100 replies to this topic

[actionjack]

I think a good MMO require a good, healthy economy, as it provide the foundation of a reward system that ultimately encourage players to play.  (and here I am using economy to describe loots, gold, and produce (armor, weapons) relationship)  It would be exciting to see things like market/exchanges with live prices, where playing the market would be a mini game itself.  I do have a very found memory of the E3fE’s skill gem market, it was very fun.

However, one problem I see with GW1’s economy is that for most part, its dead.  By that I mean beside few rare items, its not too exciting to get that next iron ingot.  It become more of just a interface with a AI shop screen, and less of a exchange between players.  

I see this as result of that GW1 depended most of its craft/looting on armor sets, which are lasting goods, and attempts to avoid too many consuming goods, (goods that are used up) to avoid the need for item grind.  However, this also mean that once you get one of the top sets you like, there are not much purpose to use the market (beside to help get that prestige sets or sell off your junks).  But a good economy deepened on the principal of supply and demand, and with out much need for demands, and overflowing supplies, it becomes pretty flat (which I think in terms makes facing normal mobs rather boring).

So I would advocate more consuming goods, so that there are a healthy amount of outflow as well as inflow.  Of course, still need to avoid the evil of item grinds, thus they should be “mostly” for optional appeals.  Here are some brain stormings of how loots and materials can be use.

............................

Markets and Auction Houses:
Would hope to see (or expect) more robust loot/material exchange market.  It would reflect live pricing, so if there are a influx of one certain goods, its price would drop.  Similarity, if there are a outflow, than its price would pick up.

More so, there would be an overseeing algorithm to handle the market, which will best reflect player’s input and output and adjust the price so.  So that each item would have a “expiration date”, that once reach, will be removed from the market’s stockpile, and the adjust the price so.  It will also set a minimum and maximum prices as well, so to give it a more dynamic feel.  

But keep in mind Market is where you sell it to the AI.  For more direct Play-to-player transaction on weapons and more rare goods, it can be better handle by Auction Houses.  


Crafting Equipments:  
It’s a given.  So won’t go any detail on it.  


Weapon Quality and Durability:
Here is something that would be pretty controversial.  Adding a Quality and Durability to weapon and armors.  I see it where the equipment would be wear down with PvE use, reducing its Durabiility (which would be different for each weapons), and once it hits zero, it need repair.  When it need repair, the equipments stats would go down by 5 % to 25%, which is depend on the Quality of that equipment.  (so a Masterwork sword would go down only 5%, while a regular sword be 25%).  

Fixing would be pretty easy, by going to a crafter/weapon/armor smith, and pay a small fee and provided the needed material, and its done.  The Materials can be purchase at the crafter for a standard price, or obtain on your own (by looting or buy from market, which would tend to offer a better price).  

More so, you can upgrade your equipment to a higher Durability or Quality as well.  Again, done like repairing, but require a pricier materials (depend on what weapons and armor)

While this does change a player’s stats and require a minimum gind for repairing, I do think could be acceptable consider the low cost, and the low drawbacks, while providing an incentive to get those better quality and durability swords or armor.  


............................

Exotic Goods/Materials:
Adding some more exotic, or special drops/find.  It doesn’t mean they would be ultra rare or expansive, and their use would be mostly optional (instead of use in character building).  It would mostly match to the mob they drop from, or the local its found (so a Unicorn would drop Unicorn horn, Harpy Egg from Harpy next, etc)

Also would hope to see more items that are broken apart.  By that I mean instead of needing X number of “Bones of Tdrake”, you would find/need “Skull of Tdrake”, “Rib of Tdrake”, etc.  This I think will provide more exchange possibilities.  


NPC Gifts:
Add a “like level” to certain key NPCs (like shop owner, love interest, etc), in which you can craft gifts for them.  But they will be asking for it, sorta like a quest.  Example, the armor smith might be asking want a Harpy Egg Birthdate Cake for his daughter.  They usually require exotic materials to be found exploring or from markets.  If you gain good favor, they might give you more discounts, open up new catalogs, give you some small gifts in return, or just talk to you better.  

This would be a optional of course, but I think would help add immersions too.  


Trophy:
Be able to craft special Trophies out of the more exotic goods.  Things like crafting a candle holder out of Unicorn’s horn.  You can than place them in your home instances or guild hall, or a trophy/museum room.  (which, beside look fancy, won’t really do much other good)


Flashies:
Things like auras, fireworks, music box, and such.  Can be crafted.


