Artefact Packages

Kiet

lol               

Minifie

Devran said:

Shirszae said:

Devran said:

Shirszae said:

People being so utterly selfish about something being made cheaper for others, instead of being able to look at the bigger picture and how it'd benefit the game as a whole, will likely be the end of it.

Interesting post. I'm not going to state whether I disagree or agree with it, but I want to ask you and everyone else a question.

Why shouldn't I be selfish? Why should I care about other peoples financial ability to invest in something that I have invested in?

Can you state a reason related to Achaea that isn't "Because if you don't the game will die." ?

Because if the game ends then you lose your investment and ability to use it completely and irrevocably? But really, the one you outlined is the only argument that matters for the sake of this discussion. If you don't care about the health of the game you are of course not going to give a shit no matter what argument people use.

I was just curious to see if you or anyone else was able to give a reason that didn't involve the end of the game. I never said I was against what was being proposed.

For example, there's definitely the possibility that someone is out there who enjoys having the advantage of artifacts and lording it over people who doesn't and were they to lose that, the game might as well be dead. The game ending wouldn't be a compelling reason for them to give a damn.  So I wanted to see if there is an actual argument for someone like that which wasn't the game closing its doors.

It's a thought experiment.

Allowing a base-level of goods for people to obtain helps with keeping players motivated and looking forward, especially if the first tier of items is bought with something that never has a fluctuating value other than earning the required amount first (such as 100 mementos). You can buy them from others, yes, but you can get 100 doing your own thing as well. It's the same argument as to why giving people in, say, WoW easy to obtain gear but have to do cutting edge for the best gear: Even if they never get the best gear, what they get may make them incredibly happy, may entice them to get more, may let them finish their experience or just even up the playing field a little bit. 

Player retention is the be-all end-all for pretty much -every- discussion in the game. No matter what it is, things are done to retain players, so removing that would remove almost any discussion to be had on the board itself. Even in a thought experiment, you still have to ask the question: Why would we make any change, and ultimately, the answer will be player retention/engagement.

Devran

Minifie said:

Devran said:

Shirszae said:

Devran said:

Shirszae said:

People being so utterly selfish about something being made cheaper for others, instead of being able to look at the bigger picture and how it'd benefit the game as a whole, will likely be the end of it.

Interesting post. I'm not going to state whether I disagree or agree with it, but I want to ask you and everyone else a question.

Why shouldn't I be selfish? Why should I care about other peoples financial ability to invest in something that I have invested in?

Can you state a reason related to Achaea that isn't "Because if you don't the game will die." ?

Because if the game ends then you lose your investment and ability to use it completely and irrevocably? But really, the one you outlined is the only argument that matters for the sake of this discussion. If you don't care about the health of the game you are of course not going to give a shit no matter what argument people use.

I was just curious to see if you or anyone else was able to give a reason that didn't involve the end of the game. I never said I was against what was being proposed.

For example, there's definitely the possibility that someone is out there who enjoys having the advantage of artifacts and lording it over people who doesn't and were they to lose that, the game might as well be dead. The game ending wouldn't be a compelling reason for them to give a damn.  So I wanted to see if there is an actual argument for someone like that which wasn't the game closing its doors.

It's a thought experiment.

Allowing a base-level of goods for people to obtain helps with keeping players motivated and looking forward, especially if the first tier of items is bought with something that never has a fluctuating value other than earning the required amount first (such as 100 mementos). You can buy them from others, yes, but you can get 100 doing your own thing as well. It's the same argument as to why giving people in, say, WoW easy to obtain gear but have to do cutting edge for the best gear: Even if they never get the best gear, what they get may make them incredibly happy, may entice them to get more, may let them finish their experience or just even up the playing field a little bit. 

Player retention is the be-all end-all for pretty much -every- discussion in the game. No matter what it is, things are done to retain players, so removing that would remove almost any discussion to be had on the board itself. Even in a thought experiment, you still have to ask the question: Why would we make any change, and ultimately, the answer will be player retention/engagement.

Eloquently put. I approve.

However to play devils advocate I feel like there can be a difference between player retention and "If you don't do this game will close." I might have been conveying my thought poorly. Then again, I don't think I'd internally equated peoples escrow as being the thing that would kill the game due to entry requirements. Hrm.

Minifie

Devran said:

Minifie said:

Devran said:

Shirszae said:

Devran said:

Shirszae said:

People being so utterly selfish about something being made cheaper for others, instead of being able to look at the bigger picture and how it'd benefit the game as a whole, will likely be the end of it.

Interesting post. I'm not going to state whether I disagree or agree with it, but I want to ask you and everyone else a question.

Why shouldn't I be selfish? Why should I care about other peoples financial ability to invest in something that I have invested in?

