Goblin Squad Member
|
As already mentioned I think if you have access to cash shop for 'certain settlements', then it starts to go down a path away from P2W escalation. How to figure that out, is the tricky part though (also does still depend on what options are in said cash shop naturally but not so decisively I believe). Over to GWs... "my work is done here, now." ಠ_ಠ
I think this line of thought could be developed a lot further.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I've expressed the opinion that convenience items should be mechanically worse than the crafted equivalent. MTX healing potions, for example, would have the worst healing possible for a crafted potion of the same type; swords made entirely from MTX materials would have lower base damage than swords made from tin, and so forth.
If you're out of healing potions and 20 minutes round-trip from the settlement house, there's a very real value in being able to buy even low-quality consumables. If you're trying to make one of everything to create an equipment gallery, there's likewise a real value in stepping around the economic issues associated with buying a significant fraction of pommels on the market right now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mel, the only difference between your system and buying it in the cash shop is that you get it by asking an NPC for it, and take a portion of profits of the person selling. GW has as much control over the cash shop as they do over NPCs.
I also forgot to highlight the other important distinctions between your system and the one I proposed.
In your paradigm the material purchased is FUNGIBLE, immediately availble to be placed on the market and converted into coin. Furthermore because aquisition of the material cost the character virtualy NOTHING in game terms they are free to set any price above 0 and still proffit from it. Which in turn threatens the low level material gatherers ability to make a living off thier chosen proffesi
Under my proposed system, the materials obtained for free are NOT fungible. They only have any value if the character expends labor in the game at thier chosen proffesion to transform them into something which may be sold. Also the character may NOT set as low a price as they like for the created item, since the NPC who loaned the materials expects a set minimum fee to be returned to him (which the game mechanicaly enforces).
This assures the low level material gather that he has some possibility to proffit from labor at his chosen proffesion since he can at least sell the raw materials to make the equivalent item at a price less then the NPC merchant demands for the same.
This encourages human interaction and cooperation between the crafter and the material gatherer...since the crafter can potentialy achieve a higher markup and proffit by going to the raw material gather instead.
The crafter still has a fail-safe though if he has nothing to barter for with the material gatherer or one simply isn't available because he CAN still goto the merchant...and even if by doing so the item he produces isn't price competitive in the market....the NPC will buy the item from him at a fixed price.
This ensures BOTH crafters and resource gatherers have some venue for earning money by persuing thier proffesions at low level.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The one comment I did want to quickly address is from Nihimon, who I greatly respect, and thus truly dislike disagreeing with for any reason. The point I found troubling was this:
If you're going to object to every convenience item in the Cash Shop, then your objections will simply be ignored, because they've already said they're going to have convenience items in the Cash Shop. If not this particular convenience item, then what others would be acceptable to you?First, I haven't objected to every convenience item...just the ones suggested. In another thread, I listed a number of items I would love to see in a cash shop, especially settlement skins, which I think would generate quite a bit of cash for GW.
Sir, the respect is mutual.
I believe you were referring to this post. I am compelled to point out, though, that "Settlement Skins" are not "convenience items" in any way. And while you make an allowance for "minor buffs", I got the distinct impression from you that if those minor buffs were also things that players could craft, then you would object to their presence in the Cash Shop on the grounds that it is infringing on that crafter's ability to participate in the market. It was that hard line that I was addressing.
Of far more importance, in Gobocast 10, you and I and every guest speaker commented on how much the Devs really do listen to us, but more than that, that they have changed several of their game designs after reading our posted discussions. How then does it help to foster that atmosphere of friendly debate by asserting that objections will simply be ignored because they do not agree with the current design plan?
Yes, I did acknowledge and praise Goblinworks' dedication to us, their customers, and their willingness to change course based on our feedback. But I think you're obscuring what I'm doing in this thread when you roundabout accuse me of "asserting that objections will simply be ignored because they do not agree with the current design plan". While it may be technically true that Goblinworks might change their position on having anything non-cosmetic in the Cash Shop, I consider it about as likely as changing their position on offering a PvE server. I would not think it right to accuse me of stifling debate were I to tell someone they would better serve their interests by helping Goblinworks identify acceptable boundaries of PvP rather than holding a hard line and demanding there be no PvP at all.
I would like to remind everyone of what Ryan said way back in January of 2012. This was just a few weeks after I first started posting here, and it made a big impact on me. I strongly encourage you to read the Original Post in the thread, to which Ryan is responding.
I'm not here to defend or attack Turbine and/or LOTRO, but I will say that the error made was to promise anything of the sort in the first place. Making absolute statements about businesses that must continuously evolve is just dumb.
I wish there was a way for a business to tell its fans it had decided to change a formerly stated position without some folks then branding them "liars", which sucks especially if the people who made the original promise are not even working on the project anymore.
So in summary I'll just say that we're going to try to avoid making absolute statements and that its not only possible, it's a virtual certainty that some of the things we promise to do or not do will be reversed at some point. Not because we're liars, or stupid, or disrespectful, but just because it's the right decision to make when the time comes to make it.
