Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DJ#16 - The Weight and Measure of a Lifetime

13

Comments

  • DARTHGALEN5DARTHGALEN5 Member UncommonPosts: 4
    In all honesty the age and progression of time in this game are the most captivating to me. The fact that the world actually grows, that times change. The game you might be playing 4 months from release might be entirely different from when you started. I applaud this dramatic change in thinking.
  • NarkariNarkari Member UncommonPosts: 6
    I am really glad that CoE is taking death in a different progression then all other MMOs. Will it work well? We don't know until we get a chance to play but from what I have heard and what they have promised I do think this game will be great.
    Fennec Academy - "A world without knowledge is no  world at all"
    Website
    Recruitment Thread

    Join Chronicles of Elyria a new MMORPG in the making. Learn more here. Put in my friend code 32471C for cookies. :)
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,279
    I just realized without even knowing more on this STORY part it really sounds like they are going with an idea similar to that old game Tales in the Desert where everyone works on the same season story arc.
    Someone body told me everyone starts at 12,i never got that impression,i thought you could pick your starting age?Or is that choice of age only after your death/second rising?
    None the less  if even on the second round it becomes a major factor in the game.

    This game is really cool but going to be very tough to get it just right.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • GrelfGrelf Member UncommonPosts: 37
    edited January 2016
    Wizardry said:
    I just realized without even knowing more on this STORY part it really sounds like they are going with an idea similar to that old game Tales in the Desert where everyone works on the same season story arc.
    Someone body told me everyone starts at 12,i never got that impression,i thought you could pick your starting age?Or is that choice of age only after your death/second rising?
    None the less  if even on the second round it becomes a major factor in the game.

    This game is really cool but going to be very tough to get it just right.
    You can start at age 12 without a family or pick an existing NPC in a family who may be 15 or older. If you pick a character older than 18 if I remember correctly you can't customize the character much anymore.
  • VucarVucar Member UncommonPosts: 311


    Did you not read DJ#16?

    DJ#16:
    Among the most direct, though not necessarily the easiest way to gain fame, is to hold a position of power in the local, regional, or national government. These positions of power automatically grant you fame up to some base level, which maps as follows:
    • Elder or Village Council: Notable
    • Mayor/Town Council: Prominent
    • Magistrate/City Council or Baron: Famous
    • Count or Sheriff: Renowned
    • Duke: Exalted
    • King: Legendary

    My original questions
    Why are you charging people(who are actively trying to take part in the [Soulborn Story]game), more?
    How difficult will it be for a group of players to manipulate someones "Fame Rating"?

    zultra says a player cannot see their own fame rating.
    They already listed the rank - for 'political office' at least.

    How can you not see the fishy part?  It's related to PvP and this is Jeromy's thoughts on that:
    "Important is not the same as frequent... and that's precisely our goal. PvP, that is, player vs. player physical combat will happen less frequently in CoE (by design), but will have bigger impact on the players, and an impact on the story - something that doesn't exist in other MMOs.

    Legal means of combat such as wars, arena combat, dueling, etc... all have an impact on your player, and occasionally on the story. Wars change political boundaries, and usher in the era of a new Duke or King, etc. Arena combat can gain someone fame & renown, and can earn them jobs that they otherwise wouldn't have been offered. It can also sometimes make them a target. Dueling can be used to resolve contract disputes.

    Illegal forms of combat, such as highway robbery, murder, etc... while illegal, and hopefully less common than in other MMOs will almost always have some impact on the story. And this isn't just the larger 10-year story. It's liable to ignite players into action, put them on a man-hunt, etc...

    So again, while PvP may not be as common in CoE, it will almost always be important. "


    At first he comes out strong '[PvP]less frequently in CoE (by design)' but by the end of his speech not so forceful 'illegal, and hopefully less common than in other MMOs'.
    However, PvP is tied directly to your money
    DJ#16: currently estimated price of $29.99 per Spark of Life...-....To begin with, the base spirit loss for a death is 2 real-life days of play, each time you are forced to Spirit Walk.

    The true cost of a life in this game is anywheres from 15 hours to over 14 months.  That is what the price of fame gets you.  Sure as long as you stay as a nobody and never do anything you can play for 9-14months(which btw is a 60% swing huge variance when it comes to money but whatevs.) however as soon as you start to get into The Story the odds of you being allowed to have the 270-437 days/spark are gone



    Luckily there's this thing called 'Beta', where all sorts of knobs can be turned as Soulbound sees how their design interacts with player behavior. In tabletop storytelling rpgs, there's a saying that goes "the plot never survives first contact with players", meaning that whatever the GM / storyteller had in mind will inevitably change after moving from the drawing board to real people. I'm a realist and I know this will hold true for CoE as well. There are a lot of lofty ideas and complicated mechanics that players will exploit.... in beta. After they do, the mechanisms will be altered, or maybe thrown out, long before release.

    This is a post I made on the CoE forums as an attempt to curb exploits and point out flaws I predicted would be taken advantage of early: 

    https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/General-Discussion/1681-Lets-break-the-game

    I share all the same skepticism i've read you and that other guy have posted on here. I think a lot of the ideas are going to need a tough look at when they're implemented in alpha and beta, and hard decisions will be made over some of them. That said, I still believe this game will release with its core design in tact.  

    Maybe I'll be wrong, but i'd rather give this a shot than believe there is nothing else in the mmo world to look forward to. In the mean time, i'll continue to point out things I think could be awkward in practice, or manipulated by groups and exploited, because I genuinely want to see this game come out.
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,279
    edited January 2016
    Grelf said:
    Wizardry said:
    I just realized without even knowing more on this STORY part it really sounds like they are going with an idea similar to that old game Tales in the Desert where everyone works on the same season story arc.
    Someone body told me everyone starts at 12,i never got that impression,i thought you could pick your starting age?Or is that choice of age only after your death/second rising?
    None the less  if even on the second round it becomes a major factor in the game.

    This game is really cool but going to be very tough to get it just right.
    You can start at age 12 without a family or pick an existing NPC in a family who may be 15 or older. If you pick a character older than 18 if I remember correctly you can't customize the character much anymore.
    I appreciate your response but i got lost trying to figure it out.I didn't think everyone started at 12 like someone was trying to say.

    Yes that is the idea i got from it as well,the older character has less customization,however also has MORE abilities than the younger player.That is why it looks sort of like pick a longer lasting life player you get less from your player,pick a more risky short life player your player will be a much better player.Sort of like younger player will be jack of all trades,master of none while the older player is better at fewer abilities.

    That is why it looks more like a p2w idea,those wanting a longer "cheaper" approach before having to pay for another life,will want to do less,those wanting to take part in all the game offers will be paying for a new life much sooner.

