I don’t think you’re understanding at all what I’m trying to say.
There is no drawback for walking into a building, it’s a free buff, which in turn negates some challenges you would have if said buff was not in the game or at the very least not that easy to obtain.
If you go and look at any other mmo with a similar system the Only social interaction in that tavern/guild hall/etc is asking or begging for buffs.
If anything is taken from my posts in this thread it’s that:
You are receving a FREE buff that has ZERO drawbacks to recevie said buff, or making someone in your group have a spell to buff you.
If it takes 10 mins to run to a tavern, for a buff that adds 1 str when a character has 300 str, do you think a player is going to take the time to do it? Again, it's about balance.
The tavern buff was just a hypothetical. Don't get bogged down on specifics.
It's about the penalty/sacrifice required to gain a benefit. It could be anything...
I'll keep it simple. I don't like taverns. I don't see why my character will be happy being in one. The mere act of giving a minor buff by going into a tavern implies that my character is not shaped by me and expects me to behave a certain way. My character should be getting a buff from going into a cave or tunnel instead since that's my prefered environment, but that is unlikely.
Small things like this are more damaging to one's creativity than one's time. There is no room for the imagination in modern games.
It's better to just give buffs for things people will do all the time like...sitting. If the game shapes my character then my interest in it will wane when the game's mechanics exhaust themselves. The game should simplify the expression of the imagination and one's social dynamic instead.
Oh, and we should not do things based on the rewards, because we will feel like we are working rather than playing. What we DO is the enjoyment, not what we get at the end. Staying at level 20 for 2 years can be more enjoyable than getting mountains of loot at max level like it was a job. The developers need to focus on making each class more enjoyable than make incentives that solve no gameplay issues.
eldrun said:I don’t think you’re understanding at all what I’m trying to say.
There is no drawback for walking into a building, it’s a free buff, which in turn negates some challenges you would have if said buff was not in the game or at the very least not that easy to obtain.
If you go and look at any other mmo with a similar system the Only social interaction in that tavern/guild hall/etc is asking or begging for buffs.
If anything is taken from my posts in this thread it’s that:
You are receving a FREE buff that has ZERO drawbacks to recevie said buff, or making someone in your group have a spell to buff you.
This has been suggested already, but I think you're missing the main point of this thread.
That being said, the price for getting the tavern buff is the time and effort spent walking into a tavern and talking to the barkeep, for instance. Or playing a minigame for a few minutes, to use another example. And if a player doesn't want to spend the time and effort required to gain the tavern buff, then they won't have to and what follows is them not receiving the buff.
The exact amount of time and effort required and the exact magnitude of the buff is all up in the air. The developers could make it so one would need to win three games of poker in a row before gaining the buff--or they could make it so the only requirement for the buff is clicking on the barkeep. Finally, the buff could be extremely minor or it could increase the player's power by 100%. These details, as well as the tavern concept in itself, are all left up to the developers.
But the main point of this thread is to shed light on a tactic I see a lot of players using to stop a game from developing in a certain way. I feel like these tactics lead to a watered-down and boring experience where everyone's outcomes are exactly the same regardless of their actions.
Radeon said:I'll keep it simple. I don't like taverns. I don't see why my character will be happy being in one. The mere act of giving a minor buff by going into a tavern implies that my character is not shaped by me and expects me to behave a certain way. My character should be getting a buff from going into a cave or tunnel instead since that's my prefered environment, but that is unlikely.
So far, I think this is the best "anti-tavern-buff" point I've seen.
We all scream about immersion, but when we're pigeonholed into playing our characters a certain way that isn't defined by the class and race we choose, we're ok with it? Makes little sense to me.
Why would you get a buff for going into a tavern when you don't like taverns? Or when your character doesn't "like" taverns?
That may not be forced gameplay, but it certainly is forced immersion - which really isn't immersion at all.
Radeon said:I'll keep it simple. I don't like taverns. I don't see why my character will be happy being in one. The mere act of giving a minor buff by going into a tavern implies that my character is not shaped by me and expects me to behave a certain way. My character should be getting a buff from going into a cave or tunnel instead since that's my prefered environment, but that is unlikely.
Small things like this are more damaging to one's creativity than one's time. There is no room for the imagination in modern games.
It's better to just give buffs for things people will do all the time like...sitting. If the game shapes my character then my interest in it will wane when the game's mechanics exhaust themselves. The game should simplify the expression of the imagination and one's social dynamic instead.