RyanD
My purpose in this thread is to inoculate you all to the idea that Goblinworks will almost certainly be selling items in the Cash Shop that effectively puts the Cash Shop in direct competition with some players. And that they might even offer high-end items Tier 3 Weapons and Armor (even though I believe they probably won't). I believe that a hard line resistance to anything along these lines in the Cash Shop is futile. I also believe that, regardless of whether we think it's likely that they'll offer high-end gear, we will all be better-served if we have a frank, open discussion about it now.
If the time comes that Ryan believes he has no choice but to offer this kind of gear in the Cash Shop in order to keep Goblinworks alive, I don't think he's going to have a real opportunity to come to us, make a convincing case for why he has to, and then wait while we figure out what the reasonable boundaries for such an offering should be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon,
You are correct that settlement skins are not convenience items. I was attempting to provide alternative items that GW could sell in their cash shop. We both want them to make plenty of cash, but if we can avoid items that might cost them players, I think that would be best.
Though I may seem hard lined on this topic, it is not one that I would leave the game over. I may argue a position on the forums to provide one possible position, but none of those topics (so far) have been something that would stop me from playing PFO or from trying to find alternate ways to reach the same ends. So though GW may feel they need to implement the sale of something like T3 items on the cash shop, I think it is healthy for them to know players' opposing views or concerns before something like that is implemented.
I totally agree with Ryan that they should not make promises, and at the same time, we should not take their current plans as being written in stone. Changes are inevitable, and for the several changes the Devs have made based on our posts, the Devs in Gobbocast 9 seemed to think that those changes were for the best.
I suppose it comes down to finding the fine line between beating the dead horse and leaving room for opposing opinions that might spawn important, and otherwise overlooked, alternatives.
I hope that helps clarify my thoughts on the topic. Thank you for yours.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really don't want to be inoculated to such a terrible idea (thank you just the same =P), and resistance is never futile.
Of course GW will have to do whatever is needed to save their company if they find themselves in dire straits. That is a given. There is a difference, though, if they do it when it is not necessary.
As far as I can tell, GW is not in danger of failing. There are an infinite number of ways to generate income, other than what is being proposed here. I choose to believe that the "Brain Trust" at GW knows this. I choose not to panic, rage/quit, lose my cool, or make any assumptions about it until GW makes it plain that it will be so. I will state that I would find it very disappointing. The game would just be a little bit more like the other bad MMOs available. What is next, after that?
A great deal of hype has been built around the inferred idea of a completely player driven economy even though some contradictory statements have been quoted. I can see GW figuring what will work and what won't, as they go, and so the need to keep options open. Still, the "hardcore" fans that they have garnered, may just melt away and be replaced by the "instant gratification" players that they don't want, if GW goes down that road.
Before we assume that they will do something so unpopular, let's see if they can be more creative than that. I'll bet that they can be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To echo Hobs in many ways
I don't like cash shops though I accept the necessity for them. However anything that allows the cash buyer to bypass the player economy then that for me is a huge no.
If Ryan thinks this is something they will need to do it will cost them a number of players and I am sure Ryan realises this which is why I think they will stick to cosmetics and convenience items only.
I believe you think you are doing a service for the community by getting people used to the idea, however and I speak merely for myself here, what you are doing is sowing doubt in the game.
How many won't play if they were to sell equipment in the cash shop? No idea but I very much doubt I would be the only one
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just don't think a cash shop should sell items that are as good as player-made goods, ever. If someone buys a couple cure light wounds potions and a type 1 bag o' holding to get started, fine. But a cure moderate potion and type 2 bag? Those sky metal bits should go into a players' pocket. I also have no problem with purchasing cosmetic changes-if some bozo wants to prance around a flatulent zebra instead of buying groceries, hey, dude , whatever floats your boat-as long as this abomination is no faster than the regular looking mount I also earned. Making it easier to let people introduce themselves to the game makes sense to me; having tier 2 or 3 items appear out of the ether to compete with PC businesses does not.
“I want GoblinWorks to make lots of money.”
I want GoblinWorks to be successful too. But it’s not because I arbitrarily selected them as objects of loyalty. My desire for them to succeed is based on their brilliant design, respect for the players, and willingness to courageously eschew industry fads. If they make decisions that erode those things, some in their core audience will care less; if they make enough of them, some will stop caring entirely.
“They’re going to have mounts and convenience items and cosmetics in the cash store; it’s inevitable.”
Perhaps, but-
“GoblinWorks does a great job of listening to their fans.”
This is a chance for them to put their (literal!) money where their mouth is. I understand that they are a business, and the business needs go first. I’m trying to persuade people that the (long-term) business needs are best served by maintaining the integrity of the world in every system. If people have to play and interact to get what they want, more people will keep subscribing.
I myself am accepting of two “holes” in the world’s integrity: selling Goblin Balls and possibly beginning-game “startup” resources. And that’s because those two could possibly reduce barriers to entry for some players, which is good for the game in the long term.
“GoblinWorks needs a way to make money off of ‘whales’”.
They already have that. If they allow in-game sale of Goblin Balls, then anyone can sell it on the auction house and make tons of gold. It’s just that the whales have to be take an extra step of selling on the auction house. Once the whales have the gold, they can use it to buy everything else: cosmetics, bounties, guild charters, potions, mounts. (Anecdote: This is already happening on The Old Republic. When I browse the auction house for microtransaction items, I see the same person with 20 different cash-shop items up for sale. They’re buying gold... from me!) Selling other stuff just isn’t necessary.