    I really like the idea of death and most of the entire design,but i feel the death part tied into monetary is not an idea i would aim for.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • TimberhickTimberhick Member UncommonPosts: 554
    Vucar said:
    Luckily there's this thing called 'Beta', where all sorts of knobs can be turned as Soulbound sees how their design interacts with player behavior. In tabletop storytelling rpgs, there's a saying that goes "the plot never survives first contact with players", meaning that whatever the GM / storyteller had in mind will inevitably change after moving from the drawing board to real people. I'm a realist and I know this will hold true for CoE as well. There are a lot of lofty ideas and complicated mechanics that players will exploit.... in beta. After they do, the mechanisms will be altered, or maybe thrown out, long before release.

    This is a post I made on the CoE forums as an attempt to curb exploits and point out flaws I predicted would be taken advantage of early: 

    https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/General-Discussion/1681-Lets-break-the-game

    I share all the same skepticism i've read you and that other guy have posted on here. I think a lot of the ideas are going to need a tough look at when they're implemented in alpha and beta, and hard decisions will be made over some of them. That said, I still believe this game will release with its core design in tact.  

    Maybe I'll be wrong, but i'd rather give this a shot than believe there is nothing else in the mmo world to look forward to. In the mean time, i'll continue to point out things I think could be awkward in practice, or manipulated by groups and exploited, because I genuinely want to see this game come out.
    Couple of things about PnP RPGs
    1. Players are not nearly as smart as they think they are.
    2. Broad strokes fellas, broad strokes.

    You understand those two principles and you will never ever have to worry about "the plot never survives first contact with players"
  • IndirectPvPIndirectPvP Member CommonPosts: 8
    Rhoklaw is correct, fame doesn't = death. It may place a target on your back, but the unknown idiot strolling down the road with cart full of gold has prolly a bigger target.  Once you've reached that level of fame you tend to try to keep that head firmly planted on your shoulders.  Careless people usually are the ones toe up underground.  An awesome example is a careful king with a serious bodyguard detail, food tasters and only one successor...  Relatively safe IMO.  Va. That damn farmer down the valley who keeps trying to breed that bull elephant and thoae 8 lionesses.  His life will prolly be shorter... And he is a simple farmer.
  • TimberhickTimberhick Member UncommonPosts: 554
    I didn't realize this was that hard to understand.

    Okay hopefully this time around you will understand.

    Price of Fame
    Because of this, CoE uses a multiplier system in order to increase the death toll for more famous or impactful characters. Intuitively, this makes sense. If some unknown farmer dies, it probably won't have an impact on the overall story or plot. However, if a king (or queen) dies, it should ripple across the whole continent.
    1. Unknown (x1)
    2. Notable (x1.5)
    3. Prominent (x2)
    4. Famous (x4)
    5. Renowned (x8)
    6. Exalted (x16)
    7. Legendary (x32)
    Understand this part "CoE uses a multiplier{This means those numbers in the parentheses} system in order to increase the death toll for more famous or impactful characters.?

    "the base spirit loss for a death is 2 real-life days of play, each time you are forced to Spirit Walk. "

    That means it is 2 real life days times the multiplier equals the real cost of spirit loss.

    The Price of Fame equates to
    1. Unknown (2x1) = 2 real-life days of play
    2. Notable (2x1.5) = 3 real-life days of play
    3. Prominent (2x2) = 4 real-life days of play
    4. Famous (2x4) = 8 real-life days of play
    5. Renowned (2x8) = 16 real-life days of play
    6. Exalted (2x16) = 32 real-life days of play
    7. Legendary (2x32) = 64 real-life days of play

    Notice the only stipulation is 'forced to Spirit Walk.'
    Also notice how I never said anything about fame = death.


    My original question
    Why are you charging people(who are actively trying to take part in the [Soulborn Story]game), more?


    It costs more money to play the game the more famous you are, why? because you die quicker. Why?  Because of the Price of Fame says so.




  • HabitualFrogStompHabitualFrogStomp Member UncommonPosts: 370
    I didn't realize this was that hard to understand.

    Okay hopefully this time around you will understand.

    Price of Fame
    Because of this, CoE uses a multiplier system in order to increase the death toll for more famous or impactful characters. Intuitively, this makes sense. If some unknown farmer dies, it probably won't have an impact on the overall story or plot. However, if a king (or queen) dies, it should ripple across the whole continent.
    1. Unknown (x1)
    2. Notable (x1.5)
    3. Prominent (x2)
    4. Famous (x4)
    5. Renowned (x8)
    6. Exalted (x16)
    7. Legendary (x32)
    Understand this part "CoE uses a multiplier{This means those numbers in the parentheses} system in order to increase the death toll for more famous or impactful characters.?

    "the base spirit loss for a death is 2 real-life days of play, each time you are forced to Spirit Walk. "

    That means it is 2 real life days times the multiplier equals the real cost of spirit loss.

    The Price of Fame equates to
    1. Unknown (2x1) = 2 real-life days of play
    2. Notable (2x1.5) = 3 real-life days of play
    3. Prominent (2x2) = 4 real-life days of play
    4. Famous (2x4) = 8 real-life days of play
    5. Renowned (2x8) = 16 real-life days of play
    6. Exalted (2x16) = 32 real-life days of play
    7. Legendary (2x32) = 64 real-life days of play

    Notice the only stipulation is 'forced to Spirit Walk.'
    Also notice how I never said anything about fame = death.


    My original question
    Why are you charging people(who are actively trying to take part in the [Soulborn Story]game), more?


    It costs more money to play the game the more famous you are, why? because you die quicker. Why?  Because of the Price of Fame says so.




    lol That's hilarious. A win2pay scheme, sounds brilliant.

    You don't typically force the people who are most invested in your game to pay more, if that happens naturally as a result of their choice that's another thing. There are certain hardcore players who will have no problem with this design, they'll throw money at a game to dominate and that's fine. There will be very casual players who will have no issues with it either, they're not going to be dominating anything so it's a non issue.

    Who this hurts is the middle ground of players. The players who are maybe not the most skilled or have the most resources but who are competitive and genuinely want to excel at it and put a lot of themselves into it. These are also the players are more likely to play the game as the developers seem naive enough to believe people will. They will get excited as they progress up the ladder and find that well, each death becomes more taxing, each failure hits them harder than the last. It's such an alien concept that when you introduce this to players who are conditioned to believe being more powerful is a goal you should be rewarded for, rather than hitting you in the pocket book, they won't take it lightly.

    This will simply be seen as the worlds first socialist MMORPG.

    Though she would likely disagree with this design, this is turning out to be Ayn Rand style idealism, certain people will lap it up, but this is always going to end in a face palm.
  • VucarVucar Member UncommonPosts: 311
    I didn't realize this was that hard to understand.

    Okay hopefully this time around you will understand.