Lock/Key Goods
Goods/items that will help you gain more, but are used up in the process.  Salvage kit and ID kit are a good base example.  But can also extend to things like Mining Picks, Herb Scissor, etc.  They can be even be more elaborate, where they open up a instance dungeon.  Example, crafting a GhostMine Key will allow enter its dungeon, where you can try to find and mine for more materials (if you can survive).  Think of it as ticket, or price of entry.


More Ideas?


--------------------------------------------------------
Again, to summarize.  I think a flowing economy require more consuming goods, but they should be best kept as optional, and not necessity (like as a stake dinner, and not as gas for the car).  When done well, would help add more excitement to play, as well as immersions.

[Leyana]

A good economy is necessary in an MMO. Though I think it would be more focused on putting in goods/services that people actually want or require. One way to do that may be to constantly add new items to the game although that might not be such an efficient method. I honestly do agree with you that after a while, eventually all the old players will have gotten everything they want/need and won't bother with the economy at all, which removes participants and disadvantages the newer players.

What ANet could do is to make currency always maintain its relevance and the easiest way I can see is to implement consumables that everyone wants. Since these are perishable, players old and new would need to keep earning currency in order to get them. Things such as the energy potions and underwater breathing potions? already mentioned. You'll always need them, and if you use them you need money to buy more. It will serve the function of keeping players participating in the economy. The more valuable the consumable, the greater the participation.

As to your suggestions, flashies are nice and fun. I'd put down money for fireworks, prank items, and such. Exotic crafting materials should be limited to being hard to get to rather than a rare drop or a rare mob in my opinion. Limits the grinding and ensures only the skilled get to it.

[trollberry]

Seeing as it is primarily PvE that requires a market I'm all for adding durability/degeneration in weapons/armour (weapon degrades to a broken state where it must be fixed before it can be reused) as long as PvP does not have the same.  WvW may be an issue with that though as it tends to walk a line between the both - perhaps add an economic reward to WvW or alternatively have WvW trade repairers in the WvW maps that accept a form of WvW token to carry out repairs?

[ThrangisTheRed]

actionjack said:

Markets and Auction Houses:
Would hope to see (or expect) more robust loot/material exchange market.  It would reflect live pricing, so if there are a influx of one certain goods, its price would drop.  Similarity, if there are a outflow, than its price would pick up.

More so, there would be an overseeing algorithm to handle the market, which will best reflect player’s input and output and adjust the price so.  So that each item would have a “expiration date”, that once reach, will be removed from the market’s stockpile, and the adjust the price so.  It will also set a minimum and maximum prices as well, so to give it a more dynamic feel.  

But keep in mind Market is where you sell it to the AI.  For more direct Play-to-player transaction on weapons and more rare goods, it can be better handle by Auction Houses.

I really like the Market idea.  Reminds me a bit of NYSE.

[actionjack]

@Leyana
Few thing mentioned were covered in the OP.  Personally, I dislike forced consumables (not a big fan of potion).  However, if its something that you use to make more off, a tool get more materials, and strictly optional, than it should be fine.

@trollberry
Yes, would think the equipment degradation be excluded from PvPing.  WvW is iffy, but need to see how its done before can suggest.  (if you can use your PvP character in a WvW, than I would think the weapon will not wore off).  Also would want to keep the equipment/weapon's wear's effect at minimum.


@ThrangisTheRed
That reminded me of my E3fE experience (not sure if any are in that before)

During than, the skill are gain from boss who drop skill gems.  And its not always easy to find the skill you want.  However, you can sell those gems to the Gem merchant, which enter into a sorta Market, and you can only buy what is available (from what player found).  And it is live too, so the price and availability changes as you refresh.  (I think same for early Materials too).  Some people might complain that it is a hassle, but I do enjoy it, since it feel like there is a live market, and the world is moving.  

(of course, I can see that that model will not last long, since skill are durable goods, and not consumable goods.  But for a weekend that was new, and when you are constantly creating new character, it was very exciting).


--------

Also I didn't mention anything about Crafting/Gathering Professionals that player can train as, since I am not sure about that too.  (since it could be handle with NPC and NPC relationship/level too).

[Shriketalon]

actionjack said:

Weapon Quality and Durability:

No.

In fact, hell no.