Oh, and we should not do things based on the rewards, because we will feel like we are working rather than playing. What we DO is the enjoyment, not what we get at the end. Staying at level 20 for 2 years can be more enjoyable than getting mountains of loot at max level like it was a job. The developers need to focus on making each class more enjoyable than make incentives that solve no gameplay issues.
Does this mean that players who play characters who don't enjoy killing should be given experience points for choosing not to engage enemies?
Your line of thinking is far too idealistic for contemporary games, but what you're suggesting will probably be the future of RPGs. In the future, players will be able to piece together in great detail the personality and being of their characters, which will dramatically alter the way in which they interact with the virtual world that they find themselves in.
Unfortunately, I don't think our technology is quite there yet and so there will have to be compromises.
"The mere act of giving a minor buff by going into a tavern implies that my character is not shaped by me and expects me to behave a certain way."
You can apply this to anything though. 'I selected a mage and I've noticed that the game is forcing and expecting me to cast spells, this isn't right.'
Going back to what I wrote about compromises, I wouldn't mind the idea of certain races or classes gaining buffs for performing acts that conform to their archetypes. For example, a mage class gaining a buff for spending time in a library or a dwarf gaining a buff for adventuring in a cave.
"Oh, and we should not do things based on the rewards, because we will feel like we are working rather than playing."
This is how the world works though. If there is great enough incentive to perform X, then people will perform X. And if a given person feels like there isn't enough incentive to perform X, then they will not perform X. This applies to all aspects of life from work to play.
IF there is a buff for going to a tavern, which I don't see any mention of...I imagine it would be something like a campfire buff I remember from some mmo I played in the past. It would give a minor stamina buff and something like +1 to hp regen for a small duration, maybe 10 minutes. I wouldn't see it being all that effective past level 10-15, and not something you should feel compelled to return to town and refresh. I mean, it's not bad...if you're in town, sure, stop by.
There is a difference between creating some minor buff to draw people to the tavern while they are in town, and creating some OP must have uber combat buff that compels you to stop your adventuring and run back to town every 20 minutes.
However, I'm not really for the idea of buffs being handed out piecemeal by the game in the first place...
manofyesterday said:Radeon said:I'll keep it simple. I don't like taverns. I don't see why my character will be happy being in one. The mere act of giving a minor buff by going into a tavern implies that my character is not shaped by me and expects me to behave a certain way. My character should be getting a buff from going into a cave or tunnel instead since that's my prefered environment, but that is unlikely.
Small things like this are more damaging to one's creativity than one's time. There is no room for the imagination in modern games.
It's better to just give buffs for things people will do all the time like...sitting. If the game shapes my character then my interest in it will wane when the game's mechanics exhaust themselves. The game should simplify the expression of the imagination and one's social dynamic instead.
Oh, and we should not do things based on the rewards, because we will feel like we are working rather than playing. What we DO is the enjoyment, not what we get at the end. Staying at level 20 for 2 years can be more enjoyable than getting mountains of loot at max level like it was a job. The developers need to focus on making each class more enjoyable than make incentives that solve no gameplay issues.
Does this mean that players who play characters who don't enjoy killing should be given experience points for choosing not to engage enemies?
Your line of thinking is far too idealistic for contemporary games, but what you're suggesting will probably be the future of RPGs. In the future, players will be able to piece together in great detail the personality and being of their characters, which will dramatically alter the way in which they interact with the virtual world.
Unfortunately, I don't think our technology is quite there yet and so there will have to be compromises.
"The mere act of giving a minor buff by going into a tavern implies that my character is not shaped by me and expects me to behave a certain way."
You can apply this to anything though. 'I selected a mage and I've noticed that the game is forcing and expecting me to cast spells, this isn't right.'
Going back to what I wrote about compromises, I wouldn't mind the idea of certain races or classes gaining buffs for performing acts that conform to their archetypes. For example, a mage class gaining a buff for spending time in a library or a dwarf gaining a buff for adventuring in a cave.
"Oh, and we should not do things based on the rewards, because we will feel like we are working rather than playing."
This is how the world works though. If there is great enough incentive to perform X, then people will perform X. And if a given person feels like there isn't enough incentive to perform X, then they will not perform X. This applies to all aspects of life from work to play.
Your examples, however, are going against the grain of the core of MMO's (and dare I say, all video games); which is combat.
I play video games for the dungeons, the exploration, the immersion, and the combat. Combat is a core mechanic of every game I play. Taverns are not. It's implicit that our characters will engage in combat in an MMO. It's not implicit that they will enjoy taverns, any more than it is that they'd enjoy sewing or cricket.