    Price of Fame
    Because of this, CoE uses a multiplier system in order to increase the death toll for more famous or impactful characters. Intuitively, this makes sense. If some unknown farmer dies, it probably won't have an impact on the overall story or plot. However, if a king (or queen) dies, it should ripple across the whole continent.
    1. Unknown (x1)
    2. Notable (x1.5)
    3. Prominent (x2)
    4. Famous (x4)
    5. Renowned (x8)
    6. Exalted (x16)
    7. Legendary (x32)
    Understand this part "CoE uses a multiplier{This means those numbers in the parentheses} system in order to increase the death toll for more famous or impactful characters.?

    "the base spirit loss for a death is 2 real-life days of play, each time you are forced to Spirit Walk. "

    That means it is 2 real life days times the multiplier equals the real cost of spirit loss.

    The Price of Fame equates to
    1. Unknown (2x1) = 2 real-life days of play
    2. Notable (2x1.5) = 3 real-life days of play
    3. Prominent (2x2) = 4 real-life days of play
    4. Famous (2x4) = 8 real-life days of play
    5. Renowned (2x8) = 16 real-life days of play
    6. Exalted (2x16) = 32 real-life days of play
    7. Legendary (2x32) = 64 real-life days of play

    Notice the only stipulation is 'forced to Spirit Walk.'
    Also notice how I never said anything about fame = death.


    My original question
    Why are you charging people(who are actively trying to take part in the [Soulborn Story]game), more?


    It costs more money to play the game the more famous you are, why? because you die quicker. Why?  Because of the Price of Fame says so.




    lol That's hilarious. A win2pay scheme, sounds brilliant.

    You don't typically force the people who are most invested in your game to pay more, if that happens naturally as a result of their choice that's another thing. There are certain hardcore players who will have no problem with this design, they'll throw money at a game to dominate and that's fine. There will be very casual players who will have no issues with it either, they're not going to be dominating anything so it's a non issue.

    Who this hurts is the middle ground of players. The players who are maybe not the most skilled or have the most resources but who are competitive and genuinely want to excel at it and put a lot of themselves into it. These are also the players are more likely to play the game as the developers seem naive enough to believe people will. They will get excited as they progress up the ladder and find that well, each death becomes more taxing, each failure hits them harder than the last. It's such an alien concept that when you introduce this to players who are conditioned to believe being more powerful is a goal you should be rewarded for, rather than hitting you in the pocket book, they won't take it lightly.

    This will simply be seen as the worlds first socialist MMORPG.

    Though she would likely disagree with this design, this is turning out to be Ayn Rand style idealism, certain people will lap it up, but this is always going to end in a face palm.
    I think a lot of the misunderstanding comes from what other games consider 'death' and what CoE considers 'death'. The likelihood of an adventurer getting incapacitated while out and about is decent. The likelihood of them getting Coup-de-graced (ganked) is far less. 

    Fame is relative, not absolute. The more people doing lots of impressive things, the less impressive they become. The first person to create an artisan-level claymore from refined steel will probably be pretty famous, but as more people get to that skill, his relative fame rating will drop. The average player likely won't be hindered by this.

    @Timberhick As for the question "why are you charging people who are actively trying to take part in the soulborn story game more", you've almost answered the question by asking it. Its because of the story. The heart and soul (excuse the pun) of the Soulbound story engine is that this game is not about leveling up, GvG pvp or raid bosses, its about what kind of stories we get to tell when its all said and done. You can't have a good, congruent story with kings that are ganked over and over and say 'wow how annoying would it have been if i lost control of the city? dodged that bullet'.

    The more famous someone is (and the more connected they are to the story), the more significant their death is. Death is as integral to this game as life. Dying should impact the story greatly if you are a very real powerful factor in the story. If you are a king and you can just respawn as many times as everyone else, it doesn't matter if anyone kills you because it changes nothing.

    Going back to my tabletop analogy (because i honestly think this game compares better to a living tabletop game than an mmo); both as GM and as a player, i've seen how character death is not always (in fact, rarely is it) a completely negative experience. As GM I had two of my players attacked by a werewolf once, and, knowing they wouldn't both escape, one of them sacrificed himself to save the other. His character died - permanently, while the other player escaped. The player whose character died was not unhappy; he was proud to go out the way he did, in an epic standoff against impossible odds. 

    If he had just come back to life at the next session, everyone would have looked me at like 'wtf, that was the perfect ending for him'. 

    Again, I think a lot of this is going to come down to knob-turning in beta: exactly how punishing should it be for a middling Knight to die in battle, versus the town blacksmith, versus the duke. Its not even in alpha yet and there is a lot of room for change, so I really don't know why there's so much energy being put into breaking down a game mechanic before its fully formed.


  • HabitualFrogStompHabitualFrogStomp Member UncommonPosts: 370
    Rhoklaw said:
    I didn't realize this was that hard to understand.

    Okay hopefully this time around you will understand.

    Price of Fame
    Because of this, CoE uses a multiplier system in order to increase the death toll for more famous or impactful characters. Intuitively, this makes sense. If some unknown farmer dies, it probably won't have an impact on the overall story or plot. However, if a king (or queen) dies, it should ripple across the whole continent.
    1. Unknown (x1)
    2. Notable (x1.5)
    3. Prominent (x2)
    4. Famous (x4)
    5. Renowned (x8)
    6. Exalted (x16)
    7. Legendary (x32)
    Understand this part "CoE uses a multiplier{This means those numbers in the parentheses} system in order to increase the death toll for more famous or impactful characters.?

    "the base spirit loss for a death is 2 real-life days of play, each time you are forced to Spirit Walk. "

    That means it is 2 real life days times the multiplier equals the real cost of spirit loss.

    The Price of Fame equates to
    1. Unknown (2x1) = 2 real-life days of play
    2. Notable (2x1.5) = 3 real-life days of play
    3. Prominent (2x2) = 4 real-life days of play
    4. Famous (2x4) = 8 real-life days of play
    5. Renowned (2x8) = 16 real-life days of play
    6. Exalted (2x16) = 32 real-life days of play
    7. Legendary (2x32) = 64 real-life days of play

    Notice the only stipulation is 'forced to Spirit Walk.'
    Also notice how I never said anything about fame = death.


    My original question
    Why are you charging people(who are actively trying to take part in the [Soulborn Story]game), more?


    It costs more money to play the game the more famous you are, why? because you die quicker. Why?  Because of the Price of Fame says so.




    lol That's hilarious. A win2pay scheme, sounds brilliant.

    You don't typically force the people who are most invested in your game to pay more, if that happens naturally as a result of their choice that's another thing. There are certain hardcore players who will have no problem with this design, they'll throw money at a game to dominate and that's fine. There will be very casual players who will have no issues with it either, they're not going to be dominating anything so it's a non issue.

    Who this hurts is the middle ground of players. The players who are maybe not the most skilled or have the most resources but who are competitive and genuinely want to excel at it and put a lot of themselves into it. These are also the players are more likely to play the game as the developers seem naive enough to believe people will. They will get excited as they progress up the ladder and find that well, each death becomes more taxing, each failure hits them harder than the last. It's such an alien concept that when you introduce this to players who are conditioned to believe being more powerful is a goal you should be rewarded for, rather than hitting you in the pocket book, they won't take it lightly.