“I don’t mind if they sell cosmetic stuff as long as it doesn’t affect the real game.”
The people who say this imply that appearances aren’t part of the game. But what that actually means is that it isn’t something they value. In fact, some people play games for the art. Avatar appearances are somewhat intangible, and they’re subjective. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t real, just like a sense of exploration or a sense of anticipation, a sense of accomplishment, or attention from other players. Playing a game isn’t just about combat; it isn't just about numbers; it’s about experiences.
“It’s the buyer’s decision to buy or not; it doesn’t hurt you.”
Of course not; no change to any game can hurt me. But it can certainly hurt people’s enjoyment of the game. One way it can hurt the game is if “things to do” are removed so they can be in the cash shop. “There is no tailoring profession; town clothes are on the cash shop. There is no dye crafting profession; dyes are on the cash shop. There is no architecture profession; settlement appearances are in the cash shop.”
The other way it can hurt the game is by dissociating game systems. Goblinworks have said that they want people who have heavy armor to show it and not look like a lightly-armored person. They want that silhouette to convey information, and they’re absolutely right. Appearance should convey something: combat style, wealth, prowess, sociability, veterancy. If the most garish and attention-getting items are in the cash shop (per current industry standard), it starts to convey something else, and it’s something that I don’t really enjoy thinking about.
Please understand that I’m not overly bothered by the prospect of spending money. It’s my time that’s the limited resource; and I’d rather spend it in an immersive world, if I’m gaming at all.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Given that anyone can buy goblin balls to sell for coin that they can use to buy anything on the market, MTX convenience items either have to be a better value than goblin balls, or be something that isn't player-created and available on the coin market, or be accessible in a manner that is exclusive of the coin market.
Frankly, I don't think there will be enough people willing to buy enough stuff with MTX to have a significant economic impact on the economy except in the market of goblin balls. If there are people buying that much, then prices should be raised.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
“I don’t mind if they sell cosmetic stuff as long as it doesn’t affect the real game.”
The people who say this imply that appearances aren’t part of the game. But what that actually means is that it isn’t something they value. In fact, some people play games for the art. Avatar appearances are somewhat intangible, and they’re subjective. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t real, just like a sense of exploration or a sense of anticipation, a sense of accomplishment, or attention from other players. Playing a game isn’t just about combat; it isn't just about numbers; it’s about experiences.
Agree with you, but are people that play mostly for the aesthetics of a game/character really the ones that do not like MTX items? Some might. Some might not care where their shinies come from.
One solution would be to have different skins in the MTX shop than can be crafted in game. That way people can tell the 'blue axe with the unicorn horn haft' is from the shop, and the 'red axe with the unicorn horn haft' is forged by crafters. People that are purists and only want to gain items IC can do so and be recognised as such, and those that don't care and just want a pretty axe can do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im firmly in the camp of 'cash shop should provide training time and cosmetic items only'. Im particularly averse to the idea of crafting components and items being available in the cash shop.
Given that the PLEX-equivalent can turn $$ into in-game coin, anything can be bought with $$. The real difference is when can those items be acquired (waiting for a crafter to be able to make it available vs logging into the cash shop) and where you can purchase it (im assuming here that cash shop items appear in your inventory once allocated and do not require travel in-game to pick up).
To me, both of those points would appear to detract from the growth of the in-game economy. For example, instead of a CC pushing and supporting their crafters and gatherers to become proficient enough to provide them with the arms and armour they need, theyll just purchase them off the cash shop instead. As for the transportation issue, that may be a problem for scenarios such as banditry (less people traveling to and fro) and wartime (where even a low quality weapon/potion/etc delivered instantly could make a huge difference).
It has been discussed, but without any clear decision (to my knowledge) that resources could possibly be upgraded (e.g. 10 QL1 refined into 1 QL2, etc). I have no idea if this is part of the planned crafting system or not, but if it is then it needs to be taken into account with respect to offering crafting materials on the cash shop.
While I would prefer that even skins are made in-game by crafters, I concede the point that GW needs to sell some stuff through the cash shop. One idea is that the cash shop sells a single use skin for a category of item/building but also sells the plan for a crafter to incorporate that skin in his creations. The crafting recipe would be very expensive in both $$$ and in-game resources (i.e. would probably need CC or settlement support to make it viable).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that Goblin Balls can be purchased in the cash shop and sold in game, thus providing the seller with (theoretically) plenty of gold to spend on in-game items, I think the "whales" should be encouraged to support GoblinWorks by buying Goblin Balls, and then to support the player-driven economy by spending the in-game gold from selling those Goblin Balls to support the in-game economy. The "whales" will be able to flaunt their cash-purchased wealth via conspicuous consumption, and the crafters won't end up in direct competition with GoblinWorks. Win/win.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon, as you know I have the deepest respect for you, but I hope that in this case you are wrong about the gear sold in the cash shop (or even wrong that gear will be sold there). "Whales" might work in Vegas, but this is a crowdfunded, crowdforged game, and it would appear the crowdforgers are coming out against the idea of gear and many consumables being sold in the cash shop. Thus far GW has been quite good at listening to the crowdforgers, and I hope, quite deeply, they will listen yet again.
