vjek said:I used to be a big proponent of no global anything until I actually played games that had no global bank, no global search-for-sale interface, and no fast travel of any kind. It's just not fun, in my opinion.
To me, It's drudgery, toil, inconvenience, a job, and/or punitive mechanics, and I'm paying to be entertained by it? Hehehe. Doesn't quite add up, for me.
I appreciate you bringing up your experiences in other games and the issues you had.
At the same time, please read up on my many posts where I talk about the difference between an Idea and an Implementation.
1. No global search-for-sale. We've not said this is out of the question. I think we definitely want regional searches, and if global was necessary we wouldn't rule it out.
2. We've not said there is no fast travel of any kind (although in one post/interview I wrote something poorly that could be interpreted that way, which I regret). Some classes will have the ability to teleport people. There will obviously be some restrictions. The only restriction we've brought up at this point is that you probably couldn't be teleported somewhere you didn't at least one time walk/ride there yourself.
We definitely don't want non-global to equal drudgery, toil, or inconvenince. And most certainly the desire for local trading is to make the game better -- we don't sit down and think of anything 'punative' to inflict our players with. On the contrary, we're determined to make the best game possible for our target audience.
Anything in a game that doesn't give you what you want when you want it could easily be dubbed an inconvenience. The question is whether that inconvenience provides something positive for other players. Does it create an environment that encourage players to travel around looking for the best markets because that is fun for them? Does it give each area a unique economy, complete with items that are rare to other regions? Does it make the player experience of each race diverse and improve replayability? Does it lead to any other form of gameplay like the creation of a Shipping Guild or NPC trade routes delivering possessions from one bank to that of a neighboring kingdom?
Its really about what do you stand to gain by having local banks and economies versus global. If its just there for pure immersion and leads to nothing else, it may not be worth having.
Aradune said:I appreciate you bringing up your experiences in other games and the issues you had.
At the same time, please read up on my many posts where I talk about the difference between an Idea and an Implementation.
1. No global search-for-sale. We've not said this is out of the question. I think we definitely want regional searches, and if global was necessary we wouldn't rule it out.
2. We've not said there is no fast travel of any kind (although in one post/interview I wrote something poorly that could be interpreted that way, which I regret). Some classes will have the ability to teleport people. There will obviously be some restrictions. The only restriction we've brought up at this point is that you probably couldn't be teleported somewhere you didn't at least one time walk/ride there yourself.
We definitely don't want non-global to equal drudgery, toil, or inconvenince. And most certainly the desire for local trading is to make the game better -- we don't sit down and think of anything 'punative' to inflict our players with. On the contrary, we're determined to make the best game possible for our target audience.
Yep, understood. I've read posts recently that both re-iterate your stance on those two topics, and I appreciate the open mindedness you've demonstrated thus far. I look forward to seeing how much of that open mindedness actually makes it from idea to implementation. ;)
Personally, I applaud the design goal of regional economies. The issue is, as Shroud of the Avatar has demonstrated since July 28th, 2016, you cannot have regional economies and fast travel. Full stop. They are , 100%, mutually exclusive. If you have one, you cannot have the other.
If you permit fast travel, of any expected reasonable implementation, you cannot enforce a regional economy in any meaningful way. They (Portalarium) tried, they failed. And yes, I understand the distinction between an idea and an implentation. Their idea was regional economies. Players should harvest more wood here versus more ore there. The wood harvesters would trade with the ore harvesters. Wood would be cheaper here, ore would be cheaper there. Totally get the desire. Totally get the intent.
Implementation time: Add in the ability for players to teleport. In any way. At all. No matter how limited. So, if you allow them to teleport while carrying ANYTHING. Currency. Items. Loot. Anything. Then they can and will, repeatedly, at the limit of frequency, carry items to and fro in such a way as to render any regional economies a hiliarious joke.
So, typically, people tend to focus on the teleporting. Oh, make it only once per hour. Ok, then multiple accounts, multiple teleports. Large guilds ignore the restrictions and have a fleet of teleporters. Won't happen? Has happened. Historically demonstrated to be true.
Ok, ok, then.. don't let them carry anything. Ok, so why have it? The whole point of fast travel is that you can get to your friends and adventure together, or some other convenience value. If you make it so punitive no-one will use it, might as well take it out.
Then the thought process is, ok, so, no fast travel. Alrighty, problem solved, right? Nope, just means that players will do everything in their power to remove or bypass those regional economies, up to and including buying dozens of accounts if necessary. Don't think it will happen? Has happened. Historically demonstrated to be true, again.
The days of designing mechanics around a single account per player, while ignoring the elephant in the room of "If you make it inconvenient, I'll just buy 2-12 accounts" are long gone. At the same time, you can't design every mechanic around someone having 12 accounts. There is a balance to be struck here. Don't make it so inconvenient than 2-12 accounts are required, otherwise you're not making a fun game, people won't be getting their entertainment value for their dollar, and you're reducing your target demographic, often fatally, finanically.
Asking for a global search isn't asking for instant delivery. It's just asking for "where, who, how much". Beyond that, if there's an escrow agent NPC to hold my goods to sell (and after they're sold) so the buyer can get them when they arrive, it's all good. It doesn't prevent regional value. It doesn't prevent the EC tunnel/faymart. If players sitll want to spam /auc 60 times an hour, and that's their entertainment, by all means, go for it. Just don't force me to do it when I would rather be adventuring.
Heck, I'd be happy with no fast travel of any kind if Pantheon had a global for-sale search. At least I would know the economy would be moving. Theorycrafting players, or players in alpha, beta, or similar pre-prodcution/live games often point to EQ, EQ2, WoW, Rift and such as games where the economy is broken. And yet... items are bought and sold all day, every day, using all those different systems. So are they all really 100% broken? I don't think so, given their longevity records. My point? There are lessons to be learned from all of them, and they all work, to varying degrees.
Raidan said:@Disposalist
I can see how my comment came off a bit brash, so I apologize about that, but when you make the statement with "You HAD" in capitals, it reads as much more than an "in my opinion or experience" claim especially when combined with statements being dismissive and derogatory to an opposing perspective.
In my experience, I sold locally often and received worse prices if I sold locally than in foreign lands as did others and in my opinion trader gameplay is a large part of the overall social dynamics of the game for much more reasons other than just the WTS spam. There are a lot more reasons to not want a global AH other than to remove convenience and I also realize it's not 1999 anymore and there can be compromises or room for innovation as well - see my posts in the Death to AH thread.
No probs *hug* my comments could easily have seemed a tad 'pointed' also :)
I'm certain (especially given Aradune's recent postings) there will be a compromise that will make me happy - I really don't actually need very much to greatly improve on the EQ lack of system and I do appreciate there are lots of good aspects to 'the trading game' in EQ.