Jump to content

Semi-diary: Interactions of any/all mechanics and flowing discussion


dualism

Recommended Posts

Hi, I'm fairly new here but have been reading intently and think there is already a great deal of insight and experience out there. What I haven't yet found is a way to track my experiences and discussion flow, especially on how mechanics 'can' interact and how the devs actually plan to interact them or hopefully balance them.

One of the things I lack most is knowledge about what good conversations have happened before - I've just been seeing really great points here and there that would usually take things off-topic if looked at further.

Can something like this thread started by me here be a place for links, quotes, discussions on the basic concept of interaction and consequences in game development? I hope so. I may play with note-type styles here and see what happens:

 

#1: One example on consequences is a thread about the consequences-of-non-regenerating-planets-and-ressources

#2: For starters: Is there a similar thread about avatars gaining skills?

I have read so far that each account will be able to have up to 3 avatars (source not remembered but was NQ), but only 1 will be skilling at any particular time. Presumably this is the avatar you choose to have active and you can switch between them quite quickly. [Is this a great way of not being bored on a big ship if there is no battle, for example? I didn't think of this at the time when I commented in that thread how-will-the-large-crew-that-large-ship-may-have-work-in-a-game-like-this  ] I think I read that skill gaining can be automated, but this makes me a bit sceptical about people having several accounts and active alts instead of inactive second and third characters, although I really like the idea of implementing avatars which individuals may switch to.

I repeat for starters here: is there a discussion on skill gains in DU and its consequences?

 

(Mods: Is this the right place for such a discussion and format? Should this be somewhere I haven't yet discovered? Thanks and sorry for any possible errors on my part in this first thread creation.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi when it comes to non-generation of resources do not worry there are tons and tons and tons of resources just on the first planet.By cons, actually if the players are very active on projects of factories, huge vessels, or cities could have a problem of resources.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi when it comes to non-generating resources do not worry there are tons and tons of resources on the first planet. On the other hand, if the players are very active on factory projects, huge ships, or cities could be a problem of resources. (sorry I put in French)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, although the planet will be pretty big as such, there won't be anything better than low value resources on it apparently. We will have to be able to get off the planet with the lowest craftable spaceships, otherwise we would be stuck, but there then comes the question of where higher quality stuff will be made. I imagine it has to be where better ores/mats are available.
#3 I'm left a little wondering what cargo volumes will be like and whether ores being refined or products being made will translate into the volumes of those plus waste of some type or another.
The volume of Alioth may even increase over time come to think of it .. ;)

Any word on a debate on skills?
#4 It seems to me that this will be a pretty big factor in the game if death keeps knocking people back but skills will grow and enable new activities/levels of action.
#5 Any word on whether skills will be extractable and tradeable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lethys said:

God please no. CCP killed Eve with that

The consequence of not being able to trade in skills is that everyone's skills are their own. Yes, that could be a good thing. I wonder if the skills will then max at some point per field, such as a 100% efficiency factor, or rather no ineffiency from still learning how to craft, repair, fire a weap etc for a certain skill level, and how high up this will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dualism said:

The consequence of not being able to trade in skills is that everyone's skills are their own. Yes, that could be a good thing. I wonder if the skills will then max at some point per field, such as a 100% efficiency factor, or rather no ineffiency from still learning how to craft, repair, fire a weap etc for a certain skill level, and how high up this will be.

And that's a peoblem because......?

Just think a second about the consequences if you could extract and sell skills - that's the WORST mechanic in existance, same level as loot boxes.

 

Either they do it as in eve or, which i prefer, as an asymptotical function for return - the higher you skill, the more time it takes but the less bonus you get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did write "Yes, that could be a good thing" (that everyone's skills are their own and NOT tradeable).

But if you want me to think a few seconds about extractability: it adds an internal in-game marketable value to the actions people take instead of being stuck on the avatar for ever. A player might want to change profession after a while. Does this mean having to start over pretty much on the new skills needed or will NQ have a range of avatar skills that are very broad in nature and will affect stuff you don't currently do too?

#6 A downside of skill extractability could be that it increases farming and alts, especially if the active avatar has automated skill gains, yes.

#7 On the other hand there is the question of high levels when an avatar finds it really hard timewise to gain more of a certain skill. If the gains from having skills continue to rise even at a high level, then high level players seeking an advantage over each other will have to time-grind or get some bonus skill from NQ by doing things even more dangerous or so.