With that in mind, I think it's perfectly acceptable to assume that a mage will cast spells and a warrior will kill monsters - and NOT to assume that any one character would enjoy activities outside of that core mechanic.
Just playing devils advocate here. The immersive cherry picking and mental acrobatic that goes on around here makes my head spin sometimes.
Tralyan said:Your examples, however, are going against the grain of the core of MMO's (and dare I say, all video games); which is combat.
I disagree. It's not even true that all video games have combat. Where is the combat in Tetris?
Combat does appear to be a big part of MMOs, so I agree with that bit. However, Pantheon isn't just an MMO. It's an MMORPG. So while it is true that combat is a big part of MMORPGs, so is lore, story, atmosphere, and playing a "role." Ideally, if technology permitted it, players should be allowed to create characters that are diplomats or fast-talkers who are able to deescalate situations without using violence. We're not quite there yet, but I know that it will eventually happen. And this technology would allow people to make all sorts of complicated and esoteric characters.
That being said, going back to the "role" aspect of MMORPGs, every player-made character in an RPG is more or less an adventurer and with that comes certain assumptions like you'll be asking for quests, completing them, raiding dungeons, etc. And I feel like spending time at a tavern, asking for tips, overhearing rumors, and knocking back a few pints is right up there will all of those things. This is just something that is part of medieval fantasy.
I play video games for the dungeons, the exploration, the immersion, and the combat. Combat is a core mechanic of every game I play. Taverns are not. It's implicit that our characters will engage in combat in an MMO. It's not implicit that they will enjoy taverns, any more than it is that they'd enjoy sewing or cricket.
I disagree. I can imagine a person creating a character that hates violence but loves visiting taverns. The only reason this isn't a thing is because it would be complicated to implement in a video game, especially a MMORPG.
I have to say that your position seems bizarre because on one hand you seem to diminish the importance of the role-playing elements of MMORPGs, while elevating the combat elements. But then you say that your character is the type that wouldn't enjoy going to a tavern. However, when I met you half way with your own line of reasoning by entertaining the possibility of a player creating a character who enjoys visiting taverns while scoffing at the idea of killing, you retreated into saying that combat is the ultimate factor for MMORPGs and that idiosyncratic personality quirks for a given character shouldn't be factored in. But weren't you the first to use that tactic by saying your character doesn't like taverns? It just seems to me that you don't like the idea of having to visit a tavern in order to receive a tavern buff. If that's the case, then don't visit any taverns and don't receive the buff. What's the issue?
With that in mind, I think it's perfectly acceptable to assume that a mage will cast spells and a warrior will kill monsters - and NOT to assume that any one character would enjoy activities outside of that core mechanic.
Why is it OK to assume a character in an RPG enjoys killing but it isn't OK to assume a character in an RPG enjoys going to taverns? Are taverns not a big part of medieval fantasy and RPGs?
Regardless, many people here still seem to be missing the big picture of this thread...
I do admit I posted about a specific problem rather than the big picture.
I can see exactly where you are coming from, laziness and refusal to do (Insert example taveren buff) shouldnt end up that everyone else doesn’t get (taveren buff) from that.
I agree, to an extent.
In my opinion you shouldn’t put something in that has no risk or challenge at all (example walking 5 minutes to a tavern) and get a reward that will push you above other players.
Yes, I suppose you can agrue that its accessible to everyone and that everyone can get to said objective but what’s the point in it? Doing something for little risk or challenge and getting a reward really isn’t the direction Is like to see things go.
But its really comparing apples and oranges. A quest that gives you something that requires time and effort isnt on the same level as going to Per say your virtual home, taking a “nap” and getting an exp bonus.
One requires effort the other does not. The people that prefer getting free things from doing nothing are in reality the lazy ones.
manofyesterday said:Radeon said:Your examples, however, are going against the grain of the core of MMO's (and dare I say, all video games); which is combat.
I disagree. It's not even true that all video games have combat. Where is the combat in Tetris?
Combat does appear to be a big part of MMOs, so I agree with that bit. However, Pantheon isn't just an MMO. It's an MMORPG. So while it is true that combat is a big part of MMORPGs, so is lore, story, atmosphere, and playing a "role." Ideally, if technology permitted it, players should be allowed to create characters that are diplomats or fast-talkers who are able to deescalate situations without using violence. We're not quite there yet, but I know that it will eventually happen. And this technology would allow people to make all sorts of complicated and esoteric characters.