A cash shop is fine if the things within it for sale do not upset the balance of the game or give advantages to those who can afford them, or a disadvantage to those who cannot. Bypassing in game Crafters, and all that goes into crafting is simply too unfair, as would selling items that cash strapped players will not have easy access to such as consumable items that heal or boost skills/combat/items quality (like sharpening stones, as seen in some MMO's). I am fine with any item that is of lesser quality than what a Crafter can make, even a novice Crafter, but start adding T2-T3 items that have high quality levels, and you disenfranchise those players who either lack RL fund or who play crafters/harvesters. This is unacceptable for a Sandbox game designed for high social interactions, especially when so many are voicing their opposition to just such items and services sold in a cash shop.
By all means GW should have one, it is important to revenue stream, but make the items sold, besides training time and other account related "goods", be more flashy than functional. Players will still pay to have interesting looking avatars, or a mount that is just a mount if it saves them time and effort. I also like the ideas posted about skins for armor, weapons, items, buildings and settlements. People, CC's, Guilds and Kingdoms will buy these, respectively. The market is wide open without relaying om goods and services that only punish those without the cash or desire to buy items for real money.
Give me an option for a really nice, exotic Elven Wizard's robes and a skin for my staff and my longsword ( Longbow and I will buy them. However if they also give a bonus to spell casting or combat, no thank you. PfO is about playing in a living persistent world, and cash shop good that favor the buyer and/or disfavor those who cannot buy them ruins this concept IMHO. Thus I implore GW to really think about what the crowdforgers are posting here - no to advantageous items in the cash shop, yes to items that enhance RP or accounts. Just MHO, but one I see many others share. PfO stands at a point where it can redefine how many, possibly all, aspects of MMO gaming can be altered for the better. Using the tired old cash shop ideas is a step backward. I encourage GW to be innovative while keeping a level playing field for all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was thinking about how LoL does F2P. It's not so dissimilar to a game of Warhammer TT Fantasy Battle. What I mean is that each unit/mini has a price to it** (steep tbh!), for your collection and therefore the pool you can draw from for any given battle, with battles always "equal" (via play-testing) through a points system eg 500pt, 1000pt battles.
So the GOOD thing about Warhammer FB TT and LoL is that when you pay, you are separating that pay from the influence in game. In fact the payment in particular LoL is to add more gameplay to the game. How you use each champion still determines the game. There's a slight balancing problem but it's not so bad eg newer champs usually a little OP etc, but that's a bit like the frequency of Magic The Gathering cards from what I've read on that; an aside.
The REAL CORE problem I have with F2P games goes like this (wrote this elsewhere c&p):
One of the biggest negatives (despite the potential positives) I think with F2P is the intrusive conflict between my critical mind (valuation) and switching that off to immerse and enjoy the game, my playful mind.
When I make a money decision I really like to turn off emotion and be negative about it (odd to add: Doing some accounting function jobs this is very much the most accurate mindset you must cultivate I believe). By comparison generally playing a game is about exploring/making decisions/learning systems in a playful, inventive and creative way. The F2P model is very disruptive between these 2 extremes with the influence of intrusion on the game imo very damaging to cultivating the latter state of mind.
If I'm competitive and money is involved = "P2W chicken cycle" which ends up destroying the game for the people who do out-spend each other to keep on the P2W treadmill as it goes faster and faster. This is discussed somewhere where in china a new server opens and players flock their to repeat the process of "chicken" (can't find the link atm).
I think the skill-training sub fee is equivalent to eg buying a new miniature unit or LoL champion so that is very good system as the player can choose to add gameplay and what type of gameplay. This seems very reasonable to me as it is a decision that is switched off once made and separate when I'm playing the actual game.
The way I can see MT's in the cash shop for consumables or goods is only if this is for F2P players who are not socially connected, therefore at a higher rate for the convenience of not relying on anyone else?! Therefore these players are playing the game but not buying into the game fully (yet), I suppose? Again for settlements there may be further content at that level of organisation that could be bought that reflects a very different "service"??
**Similarly buying terrain, rulebooks, paints for WH:FB are understandable costs (better to join a gaming club and chip in) which probably are similar to character customization, other graphical content things to stick in the cash-shop.
@Avena
If goods are in the cash shop
It means the siege camp surrounding the settlement to stop supplies getting in may as well not be there
It means a bandit hasn't had chance to rob the merchant taking that item to market
it means a crafter has not made a sale
it means a harvester has sold less to a crafter
it means a guard has not made money guarding the harvest camp
Selling a single item has had an impact on 5 meaningful player interaction just because someone thinks it is more convenient to whip out a credit card so they don't need to rely on others.
This is before you even consider that you are injecting items straight into the economy
Gear in the cash shop just say no!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe Nihimon's Real Plan Is working out just as He Planned! :)
It is much better for me to spend what political capital I have to broach this topic than it would be for Ryan or any of the devs to have to go "on record" in order to gauge the reaction of the community to these ideas.