#8 Quests for skill gains?

 

Of course, NQ may decide to flatten out the effects of skills per profession to horizontal at some level instead of some low but still noticeable linear progression.

#9 Emergent gameplay - will there be a few super-pilots out there after a few years or just lots of maxed ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dualism said:

I did write "Yes, that could be a good thing" (that everyone's skills are their own and NOT tradeable).

But if you want me to think a few seconds about extractability: it adds an internal in-game marketable value to the actions people take instead of being stuck on the avatar for ever. A player might want to change profession after a while. Does this mean having to start over pretty much on the new skills needed or will NQ have a range of avatar skills that are very broad in nature and will affect stuff you don't currently do too?

#6 A downside of skill extractability could be that it increases farming and alts, especially if the active avatar has automated skill gains, yes.

#7 On the other hand there is the question of high levels when an avatar finds it really hard timewise to gain more of a certain skill. If the gains from having skills continue to rise even at a high level, then high level players seeking an advantage over each other will have to time-grind or get some bonus skill from NQ by doing things even more dangerous or so.

selling skills is just Pay2Win. Plain and simple. You instantly kill the advantage of an old character.

 

Gaining skills is very easy at first (as said by JC in various interviews) - the basics are fast to learn (couple of hours) but mastery needs time. So no, you don't have to start a new character. So yeah, if someone wants to have an edge in PVP - he better keep skilling those skills instead of mining -> SPECIALIZE

 

1 hour ago, dualism said:

#8 Quests for skill gains?

there are no quests in DU because there are no NPCs

 

1 hour ago, dualism said:

#9 Emergent gameplay - will there be a few super-pilots out there after a few years or just lots of maxed ones?

depends on how the skill system works - and on flight mechanics. Many won't like them at all - many will love them. But as always only some will be on top

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lethys said:

selling skills is just Pay2Win. Plain and simple. You instantly kill the advantage of an old character.

In my opinion it is not plain and simple unless other mechanics enable it to be so and it becomes >90% of the function or so.

In this case it requires real money to be able to flow into your character in some way - and not just subscription time. I have been trying to read through stuff but I don't remember for DU about a shop (cosmetic only or pay2win products), the subject of RCE or 'black markets'. I only recall a point made that in-game subscription time tokens (was a 3 letter acronym) will all be bought with real money even if they can then be traded inside the game, enabling some successful players to earn enough in-game to be playing essentially for free. NQ will still be getting someone to pay for your time, however.

Ok, thinking about it for a second: that would already be a mechanism for buying skills from others against paying them their subscriptions... one avatar can pay2win (at least the skills) by paying for others, ok, yes.

This doesn't kill the advantage of an old character, however, but it does weaken it, alright.

 

Ok, is it part of the NQ ethic to fight against pay2win elements emerging in DU, or is this a hot issue for you more personally Lethys?

By the way, I'm happy you are answering me because it is helping me to think about things and I do not know/remember NQ's position. So far I have liked the dev posts, but I keep forgetting what I agree with them about lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dualism said:

In my opinion it is not plain and simple unless other mechanics enable it to be so and it becomes >90% of the function or so.

In this case it requires real money to be able to flow into your character in some way - and not just subscription time. I have been trying to read through stuff but I don't remember for DU about a shop (cosmetic only or pay2win products), the subject of RCE or 'black markets'. I only recall a point made that in-game subscription time tokens (was a 3 letter acronym) will all be bought with real money even if they can then be traded inside the game, enabling some successful players to earn enough in-game to be playing essentially for free. NQ will still be getting someone to pay for your time, however.

Ok, thinking about it for a second: that would already be a mechanism for buying skills from others against paying them their subscriptions... one avatar can pay2win (at least the skills) by paying for others, ok, yes.

This doesn't kill the advantage of an old character, however, but it does weaken it, alright.

 

Ok, is it part of the NQ ethic to fight against pay2win elements emerging in DU, or is this a hot issue for you more personally Lethys?

By the way, I'm happy you are answering me because it is helping me to think about things and I do not know/remember NQ's position. So far I have liked the dev posts, but I keep forgetting what I agree with them about lol...

I rather not see people paying a bunch of money to up every skill in the game to high level in no time. Everyone who spent weeks on skilling will feel shit and its P2W. Just because there could be a market for it doesn't mean there should be one. 