That being said, going back to the "role" aspect of MMORPGs, every player-made character in an RPG is more or less an adventurer and with that comes certain assumptions like you'll be asking for quests, completing them, raiding dungeons, etc. And I feel like spending time at a tavern, asking for tips, overhearing rumors, and knocking back a few pints is right up there will all of those things. This is just something that is part of medieval fantasy.
I play video games for the dungeons, the exploration, the immersion, and the combat. Combat is a core mechanic of every game I play. Taverns are not. It's implicit that our characters will engage in combat in an MMO. It's not implicit that they will enjoy taverns, any more than it is that they'd enjoy sewing or cricket.I disagree. I can imagine a person creating a character that hates violence but loves visiting taverns. The only reason this isn't a thing is because it would be complicated to implement in a video game, especially a MMORPG.
I have to say that your position seems bizarre because on one hand you seem to not care about the role-playing elements of MMORPGs, focusing on combat. But then you say that your character is the type that wouldn't enjoy going to a tavern. However, when I met you half way with your own line of reasoning by entertaining the possibility of a player creating a character that did enjoy visiting taverns, you retreated into saying that combat is the ultimate factor for MMORPGs and that idiosyncratic personality quirks for a given character shouldn't be factored in. But weren't you the one who first brought that up by saying your character doesn't like taverns? It just seems to me that you don't like the idea of having to visit a tavern in order to receive a tavern buff. If that's the case, then don't visit the tavern and don't receive the buff. What's the issue?With that in mind, I think it's perfectly acceptable to assume that a mage will cast spells and a warrior will kill monsters - and NOT to assume that any one character would enjoy activities outside of that core mechanic.Why is it OK to assume a character in an RPG enjoys killing but it isn't OK to assume a character in an RPG enjoys going to taverns?
Regardless, many people here still seem to be missing the big picture of this thread...
You do bring up some valid points here, but I'd like to clarify.
I should have said RPG's and not "video games". Sure, we can probably pull an example out here or there of RPG's that aren't centered around some kind of combat, but I personally can think of none. Even those that are less combat heavy, but still have experience points and leveling as the core gameplay mechanic - which while accrued, also gifts the player with combat skills - would not be titles without some kind of combat in there. So, while you're correct with your Tetris example, when we're talking about this genre, I'd still stand by combat being a - if not THE - core mechanic.
The argument that since it's an MMO-RPG and therefore has important facets other than combat, is true - however I would venture to say that without combat, they wouldn't exist. Testament to that are the dozens of successful MMO's out there that have largely killed the social aspect that we all know and love so well, or at least diluted it, to focus more on the combat side of the game. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the vast majority of MMORPGs out there simply wouldn't exist if they weren't centered around, or did not have, combat. As such, I do indeed think it's safe to assume that players of those games will play their character in such a way that combat will be a implicit in their playstyle and in the "story" of their character.
Sure, there will always be that guy you know who chooses to stay at level 1 and spends his entire game life walking around town, role-playing the pacifist - but that guy is an extreme outlier, and since he wouldn't be gaining any benefits (or detriments) from those features those who do partake in the core mechanic receive, it doesn't really matter what he does or doesn't do. You can't pigeonhole that guy into playing his character a way he doesn't want to the way this tavern buff idea would pigeon-hole the guy who plays the game for its core mechanic - combat. If that makes any sense.
I want to touch on this, since I think it's important.
"I have to say that your position seems bizarre because on one hand you seem to not care about the role-playing elements of MMORPGs, focusing on combat. But then you say that your character is the type that wouldn't enjoy going to a tavern."
I'm definitely not a roleplaying extremist, by any means. I tend to play on roleplay servers mostly because I find myself more aligned to the playstyle of roleplayers - easy going. However, when talking about roleplaying on any forum, I think it's important to differentiate between free roleplaying, and roleplaying within the parameters and settings of that specific forum. Focusing on combat, as you say, would not mean I don't care about the roleplay element of the game. It means I care about the roleplay element of the game within the confines OF that game. If you were to accept my premise that MMORPGs are largely centered around combat (which you may not agree with), then so to would roleplaying within those games have a combat-centric theme. That is, the combat elements ARE instrinsic to roleplay, because combat is intrinsic to the MMORPG. Going to taverns, is not.
Roleplayer A may have tons of little quirks assigned to his character. So might Roleplayer B, and C, and D, and E. One thing ALL those roleplayers would probably have in common would be that they all engage in combat of some kind, at some point, within their characters life. Arranging the game in such a way that combat is unavoidable, and assumed, is perfectly acceptable in my eyes. Arranging the game in such a way that any one player is forced to play their character in other ways, outside of combat, is not as acceptable.