Durability is worthless.  It's only purpose within the game is to make people stop playing and go perform a meaningless task in order to earn the right to continue having fun.  This is, at its very core, an anathema to the Guild Wars philosophy of gaming.

Furthermore, it means that playing the game normally costs wealth.  This is stupid.  It punishes people for helping out a guildie, or providing aid to a noob, or exploring the next hill, because every activity they engage in is basically costing them gold.  

And finally, because it's negative reinforcement.

(Negative Reinforcement, by the by, refers to one of the four means of classic conditioning, aka getting someone to do something.  Positive conditioning adds something, negative takes it away, reinforcement rewards a behavior, punishment discourages it.  Thus, positive reinfocement is Do This, Get a Cookie, negative punishement is Do That, I Take Your Stuffed Bear Away, positive punishment is Do That, I Hit You With A Stick, and negative reinforcement is Do This, and I Turn Off The Annoying Music.)

Yes, it encourages people to seek out higher levels of quality gear, but only by annoying them into doing so.  Going the extra mile means not having to deal with Durability's bull**** quite so much, but it's still there.  This is a poor method of game design, because it means your basic level of play has a glaring annoyance for every player that serves no purpose other than to make them jump through hoops.

Game mechanics should make the game better.  Durability makes the game worse, because it contributes nothing to the enjoyment, the narrative, or the community, but demands that everyone put up with it in order to "earn" the right to keep playing.

[cdkcp]

I second that. Durability serves no real purpose aside from money sink, and even that it does poorly.

Edited by cdkcp, 28 February 2011 - 08:48 AM.

[ThrangisTheRed]

actionjack said:

Here is something that would be pretty controversial.

Success...

Back to the point though.  A living breathing market that fluctuates its prices automatically would be really interesting.  Paying attention to the rise and fall of the market could prove very profitable to those diligent souls. :)

[trollberry]

Shriketalon said:

...
Durability is worthless.  It's only purpose within the game is to make people stop playing and go perform a meaningless task in order to earn the right to continue having fun.... <snip> ...
Game mechanics should make the game better.  Durability makes the game worse, because it contributes nothing to the enjoyment, the narrative, or the community, but demands that everyone put up with it in order to "earn" the right to keep playing.

Durability does provide an important feature regardless of it's perception as negative reinforcement - it provides an element of risk.  Depending on how weapon degeneration / breakage | armour degeneration / breakage is handled it can add drama to a situation and improve immersion.

Consider the following scenario:
Classic GW combat - you check your health and energy then whale away at the enemy until they are all dead (or until you die) - there is no real drama apart from hitting the buttons in the right order in response to your target(s).

If however there was the real possibility of weapons or armour becoming degraded and even failing during a combat and that affecting the outcome of the combat then you have the possibility of randomness or chance playing a part - over and above the skill of the player.  It is this element of risk that could drive a player to maintain their armour against the possibility of breakage - a player with fully maintained weapons and armour does not fear a fight, but a player dressed in tatters and carrying a badly damaged sword will be a nervous wreck.

If the combat model was capable of generating damage to weapons/armour in a non linear manner - say damage criticals unlinked to skill criticals as well as standard wear and tear, then I feel it could add a useful edge to the system as a whole apart from its economic considerations.

Edited by trollberry, 28 February 2011 - 10:02 AM.

[cdkcp]

As soon as durability starts carrying element of risk, people will start taking spare weapons and armour parts. That's the only thing you'll achieve - players having to replace broken parts because of unpredictable durability damage. No risk, only nuisance.

Not to mention that your "element of risk" is still penalizing for not doing boring things. Maintaining armour/weapon is boring, and shouldn't be enforced, regardless if it's for reducing the risk, or because it sinks money.

[Greek Guardian]

Durability should not be in game imo.It's like asking from players to buy ammo for rifles/pistols and arrows for bows(as if you can't use the same bullet/arrow twice-hence you would worry about having limited attacks).I'm pretty sure they confirmed that won't be the case in GW2 but can't remember where I read it.

[trollberry]

Greek Guardian said:

Durability should not be in game imo.It's like asking from players to buy ammo for rifles/pistols and arrows for bows(as if you can't use the same bullet/arrow twice-hence you would worry about having limited attacks).I'm pretty sure they confirmed that won't be the case in GW2 but can't remember where I read it.

@Greek Guardian: Yes they have confirmed this regarding ammunition.  From an immersion point of view that is unfortunate but it is understandable that they have chosen it for ease of use by players.  I fully expect that there will be no armour or weapon degeneration for precisely the same reason.

