Would it be reasonable to say that the more dynamic an economy you want the lower the level of game mechanics you must employ? As my thoughts today go, the lowest level of an economy is the human or NPC. Then comes the money/coin, then the business, then the government (game designer :-) )

So how dynamic do you want to go. All the way down to what a NPC want''s to achieve with there pathetic life as a peice of code. Or do we aproach this from the higher level persective of business to business and leave the NPC out of it for now?

- The question mark is the symbol of interaction -

Paul

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster


In UO one must constantly double click on your pick axe and then clikc on the spot that one would like to mine just to have ones character take a single swing. And even then, one only have a slight chance of find ore, and if one does find ore it is normally a very samll quantity.

To have ones character take another swing the process must be repeated, normally 100 times to get a decent amount of ore.

There is a way to make this action "easier" the designers gave you the ability to macro action that you perform. As an example you could double click your axe and click on the rock to strike.
Then if you have set your "Use Last Skill" macro up you can just press that key.

quote:
If the system were automatic where one would click once and ones character would keep taking swings at the cliff until they had found all the ore they needed, the system would work much better.

I disagree... for a single reason. If I were to set my character at the edge of a cliff and start him to mining... then I decide I need some cat food (the cats clawing my leg and has a wild look in her eyes), so, I drive down to the grocery. While I'm out I run into that cute red-head that I dated in college. So... we do some things... I come back (8 hours later),(feed the cat) and check on my character... he's increased his skill in mining 20% while I was out!

My question is this: Is this fair?

My personal feeling is that the system should reward players for playing, not for being "in the game."

How could this system be created in a way that would alleviate the "tedious clicking" and reward people for actually playing?
Simple... Have a 5 minute timer... You click on your axe, you click on the rock, Your character hacks away for 5 minutes. When the 5 minutes is up, repeat the process (or press the key you macroed).

No system is right... it's a matter of choice for the designer(s)

Getting this thread back on track.... If you could just "click and mine" you would have character inflation as well as object inflation. Everyone would set their character to perform some action and then head of to work/school or play


David "Dak Lozar" Loeser

Edited by - Dak Lozar on June 19, 2000 12:50:57 PM

I believe some really good points have been brought forth here. What Paul had to say about how dynamic an economy you wish to have is really true. If you choose to make code for each individual merchant and how they want to run things, then the world will be massively dynamic.
However, this goes beyond merely saying that this guy sells for 120% going price, this guy sells for 110% going price.. etc Think car salesmen. This guy''s making money off his sales, he wants to make a sale.. and for more expensive items. How many times have you gone to a dept. store and tried to buy something? "oh yes, this is a good model, but the BS-129 model is so much better. You get more standard features, yet it only costs 80 dollars more!" yeah, right These guys are gonna try to talk people they don''t know into buying things that''re more expensive. However, over time.. you get to know people, and they stop bullshiting with you quite so much! Then they''re willing to haggle down on prices moreso.. and even offer you less. That is a dynamic economy

You should also take heed to the macros. Many times macros have gotten people in trouble in games. It allows you to leave while the character does things. This isn''t fair to those who don''t spend time leveling like mad. You end up with someone who''s gotten far ahead, yet knows less. Macros should be something minute.. 5 minutes or less at MOST. And if they require complex actions, then never allow them to be repeated too much. Also, never allow people to do the same macro for more than 30 minutes straight. You can easily make a macro to make the macro work. All you need to do is record the mouse movements to make the in-game macro work.. and then have them played back by another program. The game wouldn''t know.. and you''d be doing a macro''d macro, for infinate time. LOL This is a bit of a problem.. i''d say.

Kressilac, damage is an important factor. If things never need repair.. well, duh! And magical items should be more sensative to damage.. hehe This is a very needed thing! Also, trade skills have little place most of the time, i think. no one wants to be a blacksmith in most respects. At a young age, characters should not be blacksmiths. As they get older, then i can understand the best of them becoming a blacksmith. This is because they can make high-quality products. The quality should drive the products of lesser value out of the market. Then perhaps you could have aplayer who owns a general store. They could make deals with blacksmiths to get certain items made and sold to them at a discount. This is for things like pots and pans.. or other items that a blacksmith wouldn''t normally sell This way you create a dynamic player-run economy. The blacksmith could hire on some player or NPC workers.. and they could run the shop while he''s away. The quality will not be as good as his, but you can''t run something like that alone. You''d never be able to meet demand So he takes the middle-aged PC''s and teaches them his skills, and they work under him. It''s an interesting thought on things, but i don''t know how well you can trust the players, and that''s my major concern. If you cast the players in a certain role, they might not do it.. then you''re screwed Oh well though.. just a thought

J

quote:
My question is this: Is this fair?

My personal feeling is that the system should reward players for playing, not for being "in the game."

Absolutely, a player should never get rewarded for letting the game run by itself. How about this for a solution/idea...

Player''s select a skill that they wish to hone.
Whilst the player is playing the game, the game logic is clocking "player time" (the player has to be moving to clock up "player time").
To attain new levels in skill a player must clock up "X" amount of "Player Time".