I mean, like I said, I'm not a roleplayer so I frankly don't have a dog in this fight. I just think it's important to see it from other points of view. Also, I apologize for further derailing the thread.
Incentives are great, but I think it would be a good idea to be more innovative with those incentives. You can create reasons for going and visiting places that AREN'T centered around combat, like buffs in taverns. Ways that wouldn't frustrate those who enjoy playing the game their way, or compel them to play in a way they don't want to.
I think the tavern is just a poor example for the argument of players complaining about feeling "forced" into certain things.
What exactly is happening at the tavern that gives some sort of buff that can't be found elsewhere? A character can eat or drink anywhere, they can warm themselves by a fire anywhere there is a fire...so what is happening at the bar that is so special that it would require players go there specifically to spend/waste time for some kind of buff that doesn't feel like a tacked on/forced system?
The things that don't make sense are what feel most forced upon players, things that attempt to push/pull a player toward doing something specific for no particular reason.
Tralyan said:I should have said RPG's and not "video games". Sure, we can probably pull an example out here or there of RPG's that aren't centered around some kind of combat, but I personally can think of none.
I think it also depends on what is meant by combat, because I can imagine an RPG that contains zero violence while still having combat in the sense that there are interactions where there are winners and losers.
But I can also imagine an RPG where there isn’t even combat in this loose sense of the word.
What makes an RPG are the role-playing aspects, story, and atmosphere. And all of these things can be present in a game without there being any combat. Would such an RPG be fun though? Would such an RPG be well-received?
As such, I do indeed think it's safe to assume that players of those games will play their character in such a way that combat will be a implicit in their playstyle and in the "story" of their character.
I think that is true only because of the current constraints on technology and resources—and possibly because game developers believe a game with no combat would be poorly received. If a game developer created an MMORPG where it was possible to create and play a passivist diplomat just as easily as it was to create and play a blood-thirsty warrior, then there’s no doubt in my mind that many would try it out and enjoy it. I believe that’d be very interesting to see in an MMORPG, but very difficult to implement (currently).
As for MMOs where there is no combat at all, there are already games like this. Second Life and Habbo Hotel are two examples. Both games suck though but I think that has more to do with the developers themselves rather than there being no combat. I’m sure there are other examples of MMOs with no combat.
So my point is that combat, in the sense that there are violent interactions that end with losers and winners, is wrongly considered to be fundamental to MMORPGs because of technology and resource constraints and because of the choices that most game developers have made in order to maximize profits.
Sure, there will always be that guy you know who chooses to stay at level 1 and spends his entire game life walking around town, role-playing the pacifist - but that guy is an extreme outlier, and since he wouldn't be gaining any benefits (or detriments) from those features those who do partake in the core mechanic receive, it doesn't really matter what he does or doesn't do. You can't pigeonhole that guy into playing his character a way he doesn't want to the way this tavern buff idea would pigeon-hole the guy who plays the game for its core mechanic - combat. If that makes any sense.
But the guy who walks around not killing anything could argue that he’s being hurt for not allowing himself to be pigeonholed into killing NPCs for experience points. At the core, there is no logical difference between your argument and his.
If you were to accept my premise that MMORPGs are largely centered around combat (which you may not agree with), then so to would roleplaying within those games have a combat-centric theme. That is, the combat elements ARE instrinsic to roleplay, because combat is intrinsic to the MMORPG. Going to taverns, is not.
I do not agree with that premise for reasons I’ve already mentioned, and I do think taverns are a big part of RPGs, especially medieval fantasy RPGs. Spending time at a tavern, asking for tips, overhearing rumors, and knocking back a few pints is right up there with raiding a dungeon or killing the evil necromancer who took over the local graveyard. That’s why I’m not against the idea of incentivizing it. I also believe it could improve the cohesiveness of the community, if done correctly.
Ways that wouldn't frustrate those who enjoy playing the game their way, or compel them to play in a way they don't want to.
I apologize for butchering your post, but this part really hits on the main point of this thread. Forgive me for simply reposting my thoughts from earlier, but I believe I said it best the first time:
If P then Q
P
Therefore,
Q
This notion that games must be balanced around players who freely choose not to engage in P in order to receive Q because they're either too lazy or because they just don't feel like it makes little sense to me. The result of following the advice of these types of players is a less challenging and compelling watered-down experience. The current state of World of Warcraft is the product of a long series of changes catering to the whims of these types of players.