The downside to always catering to the 'jump right in / no-need-to-plan-equip' mentality is that it cheapens the entire purpose of having an economy in the first place.  I still remember the squeals of rage from WoW when they removed quivers and later ammunition - all of a sudden the amount of useful market items dropped entire categories.  I fear that GW2 will end up having a market that is crowded by pointless trinkets and consumables and lack any real depth.

I hope that I am wrong and worrying needlessly :(

[actionjack]

I will have to get back to this later... as I am late for work..

But just a quick point on durability.  Its not a "durability ran out, I can't use it, it need fixing", but I pose a more gentler system with it, which is not to make durability just a money sink, but also provide an additional channel for weapon upgrades, which adds another usage for materials.  While one would suffer a negative effect off weapons that need to repair, I think it would (and should) kept a minimum), and 5% to 25% number seem reasonable.

[Morcotulcon]

I like your first idea "Markets and Auction Houses" very much!

And I do agree with the statements that weapon/gear degeneration shouldn't be in the game.
Unless there's a different way to solve the problems that come with it. Having degeneration really makes players be carefull of how much hits they can get, even after their revival, which a plus to the "health" and "dodge" goals.

If you really think it would be a necessary feature, than I have 3 points about that:

1st: IMO I think that having various places/NPCs where players can repair their things is a really bad idea when we consider it would stop players from having fun and force them into something not fun at all (for most players, of course). If it was something that could be handled in seconds without moving from that place I think this issue would be solved, like they did with making everyone having 1 skill to heal themselves.

2nd: Using the same "everyone can heal themselves" filosophy, I think making a "everyone can repair their items" should be a good filosophy too. With this filosophy, players won't need a lot of armour parts nor weapons filling their inventories and the problem with contribuing to the economy by buying the materials (used to fix those thing) is solved, everyone needs to buy them at some point.

3rd: But then there's a new problem. Instead of filling inventory with gear/weapons, it will be full of materials instead. How to solve this? Well, that's the tricky part and everyone can give their own ideas.

Just to give my contribution as an example: my idea would be a window (that appears using a hotkey like ctrl-O) where players could put the weapon they want to fix and it would automatically fix that weapon using the materials they have in their bank (like a credit card with our money ... and if he doesn't have all the needed materials, than it would automatically use his money in order to pay for the price of the needed materials).
We just need creativity. But there could be other ideas. I just want to point out that 1 material to repair and/or craft a lot of weapons/armours is much better than having lots of weapons/armours of the same design (that use much more space than materials).

Edited by Morcotulcon, 28 February 2011 - 04:22 PM.

[cdkcp]

actionjack said:

I will have to get back to this later... as I am late for work..

But just a quick point on durability.  Its not a "durability ran out, I can't use it, it need fixing", but I pose a more gentler system with it, which is not to make durability just a money sink, but also provide an additional channel for weapon upgrades, which adds another usage for materials.  While one would suffer a negative effect off weapons that need to repair, I think it would (and should) kept a minimum), and 5% to 25% number seem reasonable.

Doesn't matter. Even 5% means forcing players to do regular repair (=boring). If you want additional channel for weapon upgrades, build it on interesting foundation, instead of using anti-fun, penalizing, mandatory for all mechanic. You're making the game worse for everyone just to make single aspect of it (economy) be more enjoyable for fewer people. Doesn't sound like good idea.

[Mass Sedai]

Quest and dungeons that requires some Crafted Items.
such as: A bribe for the guard, siegeweapons for an assult etc.

I belive suff like this would help an MMO Market.

[Shriketalon]

trollberry said:

The downside to always catering to the 'jump right in / no-need-to-plan-equip' mentality is that it cheapens the entire purpose of having an economy in the first place.  I still remember the squeals of rage from WoW when they removed quivers and later ammunition - all of a sudden the amount of useful market items dropped entire categories.  I fear that GW2 will end up having a market that is crowded by pointless trinkets and consumables and lack any real depth.

The economy exists to support the game, not the other way around.

Adding elements that is good for the economy but bad for the gameplay as a whole is a terrible design philosophy.  Durability is good for the economy.  Long, grindy craft skills are good for the economy.  Exclusivity is good for the economy.  Long delays between travelling from one resource node to a refining station are good for the economy.  Weapons that break after a certain amount of time are good for the economy.  Armor that eventually becomes useless and must be replaced is good for the economy.  Consumable items required to respec your build are good for the economy.  Monsters that only provide loot to a single person in a group are good for the economy.