Example: To attain 20% in blacksmithing the player must clock up 1 hour of "Player Time". Each 10% in this skill requires 1/2 an hour of "Player Time".

Note again: "Players time" stops when your character is standing still. Kind of like a stopwatch on a push bike, if the bike isn''t moving then the stopwatch stops.

It''s kind of like getting paid by the hour rather than being on a salary, is that good?

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

Absolutely, a player should never get rewarded for letting the game run by itself. How about this for a solution/idea...

Hang on one minute When you start throwing the word ''never'' around, it starts to look way too much like some sort of ''law'' of game design that we are too afraid to challenge.

Are we saying we should favour the player who sits and clicks repetitively for 10 minutes over one who sets up a macro to do it? Why shouldn''t a game allow someone to sit there doing a repetitive task and gain from it? Instead of trying the proverbial stick, why not try the carrot: make it -more- profitable for people to take control and do more involved, un-macroable tasks. So, you can click the ''mine'' button and leave your character mining for 10 minutes while you pop out for a bottle of milk, but you would still have been better off at the computer yourself doing something more productive.

If a player pays a monthly fee (as in most online games) then why not simply let their time count for something? (I accept you comment on this below.) Let them feel they can at least get -some- progression out of the game, even if they''re not an expert player or can''t devote hours of painstaking attention to it.

And building automation into your game, rather than forcing them to do it themselves, might reduce your bandwidth requirements. Something to think about, anyway.

quote: Example: To attain 20% in blacksmithing the player must clock up 1 hour of "Player Time". Each 10% in this skill requires 1/2 an hour of "Player Time".

So, all they have to do is move around a little (easily automated) and you''re breaking your own rule: rewarding them for doing nothing. Even worse, you''re rewarding them for doing something perhaps totally unrelated. It feels like you have some sort of problem with them getting ''something for nothing'' and are more interested in banning that, than questioning why it is so bad in the first place

I''m not sure that just being in the game is enough to warrant skill advances. I play UO (have been playing since day one) and I have many friends who used 3rd party tools to macro thier characters. This seemed a bit unfair... but then again in an online game such as UO... what is?

I still feel that skills should be increased with use.

?

SKILL = USE/TIME 

?

So, if I want to become a tailor and I have 2 hours of actual gametime, and I have only practiced/performed tailoring 3 times... I would suck
But, with the same 2 hours and practice/perform tailoring 400 times, well... I would suck less

Again, if you give the gamer a simple way to perform a skill in "rapid" succession, then it shouldn''t become a chore.

I welcome your comments:



Dave "Dak Lozar" Loeser

I think the major problem is that skilling is redundant. You''ve got to imagine that doing the same skill again and again is going to get old, even if a program is doing it for you. But some people do it again and again to become the best. I think what we should do instead is try to find a way to discourage them in some way

NeverWinter Nights, one of the AD&D gold box games, was more social than anything. You had a set number of levels you could obtain. Once maxxed out, there was nothing more to try to get, except spells for your spell book. It had set quests and everything But hey.. it was fun as hell till the end! Why? because no one had to worry about being "better" than anyone else. You were all the same, practically. The only thing that mattered in player-vs-player fights was the strategy!!! And this made the game immensely exciting! I knew people that charged up over 1500 dollars a month on their bill for AOL because of this game! So who says unlimited skills, etc.. is the best method?!
Why do we even HAVE unlimited skills??

J

quote: Original post by Dak Lozar

I''m not sure that just being in the game is enough to warrant skill advances. I play UO (have been playing since day one) and I have many friends who used 3rd party tools to macro thier characters. This seemed a bit unfair... but then again in an online game such as UO... what is?

I think the meaning of ''unfair'' is where someone else gets a better deal than you without having earned it, right?

So if we perhaps (a) added automation as an integral part of the game for all to use, and (b) made automation a useful, but not optimally effective use of the playing time, then you would have something of a fair environment. Instead of ''levelling down'' by removing anyone''s advantages, why not ''level up'' and give that advantage to all.

if your game can be macroed is has a serious flaw. That is set in stone law of game design.

It should be obvious that a game involving mindless repetitive clicking isn''t a game. Sorry but if I wanted that much "fun" I could get a job digging ditches and I wouldn''t even have to pay a monthly fee. Man those manual labor people get paid to practically play games all day, in a very realitic setting! And they build important skills and improve their stats! Whoowhee I''m going to go get me a job as a coal miner!

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

if your game can be macroed is has a serious flaw. That is set in stone law of game design.

There is no government of game design. And there are no police of game design. Therefore there are no laws of game design.

quote:
It should be obvious that a game involving mindless repetitive clicking isn''t a game.

I''m sure the Diablo developers would disagree, as would the hundreds of thousands of Diablo players.

quote: Sorry but if I wanted that much "fun" I could get a job digging ditches and I wouldn''t even have to pay a monthly fee. Man those manual labor people get paid to practically play games all day, in a very realitic setting! And they build important skills and improve their stats! Whoowhee I''m going to go get me a job as a coal miner!

You are being closed-minded.

If people didn''t want to do that, why are there thousands of people ALREADY DOING SO on online games already?

Just because you don''t find it fun, doesn''t mean it isn''t, or can never be. Open your mind.