I wanted to bring something up for everyone to consider.
We spend a lot of time on this forum discussing ideas for how things could work or the impact of design decisions the developers might make. Often, I see people referring back to their experience from previous games: "Oh I liked that feature, let's do it that way!" In many cases, we played those games when they launched. And yeah, they were fun.
But the experience of someone who joined that game later might have been entirely different.
Most of the limitations and flaws in MMO design aren't apparent at Day 1. They're not even apparent at Day 247, or when the first guilds hit the level cap. Instead, they don't show up until years later, when suddenly that thing that seemed so nice after launch is now contributing to problems in a huge way, and no one is quite sure what to do about it.
So I'd like to propose to everyone that when we think about systems and concepts, we apply the "three year" test to them. What's the "three year" test? It's simple: If the design that we're proposing/talking about goes in, what will be the cumulative effect of it after three full years of people playing the game?
Why three years? Because it's a good measuring stick. A lot can happen to a game in three years. The influx of new players slows down by the third year. Most of the people that started the game will have hit the level cap by the third year. Probably an expansion will have released and maybe even bumped the level cap up. A lot of balancing will have occurred for the stuff that was found along the way. Everything that can be discovered in the game world probably will have been discovered, documented, and posted on dozens of websites and youtube videos. Anything that can be farmed will have been farmed. And so on.
So, I think we should all stop and think - we all have an image of how we think Pantheon should work. But in three years, would that be a good thing? Or would it actually have contributed to a bigger problem?
Here are some examples, just to illustrate.
- Let's say that nothing is bind on equip, so you can sell/trade all your old gear away to other players or your alts. What does that mean for server economies after three years of thousands of players upgrading gear and listing their old stuff on the market?
- Let's say that there are mid-level mobs somewhere that drop gemstones 10% of the time when killed. Those gemstones can be sold to a vendor NPC for 5 plat apiece. What does that mean for prices in the game after 3 years of people farming gemstones nonstop?
- Let's say that there's a cloak with a clicky invisibility effect that drops rarely from a boss in a dungeon. Invisibility lets people get by mobs that they normally would have to fight, so it's a super powerful ability. What happens to normal adventuring gameplay after three years of people farming invisibility cloaks to sell?
I hope everyone sees my point here. When we talk about things in the game, and especially as testing begins, I think it's super important for us to think about not just how something is going to work at launch or in the first year after launch, but three years in. There are plenty of examples from MMO history of designs that were fundamentally flawed and caused massive problems for their games, yet that no one realized were a problem until it was far, far too late.
We owe it to the people who aren't starting Pantheon on Day 1 to make sure that when they do finally get the game at Christmas of 2020, because their friends said it was awesome, that they're not logging into a broken experience just because they started late.
Longevity in a game is an important subject. You've made a good point. How to address that point has been the challenge of many gaming studios for many years. It deserves much thought, but unfortunately, few beside the actual dev's themselves who have plenty of prior experience can answer those concerns well.
The three year measuring stick falls a bit short to me as a lot of the time the reason mechanics become a burden or broken are from new mechanics and ideas implemented in expansions. Often issues with a lack of coherent "Grand Vision" I would imagine, or a changing of devs with new ones wanting to take the game in different directions.
vjek said:So far, they're knowingly including mechanics and designs that have negative consequences both short and long term. I don't think they're worried about longevity at this point.
Such as?
All of the mechanics that make the game niche restrict the target demographic. They're not making a game that appeals to the largest possible audience, or we'd have an entirely different feature set.
The reason the game is niche is because those mechanics appeal to fewer people. Why? Because in some way, they're negative. Pretty simple logic train here. You want a list? It's the feature set.
@Vjek
You’re taking a completely glass half empty outlook. Plenty of games with a target audience versus mass appeal have longetivity (See EQ). And, Pantheon’s own marketing research had shown they are appealing to a much wider audience than just one niche group (old thread here about it).
Regardless, even if Pantheon has a specific focus it also could attract gamers who have been ostracized for years as well. Simply because they have a clear vision that won’t cater to all hardly means they don’t care about longetivity.