Player: "I don't think I should be forced to spend a month grinding to hit level cap!"
Blizzard: "Then we'll make it so it only takes three days! We'll introduce heirloom items that increase experience gained, lower experience requirements in general, and increase the experience gained from quests and grinding!"
Player: "I don't think I should be forced to play such-and-such class in order to gain ability X. Shouldn't I be allowed to pick whatever class I want in order to receive ability X?"
Blizzard: "Sure thing! We'll give every class ability X--or at the very least make sure all classes have an ability that is very close to X."
Player: "I don't think I should be forced to stick to the specialization that I freely chose to select in order to gain abilities A, B, and C. Shouldn't I be able to switch my specialization any time I feel like it?"
Blizzard: "Absolutely! We'll allow everyone the option to switch their specialization whenever they feel like it! Power to the players!"
And so on and so forth, until the game became dumber than a box of rocks.
As for the idea that there should be multiple ways to gain a benefit. Why? And what are the consequences of doing that?
If a person wants to build muscle, then they must eat more protein and lift weights. Even if a person started to take steroids, they must still lift weights before they'll see any gains. Is that unfair? Wrong? Some players seem to think so. "I don't like being forced to lift weights... God should patch reality so that I can gain muscle by just sitting on the couch all day. Not only that, but I should be able to gain as much muscle sitting on the couch all day as the guy who chooses to lift weights. That's only fair." Now, imagine a long series of changes like this. There would be a multitude of ways to achieve X, but the free choices of individuals who are in pursuit of X would become meaningless because X can be obtained regardless of what is decided; all roads would lead to Rome, to use a common phrase. The idea of there being many ways to achieve X only makes sense if these different ways were all around the same level of difficulty and if these other ways made logical sense given what is trying to be achieved. For example, it wouldn't make logical sense for a person to gain as much muscle sitting on the coach as the person who chooses to lift weights and eat healthier. And because the former is much easier to perform than the latter, what would follow is most people choosing to sit on the coach all day in order to gain muscle.
Even though we disagree, I've enjoyed our interaction. I believe that it was productive.
Irriaden said:IF there is a buff for going to a tavern, which I don't see any mention of...I imagine it would be something like a campfire buff I remember from some mmo I played in the past. It would give a minor stamina buff and something like +1 to hp regen for a small duration, maybe 10 minutes. I wouldn't see it being all that effective past level 10-15, and not something you should feel compelled to return to town and refresh. I mean, it's not bad...if you're in town, sure, stop by.
There is a difference between creating some minor buff to draw people to the tavern while they are in town, and creating some OP must have uber combat buff that compels you to stop your adventuring and run back to town every 20 minutes.
However, I'm not really for the idea of buffs being handed out piecemeal by the game in the first place...
What makes the most sense to me is a buff that grants increased XP gain for an amount of time dependent on the amount of time spent in the tavern. Guild halls should also grant this buff.
Other games have done pretty much the same thing, granting a rest-duration-based XP increase for hanging out or camping in a town, by a campfire, etc. Nothing new. But if the buff were focused on being specific places such as taverns and guild halls it may draw people together.
But IF the taverns were to be forced- maybe it could be in this way:
A tavern is the only place where a bell will ring when the boat is coming- otherwise its the general populous shouting "BOAT" if they are there and nearby
All taverns have a stage of some sort (Skar stage? maybe like country juke joints with barbed wire between the "performers" and the stage.) On these stages any bard at any level can come and "perform" or doability. If performing- gives a mild buff that lasts a certain amount of time to all those in the tarvern/inn this buff does not decay while on boat, but begins to decay once off the boat, or once out of the tavern for 1-2minutes. This is where the devs can have some fun, like the loading comments? after every doability there will be a emote as to what transpired, i.e. tells a particularly poor joke, sang out of tune, eloquence brought the innkeeper to tears, ballad brought (random target) to remeber the painof a lost love, failed to teach a snake to kick, etc etc.
That way if a bunch of higher levels are going to another continent, lowbies can run in the tavern and hear them talking and maybe get a tavern buff if a bard is performin,g to use outside the city gates.
And you can only talk outloud in taverns. no tells, no groupsay.
I am thinking this would be a - forced- meeting point for raiders or those nhot in group or LFG- but only in that particular area or city.
Maybe a max limit of 5 bards on stage at any one time- so if a raid was mustering- people could flock to the tavern to get the buff and also ogle the gear and hear stories.
