, that can be produced in game by the players.
If they want a special item to be in the cash shop, forget that idea, and make it a rare drop in game.
If you want to provide a new character class, then that is fine.
More charatcter slots? Yes
More bank slots, ok too.
For the love of the Deities, no friggin lock boxes and keys!!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't want any item or activity in the cash shop, that can not be produced in game by the players.
That seems 100% backwards to me.
I would not want anything in the Cash Shop that can be produced by players.
Reading the rest of your post, though, I think maybe you misspoke. Is that the case?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't want any item or activity in the cash shop, that can not be produced in game by the players.That seems 100% backwards to me.
I would not want anything in the Cash Shop that can be produced by players.
Reading the rest of your post, though, I think maybe you misspoke. Is that the case?
I fixed the original and got rid of the "not".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's right, we are going to speculate, and complain about other models we have seen in other games, and be all anal about how we want do give Goblin Works, our money.
I figure what better way for your company to understand how their target audience wants to spend their money on your product than by asking them?
A couple ideas to think about here.
1) Pay to Win
2) Lottery Tickets Keys
3) What products/services do you want to see
4) Cash shop Auction House
1) No
2) Hell No
3) Player designed adventures that the Dev team cleans up and makes fully compatible with the rest of PfO; minor items that have no effect on actual gameplay; real life swag (t-shirts, hats, mouse pads, etc...); character renaming if desired; small cosmetic changes (hair, eyes, skin) if a player crafter can't do those. Otherwise, nothing else. No chest/keys, no bonus items like a health potion +10 or a Longsword +50. Only items that cannot give any kind of advantage.
4) Absolutely Hell No
That is all :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
a crafter stealing your goods to craft is a rather easy problem to solve.
Simply put GW can create a crafting trade window instead of the normal trade window. So it would work like this.
You do the craft trade option and normalish looking trade window pops open. The crafter drags the design into the crafting window (so the other person knows whats going to get crafted) and also puts a fee into the window. The crafter then hits craft. On the other persons window it would show what components he will need to provide. So he puts all those components in the window and then also puts in that nice cash shop bought sword graphic, he then puts in the fee and hits craft. Poof the item goes directly to his bag.
If at anytime either of them kill the craft trade, nothing changes hands so no one has to worry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Gloreindl
3) Player renaming....no...no and thrice no....reputation in the game should be everything. Renames are repulsive in their let the player of the hook nature. Be a total dick to the point no one wants to group with you anymore then tough....no renames
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did say if desired, but I see I wasn't clear - I meant desired by the crowdforgers as a whole (I really don't think it would fly, just threw it out there). You will notice I made it rather obvious that I am against anything that gives any advantage. I agree if a person would use it to hide that they are unsociable in groups then it is an advantage and doesn't belong there. Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
Ok, well then how about features such as
5) Character Rebuild (Respec) for money. - I can see this being very VERY popular, so much so that GW would probably put a cooldown on it. It would allow you to retrain a certain amount of your experience towards other training you currently also have access to. It wont change you from a Wizard into a Sorcerer, but it might allow you to go from a Blasty type Evoker to a Conjuerer type.
6) Character Re-name Tokens - Possibly gamebreaking if PCs are identified only be character name
7) Kingdom/Land/Settlement upgrades (Non-Cosmetic or mechanically beneficial)
8) Kingdom/Land/Settlement visual modification
9) Kingdom/Land/Settlement Hex Deeds (For actual real $$ purchase)
9) Player Character Titles (Baron, Duke, etc)
10) Experience Boosts
11) Kickstarter Boons
12) Uniquely Researched Spell/Special Attack Research Materials (For players wishing to make their own, new spells or slotable attacks)
13) Mini-Pets - Non combat functional
14) Exotic Mounts, animal companion skins
15) Opening a Chartered Company - Meaning each guild (Post EE) will cost some amount of "coin" to activate.