None of these are good for the game, and therefore none of these should be implemented.  The economy serves the game.  The game does not serve the economy.

[ClavisRa]

Shriketalon said:

The economy exists to support the game, not the other way around.

This is precisely right.  As is the rest of the post.

What is essential for a healthy economy is it be a natural extension of the inherent reward for activity model for individual game play.  As you play, you acquire gold, karma, weapons, armors, consumables, etc.  One man's junk is a another man's treasure, so a good economy should allow people to acquire wealth in various forms and trade for desirable items.  The economy can become broken in various ways, for example, if gold accumulates quickly and can only be used to acquire basic goods and services, then quickly gold will lose all trade value.  On the other hand if gold can be used to buy anything in the game at all, some players will farm the best gold source hardcore and price casual players out of the market.

ANet is making a lot of smart choices to create a healthy marketplace.  Creating a public trade forum, an auction house/marketplace, will allow people to focus on playing the game, not spending time hawking their wares, and give them information about the prices and rarity of items.  There are many avenues of wealth/item acquisition, gold, karma, crests, crafting (presumably), and trade of weapons (and maybe armors?).  Yes, ANet has to balance gold acquisition with gold sinks, and items need a way to be consumed too, such as customization, and they will likely need to rebalance this system at times before it breaks by keeping a careful eye on the economy.

What should not be introduced is forced busy work for players.  Any gold sinks should require no specific time investment by a player.  Way points are a great gold sink, since a player will use them regardless.  Identification kits were a terrible gold sink, since they just introduced an extra series of steps for a player, but had no inherent value.  One thing I would like dropped entirely is "merching" junk drops as the primary gold source.  A flood of items, 99.9% of which go straight to a merchant or salvage kit creates a lot of busywork for a player.

[trollberry]

Shriketalon said:

The economy exists to support the game, not the other way around.

Adding elements that is good for the economy but bad for the gameplay as a whole is a terrible design philosophy.  Durability is good for the economy.  Long, grindy craft skills are good for the economy.  Exclusivity is good for the economy.  Long delays between travelling from one resource node to a refining station are good for the economy.  Weapons that break after a certain amount of time are good for the economy.  Armor that eventually becomes useless and must be replaced is good for the economy.  Consumable items required to respec your build are good for the economy.  Monsters that only provide loot to a single person in a group are good for the economy.

None of these are good for the game, and therefore none of these should be implemented.  The economy serves the game.  The game does not serve the economy.

There does come a point though where oversimplification for the sake of ease makes a game extremely shallow and destroys its longevity - the trading system in GW1 was a prime example of this, after a certain point it ceases to be relevant and you can totally ignore it as part of the game.  When a game element becomes totally irrelevant like that I guess you have to have a really hard think about whether or not you wasted time developing it in the first place.

Personally I would like GW2 to be more than a skill-tapping pick-a-path book with an arena :)

[Naevius]

Are consumables fun? No. Is weapon degradation fun? No.

[cdkcp]

Quote

There does come a point though where oversimplification for the sake of ease makes a game extremely shallow and destroys its longevity - the trading system in GW1 was a prime example of this, after a certain point it ceases to be relevant and you can totally ignore it as part of the game. When a game element becomes totally irrelevant like that I guess you have to have a really hard think about whether or not you wasted time developing it in the first place.

There are many other ways of enriching economy without breaking the game for everyone else. Taking the most game-destructive path is simply stupid. It's like fixing clogged vent with grenade.

Edited by cdkcp, 28 February 2011 - 06:29 PM.

[Attic]

Naevius said:

Are consumables fun? No. Is weapon degradation fun? No.

Is a crafting system that serves no damn purpose in the game fun? No. Is an auction/consignment system fun if it's just there to allow people to sell off excess junk that's easily replaced with minimal effort? No.

Item degradation/loss basically is a means to make everything in the game economy consumable. Thereby ensuring constant demand, helping to prevent inflation, and providing crafting with a purpose beyond "odd waste of time with marginal benefits" like it is in so many games these days.