 

People are already able to use DACs to get resources, which is expensive but if you add skills you unlock the ability for people with thick pockets to get an advantage on every level if they want to. Reason I'm fine with DACs is that it enables people to play for free by being good at the game and it's markets. It comes with a drawback which i don't want to see expanded in abusability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Zamarus said:

Reason I'm fine with DACs is that it enables people to play for free by being good at the game and it's markets. It comes with a drawback which i don't want to see expanded in abusability.

Thanks for the acronym - yes, DACs. And a very good point made - an advantage and a disadvantage hopefully in some kind of balance in the one area, but you don't want to see it expanded to skills. (Ok, being able to buy your way to lots of resources might even be worse than a mechanism of being able to buy skills. NQ obviously cannot ban resource trading, but they can at least refuse to allow skill extraction as one of the 'freedoms within DU'!)

 

2 hours ago, Lethys said:

So yeah, if someone wants to have an edge in PVP - he better keep skilling those skills instead of mining -> SPECIALIZE

I assume you mean skilling the avatar (although skilling the player will hopefully also be important).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dualism said:

In my opinion it is not plain and simple unless other mechanics enable it to be so and it becomes >90% of the function or so.

In this case it requires real money to be able to flow into your character in some way - and not just subscription time. I have been trying to read through stuff but I don't remember for DU about a shop (cosmetic only or pay2win products), the subject of RCE or 'black markets'. I only recall a point made that in-game subscription time tokens (was a 3 letter acronym) will all be bought with real money even if they can then be traded inside the game, enabling some successful players to earn enough in-game to be playing essentially for free. NQ will still be getting someone to pay for your time, however.

Ok, thinking about it for a second: that would already be a mechanism for buying skills from others against paying them their subscriptions... one avatar can pay2win (at least the skills) by paying for others, ok, yes.

This doesn't kill the advantage of an old character, however, but it does weaken it, alright.

 

Ok, is it part of the NQ ethic to fight against pay2win elements emerging in DU, or is this a hot issue for you more personally Lethys?

By the way, I'm happy you are answering me because it is helping me to think about things and I do not know/remember NQ's position. So far I have liked the dev posts, but I keep forgetting what I agree with them about lol...

Well EVERYONE should be against P2W in a MMO. That's not smth outstanding but should be the norm. P2W kills every game, every progress, every little victory (that new ship, that new Skill, that new base, ...) for everyone. Who cares about stuff when you can just replace it with money? Who cares about wars when you can just kill your opponent with money? 

 

Gj on getting the pieces together. Witout DACs it's not P2W - but i rather have them ingame to reward players who make enough ingame money than being able to sell skills. As i explained you don't need that anyway as you can just skill to whatever you wanna do next

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**Topic switch to radar** - nice help on skills above - ty. I'm now starting to think about interstellar distances, the shard, travel times, goods, markets and safety a bit, which brings me more specifically to radar functions.

If the ASA planet (planet with ASA on it) only has low value mats, then one of the first major market forces will be to travel back and forth to better hotspot planets and other mineables close by. I imagine that to begin with, pilots will know by sight which direction to travel in to get to a certain destination or have notes (my dest is a little to the left and 'up' of the sun ;) ). #10 Am I wrong to assume static positioning, or will there actually be planetary orbits?

 

But what will the travel times be like; will this be boring gameplay if often repeated? Will death and losing my little ship just be a minor setback, with me being up and running again a few minutes later, reequipped but a bit poorer?

Will people begin to pilot 'afk' while they make a cup of tea is I guess what I am asking here? This will depend on how safe my journey is in the expanse of things, and so, finally, I reach thinking about "radar" functions. Presumably if the combat ranges will allow me to fire on a ship at a certain distance, then radar should work too, except that #11 computational workloads may not agree. It might be one thing for server loads to have a few players trying to lock onto a target, but a whole different game if everyone is trying to actively track everyone else over a largish volume of space.

 

#12 will radars be anything more than a short-distance skanning and visualisation function for pilots in close battles?

#13 will small ships be out of sight and 'invisible' fairly quickly in space? Will pirates looking for victims need to fly around with their eyes open instead of having scanners/radar, or will we have the old-fashioned submarine type scanning sweeps and "ping sounds" to reduce server loads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to the suggestions trello which says interplanetary map should make it to final release.

