Protecting Our Casuals: Gear

Azherae wrote: »

I hope that Intrepid just blows this sort of discussion out of the water by implementing such finely tuned Itemization goals (greatness is a function of goals here) that literally everything, all 30 pages of this, is moot and a general waste of all our time (relative to them getting anything useful from it).

Our hope here is completely the same.

Azherae wrote: »

EDIT: Also just to be snarky, this system exists in the game already, it's called 'money'.

How cheap do you think low-mid tier will become several months after release, considering that Intrepid plans to incorporate deconstruction and gear decay into the game? I'd assume there'll be at least some price growth just because everyone will have more money later on (unless the gold sinks are really finely tuned to stop that), and the price of that gear would grow too because, in theory, it wouldn't be too abundant.

So how exactly would a newbie easily afford some new gear to try and catch up to other players? Especially if we have a somewhat wider gear scaling.

And now that I think about it, my suggestion is a yet another gear sink, but one w/o removing the gear from the system completely. I think my love for L2's gear sinks just constantly shows itself in most of my design suggestions

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I hope that Intrepid just blows this sort of discussion out of the water by implementing such finely tuned Itemization goals (greatness is a function of goals here) that literally everything, all 30 pages of this, is moot and a general waste of all our time (relative to them getting anything useful from it).

Our hope here is completely the same.

Azherae wrote: »

EDIT: Also just to be snarky, this system exists in the game already, it's called 'money'.

How cheap do you think low-mid tier will become several months after release, considering that Intrepid plans to incorporate deconstruction and gear decay into the game? I'd assume there'll be at least some price growth just because everyone will have more money later on (unless the gold sinks are really finely tuned to stop that), and the price of that gear would grow too because, in theory, it wouldn't be too abundant.

So how exactly would a newbie easily afford some new gear to try and catch up to other players? Especially if we have a somewhat wider gear scaling.

And now that I think about it, my suggestion is a yet another gear sink, but one w/o removing the gear from the system completely. I think my love for L2's gear sinks just constantly shows itself in most of my design suggestions

Exactly as cheap as Intrepid's Economy Designer wants it to be.

Remember that there are people who spend literally all their time learning how to control the economic/play behaviours of massive numbers of people at a time. Sure, we note that there are exceptions and they're often bad (outside of MMOs where apparently it is the norm and they're REALLY bad), but those people aren't Intrepid.

But as noted, I was being snarky, the implication of my snark was probably 'shopping is the way to do this'.

I agree with and support the following concepts from your suggestion:
1. A player can convert dropped/crafted gear to gear that they intend to donate to their Social Org or Node.
2. That player gains rep or something substantial that they want other than raw $$, from this.
3. Other players can work for that gear or buy it from that Social Org or Node, and it will sit there until someone does.

Note that first aspect, because I play games with these systems too (it's not as useful in FFXI but you can donate gear to your nation and it does act as a sink when things start to get silly).

But it's intentionally not as useful in those games because as soon as you make it useful, someone games said system for their own benefit, that's why point #1 even has that 'convert dropped gear' part. You can't offer a benefit of real value to TopPlayerA for 'donating gear' and still also have them able to buy that gear to donate it.

I was even reluctant, after just the initial design iteration passes that happen in my head automatically (does this come off as bragging? I never know, it's not quite complaining... oh well) to add 'crafted' to that. The economic incentives and behaviours in this case would just get twisty SO fast. Players unable to find new gear to buy because a rich person who wants Social Org points just keeps buying it up and donating it, FORCING them to go through the 'tower'. Players running the tower to get the gear just so they can sell it back to the same sort of person who wants the points for cash and have it just be re-donated...

My 'internal alarms' rang about 3 more times but I don't have the wish to go investigate what I'm 'sensing'. Yes, these things are 'fixable', but 'fighting with the nature of your economic actors' never goes well. You almost always lose.

Azherae wrote: »

I was even reluctant, after just the initial design iteration passes that happen in my head automatically (does this come off as bragging? I never know, it's not quite complaining... oh well) to add 'crafted' to that. The economic incentives and behaviours in this case would just get twisty SO fast. Players unable to find new gear to buy because a rich person who wants Social Org points just keeps buying it up and donating it, FORCING them to go through the 'tower'. Players running the tower to get the gear just so they can sell it back to the same sort of person who wants the points for cash and have it just be re-donated...

No bragging at all. I completely understand what you're talking about cause I'm the same. When I see someone else's design suggestion, the literal first thought that comes to my mind is "how can I break this completely?" I try to apply the same thinking to my own suggestions, but I either miss some stuff or come up with solutions later on and forget to write them down or just decide not to cause barely anyone should care about what some rando on the internet has come up with.

As for that kind of exploit, I think I mentioned diminishing returns on donating the same gear. Maybe it was in the additional explanation on this idea that I wrote for Crow. Another obvious solution would be to put markers on the gear that has gone through the system or just make it bounded to the recipient and only meant for deconstruction later on. But yeah, I'm sure there's at least a few other exploits that I've missed in the overall system, just cause it was the first pass on it. And, same as you, I'm sure that if even I was able to come up with a semi-ok system to address some potential difficulties in casuals' lives, then Intrepid definitely could do the same thing and better.

There's only one problem with that kind of logic though. There's been countless games where the solution to whichever problems seems so damn obvious that the devs would have to either be stupid or explicitly malicious in their design choices to have those issues still in the game. There's of course the chance that the problem is not as easily solvable as it seems on the surface, but the sheer existence of the problem, update after update, at least hints at some underlying issue with the devs/studio. Now I hope Intrepid can avoid that kind of stuff, but they've had a few problems in their development already so I'd rather first let them prove themselves through good decisions, rather than blindly believe that all their designs will be better than even smth I could come up with. But only time will tell what the situation will be at release.