    This will simply be seen as the worlds first socialist MMORPG.

    Though she would likely disagree with this design, this is turning out to be Ayn Rand style idealism, certain people will lap it up, but this is always going to end in a face palm.
      All you care about is speculating and creating scenarios
    lol That's literally all anyone does to explain how it actually works.

    Take Rtard number 1 and put him in a scenario, estimate roughly what a roleplayer would do in that situation, explain.

    That's how the game works, plus a little soulbound engine fairy dust of course.

    We're ripping on this payment model cause it's absurd.
  • K2SAVK2SAV Member CommonPosts: 5
    Rhoklaw said:
    I didn't realize this was that hard to understand.

    Okay hopefully this time around you will understand.

    Price of Fame
    Because of this, CoE uses a multiplier system in order to increase the death toll for more famous or impactful characters. Intuitively, this makes sense. If some unknown farmer dies, it probably won't have an impact on the overall story or plot. However, if a king (or queen) dies, it should ripple across the whole continent.
    1. Unknown (x1)
    2. Notable (x1.5)
    3. Prominent (x2)
    4. Famous (x4)
    5. Renowned (x8)
    6. Exalted (x16)
    7. Legendary (x32)
    Understand this part "CoE uses a multiplier{This means those numbers in the parentheses} system in order to increase the death toll for more famous or impactful characters.?

    "the base spirit loss for a death is 2 real-life days of play, each time you are forced to Spirit Walk. "

    That means it is 2 real life days times the multiplier equals the real cost of spirit loss.

    The Price of Fame equates to
    1. Unknown (2x1) = 2 real-life days of play
    2. Notable (2x1.5) = 3 real-life days of play
    3. Prominent (2x2) = 4 real-life days of play
    4. Famous (2x4) = 8 real-life days of play
    5. Renowned (2x8) = 16 real-life days of play
    6. Exalted (2x16) = 32 real-life days of play
    7. Legendary (2x32) = 64 real-life days of play

    Notice the only stipulation is 'forced to Spirit Walk.'
    Also notice how I never said anything about fame = death.


    My original question
    Why are you charging people(who are actively trying to take part in the [Soulborn Story]game), more?


    It costs more money to play the game the more famous you are, why? because you die quicker. Why?  Because of the Price of Fame says so.




    lol That's hilarious. A win2pay scheme, sounds brilliant.

    You don't typically force the people who are most invested in your game to pay more, if that happens naturally as a result of their choice that's another thing. There are certain hardcore players who will have no problem with this design, they'll throw money at a game to dominate and that's fine. There will be very casual players who will have no issues with it either, they're not going to be dominating anything so it's a non issue.

    Who this hurts is the middle ground of players. The players who are maybe not the most skilled or have the most resources but who are competitive and genuinely want to excel at it and put a lot of themselves into it. These are also the players are more likely to play the game as the developers seem naive enough to believe people will. They will get excited as they progress up the ladder and find that well, each death becomes more taxing, each failure hits them harder than the last. It's such an alien concept that when you introduce this to players who are conditioned to believe being more powerful is a goal you should be rewarded for, rather than hitting you in the pocket book, they won't take it lightly.

    This will simply be seen as the worlds first socialist MMORPG.

    Though she would likely disagree with this design, this is turning out to be Ayn Rand style idealism, certain people will lap it up, but this is always going to end in a face palm.
      All you care about is speculating and creating scenarios
    lol That's literally all anyone does to explain how it actually works.

    Take Rtard number 1 and put him in a scenario, estimate roughly what a roleplayer would do in that situation, explain.

    That's how the game works, plus a little soulbound engine fairy dust of course.

    We're ripping on this payment model cause it's absurd.
    How is it absurd if it costs less than most MMORPG memberships?
  • VucarVucar Member UncommonPosts: 311
    I've already made several posts about it, I don't really see what's hard to understand. People should be in control of what they're spending to play a game. With sub models this is agreed to before hand, with freemium/F2P/B2P it's all very clear what your money gets you. Actively charging players because they played your game exceptionally, and charging them more than you do unimpressive players, is not a logical plan.

    I suspect if you were getting charged more for your internet than your neighbor on the basis that you google better than he does, you'd understand what I was talking about fairly quickly, and be making some phone calls.

    Your turn. Explain to me how it's a different concept.
    This disconnect I see is that you interpret people who die more and pay for more sparks of life as playing the game "better" or "more" than the average player, or the "boring" player. 

    I don't see it that way. An assassin could play this game for as long as a blacksmith, if he's careful with who he assassinates, calculated in his execution, and cautious in his approach, willing to abandon the attack if it looks like its going south. The assassin is not punished for playing the game more. He is rewarded for playing the game with care. The people who play this game with forethought will enjoy a long amount of enjoyable game time. The people who yolo in for a wombo combo on the king and are surprised it doesn't pan out will not enjoy this game. Trolls will not enjoy this game. Griefers will not enjoy this game.

    The irony is, even those trolls and griefers, likely because of their failure, will have such low fame status that even with all of their deaths, they will have a much longer span of game time than the next mmo would allow for the same cost. 
  • HabitualFrogStompHabitualFrogStomp Member UncommonPosts: 370
    edited January 2016
    Vucar said:
    I've already made several posts about it, I don't really see what's hard to understand. People should be in control of what they're spending to play a game. With sub models this is agreed to before hand, with freemium/F2P/B2P it's all very clear what your money gets you. Actively charging players because they played your game exceptionally, and charging them more than you do unimpressive players, is not a logical plan.

    I suspect if you were getting charged more for your internet than your neighbor on the basis that you google better than he does, you'd understand what I was talking about fairly quickly, and be making some phone calls.

    Your turn. Explain to me how it's a different concept.
    This disconnect I see is that you interpret people who die more and pay for more sparks of life as playing the game "better" or "more" than the average player, or the "boring" player.
    That's not even remotely logical. There is no scenario I have to create to illustrate that exceptional players will die a lot, or are required to die a lot in order to pay more for their play time. The graph timberhick posted provides the context that exceptional players will pay more for their playtime.

    The real disconnect, in logic, is that you're assuming that famous players will die less than players who are not as a rule. And that actively flies in the face of all logic. Anyone who has spent significant time in an MMO knows well known players are targeted first as a rule. And going by your logic with "griefers", since they are not famous and their deaths cost them less money, it creates the perfect opportunity to grief by simply banding together and killing famous players, costing them soul time.

    And really I don't get how this assassin and blacksmith scenarios suddenly became infectious among the fans of this game. It's almost like a hive mind at this point, and generally used by people who only have a handful of posts. Throwing that out there.