>" Players will be able to display other planets on their map aside from ones in which they are currently located on. At the moment, we intend to limit the amount of displayed maps to ones previously discovered. "

This doesn't really say anything about my mini question on planetary orbits (#10), but is possibly a step away from having long-distance scanners if you have to go somewhere first and then have it show up on a map after that.

#14 It maybe ties in in some way to the shard distance visibility levels, except that I would have expected to be able to fly star to star visually if I knew my 'constellations' from whatever perspective I knew well, for example the skies as seen from Alioth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In the is solo play practical? thread there is a discussion about how far away from others a player will be able to get to likely avoid being found. The opinions are basically that NQ will only be expanding the universe as player densities warrant due to costs, and that a solo player will thus be unlikely to be able to get anywhere truly remote.

I've been wondering about the costs associated with procedurally generated content when this meets changeable voxelness ;). I assume that static procedural generation requires relatively few memory overheads as such, as coordinates (maybe even in multiple overlay) are the seeds for what materialises at a given place.

However, if people start changing things, then where they do so does need to be stored/remembered. But as my thinking goes, #15 the vast expanse of the universe still does not have to be kept track of until a person changes the conditions away from the seed generation. This in terms of database volumes, wouldn't it be similar conditions no matter whether a solo player digs in on a planet for the first time 10 light years away or 50?

Admittedly, if NQ opens up a bigger radius from Alioth, then the potential database requirements will be higher, as even a solo visit by a lone traveller may have to be tracked (if he/she digs or builds), but in practice the database will look like Swiss cheese (lots of holes) slowly filling in with database instead of initial seed calculations anyway. I realise it's a complex question, but I've noticed that some points are pretty detailed in the threads here! Does anyone have some 'general knowledge' about this issue, or is it still a 'secret' how stuff like this might be managed? NP if you can't say, but I do think the degree of solo play practically possible will make quite a difference in player subscription numbers and would thus affect any cost:benefit analysis that NQ makes on universe sizes...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts on DACs are beginning to branch towards relative prices of things and what, for example, the 'cost' of death will be.

 

Whatever the current market value of DACs in quanta is, THIS will be the baseline indicator of an equivalent sum of dollars. If it is true that the only way inject real cash into my character(s) is to buy DACs for them, then I will have in my mind that 15 dollars (or whatever) = 1 month of play subscription OR 1,000 quanta, or whatever.

 

This will lead me to thinking about what I am effectively losing any time I die and my ability in-game to 'earn' it back again or to deposit it as a quick injection of 'cash DACs'. Now I know that simply playing along will cost me one DAC per month payment to NQ, but how do earnings and risks stack up?

 

At a pretty basic level and to begin with, I assume players will not have much and thus not have much to lose. The storyline says we will be ressurected naked, but I expect characters will actually be given basic avatar-bound basics back again automatically. The first thing I might expect to actually lose is an all-terrain bike or something like that, later on the most basic of space vehicles to get around in.

 

What will the relation be of lowest-level ore-mining time on Alioth, or of 'DAC equivalent' if I want the quanta quickly?

My next thoughts are just playing with numbers to see what happens... ;)

If I go with 2 hours of mining to get a bike and 10 hours for the worst ship, that might cost 20 quanta and 100 quanta, say. This means I can mine for 10 quanta per hour effectively. Perhaps I would see a value of $15 as equal to 15 hours of basic labour in-game, so the value of a DAC would then be 150 quanta. But that sounds like too much if even a basic spaceship which I could probably lose quite often to pirates is either costing me $10 or ten hours of play. Hmm - if I try a factor of 10? Basic labour in-game now $15 = 150 hours labour, then the value of a DAC is 1500 quanta. Each time I lose my ship it is only $1, but to mine myself a DAC I need to work for 150 hours a month. LOL - is it even possible to balance out DAC value against in-game time in the way I've tried?

 

I guess I'll think a bit more about this a bit later....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wait a minute, what is that!!

But the price of a DAC isnt static, it is dynamic. Mean it can change, any time. Also it up to your barter skill, social connection, and other hard working way. I dont think a DAC worth 150 hours a month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was just an initial attempt to see if I can balance a triangle ;).

If I agree with you in saying I dont think a DAC worth 150 hours a month, what do I change in my balancing?

 

Ok, I think I have it now: if I can mine the ores for a ship in only 1 hour at a market value of 100 quanta, then I am mining at 100 quanta per hour. If a DAC sells at 1500 quanta, losing my ship is still losing $1, but a DAC is worth 15 hours a month, as it were.