@Nihimon
While you may be correct that it is not right for Ryan to be broaching the topic I do worry that it not right for someone as high profile as yourself and with youur reputation for omniscience making assertions such as
"My purpose in this thread is to inoculate you all to the idea that Goblinworks will almost certainly be selling items in the Cash Shop that effectively puts the Cash Shop in direct competition with some players. And that they might even offer high-end items Tier 3 Weapons and Armor (even though I believe they probably won't)"
Because of your place in this community many will assume this is almost a fact and it will drive some away.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread when CCP released Incarna expansion with a cash shop the player backlash was largely about the dev response, or lack of it to the simple to answer question do you plan to sell items such as ships or ammo.
I not being an insider to CCP don't have the actual numbers of subs they lost just by the rumour that they might sell such items but they certainly lost a significant number and I believe it is true to say that some at CCP lost their jobs over the whole affair. By stirring the pot this way people will get to the point that they are asking Ryan to clarify the stance earlier than he may have wanted to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"My purpose in this thread is to inoculate you all to the idea that Goblinworks will almost certainly be selling items in the Cash Shop that effectively puts the Cash Shop in direct competition with some players. And that they might even offer high-end items Tier 3 Weapons and Armor (even though I believe they probably won't)"
... many will assume this is almost a fact...
I am utterly convinced it is a factual statement.
They "almost certainly will" offer some items that effectively puts the Cash Shop in direct competition with some players.
There will likely be convenience items in the cash shop that have analogs that can be crafted by players like potions of healing. They won't be materially better than what you can craft yourself, and the point of making them available for sale is just to reduce player frustration not force people to buy stuff.
And if anyone has enough confidence in me to actually make significant decisions about the game based on what I say, then I hope they pay enough attention to what I actually said to see the "might" and the "even though I believe they probably won't" in the latter half of that quote.
I utterly reject the idea that I shouldn't have broached the topic because it might spook some people.
@Nihimon
There is a long way between convenience items like potions of healing and your statement earlier in the thread of "very nice t3 armour". The point I am trying to make is that this is a highly sensitive topic and when someone like you is saying with from what I can see no corroboration merely extreme extrapolation from one of Ryan's comments that T3 armour is likely to be for sale you will be scaring potential customers off.
It is a topic that needs to be discussed but going to the extreme in your statements which implies nearly all gear will be available by credit card is not the way to go about it in my opinion.
The original crowdforging post for the cash shop was the way to do it where people were clearly laying down and discussing what they saw as acceptable without anyone needing to make assertions about GW's intentions. All this approach does is make people worry especially those who are sensitive to cash shops
@Avena
That cuts the meaningul interactions lost down from a potential 5 to the definite 4. The npc towns will have a market. Materials will be available for sale there I don't see it as a problem in need of a solution frankly. My view would be wait and if a problem shows up then fix it by adding these to the cash shop not start off that way.
A new player can just as easily buy a goblin ball and sell it for coin to fund his start and all player interactions are maintained
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite: I think the absolute key (I've thought this for a long time tbh though I've also seen it elsewhere) is the contract between dev and player: For mmorpgs: The contract is expected to long and reciprocal and developing. Recent mmorpgs have shown that devs fear and have every right to fear that players are going to break the contract faster and faster and move on to a new game. Afterall most games are best small imo, especially when there are so many and so many new options every day even, also. But this is the bane for mmorpgs that should develop interesting communities: But again the mmorpgs coming out are not going in that direction successfully both design (solo friendly) and also monetization (milk as many players as fast as possible).
So it boils down to trust. Hence working out what is acceptable for the devs to expand their revenue streams atst as what is acceptable for players to experience MORE FUTURE GAME CONTENT and not RENEGE on their side of the deal and quit after 1 month when a mmorpg has been in dev for years costing millions!
Puffin seems to have produced some good guidelines I have to say. But if GW is resolute to having some F2P population I think that is the area where time vs money is open to discussion, especially if in the game you have a ratio of sub players 1 : 3 F2P players or something like that where F2P players are "tourists" who may decide to purchase a full-time property in PFO; if they enjoy their holiday (all flights and hotels incl. with special bonus spa option...!).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Avena
All of the things that a new player or any player could want, could be crafted by players. All of the purchasing power to get them the "easy" way could be accomplished with the transformation of "exp time" to in-game gold. All of this could be done without minimizing the game's gatherers, refiners, crafters, merchants, or the in-game economy as a whole.
Unless the company is failing, why go "backward" into unpopular out of game systems?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to step, briefly, back into this thread to revise my previous position. I rediscovered a comment from the blog while looking up something for another thread.
All players will start out as Level 1 Commoners, even before choosing to follow another role, and can slot some feats that improve gathering and harvesting. Thus, the newest players should be able to begin their careers and build up a monetary stake by harvesting resources even if they're not quite ready to mix it up in combat yet.
If all players will have the basic ability to gather without having to invest into it, then I don't think there's any need for starter grade materials in the cash shop. Characters will not have to slow their advancement into their chosen role, or invest limited XP into another role to begin.
_________
Unrelated to that subject, I'd just like to chime in that no one should feel as though they have no business bringing up any subject relevant to the game, whether they are brand new to the forums, a long time lurker, or one of the leading voices among the community. Anyone should feel comfortable speaking their mind as long as they can do it in a respectful manner. Having a discussion on something that is unlikely to be in the game, or should not be in the game, still has value, if only to help illustrate why, or to discuss the sorts of behavior that could emerge.