    And also, what makes you think griefers won't be the ones running the show on this game? There's many ways to grief other players, and generally the more freedom you provide players the more they will take advantage of that freedom to hurt other people. Unless there's only going to be 15 roleplayers actually playing this game, I see nothing logical in anyone's description of the way it will be played or the kinds of people who will play it.
  • K2SAVK2SAV Member CommonPosts: 5
    K2SAV said:
    K2SAV said:

    might you want to explain that point since i've seen very little of substance during 90% of arguments?
    I don't understand the point you're trying to make with the sub models as only a handful of MMO's are still requiring one. So saying people are paying less than those few games is not really making a point.
    Well.. can you shed some light on what you see the issue(s) being? I've tried reading some posts here but it's honestly hard to find what you people are arguing against.
    I've already made several posts about it, I don't really see what's hard to understand. People should be in control of what they're spending to play a game. With sub models this is agreed to before hand, with freemium/F2P/B2P it's all very clear what your money gets you. Actively charging players because they played your game exceptionally, and charging them more than you do unimpressive players, is not a logical plan.

    I suspect if you were getting charged more for your internet than your neighbor on the basis that you google better than he does, you'd understand what I was talking about fairly quickly, and be making some phone calls.

    Your turn. Explain to me how it's a different concept. And saying "well I pay more for my mobile data anyways so it doesn't matter." Is not logical.
    Well... if someone uses 100 gigs of data in a month, i'm sure as hell not gonna charge them the same as someone who uses 1 gig. Anyways, i see where you're coming from in that "people should be in control of what they spend" and they are! just don't become a king (but obviously this wont sit well). Here's the deal though, there's going to be a handful of kings total and another handful of nobility etc in each kingdom. Assuming you die (get CDG'd) it's not too big of a deal really to lose a couple days/weeks of play time. You're still spending anywhere from 30-60 dollars a year at MOST. If you're a king however, this number is probably slightly larger $60 to maybe $90 max (only if you die a lot) still cheaper than $15 a month. Now... back to the data analogy above. If someone uses 100 gigs of data, i (as the telecom provider) will not charge someone who uses 100 gigs of data the same as 1 gig because it's just common sense. I'm not saying that it's the most amazing subscription plan ever, but it's not THAT horrible if you look at the statistics. They're simply adding weight and value to someone who essentially has a massive influence over the game world.
  • HabitualFrogStompHabitualFrogStomp Member UncommonPosts: 370
    K2SAV said:
    K2SAV said:
    K2SAV said:

    might you want to explain that point since i've seen very little of substance during 90% of arguments?
    I don't understand the point you're trying to make with the sub models as only a handful of MMO's are still requiring one. So saying people are paying less than those few games is not really making a point.
    Well.. can you shed some light on what you see the issue(s) being? I've tried reading some posts here but it's honestly hard to find what you people are arguing against.
    I've already made several posts about it, I don't really see what's hard to understand. People should be in control of what they're spending to play a game. With sub models this is agreed to before hand, with freemium/F2P/B2P it's all very clear what your money gets you. Actively charging players because they played your game exceptionally, and charging them more than you do unimpressive players, is not a logical plan.

    I suspect if you were getting charged more for your internet than your neighbor on the basis that you google better than he does, you'd understand what I was talking about fairly quickly, and be making some phone calls.

    Your turn. Explain to me how it's a different concept. And saying "well I pay more for my mobile data anyways so it doesn't matter." Is not logical.
    Well... if someone uses 100 gigs of data in a month, i'm sure as hell not gonna charge them the same as someone who uses 1 gig. Anyways, i see where you're coming from in that "people should be in control of what they spend" and they are! just don't become a king (but obviously this wont sit well). Here's the deal though, there's going to be a handful of kings total and another handful of nobility etc in each kingdom. Assuming you die (get CDG'd) it's not too big of a deal really to lose a couple days/weeks of play time. You're still spending anywhere from 30-60 dollars a year at MOST. If you're a king however, this number is probably slightly larger $60 to maybe $90 max (only if you die a lot) still cheaper than $15 a month. Now... back to the data analogy above. If someone uses 100 gigs of data, i (as the telecom provider) will not charge someone who uses 100 gigs of data the same as 1 gig because it's just common sense. I'm not saying that it's the most amazing subscription plan ever, but it's not THAT horrible if you look at the statistics. They're simply adding weight and value to someone who essentially has a massive influence over the game world.
    Success or expertise does not correlate with using the service more than someone else, so your data example is irrelevant.  They're charging a golfer by how many birdies they make, not how long they were on the golf course.

    So, for all your words, you still have not at all addressed the truth of the concept.

    Players should never be actively charged for or actively discouraged from playing well. It's nonsensical.
  • ZultraZultra Member UncommonPosts: 385
    Define "playing well"? 

    In this game if you die lots of times you will perma-die earlier then someone who doesn't die a lot, it does not deture you from taking risks (risks vs reward), but what it does is that it encourages you to think and calculate your risks. 
    Sign up for Chronicles of Elyria here don't forget to use my friend code - B4ACB3

    Join the revolutionary MMO! 
  • K2SAVK2SAV Member CommonPosts: 5
    edited January 2016
    K2SAV said:
    K2SAV said:
    K2SAV said:

    might you want to explain that point since i've seen very little of substance during 90% of arguments?
    I don't understand the point you're trying to make with the sub models as only a handful of MMO's are still requiring one. So saying people are paying less than those few games is not really making a point.
    Well.. can you shed some light on what you see the issue(s) being? I've tried reading some posts here but it's honestly hard to find what you people are arguing against.
    I've already made several posts about it, I don't really see what's hard to understand. People should be in control of what they're spending to play a game. With sub models this is agreed to before hand, with freemium/F2P/B2P it's all very clear what your money gets you. Actively charging players because they played your game exceptionally, and charging them more than you do unimpressive players, is not a logical plan.

    I suspect if you were getting charged more for your internet than your neighbor on the basis that you google better than he does, you'd understand what I was talking about fairly quickly, and be making some phone calls.

    Your turn. Explain to me how it's a different concept. And saying "well I pay more for my mobile data anyways so it doesn't matter." Is not logical.
    Well... if someone uses 100 gigs of data in a month, i'm sure as hell not gonna charge them the same as someone who uses 1 gig. Anyways, i see where you're coming from in that "people should be in control of what they spend" and they are! just don't become a king (but obviously this wont sit well). Here's the deal though, there's going to be a handful of kings total and another handful of nobility etc in each kingdom. Assuming you die (get CDG'd) it's not too big of a deal really to lose a couple days/weeks of play time. You're still spending anywhere from 30-60 dollars a year at MOST. If you're a king however, this number is probably slightly larger $60 to maybe $90 max (only if you die a lot) still cheaper than $15 a month. Now... back to the data analogy above. If someone uses 100 gigs of data, i (as the telecom provider) will not charge someone who uses 100 gigs of data the same as 1 gig because it's just common sense. I'm not saying that it's the most amazing subscription plan ever, but it's not THAT horrible if you look at the statistics. They're simply adding weight and value to someone who essentially has a massive influence over the game world.
    Success or expertise does not correlate with using the service more than someone else, so your data example is irrelevant.  They're charging a golfer by how many birdies they make, not how long they were on the golf course.

