Players as a Resource - a fever-driven revelation

[Gahta]

Summary

1 - Introduction

2 - Percieved Problem

3 - Proposed Solution

4 - Exemplary Interactions

5 - Final

1 Introduction

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

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

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

2 Percieved Problem

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

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

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

3 Proposed Solution

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

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

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

4 Exemplary Interactions

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

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

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

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

5 Final

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

[DeciusBrutus]

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

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

[Jazzlvraz]

Ryan's already told us:

"You will be able to log in more than one character on the same account. So you can run the client twice, or run the client on two computers logged into the same account."

We'll need anything and everything to be properly thought out for both characters and accounts.

[Gahta]

DeciusBrutus wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Bluddwolf]

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

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

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

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

[Gahta]

Bluddwolf wrote:

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

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

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

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

It seems youre not disagreeing^^

It would free up the players themselves, allowing you to stroll around, while renting NPC could involve vigor. I may admit im not as accessible as i wish to be, but you seem to agree more then you initially grasped

[Gahta]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crafting itself could be tiered that way:

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

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

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

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

[Being]

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

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

[Gahta]

Being wrote:

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

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

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

[Bringslite]

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

[Wurner]

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

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

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

Gahta wrote:

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

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

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

[Eldurian Darkrender]

Jazzlvraz wrote:

Ryan's already told us:

"You will be able to log in more than one character on the same account. So you can run the client twice, or run the client on two computers logged into the same account."

We'll need anything and everything to be properly thought out for both characters and accounts.

Looks like I'll be upgrading my system just to play this game. I hope the increased bandwidth consumption doesn't lag me to the point that the game is less enjoyable.

Edit: Wait a second... are you saying that if you have Destiny's Twin then two people can play together on the same account at no extra charge?

[Gahta]

Wurner wrote:

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

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

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

Gahta wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

[Wurner]

Gahta wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jazzlvraz]

Eldurian Darkrender wrote:

...two people can play together on the same account...

I hadn't thought of the implications, but it certainly sounds like it, doesn't it? Since folks'll be paying for training time on each character, GW probably doesn't care, and they'd thus be letting the Twin be played by someone else as part of the power of that Kickstarter perk.

[Gahta]

Wurner wrote:

Gahta wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In your gathering example this would mean youd have certain resources within your means, all of course with their own prerequisites. So "hunting" could mean you haul decent load (since what you can lift is capped) ine one successful go, instead of assuming players have to repeat gathering, it could allow to make the single successful one more impactful.

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

[randomwalker]

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

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

[Bringslite]

Jazzlvraz wrote:

Eldurian Darkrender wrote:

...two people can play together on the same account...

I hadn't thought of the implications, but it certainly sounds like it, doesn't it? Since folks'll be paying for training time on each character, GW probably doesn't care, and they'd thus be letting the Twin be played by someone else as part of the power of that Kickstarter perk.

Actually, last word (that I have read) was that 1 acct can have multiple characters and you can multi box them but each has to pay for the exp through goblin balls or subs. Destiny's Twin will earn exp along with your main for "one low price" but not be able to log in at the same time.

[Gahta]

randomwalker wrote:

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

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

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

[Jazzlvraz]

Bringslite wrote:

...not be able to log in at the same time.

Aha! That does sound familiar, and it would nicely keep DTs from becoming needlessly powerful.

[Eldurian Darkrender]

Bringslite wrote:

Jazzlvraz wrote:

Eldurian Darkrender wrote:

...two people can play together on the same account...

I hadn't thought of the implications, but it certainly sounds like it, doesn't it? Since folks'll be paying for training time on each character, GW probably doesn't care, and they'd thus be letting the Twin be played by someone else as part of the power of that Kickstarter perk.

Actually, last word (that I have read) was that 1 acct can have multiple characters and you can multi box them but each has to pay for the exp through goblin balls or subs. Destiny's Twin will earn exp along with your main for "one low price" but not be able to log in at the same time.

Oh. Well then I won't need to upgrade my computer. Wasn't planning on having anything past my destiny's twin anyway.

[Sadurian]

Gahta wrote:

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

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

[Gahta]

Sadurian wrote:

Gahta wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Bringslite]

@Gahta

My apologies for my part in hijacking this thread. It is an all to common practice around here.

At least this:

Bringslite wrote:

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

Was on topic. But you have not answered it.

[Sadurian]

Gahta wrote:

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

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by this.

Gahta wrote:

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

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

Gahta wrote:

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

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

[AvenaOats]

Gahta wrote:

Sadurian wrote:

Gahta wrote:

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

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

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

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

Gahta - Can I just point out:

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

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

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

[Gahta]

AvenaOats wrote:

Gahta wrote:

Sadurian wrote:

Gahta wrote:

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

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

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

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

Gahta - Can I just point out:

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

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

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

I wont go away if thats what youre fearing^^

Ive been around long enough to know that bad behaviour something is best dealt with by being exemplary to the contrary.