Can you state a reason related to Achaea that isn't "Because if you don't the game will die." ?

Because if the game ends then you lose your investment and ability to use it completely and irrevocably? But really, the one you outlined is the only argument that matters for the sake of this discussion. If you don't care about the health of the game you are of course not going to give a shit no matter what argument people use.

I was just curious to see if you or anyone else was able to give a reason that didn't involve the end of the game. I never said I was against what was being proposed.

For example, there's definitely the possibility that someone is out there who enjoys having the advantage of artifacts and lording it over people who doesn't and were they to lose that, the game might as well be dead. The game ending wouldn't be a compelling reason for them to give a damn.  So I wanted to see if there is an actual argument for someone like that which wasn't the game closing its doors.

It's a thought experiment.

Allowing a base-level of goods for people to obtain helps with keeping players motivated and looking forward, especially if the first tier of items is bought with something that never has a fluctuating value other than earning the required amount first (such as 100 mementos). You can buy them from others, yes, but you can get 100 doing your own thing as well. It's the same argument as to why giving people in, say, WoW easy to obtain gear but have to do cutting edge for the best gear: Even if they never get the best gear, what they get may make them incredibly happy, may entice them to get more, may let them finish their experience or just even up the playing field a little bit. 

Player retention is the be-all end-all for pretty much -every- discussion in the game. No matter what it is, things are done to retain players, so removing that would remove almost any discussion to be had on the board itself. Even in a thought experiment, you still have to ask the question: Why would we make any change, and ultimately, the answer will be player retention/engagement.

Eloquently put. I approve.

However to play devils advocate I feel like there can be a difference between player retention and "If you don't do this game will close." I might have been conveying my thought poorly. Then again, I don't think I'd internally equated peoples escrow as being the thing that would kill the game due to entry requirements. Hrm.

Being able to have the lowest of a small subsect of artefacts available in this way shouldn't harm the escrows of others, and as long as it doesn't expand to ALL THE ARTIES EVER it would be a system that I don't see many weaknesses to. The hardest part is we have 0 gauge on if this will help, but we do know that some people quit if the cost barrier to entry feels too high, so even just being able to easily access many necessary trans skills would be a massive boon to the game.

And I know the feeling, I devil's advocate a lot, mostly to incite debate. It's a better thought experiment to just challenge viewpoints anyway to get yourself and others thinking deeper into the conversation. Although there can be times were it's not smart, but I don't think going into that here is too necessary .

Devran

Minifie said:

Devran said:

Minifie said:

Devran said:

Shirszae said:

Devran said:

Shirszae said:

People being so utterly selfish about something being made cheaper for others, instead of being able to look at the bigger picture and how it'd benefit the game as a whole, will likely be the end of it.

Interesting post. I'm not going to state whether I disagree or agree with it, but I want to ask you and everyone else a question.

Why shouldn't I be selfish? Why should I care about other peoples financial ability to invest in something that I have invested in?

Can you state a reason related to Achaea that isn't "Because if you don't the game will die." ?

Because if the game ends then you lose your investment and ability to use it completely and irrevocably? But really, the one you outlined is the only argument that matters for the sake of this discussion. If you don't care about the health of the game you are of course not going to give a shit no matter what argument people use.

I was just curious to see if you or anyone else was able to give a reason that didn't involve the end of the game. I never said I was against what was being proposed.

For example, there's definitely the possibility that someone is out there who enjoys having the advantage of artifacts and lording it over people who doesn't and were they to lose that, the game might as well be dead. The game ending wouldn't be a compelling reason for them to give a damn.  So I wanted to see if there is an actual argument for someone like that which wasn't the game closing its doors.

It's a thought experiment.

Allowing a base-level of goods for people to obtain helps with keeping players motivated and looking forward, especially if the first tier of items is bought with something that never has a fluctuating value other than earning the required amount first (such as 100 mementos). You can buy them from others, yes, but you can get 100 doing your own thing as well. It's the same argument as to why giving people in, say, WoW easy to obtain gear but have to do cutting edge for the best gear: Even if they never get the best gear, what they get may make them incredibly happy, may entice them to get more, may let them finish their experience or just even up the playing field a little bit. 

Player retention is the be-all end-all for pretty much -every- discussion in the game. No matter what it is, things are done to retain players, so removing that would remove almost any discussion to be had on the board itself. Even in a thought experiment, you still have to ask the question: Why would we make any change, and ultimately, the answer will be player retention/engagement.

Eloquently put. I approve.

However to play devils advocate I feel like there can be a difference between player retention and "If you don't do this game will close." I might have been conveying my thought poorly. Then again, I don't think I'd internally equated peoples escrow as being the thing that would kill the game due to entry requirements. Hrm.