Sometimes players log in just to drink and chat
Akilae said:Irriaden said:IF there is a buff for going to a tavern, which I don't see any mention of...I imagine it would be something like a campfire buff I remember from some mmo I played in the past. It would give a minor stamina buff and something like +1 to hp regen for a small duration, maybe 10 minutes. I wouldn't see it being all that effective past level 10-15, and not something you should feel compelled to return to town and refresh. I mean, it's not bad...if you're in town, sure, stop by.
There is a difference between creating some minor buff to draw people to the tavern while they are in town, and creating some OP must have uber combat buff that compels you to stop your adventuring and run back to town every 20 minutes.
However, I'm not really for the idea of buffs being handed out piecemeal by the game in the first place...
What makes the most sense to me is a buff that grants increased XP gain for an amount of time dependent on the amount of time spent in the tavern. Guild halls should also grant this buff.
Other games have done pretty much the same thing, granting a rest-duration-based XP increase for hanging out or camping in a town, by a campfire, etc. Nothing new. But if the buff were focused on being specific places such as taverns and guild halls it may draw people together.
Anything going in favor of "faster experience" is a subtle meaning of "Experience is only a drawback to the true game". I'm not a fan of it. It makes senses in games where max level is the key and the content you aim for, but that's not pantheon's design.
Tralyan said:manofyesterday said:Radeon said:I'll keep it simple. I don't like taverns. I don't see why my character will be happy being in one. The mere act of giving a minor buff by going into a tavern implies that my character is not shaped by me and expects me to behave a certain way. My character should be getting a buff from going into a cave or tunnel instead since that's my prefered environment, but that is unlikely.
Small things like this are more damaging to one's creativity than one's time. There is no room for the imagination in modern games.
It's better to just give buffs for things people will do all the time like...sitting. If the game shapes my character then my interest in it will wane when the game's mechanics exhaust themselves. The game should simplify the expression of the imagination and one's social dynamic instead.
Oh, and we should not do things based on the rewards, because we will feel like we are working rather than playing. What we DO is the enjoyment, not what we get at the end. Staying at level 20 for 2 years can be more enjoyable than getting mountains of loot at max level like it was a job. The developers need to focus on making each class more enjoyable than make incentives that solve no gameplay issues.
Does this mean that players who play characters who don't enjoy killing should be given experience points for choosing not to engage enemies?
Your line of thinking is far too idealistic for contemporary games, but what you're suggesting will probably be the future of RPGs. In the future, players will be able to piece together in great detail the personality and being of their characters, which will dramatically alter the way in which they interact with the virtual world.
Unfortunately, I don't think our technology is quite there yet and so there will have to be compromises.
"The mere act of giving a minor buff by going into a tavern implies that my character is not shaped by me and expects me to behave a certain way."
You can apply this to anything though. 'I selected a mage and I've noticed that the game is forcing and expecting me to cast spells, this isn't right.'
Going back to what I wrote about compromises, I wouldn't mind the idea of certain races or classes gaining buffs for performing acts that conform to their archetypes. For example, a mage class gaining a buff for spending time in a library or a dwarf gaining a buff for adventuring in a cave.
"Oh, and we should not do things based on the rewards, because we will feel like we are working rather than playing."
This is how the world works though. If there is great enough incentive to perform X, then people will perform X. And if a given person feels like there isn't enough incentive to perform X, then they will not perform X. This applies to all aspects of life from work to play.
Your examples, however, are going against the grain of the core of MMO's (and dare I say, all video games); which is combat.
I play video games for the dungeons, the exploration, the immersion, and the combat. Combat is a core mechanic of every game I play. Taverns are not. It's implicit that our characters will engage in combat in an MMO. It's not implicit that they will enjoy taverns, any more than it is that they'd enjoy sewing or cricket.
With that in mind, I think it's perfectly acceptable to assume that a mage will cast spells and a warrior will kill monsters - and NOT to assume that any one character would enjoy activities outside of that core mechanic.
Just playing devils advocate here. The immersive cherry picking and mental acrobatic that goes on around here makes my head spin sometimes.
And you're missing the fact that they've already stated that there will be more to Pantheon than just combat. There will be nlots of non-combat related stuff to do, including crafting and harvesting.
The OP is about incentives. I would like to see incentives to visit certain buildings done in creative non intrusuve ways. In another thread i mentioned how old literature utilized taverns/bars as a food outpost and rumor mill. I can even see games of chance happening here. But any sort of buff i would probably expect from a a cleric or other caster guild building. Taverns/bars should be necessary evils but can be fun If you want it to be.