 

This is something that NQ needs to select as a "law of physics" almost: the speed of mining or also the materials required in a bp such as a small spacecraft.

 

I realise that the DAC price will be dynamic, but there has to be an overlap between realistic bids and asks.

 

It occurs to me that if NQ went another factor of ten lower, for example, you can get yourself a new ride with even less effort; maybe just 6 mins mining or whatever, but a DAC is now only worth 1.5 hours of digging for the same $15, which is real life earnings in many places. 

 

I've also ignored a difference between working for yourself and working for others, but I'm trying to get a ballpark idea.

 

The next point is how this basic triangle scales up. Rare materials and design/desirability/power etc of a ship will affect the markup value more than the pure cost of the materials, but better ships will easily be worth $100 or $1000 in relation to DACs, I believe. It has been said that when destroyed, some of the mats are lost and some are salvageable, but the players who lose get nothing returned unless friends are able to salvage before others do. This doesn't seem to be a very good idea either, really. Have I read about an 'insurance mechanism' provided by NQ in some way to keep the costs of losing much lower (would also slow the advance of power by the 'winners'...)?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost will fluctuate a lot at the beginnings, until there is a steady supply and demand.  We can’t know yet where the balance will end up falling in general, let alone at specific markets.  I would consider any speculation at this point is just random guessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even if there was some approx balance  for DACs values it doesnt stop someone from scamming  or creating an amazing "business triange" to leverage the effort one needs to earn a DAC - such is life  :)

 

Btw. I have a lovely star gate to sell you...

 *chuckles*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CoreVamore said:

"business triange" to leverage the effort one needs to earn a DAC

Well, that would be whatever way of making quanta profits as fast as possible, surely? This is why I was thinking a little bit about what absolute baselines are down to NQ's frameworks, before people move up the ranks etc.

 

21 hours ago, dualism said:

Ok, I think I have it now: if I can mine the ores for a ship in only 1 hour at a market value of 100 quanta, then I am mining at 100 quanta per hour. If a DAC sells at 1500 quanta, losing my ship is still losing $1, but a DAC is worth 15 hours a month, as it were.

___

21 hours ago, dualism said:

It occurs to me that if NQ went another factor of ten lower, for example, you can get yourself a new ride with even less effort; maybe just 6 mins mining or whatever, but a DAC is now only worth 1.5 hours of digging for the same $15, which is real life earnings in many places.

Alternatively, if the market 'value' of a basic ship lowers now to only 10 quanta - and the relationship to other products in general too, then my basic mining is still at $1 per hour (15 hours required to buy a DAC, say), but each little ship is only worth 10 dollarcents. So NQ 'could' set mining speeds and mats to just 6 mins required, BUT each thruster as a ship component is now only 1 quanta or so, and nobody would put just one on their ship. Everyone would want more units, which defeats that balance right away as a knock-on effect. NOPE! - that causes quick problems either way - forget these two branches of thinking!

___

 

It is crystallising out in my mind (sorry for faster minds reading this anyway), that NQ should carefully choose a baseline speed, and that IS up to them! It is true that they will not be deciding what players sell DACs for, but they WILL expect a certain relationship as an aim.

 

At the moment I am closing in on a relationship of: individual effort of 1 hour average to go and 'mine yourself a little ship' (NQ speed setting), with an expectation that 30 mins per day= 15 hrs per month would be about the playing time for earning a DAC, with conversely that selling a DAC would buy you about 15 basic ships (player balance). That might be 100x15 quanta =1500 but doesn't have to be. It is a ratio that I'm trying to identify.

 

I realise I am possibly stabbing a bit wildly ;), but I'm trying to get a feeling for the landscapes. Now, my baseline is in safety at Alioth, simply mining and selling and making quanta per month that is more than my sub costs if I play > 15hrs per month. The difference between 20 hrs per month and 25 hrs average is double (20-15=5 : 25-15=10). If this looks a bit too easy to play for free, then I accept, but my imbalance is no longer a factor of 10, but maybe factor 2, or so, and DACs may end up being about 30 hrs of playtime (1 DAC = make 30 little ships = 3000 quanta).