NiKr wrote: »

There's only one problem with that kind of logic though. There's been countless games where the solution to whichever problems seems so damn obvious that the devs would have to either be stupid or explicitly malicious in their design choices to have those issues still in the game. There's of course the chance that the problem is not as easily solvable as it seems on the surface, but the sheer existence of the problem, update after update, at least hints at some underlying issue with the devs/studio. Now I hope Intrepid can avoid that kind of stuff, but they've had a few problems in their development already so I'd rather first let them prove themselves through good decisions, rather than blindly believe that all their designs will be better than even smth I could come up with. But only time will tell what the situation will be at release.

I have the same feeling as you, I'm also here to kick and scream about every such thing I perceive as an error, at least until a justification is provided.

Fortunately, I don't have to yell at Intrepid, I can yell at other people who have such ideas and IF Intrepid also happens to have overlooked the same thing, they can quietly change it and act like they never did that.

So in this case it's not optimism, it's definitely arrogance and in some cases experience (if I talk a lot about something, if not, I'll summon someone I know who has it).

If they start doing silly-seeming things relative to PvP incentives, be 'warned', I'm summoning you.

Azherae wrote: »

If they start doing silly-seeming things relative to PvP incentives, be 'warned', I'm summoning you.

To paraphrase a quote from Gangs of New York "Everybody complains, everybody argues, because that's how you stand up against the rising of the tide".

And I'm ready to complain and argue, in order to stand up against the rising tide of unneeded or unreasonable changes to Intrepid's core designs. Now I don't personally think that Steven will crumble under the pressure from people as easily as Amazon did, mainly due to his alleged freedom from the corporate shackles, but in case he does, I'll at least do the most and to the best of my abilities to prevent those changes.

p.s. here's the scene I was quoting, if anyone's interested (it's the last 10 secs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKvEBXqId_Q

We have not received permission from NishUK to share the quoted post.

~sigh~ Called it.

Literally everything about you could have been predicted from your behavioural model, and I hate that so much.

So, my dear 'Defensive Bolt Action Sniper' (I'm sure you are very good and could play with any weapon in whatever style you feel is best), I don't suppose I can try to convince you or explain that the experiences you are describing are not only not the requirement (in terms of PvE bosses) but the effect on enjoyment is not the same for everyone?

I have not been THIS sad to have the predictive models work in a long time. Because it leaves me with only the thought that I hope Intrepid basically ignores your perspective, and I don't like that. Do you have any interest in trying to see the perspectives of others from the position that maybe because of your playstyle and experiences you don't have the full picture?

Or is it always going to be 'this will NEVER be as good as what I consider to be good'?

NishUK: People aren't predictable at the top levels.

Also NishUK: Defensive Bolt Action Sniper.

The irony is palpable.

I was asked to respond to your most likely response, because I am Azherae's groups "defensive bolt-action sniper", and she felt it would make more sense for you to engage with me for one last chance at this not ending up useless.

Snipers have a particular role in group combat, that changes the shape of the game and makes it more tactical in terms of how situations can viably occur. We used to play Paladins, in the past, and I played as Strix. As our team's sniper, my job was to take control of certain paths through the map by finding a spot with the right lines of sight and making it difficult for enemies to hold or use these positions or routes of travel. From my perch on high, I have the ability to change the shape of the environment for my team, and limit or define the enemy's available tactics. My role in this position is slow, cautious, tactical. I decide what I am going to focus on, and wait for and defeat threats that follow those paths. My adaptation to the match is based on the shifting tactics and positions of the teams as a whole, and the rest is largely about who is in my space. This is different for a front-liner. Their reactions are based on speed, mobility, and immediate-term tactical reactions. They have to focus on positioning in terms of seconds, and the positions of other teammates and enemy players. To them the game is quick and reactive, and the tactics involved are a combination of overall team strategy, and micro-scale "can I aim properly on reaction at this moving target that just appeared?" "will I defeat this threat before they can take me down or do I need to retreat, and to what position? where will they go and what allies will be under threat if I do?". For such people, the game is linear, because there are less good tactics. There's much more twitchy speed. Just being surprised by randomness can be a real answer.

This is what they experience in PvE, too. This is the part of PvE that they think about. Their experiences are very different from ours. Neither better or worse, but the games have a very different shape from their position. From where I'm sitting, and with the styles I play, if I hadn't put specific effort into understanding how their experiences work, I could very easily have gotten the impression that those things simply weren't what the game was about. It would look like things were about tactics, planning, and a type of awareness and decision-making that, while they experience it, is only one part of a larger whole.

Even when we experience these situations ourselves, when someone finally makes it through your team and gets to your perch, the situation has already changed. Because I am the one in charge of the lines, if I've chosen a good position, the opponent must be unpredictable to get through. My presence and position force my opponent to adapt, and sometimes those adaptations must be crazy. For a front-liner, that's not what's happening. Front-liners are just trying to do their most effective offensive tactic better than the other person, and without failing, because that is the most effective way to do it. If someone manages to get up to me, past my sight and space control, and through my team, I'm not expecting to take down the assassin or fighter threatening me with my pistol unless I've been playing the game for a while, and both knew what to expect, and had developed the skills to confront it by being able to be calm and respond appropriately. Random deaths before I've developed this skill and experience don't even register as memorable, because they aren't, and I know that this will come down to tactics and knowledge of possible opponent adaptations (which I will of course have lots of time to think about).

SongRune wrote: »

and she felt it would make more sense for you to engage with me

Wait, Azherae is a she? Not like that changes anything, but that's good to know for future reference, cause I'm pretty sure I've been referencing her as a he