[Leyana]

There were so many ideas in the original post and everyone is arguing about durability? XD

I suggested consumables because I'm not a fan of durability as well for the same reasons outlined by posters above. Also to make weapons/armour relevant in a vibrant economy, you need a way to add new equipment or take equipment out. So far I can see to add new equipment, the equipment needs to contain randomly generated stats (something many on this forum would never go for) or to continuously add new equipment sets (which would be too much trouble to be worth it for ANet). As for taking equipment out, an upgrade system with a chance for destruction works, but I cant see people going for that either.

Consumables or collection items fulfil the supply and demand needed for a working economy. As the consumables are removed from the market through use, they would be added back trough people obtaining them whether through killing stuff or purchasing from NPCs. It keeps the currency relevant since people need/want it.

[Shriketalon]

Attic said:

Item degradation/loss basically is a means to make everything in the game economy consumable. Thereby ensuring constant demand, helping to prevent inflation, and providing crafting with a purpose beyond "odd waste of time with marginal benefits" like it is in so many games these days.

But that's just the problem.  If everything is consumable, the game encourages you to make as little effort as possible.

If helping out a noob costs me money because my weapon will degrade, the game encourages me to be a callous, uncaring *******.  If going with a guildie on a milk run to spend time chatting means my armor repair bill increases, durability is giving me an incentive to be antisocial and apathetic.  If trying out a new tactic will result in more risk which will cut into my funds, degradation ensures it's better to go the tried-and-true, boring route.

Annoying everyone with durability makes it more tedious for people to just play.  This is a game.  It is meant to be played.  If a mechanic encourages you not to assist your fellow adventurers, to not spend time with guildies, or to avoid exploring new lands or trying new tactics because it might cut into your wealth, that mechanic hurts the game.

If, at the end of the day, a mechanic boils down to "It sucks, but it's good for the economy," it does not belong in this recreational activity.  Jobs are things that can afford to be tedious and boring if they are good for the economy, aka your wallet.  Games are things that, first and foremost, should be fun, encouraging people to explore, discover, try new things, meet new people, and stick together through thick and thin.

[Meowhead]

Shriketalon said:

If, at the end of the day, a mechanic boils down to "It sucks, but it's good for the economy," it does not belong in this recreational activity.  Jobs are things that can afford to be tedious and boring if they are good for the economy, aka your wallet.  Games are things that, first and foremost, should be fun, encouraging people to explore, discover, try new things, meet new people, and stick together through thick and thin.

To be fair, you could have a very crafting heavy, intensive economy style game.  A game where being a crafter is much the point.  A world of crafters, and the people who support them.

Some people find that fun.  It's unfair to say NOBODY finds that sort of thing fun (Just look at some games like the original SWG and Xsyon... obviously some people find it fun.).  Is that the market that Arenanet appears to be focusing on?  No.

They're not even doing a mild death penalty, they're almost certainly not going to put in other timesinks like weapons degrading.

Somewhere, there are people who REALLY really love crafting, and would love nothing more than a game where every NPC was killed off, auction houses were set on fire, people have to sell from shops they make out of their own lumber, items broke after a few uses, and every single bullet and arrow had to be lovingly hand crafted by people who bought their materials from 4 different kinds of subcrafters.  Some of these people are so extreme they even think a game is intolerable and full of suckiness if it does not have the aforementioned features.

These people probably won't like GW2.  ... but when they play their dream game, it's still a game, and many things you find annoying and silly, make them smile contently and live in their happy place. :)

[Big Ol Norn]

In an ideal world you could have an economy that's like Minecraft in an MMO... people going out and getting materials, and actually making stuff. How funny would it be if some day MMO's have castle building companies, and weapon building companies, raw material wholesalers maybe, other crafts and so on... all done by real people who are doing it because they want to.

However you can't really do that right now. The tech is more based on killing monsters than creating or having an interactive world resource system, so the economies will remain based on loot trading.

Edited by Big Ol Norn, 28 February 2011 - 08:18 PM.

[Shriketalon]

Meowhead said:

To be fair, you could have a very crafting heavy, intensive economy style game.  A game where being a crafter is much the point.  A world of crafters, and the people who support them.

A fair point indeed.  'Tis true, such games do exist, and some people do enjoy them immensely.  Such a game, however, places its emphasis on the crafting completely; the economy IS the game.  It sells itself on the ability to be a merchant, a blacksmith, a shipbuilder, a miner, etc.