Being able to have the lowest of a small subsect of artefacts available in this way shouldn't harm the escrows of others, and as long as it doesn't expand to ALL THE ARTIES EVER it would be a system that I don't see many weaknesses to. The hardest part is we have 0 gauge on if this will help, but we do know that some people quit if the cost barrier to entry feels too high, so even just being able to easily access many necessary trans skills would be a massive boon to the game.

And I know the feeling, I devil's advocate a lot, mostly to incite debate. It's a better thought experiment to just challenge viewpoints anyway to get yourself and others thinking deeper into the conversation. Although there can be times were it's not smart, but I don't think going into that here is too necessary .

It may have been mentioned in the previous pages, I don't know (I kind of skimmed) but one thing I have thought about it is that it could do a lot to shake up things like who's in charge of cities, which could be very fun. My thought goes like this -> If the system made it easier for new characters to get started, I think there'd be a lot more people who have wealthy and established characters making alts. (I know I sure would.) If they're getting invested into their alt significantly, they may not have a problem with their main who might be a Guildmaster or whatever in a guild or a city leader stepping down, as their focus would be on their new Mhaldorian alt or whathaveyou.

I think you're right that we don't -KNOW- that it will help with new players, but I think all the signs are pointing that it will. It's at the very least worth talking about and I'm personally glad that Tecton has flat out said that this is going on.

Reynaerd

I think these are all wonderful ideas and in my opinion being able to become transcendent in all three class skills at level 80 would be the number one thing. You can only truly appreciate a class and get a real taste of what it's like at that stage, although this may differ from class to class.

Another thing I'd like to be considered, building on the above, is that in order to appreciate (or not) a class, you will already have made a significant investment: either be level 80 and have bought both starter lesson packages OOCly plus some credits, or be high level and having hunted for a very long time to do it all ICly. If then, when you truly get to play around with said class, you don't like it as much as you'd hoped... you're stuck. I think it would be incredible if we could get a 1-time "class reset" or something along these lines. Lucrescent nuts go in this direction (I think) but playing around with a class for 1 or 2 days doesn't really seem to be enough to make a good decision in my opinion.

Excited to see the outcome of this all!

Alrena

If anything, I think being able to trans all class skills + survival, with a single free class change per character, would go a long way. I don't think arties are absolutely necessary, but class skills certainly are. And survival, let's face it. Whether you steadily build it up as you gain levels, or the option to get it as part of Iron Elite, would go a very long way.

The thing that turns me off from trying a new character (in any IRE) was always the cost to being able to just get your class skills. At least with those transed, you can bash effectively, enjoy your class to the fullest and even participate in single or group combat. Survival is also necessary, as without focus you're quickly screwed. A cheap(er) package of L1 arties might be useful, but I'd rather spend a small amount of money to enjoy my class, than a still substantial amount for that and some L1 arties.

Solnir

Reynaerd said:

I think these are all wonderful ideas and in my opinion being able to become transcendent in all three class skills at level 80 would be the number one thing. You can only truly appreciate a class and get a real taste of what it's like at that stage, although this may differ from class to class.

Another thing I'd like to be considered, building on the above, is that in order to appreciate (or not) a class, you will already have made a significant investment: either be level 80 and have bought both starter lesson packages OOCly plus some credits, or be high level and having hunted for a very long time to do it all ICly. If then, when you truly get to play around with said class, you don't like it as much as you'd hoped... you're stuck. I think it would be incredible if we could get a 1-time "class reset" or something along these lines. Lucrescent nuts go in this direction (I think) but playing around with a class for 1 or 2 days doesn't really seem to be enough to make a good decision in my opinion.

Excited to see the outcome of this all!

I think this could be achieved with having X amount of time for newbies to freely change class, if free tri-trans becomes a thing. It's fairly negligible to hunt up to level 60-70 in a few hours on a new character, so if there was something like 30 days from character creation it was free to change class at will, that could be beneficial for helping newbs choose a class without suiciding 17 different characters.

Laedha

@Solnir That's a really good point. It is hard to test out a class without embracing. Lots of new people probably don't know about lucrescent nuts and that still only gives you an hour (two hours?) to try it. I like the idea of free switches for 60 days. Maybe with login warnings at 40 and 50 days. I can think of a lot of characters who have embraced because they liked their class and thought they were settled on something, then get past the point where hunting is pretty easy and realize they wish they had tried X class instead. Or maybe instead, implement a one-time free class switch even after embracing? 

Reynaerd

Totally agree with you @Solnir , but just this once... That way I could try out Apostate yay!

Ulviistra

Necro'd. Anything ever come of this thread?

Atalkez

Just zombies, thanks for the email.