Kalok said:And you're missing the fact that they've already stated that there will be more to Pantheon than just combat. There will be nlots of non-combat related stuff to do, including crafting and harvesting.
Even those require combat unless the player has someone else feeding them every mat and guides them to all the dangerous crafting locations in the game.
Iksar said:Kalok said:And you're missing the fact that they've already stated that there will be more to Pantheon than just combat. There will be nlots of non-combat related stuff to do, including crafting and harvesting.
Even those require combat unless the player has someone else feeding them every mat and guides them to all the dangerous crafting locations in the game.
Now you're just being pedantic.... The act of crafting or harvesting themselves are NON-COMBAT. In addition, there are non-dangerous crafting locations and non-dangerous harvesting locations. In addition, someone could harvest where another group is keeping the "yard" clear. Plus the crafting supplies that are available for purchase either from vendors or others. There have already been people who stated that they hope to primarily focus on crafting rather than adventuring.
Wow, I almost feel like this thread needs a do-over. We've really bogged down on the whole tavern thing, haven't we?
Let's try this.....
Examples of incentives:
1) We want players to view grouping as a preferred way to level. Groups naturally kill things faster than individual players but they split the XP from each kill, so some players may still see soloing as more efficient. Therefore, we incentivize grouping by granting a bonus to experience earned while in the group. Players can still solo if they want, but it won't really be faster and may be much slower.
2) We want players to take on tougher challenges, rather than fighting things below their level because the fights are easier. Thus, we grant an experience bonus for killing things at or above a player's level. Players can still kill "light blues" for XP, but it won't really be as rewarding for them.
3) We want players to base themselves in towns and cities, and to start and end their play sessions there. So, in addition to placing NPC services in those areas (such as banks and vendors), we also award an experience point bonus in the form of "rested" experience, if the player logs out in a town/city or another "safe" location. Players of course can choose to log out anywhere, but they won't get the bonus if they log out in the middle of the woods or something.
4) We want players to utilize consumable food and drink that crafters make, instead of just buying the cheapest food or drink from NPC vendors. Thus, we put stat bonuses on player-made food and drink to encourage people to buy and use it, even though it will probably be more expensive than what the NPC vendor has. Sure, players can use the NPC food and drink, but they won't get the stat bonuses.
5) We want players to branch out and explore different places instead of always sticking to the same dungeons or zones, so we put a bounty board in NPC taverns. Each day, the bounty board has a selection of five to seven bounties available in different nearby dungeons or zones. Players can choose up to three of these bounties to accept, and then have to venture to that area, kill the named monster or NPC, and bring back the bounty token it drops to clear the bounty and claim the reward. Players can only get the bounty token if they have accepted the bounty for a monster, so they can't pre-bank the tokens. Players can skip the bounty board if they want, but they'll miss out on the bounties by doing so.
6) We want players to use the perception system, so among other things, occasionally players might loot a treasure map. If the player is a Keeper (and has their skill high enough), they can go the location on the map and they'll get perception triggers that will lead them to the treasure, although it may be guarded. Of course players don't have to pick up Perception, but that means they won't be able to use the treasure maps they find.
I'll stop here. Odds are, most of you read all those examples and said "oh yeah those are fine". But maybe some of you objected to one or two of them philosophically.
The idea of an incentive for utilizing a part of the game isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Sometimes, incentives are needed to help encourage us players to be social, to explore, or to leave our comfort zone. For any given situation, we can all argue forever about what's an appropriate incentive and what isn't - and that's fine. But this thread is about the subject of incentives all up. Not about just getting people to use taverns (there's a different thread for that discussion).
As a player who 100% wants to be the best. Wants to min max my character to its fullest... I feel like alot of people get confused.
If I have to spend 30 mins farming an item that will last me 1 boss fight... I will only use it while pushing progression or when the mob is on farm and I want to try and set a record for dps or hps.
This is the same with passive buffs... when I am out grouping, I wont have my character min maxed to perfection. Theres no need for it. I am most certainly an elitist player... but let me be clear... never have I ever expected pug players to be on the same level. I would never require someone to have x y and z unless I was putting a group together for some seriously challenging content.
I understand peoples fears when it comes to people utilizing things like buffs or itemscores when forming groups. It's annoying. But I really dont see that happening in a game like this.
I think the more options people have to assist or help their character power the better... it helps bridge the gap between playstyles imo.