5 is a big fat no You make a choice what to train tough spend more time training because you made the wrong choice
6 Your name is your reputation....no
7 Pay to win
8 explain what this means
9 Pay to win
10 not so bad as long as not excessive
11 dont care if not game breaking
12 pay to win gold ammo
13 Ok with that
14 ok as long as skins are cosmetic only and give no advantage
15 no
I was referring to buying a hex....titles I wasnt even going to bother answering :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, well then how about features such as
5) Character Rebuild (Respec) for money. - I can see this being very VERY popular, so much so that GW would probably put a cooldown on it. It would allow you to retrain a certain amount of your experience towards other training you currently also have access to. It wont change you from a Wizard into a Sorcerer, but it might allow you to go from a Blasty type Evoker to a Conjuerer type.
6) Character Re-name Tokens - Possibly gamebreaking if PCs are identified only be character name
7) Kingdom/Land/Settlement upgrades (Non-Cosmetic or mechanically beneficial)
8) Kingdom/Land/Settlement visual modification
9) Kingdom/Land/Settlement Hex Deeds (For actual real $$ purchase)
9) Player Character Titles (Baron, Duke, etc)
10) Experience Boosts
11) Kickstarter Boons
12) Uniquely Researched Spell/Special Attack Research Materials (For players wishing to make their own, new spells or slotable attacks)
13) Mini-Pets - Non combat functional
14) Exotic Mounts, animal companion skins
15) Opening a Chartered Company - Meaning each guild (Post EE) will cost some amount of "coin" to activate.
#5 - first #9: No
Second #9 - is a Kickstarter add-on, and as such should not be offered to those who weren't part of the kickstarter or the post-Kickstarter donation periods.
#10 - #15: No, especially #11 for the above reason.
I understand GW's need for more cash flow, but the cash shop should not be selling anything that gives either advantages or items that the KS donors paid for - those are our's for donating to the crowdfunding.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd pay $100 per month to have no cash shop or developer supported RMT whatsoever. Sub-fee gets you access to the whole game. Anything you get in the game is achieved by PLAYING the game.
I would pay extra to keep cash shops out of game.
PLEX, equipment, whatever...
Im more of a casual player since I have a demanding job, family, and etc.. I know I will be behind in the game, but I cant stand cheating. And all cash shops are really is paid cheating.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand GW's need for more cash flow, but the cash shop should not be selling anything that gives either advantages or items that the KS donors paid for - those are our's for donating to the crowdfunding.
In most games, the Kickstarter type (usually founders) stuff becomes available to everyone. With few exceptions.
In most games, the Kickstarter type (usually founders) stuff becomes available to everyone. With few exceptions.I understand GW's need for more cash flow, but the cash shop should not be selling anything that gives either advantages or items that the KS donors paid for - those are our's for donating to the crowdfunding.
I hate not being able to get things other people can in a game just because I didn't know of its existence from the beginning.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't like it if KS rewards were available for less than or even the same price as they originally were; but it also wouldn't be fair or good business to make the regional trait packs forever unavailable to anyone who hasn't already bought one.
I wouldn't like it if KS rewards were available for less than or even the same price as they originally were; but it also wouldn't be fair or good business to make the regional trait packs forever unavailable to anyone who hasn't already bought one.
I understand your point, and to be honest that seems fair. I just hate the "Oh, you weren't here from the very start? Well, sucks to be you" mentality.
@Aizom
I missed the kickstarter, also. You are not alone and the rewards look cool but the game should still be pretty awesome even without them. :)
Agreed. wouldn't be here if I didn't think so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If add-ons are added to the cash shop, I agree with Decius - they need to cost more than what those of us who were part of the KS paid. A $10 add-on, if added to the cash shop, should be at least $15, and I'd prefer it be $20. Sorry to those who didn't know about the KS, but we who did and gave should have some perks, even if it is the add-on things at a substantial discount. That being said, Bringslite is correct, none are really needed to play PfO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my general thoughts on the cash shop:
1) Nothing on the cash shop should provide a significant mechanical impact.
Ex: Armor with more keyword slots is inappropriate
2) Anything that does provide a minor mechanical impact should be available in game as well.