@Dario
It was the way it was being discussed I was suggesting was not a good way to go about it hence why I put this at the end
"t is a topic that needs to be discussed but going to the extreme in your statements which implies nearly all gear will be available by credit card is not the way to go about it in my opinion.
The original crowdforging post for the cash shop was the way to do it where people were clearly laying down and discussing what they saw as acceptable without anyone needing to make assertions about GW's intentions. All this approach does is make people worry especially those who are sensitive to cash shops"
I stand by that statement. I have been through Ryan's posts on cash shops and in none of them have I found anything to even hint that weapons and armour would be sold he specifically mentioned potions as convenience items that may be sold in competition with crafter goods. Nowhere has he once mentioned either arms or armour being sold. Using provocative suggestions like that do not in my belief help the discussion but sow uncertainty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite: What I'm saying is they get the Tourist version with higher costs in the cash shop if they want something without going through a settlement immediately ie sticking to the NPC towns. Once out there then a) They can't access cash shop b) it's cheaper c) it's not as safe d) They can join a settlement and that puts paid to cash shop stuff they can get at their settlement? I think being charged a little more for eg consumables as a tourist is a fair trade? I mean you get to see the sights... :)
@Avena the npc settlements will have markets like every other settlement. FTP players can buy there. Who else are the newbie crafters selling their equipment to?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then what is the value of posting it?
They will assert that selling any Tier 3 Weapon is unacceptable. I believe they are wrong.
Personally, I believe that there is a space where it would be acceptable to sell high-end Tier 3 Weapons on the Cash Shop without violating my sense of fairness.
I generally try to clearly express myself.
@Nihimon
First I am sorry if I come across as having go at you it is in no way personal.
I have no problem indeed with the way you expressed a personal opinion above. Those statements come across as you expressing a personal opinion of what should be allowed
However when you come out with statements like this
"My purpose in this thread is to inoculate you all to the idea that Goblinworks will almost certainly be selling items in the Cash Shop that effectively puts the Cash Shop in direct competition with some players. And that they might even offer high-end items Tier 3 Weapons and Armor (even though I believe they probably won't)"
That comes across as Goblinworks have made statements to this effect and that is what I am object to.
You can argue your belief that everything is available in the cash shop but if you start tying it to statements issued by Ryan then I believe that crosses the line into an area you shouldn't
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Avena the npc settlements will have markets like every other settlement. FTP players can buy there. Who else are the newbie crafters selling their equipment to?
Yeah the meaningful interaction thing you mentioned, that's worth considering *doffs thinking cap*. I'd suggest NPC towns have npc vendors which reflect the prices basically in the cash shop so they can either go out (play and take time) and get stuff or pay money to get stuff (and see what it does). That way the F2P newbies can experiment with the game a little bit, with the side-attraction of real players advertising how much better their settlements are... ?
That way the NPC settlements are separate economically but a new player experience - atst with a pull to go to a human player settlement and be involved more collaboratively. Atst, it's worth having the F2P access for the high-turnover of players who might shed a dime or two as any investment leads to more investment.
Be interested if holes can be picked into this!
@Avena
I am getting very confused here...you seem to be under the impression that NPC settlements will be different from normal settlements. As far as I am aware they will have all of the normal facilities except for high end training. Indeed many long term players may live in them permanently.
You don't need npc vendors as there will be the same sort of market in them as any other settlement. That market will be busy and contain many goods from low to high end and be as thriving in all likelihood as any market
I don't believe the intention is that NPC settlements are in anyway separate from the rest of the game
Well we will agree to disagree on the methodology as you say it profits neither of us.
However you have not addressed any of the other objections to selling gear. I think personally there will never be any weapons or armour in the cash shop because it breaks completely the whole point of having a sandbox game in the first place.
I think most posting here have been fairly explicit in their wish not to see such items in the cash shop and you are possibly the only one suggesting you do not see a problem so it seems answering the game effect objections is in your court
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Avena
I am getting very confused here...you seem to be under the impression that NPC settlements will be different from normal settlements. As far as I am aware they will have all of the normal facilities except for high end training. Indeed many long term players may live in them permanently.
You don't need npc vendors as there will be the same sort of market in them as any other settlement. That market will be busy and contain many goods from low to high end and be as thriving in all likelihood as any market
I don't believe the intention is that NPC settlements are in anyway separate from the rest of the game
No, I think as it stands that's exactly what they will be: I suggest they are economically separate if you are adding a F2P access to the game for new players.
I know GW have talked about if a F2P has been messing around for say 6 months in the game, what GW want to do with such a situation. If they have joint a settlement then they're possibly positive to the game and if they're earning skill-training in-game, it's positive to GW. But once they join a settlement then they enter the game economy proper.
To be clear: I've not spent much time thinking about it, but it's a possible approach to keep the positives of F2P without the negatives (corrupting the in-game economy).
Many subscribing players will be resident in npc communities in my view Avena, they will be made up of people who do not wish the issues that come with holding territory or their reason for being doesn't need territorial holdings. When the game is mature my guesstimate would be around 40% of people will call NPC settlements home. Given that I do not see them making NPC settlements economically separate due to FTP players coming in.
FTP players as I understand the plan will be no different to a subscription player except for their training won't advance unless they redeem goblin balls for training
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... it seems answering the game effect objections is in your court.