Guild Wars is not such a game, because it's narrative is one of heroic fantasy.  We're fighting dragons, slaying centaurs, killing corsairs, smiting spectres, and rescuing ogres from evil damsels.  Thus, anything that doesn't involve being Big Damn Heroes is meant to support our BDH aspirations.  Thus, any mechanic that diminishes the Way of the Big Damn Hero in the name of the economy, of realism, of lulz, or of any other side tangent takes away from the core narrative that actually makes Guild Wars the game it is.

[Attic]

Shriketalon said:

But that's just the problem.  If everything is consumable, the game encourages you to make as little effort as possible.

If helping out a noob costs me money because my weapon will degrade, the game encourages me to be a callous, uncaring *******.  If going with a guildie on a milk run to spend time chatting means my armor repair bill increases, durability is giving me an incentive to be antisocial and apathetic.  If trying out a new tactic will result in more risk which will cut into my funds, degradation ensures it's better to go the tried-and-true, boring route.

Annoying everyone with durability makes it more tedious for people to just play.  This is a game.  It is meant to be played.  If a mechanic encourages you not to assist your fellow adventurers, to not spend time with guildies, or to avoid exploring new lands or trying new tactics because it might cut into your wealth, that mechanic hurts the game.

If, at the end of the day, a mechanic boils down to "It sucks, but it's good for the economy," it does not belong in this recreational activity.  Jobs are things that can afford to be tedious and boring if they are good for the economy, aka your wallet.  Games are things that, first and foremost, should be fun, encouraging people to explore, discover, try new things, meet new people, and stick together through thick and thin.

It's only a bad system if you make it overly punitive for the market you're aiming for. Which is where you're in luck, since ANet seems to be aiming for a piece of the WoW pie, they're unlikely to challenge their prospective players intellects with a heretical idea such as not making the game revolve around the loot hamster wheel.

Mind you, I don't necessarily mind such things. It just annoys me that games insist on tacking on useless and vestigial crafting and economic systems for little reason. Better to just remove it all I think.

Big Ol Norn said:

However you can't really do that right now. The tech is more based on killing monsters than creating or having an interactive world resource system, so the economies will remain based on loot trading.

EVE begs to differ. So do a few other games like A Tale in the Desert.

Shriketalon said:

Guild Wars is not such a game, because it's narrative is one of heroic fantasy.  We're fighting dragons, slaying centaurs, killing corsairs, smiting spectres, and rescuing ogres from evil damsels.  Thus, anything that doesn't involve being Big Damn Heroes is meant to support our BDH aspirations.  Thus, any mechanic that diminishes the Way of the Big Damn Hero in the name of the economy, of realism, of lulz, or of any other side tangent takes away from the core narrative that actually makes Guild Wars the game it is.

Pardon me chief but I distinctly recall seeing minigames in Divinity's Reach. Personally speaking, I can't tell you the last time a carnival game made me feel heroic. Nor do I remember the last time a minigame was part of the "core narrative" of any tale.

Edited by Attic, 28 February 2011 - 09:22 PM.
Deal With It

[Craywulf]

I don't think weapons come with stats, now that they are skill-based. So I don't think durability would work. Unless the wear and tear effects the skills.

Personally I think durability would be a good thing. At least for economy. I don't think upgrading weapons is relevant, again the weapons are stat-less. makes no difference between one sword to another.

Eve's economy thrives on the notion that you are always in state of upgrading your ship in every facet. So for that to work in GW2 weapons and armor would have to be stat-based and in constant state of evolution. So other words there would be no end game gear. There would have to be new armor sets created all the time. Their stats would have to be better than the last elite armor and so on. It wouldn't work.

The way to do this without making weapons stat-based is adding durability. Wear and tear would take a long time, but it would only reduce damage by 5%. The cost to repair should be about half of what it is to buy a new weapon. This will keep the market alive. the decision to buy a sword at full price or repair old one at half price will fuel the market.

I also think setting up a system where you hire workers to hunt, farm, and transport goods is way of doing business. Much like Eve does. You can farm, hunt or mine yourself or hire workers to do it for you. Then you sell your goods to various towns.

[Shriketalon]

Attic said:

Pardon me chief but I distinctly recall seeing minigames in Divinity's Reach. Personally speaking, I can't tell you the last time a carnival game made me feel heroic. Nor do I remember the last time a minigame was part of the "core narrative" of any tale.

Carnival games connect you to the surrounding environment by creating a sense of familiarity and affection for the zone in question, thus allowing you to have greater passion and drive to protect the area from the horrific terrors that seek to engulf it.

:D