Ex: Healing potions are both minor in scope and can be crafted by players
3) Cash Shop items should generally be tradable (if they don't compete with player crafted goods).
Ex1: Cosmetic items. If I want to be a crafter with a "signature item", I should be able to craft a sword with a set of stats, then purchase the custom appearance for it from the shop, apply it, and sell the sword.
Ex2: Healing Potions/Raw Materials. These should not be transferrable. Items which replicate those crafted by players would allow people to use real money to unduly influence market competition.
4) Account level purchases should generally be tradable.
Ex: "Goblin Balls" training time, extra character slots, etc. For the same reason as PLEX, it allows players who cannot or do not wish to spend real money to acquire these account-level perks without depriving GW of the income for them.
5) Players should not be able to 'undo' past choices.
Ex: Character Renames/Respecs/Faction Resets/etc. These effectively remove the consequences of past decisions. With no limit to character advancement, respecs are unneeded, and there are (to the best of my knowledge) no permanent lockouts based on low rep/faction/whatever, allowing them to be overcome through play going forward.
More will probably occur to me as I ponder this topic further.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Dario, I've been contemplating a couple of your points for a while now.
First, concerning whether Cash Shop items should be tradable, is it better to have few or many items that can be bought for cash and traded for coin? I really don't know the answer, but it seems to me that it's possible that it's better to have few, or even one. If there are many items that can be bought for cash and traded for coin, then GW's job as a Central Banker seems like it would be that much more difficult, and they might well end up constantly reacting to spikes and crashes in this or that item. On the other hand, I very much want to be able to give Cash Shop items as gifts to other players.
Second, are low-level harvesting resources comparable to healing potions to the extent that allowing the Cash Shop to sell a "Crate of Copper Ore" is reasonable? I ask mostly because of Ryan's statement about the Cash Shop providing "shortcuts".
My personal priority is in helping GW identify things they can sell in the Cash Shop that don't cross the line of what I consider proper.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Dario, I've been contemplating a couple of your points for a while now.
First, concerning whether Cash Shop items should be tradable, is it better to have few or many items that can be bought for cash and traded for coin? I really don't know the answer, but it seems to me that it's possible that it's better to have few, or even one. If there are many items that can be bought for cash and traded for coin, then GW's job as a Central Banker seems like it would be that much more difficult, and they might well end up constantly reacting to spikes and crashes in this or that item. On the other hand, I very much want to be able to give Cash Shop items as gifts to other players.
Well, my thought process in this regard was that having items at a range of price points would allow for more fine control over the market. If a particular item is selling too well, it allows you to adjust that portion of the equation. As they're fond of reminding us, granularity allows for a more delicate touch.
Second, are low-level harvesting resources comparable to healing potions to the extent that allowing the Cash Shop to sell a "Crate of Copper Ore" is reasonable? I ask mostly because of Ryan's statement about the Cash Shop providing "shortcuts".
I think a part of that will have to do with how things are used, which we don't have enough detail on. That's why I tried to keep to general, rather than specific, concepts. That said, I'm generally of the opinion that selling starter grade items isn't likely to significantly upset the power curve, particularly if we keep to point 3 and ensure that anything that competes with player goods (as things like healing potions or copper ore would) are not tradable. Someone who wants to jumpstart their armorsmithing might buy some starter ore to get those first few merit badges, but they can't buy up $450 of copper ore and flood it into the market to disrupt the in-game miners.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That said, I'm generally of the opinion that selling starter grade items isn't likely to significantly upset the power curve, particularly if we keep to point 3 and ensure that anything that competes with player goods (as things like healing potions or copper ore would) are not tradable.
That sounds good to me.
Have you given much consideration to the impact of selling mid-tier resources in the Cash Shop?
Personally I would hate to see crafting materials in the cash shop. Crafting materials that have to be gathered, transported are vulnerable. Crafting materials delivered straight to your bank via cash shop are not.
Example you lay siege to a town cutting off their supply of materials, gradually they lose the ability to replace armour due to lack of iron. No problem I will just get out the credit card. Just say NO is my thought here