    So, for all your words, you still have not at all addressed the truth of the concept.

    Players should never be actively charged for or actively discouraged from playing well. It's nonsensical.
    By using the "service" more than someone else i mean in terms of influence they have. I don't think charging a golfer for how many birdies they make is right, a golfer should be charged based on how much time he's spent on the course, you're absolutely right. However, if that golfer all of a sudden decides he wants to make changes to the golf course that affect every other golfer that will be on the course, that's definitely grounds to be charged more (which in this games case, won't actually be THAT much more). We aren't talking about simply "making birdies" we're talking about players who can change the game on a massive scale.


    Edit: If you can add suggestions/constructive criticism, i think people would be willing to listen and work with you but i haven't seen any from the so called "critics", all i see is bashing for the most part.
  • HabitualFrogStompHabitualFrogStomp Member UncommonPosts: 370
    K2SAV said:
    K2SAV said:
    K2SAV said:
    K2SAV said:

    might you want to explain that point since i've seen very little of substance during 90% of arguments?
    I don't understand the point you're trying to make with the sub models as only a handful of MMO's are still requiring one. So saying people are paying less than those few games is not really making a point.
    Well.. can you shed some light on what you see the issue(s) being? I've tried reading some posts here but it's honestly hard to find what you people are arguing against.
    I've already made several posts about it, I don't really see what's hard to understand. People should be in control of what they're spending to play a game. With sub models this is agreed to before hand, with freemium/F2P/B2P it's all very clear what your money gets you. Actively charging players because they played your game exceptionally, and charging them more than you do unimpressive players, is not a logical plan.

    I suspect if you were getting charged more for your internet than your neighbor on the basis that you google better than he does, you'd understand what I was talking about fairly quickly, and be making some phone calls.

    Your turn. Explain to me how it's a different concept. And saying "well I pay more for my mobile data anyways so it doesn't matter." Is not logical.
    Well... if someone uses 100 gigs of data in a month, i'm sure as hell not gonna charge them the same as someone who uses 1 gig. Anyways, i see where you're coming from in that "people should be in control of what they spend" and they are! just don't become a king (but obviously this wont sit well). Here's the deal though, there's going to be a handful of kings total and another handful of nobility etc in each kingdom. Assuming you die (get CDG'd) it's not too big of a deal really to lose a couple days/weeks of play time. You're still spending anywhere from 30-60 dollars a year at MOST. If you're a king however, this number is probably slightly larger $60 to maybe $90 max (only if you die a lot) still cheaper than $15 a month. Now... back to the data analogy above. If someone uses 100 gigs of data, i (as the telecom provider) will not charge someone who uses 100 gigs of data the same as 1 gig because it's just common sense. I'm not saying that it's the most amazing subscription plan ever, but it's not THAT horrible if you look at the statistics. They're simply adding weight and value to someone who essentially has a massive influence over the game world.
    Success or expertise does not correlate with using the service more than someone else, so your data example is irrelevant.  They're charging a golfer by how many birdies they make, not how long they were on the golf course.

    So, for all your words, you still have not at all addressed the truth of the concept.

    Players should never be actively charged for or actively discouraged from playing well. It's nonsensical.
    By using the "service" more than someone else i mean in terms of influence they have. I don't think charging a golfer for how many birdies they make is right, a golfer should be charged based on how much time he's spent on the course, you're absolutely right. However, if that golfer all of a sudden decides he wants to make changes to the golf course that affect every other golfer that will be on the course, that's definitely grounds to be charged more (which in this games case, won't actually be THAT much more). We aren't talking about simply "making birdies" we're talking about players who can change the game on a massive scale.


    Edit: If you can add suggestions/constructive criticism, i think people would be willing to listen and work with you but i haven't seen any from the so called "critics", all i see is bashing for the most part.
    Working hard in game, building a community, being skilled, this is how you earn influence in a game. This is true whether the mechanics support it or not. These traits in certain players are vital to sandbox MMORPG's. Without players with the initiative, the disposable free time, the ability and social skills to be leaders of the community, a sandbox is half what it could be. A wise developer depends on these kind of people and supports them and gives them the tools needed to engage other players. He may monetize the players commitment, but designing that in a way to be punishing or prohibitive of normal gameplay for your top dogs is professional suicide.

    Nobody will step up to the plate and lead the community anywhere, why would they? Do you realize how many dummy accounts guilds will make just to swarm a notable rival who may be slightly more famous than they are? There are people out there that will throw thousands of dollars at a game like this just to make sure nobody can threaten them. All this design is going to encourage is cowardice and alt zerging.

    You think any of these scenarios of the brave hero with the talent going up the snow by himself to slay the fearsome tentacle beast and come back and share tales of his exploits in the tavern with strangers is realistic? Afraid not, he'll stand in the back and let his mates kill it, since he'll have to take 64x death. As quickly as they can churn out these ill advised exotic game mechanics and models I can tell you just as fast how this is a power game and an elite pvpers dream to exploit and manipulate.

     This game will be hell on the griefers? lol They're licking their chops with this stuff. I honestly don't have any suggestions to improve the design, it's comedy gold just as it is.
  • HabitualFrogStompHabitualFrogStomp Member UncommonPosts: 370
    Rhoklaw said:
    For every person that plays with an ALT account, there is probably someone in an opposing faction who does the same thing. For every possible flaw you think exists in the game, it's a tactic that can be used by anyone.

    Also, no one said Kings won't be targeted, but I'm willing to bet whoever is King didn't get there because they are stupid. I highly doubt Kings will be wandering around in some open village waiting to be assassinated. If they do happen to travel, I'm sure it will be with a hefty size contingent of guards.

    It will definitely be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I'm more concerned about Lich's and Vampire Lords than Kings.
    Anyone can use alts to their advantage on any game, so that is not the issue at all, regardless of who chooses to use them or who can afford to have tons of them. The issue is, do the game mechanics make it possible for the middle ground player to play the game the way the devs keep dictating that the game is going to be played like some low fantasy adventure paradise? Will we see joe average experience a compelling personal drama in the "story" and have a realistic shot at coming out smelling like anything but a corpse? No way, no how.

    By actively punishing notable players by artificially limiting their ability to shake off a death, you're further encouraging already powerful people to use even more underhanded tactics to preserve themselves and hinder others by nefarious means. But, they probably would've used those tactics anyways so it doesn't really punish them whether you have a scaling death tax or not. All it does is punish the players who take actual risks and limit what they'll ultimately be able or willing to do.
  • VucarVucar Member UncommonPosts: 311
    edited January 2016
    Vucar said:
    I've already made several posts about it, I don't really see what's hard to understand. People should be in control of what they're spending to play a game. With sub models this is agreed to before hand, with freemium/F2P/B2P it's all very clear what your money gets you. Actively charging players because they played your game exceptionally, and charging them more than you do unimpressive players, is not a logical plan.