 

So, who will use the ships? Players who, for the risk of going into pvp, want to make quanta faster (and progress faster and have more fun?) How much better should this be on average? Maybe 20%, so they are managing to make something like 30 journey hours [attempting] of 175 profit an hour, but lose everything to pirates 6 times (4200-600 = 3600 quanta). Ok, I haven't considered fuel, but I expect it to be dirt cheap just around a solar system. Could this be a rinse and repeat activity too for slightly better ores? Yes, I guess so. You'd be losing your little ship every 5 hours of gameplay and buying one again immediately where you ressurect on Alioth. Little ships thus have a market and have a market balance just on the little ship side of: 16% making them against about 80% wanting to do more than just play it safe (every 100 player-hours 16 ships get made and 16 are destroyed).

 

Thanks for reading my semi-diary if you are :). For me it is interesting and hopefully will be to look back on as well. I hope you like it too...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

@Sparktacus"As for multiple chars per account - im honestly not sure how I feel about that. I'll need to give it some thought. "

 

My understanding is that it is a pretty fixed idea by the devs that we will have up to 3 chars per account, with only whichever is active gaining skills.

I love this idea, regardless of how NQ stands on the topic of having multiple accounts. It tries to negate some of the advantages of having multiple accounts in the first place, never mind whether NQ ultimately approves of this or not.

 

I have long argued that distances should make a difference to actions in virtual worlds, but that the actual time a char requires to get there should not be wasted for the player. You thus need lots of useful things to do and thus break up a journey in some way, have things to do during the journey itself (holodeck, do some lua scripting, possibly upgrade ship systems during travel etc.), or have the ability to leave your journey on autopilot or in the hands of someone else and switch chars at will.

 

Given the added scope in DU for being at a remote outpost for long times and not under attack - and then suddenly finding yourself under attack after all, I feel there would be additional temptations to have multiple accounts if that is the only way to be in several places at (almost) the same time. I really like it that NQ is willing to not try and get as many subscriptions as possible by actually allowing ONE subscription access to three chars. This gives players a lot of freedom of how to divide up their playing time on a single account without potentially wasting lots of time through the consequences of having a char in a remote place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll jump on some of earlier subjects, if you don't mind:

 

#2 Skill, as I see them, serve only two meaningful purposes: 

a. Because they are earned over time, they tie players to their characters. Thus preventing creating new one after loosing reputation (by griefing, scamming, ect.)

b. They force you to specialise

 

They are indisputably some form P2W. Because you can pay for multiple accounts, thus ignore both a. and b.. But I can't see any better system. Personally I'd allow players to change their skills at will. Without loosing total amount of accumulated xp. Not too often and with few days of delay, to prevent emergency switching.

 

Regarding your IRL-Money <-> DAC <-> Quanta <-> Resources <-> Time exchange: It's fluent system, with some things hard-connected, and some to decide for players.

IRL-Money is hard-linked with DAC (NQ set price)

Time is linked with Resources (mining speed, decided by NQ)

Resources are linked with Quanta (market bots, scripted by NQ)

DAC will cost as much as players are willing to pay to skip elements of game that they don't enjoy.

If someone can earn IRL money 10 times faster than by dull mining raw materials, then for sure they gonna pay someone to do that for them. Those will increase $ value of in-game time.

Someone who live in country with very low wages and living cost may find it more profitable to mine in game than to earn $ IRL. Some of them will do that and sell resources for real money, using third party websites. Those will reduce value of in-game time.

Finally someone will set Lua script for vehicle to go in pattern to strip-mine while he's AFK. Those will reduce value of mining even more.

 

Good example of how such relation works can be observed in Crossout: It has separate market for PC and cosoles. Gold to $ exchange ratio is the same for both. There is no other source of gold than micro-transactions.

On console market every item cost several times more gold. Probably because console owners are on average wealthier, more willing to spend their money or just more used to being milked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, dualism said:

I have long argued that distances should make a difference to actions in virtual worlds, but that the actual time a char requires to get there should not be wasted for the player. You thus need lots of useful things to do and thus break up a journey in some way, have things to do during the journey itself (holodeck, do some lua scripting, possibly upgrade ship systems during travel etc.), or have the ability to leave your journey on autopilot or in the hands of someone else...

Right up to that point, I completely agree. Time spent in game should be fun and engaging for the player.

 

But being able to swap between avatars and effectively change what region youre acting in instantly makes me twitch. It might be a good thing, leading to more players taking part in a given fight as everyone activates their combat avatars, but it still makds me twitch for some reason.

 

As I say, im conflicted. Still havent figured out why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...