Conversely, they’re discussing implementing systems like matchmaking, mentoring, and progenies which would completely contradict your claim.
*Edit* And great points OP - I agree that constantly viewing any design decision from a present and future position is extremely important. I hope Pantheon has a robust testing server when live to put development ideas in practice before adapting them to official servers.
If you haven't already, please read my article on mudflation, player driven economies, etc.:
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/blogs/151/70/twinking-good-or-evil-or-in-between
- Let's say that nothing is bind on equip, so you can sell/trade all your old gear away to other players or your alts. What does that mean for server economies after three years of thousands of players upgrading gear and listing their old stuff on the market?
Beyond the economincal impact, there are many other things that this would effect positive and negative. I personally would have no issue with what I call legacy items. Often a game has this type of system early on and as they add content to expand the cap of many things (like levels, stats and effects) the new content is then level capped or no trade so that new players are not able to be more powerful than their environment (up to a certain point they CAN would legacy gear but it is limited). I personally like this system as it allows SOME benefit to making an alt sometime later but also limits the impact it will have. The economic impact of this is based on many different factors.
- Let's say that there are mid-level mobs somewhere that drop gemstones 10% of the time when killed. Those gemstones can be sold to a vendor NPC for 5 plat apiece. What does that mean for prices in the game after 3 years of people farming gemstones nonstop?
While amount of fluid currency is an important factor in any economy, availability of goods has a much larger impact. As the game progresses and more content is added, if they make older gear more accessible (say from new starting quests or from increased drop rates for common gear) it will help curtail the amount of money poured into new characters. This should help level the playing field for new players to some extent and allow players with money to burn the ability to gear up their alts - somewhat of a compromise. While mid-level/high-end gear will still have a higher price tag at least new players have an avenue to get there beside pay-to-win.
- Let's say that there's a cloak with a clicky invisibility effect that drops rarely from a boss in a dungeon. Invisibility lets people get by mobs that they normally would have to fight, so it's a super powerful ability. What happens to normal adventuring gameplay after three years of people farming invisibility cloaks to sell?
For me, this is a quality of life issue. Unless the use is being exploited to bypass challenges enroute to a larger reward. Even then to some extent this is acceptable so long as it is a level playing field for everyone. Using this example, if invisibility was fairly easy to get by other means then the cloak - while a nice perk and has utility - would be less of an obstruction at least from a material standpoint.
Aradune said:If you haven't already, please read my article on mudflation, player driven economies, etc.:
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/blogs/151/70/twinking-good-or-evil-or-in-between
Thanks for linking that Aradune, I do think everyone should give it a read. My take on what you oultined is that there is a balance that needs to be achieved. Trying to lock everything in so that it's always the same is too restrictive, however, allowing rampant mudflation is a terrible thing too. You mentioned a lot of things you want to do to mitigate mudflation without having to be heavy-handed with things like no-trade, bind-on-equip, etc. Makes sense.
The reason I posted this thread, however, is my naive hope that my fellow supporters will stop and take a second look at the things they're pushing for, whatever those may be. I'm not trying to argue for or against any specific thing (though I certainly have my own opinions and they probably come out a little bit unintentionally). I think often as players we can be too short-sighted because we live in the moment in these games. We don't stop to think about the long-term effects of what we're dealing with, we only know that we like it now or that we don't like it now. That, in turn, often results in poor design decisions by developers. The fact that we're all here pledging money for a game that's by definition going to be a "throwback" to older times should be proof of that.
For me, the "best" games, the ones I really remember, are the ones that I played for 3, 5, 7, 11 years. When you play a game for that long, you start to notice how things change over time. It's especially noticeable if you leave and then come back (which I did a few times in some of them). I'm a firm believer that as a game ages, its lifeblood is in the new players that find out about it and keep subscribing. It's super important to insure that those new players have a good experience with the game, and yet in so many games I've seen that new player experience degrade over time, due to mudflation, due to economic issues, due to abuse of gameplay mechanisms by existing players, due to level pooling and stratification, and all the other problems that happen over time. Thus, I feel like it's important for all of us, as people who get to influence Pantheon's development even just a tiny tiny bit, to try to do the right thing not just for us, now, but for all the players who will come after. Too idealistic? Maybe. But that's me.