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

[AvenaOats]

You're getting distracted:

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

Go for it! :)

[Gahta]

AvenaOats wrote:

You're getting distracted:

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

Go for it! :)

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

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

[Bringslite]

@Gahta

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

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

Thank You :)

[Quandary]

I can barely comprehend much about the OP's post, but what I'm getting feels like it is pretty much redundant with the game design so far, and he is just getting caught up in the details and aesthetic judgements of the presentation of PC agency.
There already is the building construction system, which is done in the background/while you adventure/are logged out, but you can only do 1 at a a time per character, even if there is no 'name' or 'currency' for that 'activity slot'.
There is also the settlement manager position, at least some tied to specific buildings granting settlement benefits, I don't know if it's been explicitly stated, but it sounds like you can only do one of those at a time as well. All of these you can potentially be paid for if that is to the interest of both parties.
It doesn't seem a stretch to say that you can't both work on a construction site AND manage a settlement structure, i.e. they both 'occupy' the same 'activity slot', even if that doesn't have a name (and it doesn't particularly need to have a name).
I'm not really sure how what the OP is proposing would fix any problem or otherwise enhance the game.

The game already has a huge amount of complexity, I don't think introducing named mechanics/meta-currencies is really that helpful, some things that are relatively simple like this can just naturally be limited. Better than filling the game with a kajillion different stats and mechanics that require players to understand them is keeping it as simple as possible while robust enough to support deep emergent game play.

Honestly, that leads to a question that recently occured to me: The game as we know it so far really looks to have a large amount of complexity. Even though GW posts about it on the Blog, many posters don't seem to be able to keep up with that. It seem implausible for most new players to truly 'grok' (understand) the full scope of relevant mechanics when they start playing the game, and even as they play there will likely be a limit of engagement to the full mechanics. Keeping the basic pieces as simple as possible helps with that, but I don't think will entirely fix the issue. So I think it is important for GW to consider the learning curve of the game, and keep in mind 'discoverability' of relevant mechanics... That early players may not all pay attention to initially, but hopefully they don't screw themselves up too much until they do discover them.

[Gahta]

Bringslite wrote:

@Gahta

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

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

Thank You :)

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

Of course it would be able to provide what would be possible with what currently is planned (another coffin in your case, as claiming redundancy of mechanics with as little info as pathfinders crafting is a bit questionable) in a way, which is something one would expect.

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

[Gahta]

Sadurian wrote:

Gahta wrote:

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

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by this.

Gahta wrote:

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

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

Gahta wrote:

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

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

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

"So you just disagree with the idea i might be able to relate to him (...)(meaning i might have a similiar viewpoint) based on what of what i said?"

Hopefully a bit easier to grasp.

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

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

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

[Bringslite]

Gahta wrote:

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

I am sorry, but if the above is true then I am, obviously, not even comprehending your proposal. I will drop out of the discussion.

Hope to "read" you around here more. :)

[Sadurian]

Gahta wrote:

Hopefully a bit easier to grasp.

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

Gahta wrote:

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

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

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

[Gahta]

Sadurian wrote:

Gahta wrote:

Hopefully a bit easier to grasp.

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

Gahta wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

[Being]

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

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

[Gahta]

Being wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

[Being]

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

[Bringslite]

In short. Your idea is redundant to the already developed system.

I said that I would not be back. Coming back and posting also seems to be redundant.

[Nihimon]

I've read the Original Post a number of times, and still don't really understand the idea, and I would like to understand it. Perhaps Gahta could provide a purely mechanical explanation of the system, without using the derived benefits as a means of explaining what the system is.

One thing I was able to glean is that it seems to be motivated by a desire to create a system whereby a Settlement can profit from Slavery, which is not in itself a bad idea.

[Gahta]

Being wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both are reasoned for in the OP.

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

[Bringslite]

@Gahta

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

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

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

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

[Quandary]

How is 'time' undefined? Associating economic gain with actually playing the game is exactly what GW wants to do.
GW has already been very clear that making sure low level characters have viable economic options is a major goal,
and they are already implementing that via the details of several sub-systems,
so that the harvesting/crafting/construction work of low level characters is relevant to the overall game.
So yeah, your idea isn't going to be implemented here.

[Gahta]

Bringslite wrote:

@Gahta

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

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

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

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

Short Yes, no, no

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

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

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

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

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

[ZenPagan]

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

Large organisations have quite enough advantages as it is frankly and in fact could do with being penalised for size if anything. After all we don't want to end up in a stalemate with 2 huge organisations splitting the river kingdoms between them.

This idea would cause rampant inflation for goods in addition as it would strictly limit the flow of new goods and materials into the market and the newly joined players would find buying so much as a tea spoon beyond their purse.

I think the OP needs to voice some quite powerful reasons why this system is better than the tried and trusted method of harvesting and crafting being based upon time spent doing so and having some artifical cap placed upon those activities.

[Gahta]

ZenPagan wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

[ZenPagan]

Gahta wrote:

ZenPagan wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Because a big organisation has more players to collect your vigor from.Simple as that

As you choose to insult rather than engage I am not going to bother any more as your plan has less chance of implementation than zero. I did not insult you I merely pointed out the flaws in your extremely poorly explained system.

If you think I am misunderstanding what you are saying learn to explain better

[Quandary]

This whole thread of yours kind of feels full of itself, in an extremely weird autistic sort of way.
Guess what? You've written a whole ton of text, and still nobody is convinced of your idea in the slightest.
Maybe your idea is just half-baked, maybe you're nuts, or maybe you're just a bad communicator. Maybe all of them. Who knows.
But probably calling people "full of themselves" for not just accepting your idea is not the best approach at this point.
If you want to continue to engage with discussing the game independent of whether others embrace your grand theories, great,
otherwise I just don't expect many people to continue to humor your bizarre-o posts indefinitely.

[Gahta]

Quandary wrote:

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

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

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

If you really think one cant point out flaws he also does exhibits within others, youre not mature enough, not that thats something still in question after your last post.

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

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