That's exactly what I'd like to return to.
The last thing I tried to address was the point you and Dario made about a Cash Shop allowing characters to bypass a Siege. I found that a very compelling objection. I posted specific questions to you and Dario asking your opinions.
@Dario and @ZenPagan,
At the risk of continuing to beat a dead horse, and in keeping with my original intent to discover the acceptable boundaries for selling high-end gear in the Cash Shop - with a much greater acceptance of the likelihood that there are no acceptable boundaries - I'm tempted to try to address the specific issues you both raised.
For example, consider a hypothetical SkyMetal Sword as a high-end Tier 3 Weapon with a nice array of keywords, and SkyMetal Weapons as a hypothetical class of all Tier 3 Cash Shop Weapons.
1. What if the SkyMetal Sword were Soulbound (could not be traded), and a single character could only ever buy 1 SkyMetal Weapon per month?
2. Or, what if the item required an "equivalent" item to be destroyed at one of several SkyMetal Craters scattered around the map in Wilderness Hexes? Granted, this is more like a re-skin than buying an item, but it would potentially be able to change the keywords.
In closing, I acknowledge that it is very likely not even worth worrying about. At this point, it's more of an intellectual exercise than anything else.
My personal preference would be that cash shop and NPC goods should be available only in the starter towns or at structures built by players that represent the import trade (like a dock or a caravan station). Such structures should be disabled or impaired under some conditions, like a town under siege or with its highway interdicted by bandits.To my previous post, add:
3. Or, what if the character had to visit an NPC Settlement in order to "take delivery" of a Cash Shop item. This seems like it would address the concern about bypassing a Siege.
Dario has replied to all three of these points, but not to my counter-point on #3.
Strip down to just what I can afford to thread, with enough threads left over for the cash shop item. Die. Rez at the large Statue of Pharasma in the NPC town. Claim item. Bind item. Die. Respawn at the small statue of Pharasma in my city. Round trip, three minutes. Cost, zero.Can't you do that exact same thing with the in-game market? That was my point.
So, as it stands now, I believe we have identified a reasonable solution to the one objection I found extremely compelling.
Is the ball now in your court?
I would still object to the sky metal sword because of the following
1) It introduces a whole new system into the game of soul binding
if the weapon is soul bound it cannot be looted and used in addition so the user may feel they do not have to thread it.
I do not see why this is superior than the player buying a goblin ball and exchanging it for coin and buying a player made weapon
As per point 2 if you had an equivalent sword why would you need the skymetal sword (I am ignoring the reforging with different keywords for now as I feel it is better to concentrate on the one issue for now, reforging can be a thread in its own right :) )
Point 3 I would say this is negated by me just saying then why don't you just buy a goblin ball and sell it for coin and buy a player made sword when you get there.
Hopefully I have answered those to your satisfaction
This was one of the interactions (breaking a siege) that I listed in lost player interactions when buying a store weapon
the others were
The merchant possibly selling you the weapon
The bandit having a chance to rob the merchant bringing the weapon to market
The Crafter who made the weapon
The processors who made the components
The guards who were employed to watch the harvest camp
The harvesters gathering materials and selling them
As you can see above the simple idea of buying a sword from market for real money affects many people adversely. If it is just one sword it is bearable but what happens if 100 people do so or a 1000.
Another objection is it also acts as a price cap on the sword
example
the Sword of mighty wanging costs 10$ in the store
a goblin ball costs $20 in the store
a goblin ball sells in game for 1000 coins
Now I as a crafter can make a sword of mighty wanging, but if I try selling it for more than 500 coins no one will buy it because it is cheaper in the store. However the materials are used in many recipes for things not sold in the store and the material cost of making a sword of mighty wanging is 600 coin.
Result no crafter can now make a sword of mighty wanging because they are cheaper to buy in the store
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many subscribing players will be resident in npc communities in my view Avena, they will be made up of people who do not wish the issues that come with holding territory or their reason for being doesn't need territorial holdings. When the game is mature my guesstimate would be around 40% of people will call NPC settlements home. Given that I do not see them making NPC settlements economically separate due to FTP players coming in.
FTP players as I understand the plan will be no different to a subscription player except for their training won't advance unless they redeem goblin balls for training
That's true, the full security zone as it were.
I guess I'm conflating new F2P players with ones that "convert". I forgot that NPC towns can be settled by players: I always thought of them as feeders to player settlements as integral to the game, but that's probably not true.
My preferred vision has always been that Lawful Good is the place for highest probability of peace and security (sub 100%), but I can see how different players who enjoy different alignments would like a more PvE-ish NPC area for any of the alignments. Guess I painting the game with my own prejudices! ^_^
I still think the joining of an organisation could be a useful differentiation for new players to converted players and any ramifications on the cash shop. Maybe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon
It's not simply bypassing Seige that is the issue. You are bypassing the whole concept of Economic Warfare. A large part of defeating an enemy is destroying it's ability to sustain a fight. It takes material goods and wealth to purchase them in order to be able to fight over the long term.
If a faction can simply create them out of thin air (out of game money). Then they don't need to worry about someone trashing thier infrastructure, thier resource gathering camps, thier crafters, thier merchants, etc.