Personally speaking, I want a game that is going to be engaging, challenging, and fun, with a great community. I want that as an adventurer who wants battles to not be trivialized, and to have lots of things to go do. I want that as a crafter who wants a strong, healthy economy to engage in, where I can feel like I'm making a difference to my fellow players all the way up. And I want that as an explorer, who wants new things to go see and do and discover, and to have the journey matter at least as much as the destination. I think that Pantheon will have those qualities for me at launch - but, what I am less sure about is whether Pantheon will have those same qualities for a new player who joins 3,4, or 5 years on. Ultimately, that's what I want to insure. Because as much as my pledge is about getting the game *I* want to play at launch, it's also about the game I think the industry as a whole needs - and that only works if it really has staying power when it comes to drawing in new players.
/soapbox off :)
Lack of permenate player housing will be something that will hurt in the long run. However, I see this being added to the game eventually, although they say it won't. They will soon see how much a permenate place for a residence is. And that their temporary outposts don't meet that need.
Nephele said:...
- Let's say that nothing is bind on equip, so you can sell/trade all your old gear away to other players or your alts. What does that mean for server economies after three years of thousands of players upgrading gear and listing their old stuff on the market?
- Let's say that there are mid-level mobs somewhere that drop gemstones 10% of the time when killed. Those gemstones can be sold to a vendor NPC for 5 plat apiece. What does that mean for prices in the game after 3 years of people farming gemstones nonstop?
- Let's say that there's a cloak with a clicky invisibility effect that drops rarely from a boss in a dungeon. Invisibility lets people get by mobs that they normally would have to fight, so it's a super powerful ability. What happens to normal adventuring gameplay after three years of people farming invisibility cloaks to sell?
...
One person's idea of consequence may be anothers boon. I am not saying that developers should not look at long term consequences, but taking a look at these specific examples:
1) Non-Bind Loot: An items value is based upon market influence of supply and demand, with no maximum value and a minimum value set by the scrap value (in this case, the value of selling an item to the NPC merchant). Project 1999 has been around for several years and mimics early Everquest's system where most non-raid equipment bind on equip. The vast majority of items still have value, and those items that do not have value are usually handed off to new players to help them engage to the game. For example, Dwarven Ringmail Tunics were highly sought after in early Everquest. As the game progressed, there were several items that became much better. The value of the Dwarven Ringmail Tunic dropped significantly. People that held onto their tunics either scrapped them or gave them to new lower level players. It may not be farmed like it used to, but it still has value to players even years later.
2) Gem Stones: In Everquest, playing was expensive. You had to pay for ports. Clerics had to pay for their buffs. You had to upgrade your gear. The value of gem stones had a diminimus effect on the economy in the short term, and a natural balancing effect in the longterm. Those gems were like a salary, that could be expected, and give players the opportunity to afford the items that they wanted. The real problem in an economy is exploits and gold sellers (which typically go hand in hand). Dupes, automated grinding, and monsters that drop items they are not supposed to have killed the economy in many games. Gem stones should not be the concern.
3) Clicky Invis: Having powerful items is a good thing. It is important to balance those good things with rarity. Some games have missed the mark. For example, Everquest had the manastone (convert health to mana clicky) rarely drop from a mid-level gnome located in a low level zone. Even though the manastone dropped infrequently, it was too easy to get because there was little risk, only time investment. If Lord Nagefen dropped the manastone as a rare drop, it probably would not have gotten nerfed. So if you are going to have a cloak of invisibility usable by everyone, it better come as a very drop, from a high level and powerful monster, in a zone fraught with risk and terror. In other words, it is not the item that is the problem, but how you acquire that item.
In regards to old gear/weapons, there was some discussion early on about using these items for sacrificing to one's Deity for better faction, or perhaps small temp buffs. Thereby removing those items from the economy.
Cana
vjek said:All of the mechanics that make the game niche restrict the target demographic. They're not making a game that appeals to the largest possible audience, or we'd have an entirely different feature set.
The reason the game is niche is because those mechanics appeal to fewer people. Why? Because in some way, they're negative. Pretty simple logic train here. You want a list? It's the feature set.