    I suspect if you were getting charged more for your internet than your neighbor on the basis that you google better than he does, you'd understand what I was talking about fairly quickly, and be making some phone calls.

    Your turn. Explain to me how it's a different concept.
    This disconnect I see is that you interpret people who die more and pay for more sparks of life as playing the game "better" or "more" than the average player, or the "boring" player.
    That's not even remotely logical. There is no scenario I have to create to illustrate that exceptional players will die a lot, or are required to die a lot in order to pay more for their play time. The graph timberhick posted provides the context that exceptional players will pay more for their playtime.
    You yourself just said "Actively charging players because they played your game exceptionally, and charging them more than you do unimpressive players, is not a logical plan", and then gave the scenario of someone who pays more for a utility because they're better at making use of the utility than their neighbor who pays less. This is an invalid analogy because in CoE, you do not pay more for playing the game; you pay the same as anyone else and after that its up to how careful or careless you are. The higher up you are, the more careful you need to be. For someone who uses the word 'logic' 6 times in the same post, you seem to be having trouble following it.

    What timberhick was referring to shows relative fame and its associated spirit loss. What you call "exceptional" players, i would just call "famous" players, will not pay more for their playtime. They pay more for their death, which can be prevented and delayed just as long as anyone else in the game. A player doesn't lose 8 months of playtime because he makes it to king, or becomes the first dragon slayer. 

    The real disconnect, in logic, is that you're assuming that famous players will die less than players who are not as a rule. And that actively flies in the face of all logic. Anyone who has spent significant time in an MMO knows well known players are targeted first as a rule. And going by your logic with "griefers", since they are not famous and their deaths cost them less money, it creates the perfect opportunity to grief by simply banding together and killing famous players, costing them soul time.

    Famous players early on probably will die frequently as they adjust to their role and the game world sees how easy or hard it is to zerg someone. After that, new metas will develop where famous players are heavily guarded at all time, even offline with OPCs, and known griefers start getting griefed themselves.

    Resources are finite. You lose your set of gear trying to zerg rush the king with your guildies, you're not getting it back unless you have a base, crafters, infrastructure and support -- you have something to lose in return for your griefing.

    This isn't a game like darkfall, where if you lose your city and die a couple times its "oh well, i lost a few siege bags and we lost our rare ore mine. the rest of my bank is intact and globally accessible, ill just go farm gold and buy more stuff". In this game, when you lose your city in response to griefing (and unless you have most of the server on your side of griefers, i promise, you will lose it) you lose everything, you keep nothing: that means you better kill this guy first time, and with an army big enough to take the city he's in too, or there won't be anything left of you and your clan to speak of in a week. 


    And really I don't get how this assassin and blacksmith scenarios suddenly became infectious among the fans of this game. It's almost like a hive mind at this point, and generally used by people who only have a handful of posts. Throwing that out there.

    You haven't refuted how a legendary assassin can't live as long as a safely walled-in blacksmith and still be "Exceptional" as you call it. Throwing that out there.

    And also, what makes you think griefers won't be the ones running the show on this game? There's many ways to grief other players, and generally the more freedom you provide players the more they will take advantage of that freedom to hurt other people. Unless there's only going to be 15 roleplayers actually playing this game, I see nothing logical in anyone's description of the way it will be played or the kinds of people who will play it.


    In Darkfall, once in a while an alliance would take too much territory and get spread too thin, step on too many toes. After that, the server would rise against them, rip all of their holdings away and the alliance would be lucky to have even one city left. Although, at least in Darkfall, you could always pull a gearbag from your bank anywhere in the world and farm back money to buy more gear.

    The more freedom you provide players, the more ways they have of policing themselves, which is infinitely more satisfying than any game mechanic. Like i said in the above paragraph, you better hope your clan of griefers is larger than half the population of the server, or you will be crushed, but unlike Darkfall, there won't be anything for you to come back to.
  • HabitualFrogStompHabitualFrogStomp Member UncommonPosts: 370
    Vucar said:
    You yourself just said "Actively charging players because they played your game exceptionally, and charging them more than you do unimpressive players, is not a logical plan", and then gave the scenario of someone who pays more for a utility because they're better at making use of the utility than their neighbor who pays less. This is an invalid analogy because in CoE, you do not pay more for playing the game; you pay the same as anyone else and after that its up to how careful or careless you are. The higher up you are, the more careful you need to be. For someone who uses the word 'logic' 6 times in the same post, you seem to be having trouble following it.

    What timberhick was referring to shows relative fame and its associated spirit loss. What you call "exceptional" players, i would just call "famous" players, will not pay more for their playtime. They pay more for their death, which can be prevented and delayed just as long as anyone else in the game. A player doesn't lose 8 months of playtime because he makes it to king, or becomes the first dragon slayer.
    Just because the analogy phrases reality in an uncomfortable and confronting way doesn't make the analogy invalid. CoE is not a F2P game, internet is not a free service. You pay for both. I can't help it if you can't allow that player death is going to happen in a perma death game with open PVP. Or that you think the only instance one will die is being a general idiot or not being "careful". Or that you think death, or failure, is completely avoidable in a game where you are competing against real people rather than AI (not gonna happen in this lifetime). I suppose you don't find it logical by your criteria, but that's by no means an exhaustive study of logic. For the purpose of this argument, were going to go ahead and rightly assume that death and cost are irrevocably linked, because they are, and that death or loss to another player or otherwise is a very real scenario everyone will have to face, regardless of how careful a person might be, because that's life, and more importantly, that's gaming. But if you think you can play the game without getting killed by another player in an open PVP game, be my guest, that's the object I suppose, but assuming perfect survival skills does nothing to further the argument, since there's no such thing.
     
  • K2SAVK2SAV Member CommonPosts: 5
    K2SAV said:
    K2SAV said:
    K2SAV said:
    K2SAV said:

    might you want to explain that point since i've seen very little of substance during 90% of arguments?
    I don't understand the point you're trying to make with the sub models as only a handful of MMO's are still requiring one. So saying people are paying less than those few games is not really making a point.
    Well.. can you shed some light on what you see the issue(s) being? I've tried reading some posts here but it's honestly hard to find what you people are arguing against.
    I've already made several posts about it, I don't really see what's hard to understand. People should be in control of what they're spending to play a game. With sub models this is agreed to before hand, with freemium/F2P/B2P it's all very clear what your money gets you. Actively charging players because they played your game exceptionally, and charging them more than you do unimpressive players, is not a logical plan.

    I suspect if you were getting charged more for your internet than your neighbor on the basis that you google better than he does, you'd understand what I was talking about fairly quickly, and be making some phone calls.