Successfull wars aren't typical fought by starting out straight with an assault or a siege. Usualy they start by degrading the opponents ability to fight...destroying thier reserves of personnel (which can't happen in PFO because death is only temporary) and war material.
If a faction can purchase thier way out of that, even if they have to go to a starting town to get the goods, you'll mostly never GET to the point where laying a successfull SEIGE or BLOCKADE is possible....because you need to ALREADY have gained a very significant advantage over your opponent in combat power to attempt either one.
@Avena
A lot will depend frankly on details we do not know yet, what level of facilities will npc towns have? How easy will it for open player settlements to offer training for non members etc.
A small mercenary company for instance might find it best to operate out of an npc town and buy their advanced training from who ever they can. They might do this so they can remain neutral to the inter settlement politics and fight for who ever has the deepest purse as just an example of someone who may make the NPC settlements home.
In addition depending on how open settlements are to visitors it may be that the best markets are in the npc settlements as they are the safest places to trade
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many subscribing players will be resident in npc communities in my view Avena, they will be made up of people who do not wish the issues that come with holding territory or their reason for being doesn't need territorial holdings. FTP players as I understand the plan will be no different to a subscription player except for their training won't advance unless they redeem goblin balls for training
I think this is true. A good number of players will want to be in the starter towns. The starter towns will be safer trading hubs, places to recruit new members of your settlement and CC, full service trainers for low level skills, etc. They won't be separate economies.
Having watched new/FTP players join a sandbox game (Wurm), I know that many players want to figure out the mechanics and flavor of the game right away. Many won't commit to a village or alliance in the first day, they're still figuring the game out. In their game-test time, they will want to try many things and they don't always want to do things in the gather-refine-craft order. The new players will spend money on resources and weapons if they are available, and other players are quite happy to sell to the new guy.
This is good. This is player interaction. But once players have NPC agents to represent them in the marketplace... Well, I'm not sure there's much more player interaction dealing with a player's NPC agent as opposed to a GoblinWorks NPC merchant. And if there are no player characters hawking goods at a moment in time, some new players will be lost and frustrated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Point 3 I would say this is negated by me just saying then why don't you just buy a goblin ball and sell it for coin and buy a player made sword when you get there.
First, Point 3 was not meant to illustrate why it was necessary to offer a SkyMetal Sword in the Cash Shop. It was meant to address your objection that it was necessary not to.
The reason why Goblinworks might offer a SkyMetal Sword in the Cash Shop is that it's cool and people will buy it, giving Goblinworks money.
I'm trying to understand the reasons why it would be unacceptable to the community, and try to address those objections. One valid objection is that it could allow players to bypass a Siege. The question is whether requiring the item to be picked up at an NPC Settlement reasonably addresses that objection. I think it does. Your response ignores this point.
This was one of the interactions (breaking a siege) that I listed in lost player interactions when buying a store weapon
the others were
The merchant possibly selling you the weapon
The bandit having a chance to rob the merchant bringing the weapon to market
The Crafter who made the weapon
The processors who made the components
The guards who were employed to watch the harvest camp
The harvesters gathering materials and selling them
Merchant - This is why I keep referencing the quote from Ryan where he acknowledges that there will be items in the Cash Shop that could be crafted by players. Arguing that an item should not be in the Cash Shop because that takes away a possible sale from a player is moot - it's already been acknowledged. This also applies to Crafters, Processors, Guards, and Harvesters.
Bandit - The same holds true if you travel to another player Settlement and buy a player-crafted Sword on the market there, as long as that player-crafted Sword was crafted locally. Because the objection applies to conditions that don't involve Cash Shop purchases, it should not be considered a rational objection to Cash Shop purchases.
Another objection is it also acts as a price cap on the sword
That's a price cap that Goblinworks can adjust as they see fit. I've already posited limitations based on equivalent items being readily available in in-game markets, and on the Cash Shop item being priced such that it is not a better deal than the in-game items.
@Nihimon
It's not simply bypassing Seige that is the issue. You are bypassing the whole concept of Economic Warfare. A large part of defeating an enemy is destroying it's ability to sustain a fight. It takes material goods and wealth to purchase them in order to be able to fight over the long term.
If a faction can simply create them out of thin air (out of game money). Then they don't need to worry about someone trashing thier infrastructure, thier resource gathering camps, thier crafters, thier merchants, etc.
If this is a valid reason to ban selling SkyMetal Swords in the Cash Shop, then it's also a reason to ban selling Goblin Balls in the Cash Shop.
You're suggesting that I shouldn't be able to spend real-world money and go to another Settlement to pick up gear. But that's exactly what I'll be able to do anyway by buying Goblin Balls, selling them on the market, going to another Settlement and buying gear on the in-game market.
I will acknowledge that it short-cuts the step where I have to sell the Goblin Ball on the market, but I don't think that makes all that much difference. From what I understand, Ryan doesn't intend to let you know who you're buying from on the Market, so it's not like my enemies will be able to organize a boycott or punish other players for buying Goblin Balls from me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what I understand, Ryan doesn't intend to let you know who you're buying from on the Market, so it's not like my enemies will be able to organize a boycott or punish other players for buying Goblin Balls from me.
An aside, but can you point me at the basis of this assertion? I find it odd.