Your logic train falls apart when you say that VR is not worried about longevity because this is their approach. Brad has said time and time again that this is a game designed to be played for years. You almost always choose to frame things negatively, however there are a lot of people that actually view these vague mechanics that you're referring to as a good thing. That's exactly what makes it a niche audience. That's the audience that VR is targeting for Pantheon. It's all subjective. What one person views as a negative, someone else views as a positive and vice versa. Of course there's always two sides to it. But as long as that niche audience (that actually enjoy those mechanics) is big enough, the game will be sustainable because those people are much more likely to stay with the game for a long time, especially since there aren't likely to be many other games competing over the same audience. Suggesting that these people aren't aware of the potential negative aspects, don't know what they're getting into, and will quickly quit would be insulting to their intelligence. It's already looking like there will be plenty of people that are willing to take the "bad" with the good.
Preechr said:vjek said:...Because in some way, they're negative...
...to some people
To the people that the niche mechanics and features have appeal, the longevity is there unless the game strays from those ideals
Excellently summarized in one sentence what I explained in a paragraph haha
Bazgrim said:vjek said:All of the mechanics that make the game niche restrict the target demographic. They're not making a game that appeals to the largest possible audience, or we'd have an entirely different feature set.
The reason the game is niche is because those mechanics appeal to fewer people. Why? Because in some way, they're negative. Pretty simple logic train here. You want a list? It's the feature set.
Your logic train falls apart when you say that VR is not worried about longevity because this is their approach. Brad has said time and time again that this is a game designed to be played for years. You almost always choose to frame things negatively, however there are a lot of people that actually view these vague mechanics that you're referring to as a good thing. That's exactly what makes it a niche audience. That's the audience that VR is targeting for Pantheon. It's all subjective. What one person views as a negative, someone else views as a positive and vice versa. Of course there's always two sides to it. But as long as that niche audience (that actually enjoy those mechanics) is big enough, the game will be sustainable because those people are much more likely to stay with the game for a long time, especially since there aren't likely to be many other games competing over the same audience. Suggesting that these people aren't aware of the potential negative aspects, don't know what they're getting into, and will quickly quit would be insulting to their intelligence. It's already looking like there will be plenty of people that are willing to take the "bad" with the good.
/em strongly agrees with Bazgrim
These are not things that are negative, these are things that people have been longing for since the old days of MMOing. That the feature list may appeal to fewer people may likely not be a bad thing, I'm leaning toward it being a very good thing actually.
-Jexxy
CanadinaXegony said:In regards to old gear/weapons, there was some discussion early on about using these items for sacrificing to one's Deity for better faction, or perhaps small temp buffs. Thereby removing those items from the economy.
Cana
Theres an additional option as well to make gear tradeable but level restricted (or require a skill of a certain level to wield depending on how skills are implemented). This allows players to still pass down nice gear they may find, but which is no longer as viable at their new, higher level. This works well too if there are tiers of weapons within each bracketed range, so some lowbie weapons may just be worth selling to an NPC, while others are ones worth passing on to new players/lower level friends, etc.
DakmorKavu said:CanadinaXegony said:
In regards to old gear/weapons, there was some discussion early on about using these items for sacrificing to one's Deity for better faction, or perhaps small temp buffs. Thereby removing those items from the economy.
Cana
Theres an additional option as well to make gear tradeable but level restricted (or require a skill of a certain level to wield depending on how skills are implemented). This allows players to still pass down nice gear they may find, but which is no longer as viable at their new, higher level. This works well too if there are tiers of weapons within each bracketed range, so some lowbie weapons may just be worth selling to an NPC, while others are ones worth passing on to new players/lower level friends, etc.
My opinion: A "niche" game that provides content and mechanics for that niche will have a good chance at longevity as long as they keep doing so. Disbarring WoW, if you look at the games out there that try to be everything to everyone... they are having a hard time finding their little corner of the world. Why? In some regard - WoW. It's still crowding out the room for that style of game. But also, it's very hard - perhaps much harder - to successfully please everybody - than it is to successfully please somebody.