    Your turn. Explain to me how it's a different concept. And saying "well I pay more for my mobile data anyways so it doesn't matter." Is not logical.
    Well... if someone uses 100 gigs of data in a month, i'm sure as hell not gonna charge them the same as someone who uses 1 gig. Anyways, i see where you're coming from in that "people should be in control of what they spend" and they are! just don't become a king (but obviously this wont sit well). Here's the deal though, there's going to be a handful of kings total and another handful of nobility etc in each kingdom. Assuming you die (get CDG'd) it's not too big of a deal really to lose a couple days/weeks of play time. You're still spending anywhere from 30-60 dollars a year at MOST. If you're a king however, this number is probably slightly larger $60 to maybe $90 max (only if you die a lot) still cheaper than $15 a month. Now... back to the data analogy above. If someone uses 100 gigs of data, i (as the telecom provider) will not charge someone who uses 100 gigs of data the same as 1 gig because it's just common sense. I'm not saying that it's the most amazing subscription plan ever, but it's not THAT horrible if you look at the statistics. They're simply adding weight and value to someone who essentially has a massive influence over the game world.
    Success or expertise does not correlate with using the service more than someone else, so your data example is irrelevant.  They're charging a golfer by how many birdies they make, not how long they were on the golf course.

    So, for all your words, you still have not at all addressed the truth of the concept.

    Players should never be actively charged for or actively discouraged from playing well. It's nonsensical.
    By using the "service" more than someone else i mean in terms of influence they have. I don't think charging a golfer for how many birdies they make is right, a golfer should be charged based on how much time he's spent on the course, you're absolutely right. However, if that golfer all of a sudden decides he wants to make changes to the golf course that affect every other golfer that will be on the course, that's definitely grounds to be charged more (which in this games case, won't actually be THAT much more). We aren't talking about simply "making birdies" we're talking about players who can change the game on a massive scale.


    Edit: If you can add suggestions/constructive criticism, i think people would be willing to listen and work with you but i haven't seen any from the so called "critics", all i see is bashing for the most part.
    Working hard in game, building a community, being skilled, this is how you earn influence in a game. This is true whether the mechanics support it or not. These traits in certain players are vital to sandbox MMORPG's. Without players with the initiative, the disposable free time, the ability and social skills to be leaders of the community, a sandbox is half what it could be. A wise developer depends on these kind of people and supports them and gives them the tools needed to engage other players. He may monetize the players commitment, but designing that in a way to be punishing or prohibitive of normal gameplay for your top dogs is professional suicide.

    Nobody will step up to the plate and lead the community anywhere, why would they? Do you realize how many dummy accounts guilds will make just to swarm a notable rival who may be slightly more famous than they are? There are people out there that will throw thousands of dollars at a game like this just to make sure nobody can threaten them. All this design is going to encourage is cowardice and alt zerging.

    You think any of these scenarios of the brave hero with the talent going up the snow by himself to slay the fearsome tentacle beast and come back and share tales of his exploits in the tavern with strangers is realistic? Afraid not, he'll stand in the back and let his mates kill it, since he'll have to take 64x death. As quickly as they can churn out these ill advised exotic game mechanics and models I can tell you just as fast how this is a power game and an elite pvpers dream to exploit and manipulate.

     This game will be hell on the griefers? lol They're licking their chops with this stuff. I honestly don't have any suggestions to improve the design, it's comedy gold just as it is.
    Well.. all i can say is wait for the combat journal to come out, as i don't think making any large claims on the combat portion of the game can be done at this stage yet regarding griefing/etc. Also, the issue they're trying to tackle is the issue EVE online has developed due to elite players that amass wealth and can't be contested by anyone other than the rest of the elite. It really doesn't seem to me that they're "punishing" influence. They're giving it more weight and value and setting a limit on it due to it being extremely powerful/impactfull on everyone else's play experience. You also have to take into account that there will be very few "top dogs", like... only handfuls of players. Also, "a wise developer depends on these types of people and supports them and gives them the tools needed to engage other players" you don't think controlling a kingdom and having all of the freedom you wish to do whatever the hell you want is enough of a tool to be able to engage other players?
  • VucarVucar Member UncommonPosts: 311
    edited January 2016
    Just because the analogy phrases reality in an uncomfortable and confronting way doesn't make the analogy invalid. CoE is not a F2P game, internet is not a free service. You pay for both. I can't help it if you can't allow that player death is going to happen in a perma death game with open PVP. Or that you think the only instance one will die is being a general idiot or not being "careful". Or that you think death, or failure, is completely avoidable in a game where you are competing against real people rather than AI (not gonna happen in this lifetime). I suppose you don't find it logical by your criteria, but that's by no means an exhaustive study of logic. For the purpose of this argument, were going to go ahead and rightly assume that death and cost are irrevocably linked, because they are, and that death or loss to another player or otherwise is a very real scenario everyone will have to face, regardless of how careful a person might be, because that's life, and more importantly, that's gaming. But if you think you can play the game without getting killed by another player in an open PVP game, be my guest, that's the object I suppose, but assuming perfect survival skills does nothing to further the argument, since there's no such thing.
     
    That was actually far more civil a response than I expected.

    You're right to an extent: its true not all death (see: coup de grace death) can be avoided. A determined group of players, at a high cost, could get someone killed if that was all they cared about, monetary resources aside. Right now all we're talking about is a tiny fraction of players though - literally, as you describe, the exception. These are the players whom everyone will know by name - alliance leaders who are themselves kings, and the like. This is the give and take of the game: instead of just being one of the many faceless players of the game, everyone knows you, your decisions impact regions of players, and your feats are widespread knowledge -- you are literally a celebrity, in game.

    Celebrities in real life are forced to accept some concessions to their lives for the status they hold in the world: few things in their life are truly private; things they say are told, retold and distorted; everyone wants to be around them and know them, whether or not the celebrity reciprocates; and lastly, their deaths make news headlines. 

    A player does have to accept they will be the exception to many other players in how their day to day gaming experience looks like. They might be too important to actually even see another player besides their body guards. They might have to communicate all orders via teamspeak or discord and never leave a fortress (focusing mostly on the king analogy for fame, for simplicity). There are a lot of things they might never get to experience, too. Lastly, of course, they will not get to die nearly as many times as most players, before they have to pay for a new spark of life.

    But at the end of the day, they are one of the few players who get to say "thousands of people know my name and what i've done.", and when you step away from all games, pc console and everything else, what is there to take away from a game when its all over, but the stories? SWG, SB, Darkfall, UO -- all gone. What do we have left?

    The stories. Amazing stories. Impossible stories. Stories that can only happen from players doing amazing things. This is what is granted to the famous players -- in spades. They will have the greatest capacity for the greatest stories to be told when everything is said and done - but you're right: it comes at a cost.



Sign In or Register to comment.