A player-driven economy is fine. A player driven economy as the center of your game-design is a bad idea, or at least for me its a bad idea because I don't enjoy playing the market.

Ok, thats fine. Your entitled to your opinion and preferences.

EvE is a perfect example of this, there is not an aspect in the game world that does not revolve around money and the economy.

Yes, this is because the vast majority of items in the game are produced by players, which is a player-driven economy, which is a consequence of it being a sandobx. You cannot have a player-driven economy without it affecting the game in a large way. I don't see a way to have both a player-driven economy, and not have it be a large part of the game.

Its just another disguised progression system, it doesn't really solve anything of what you say in your second paragraph. Yes your character can progress by just paying for the subscription and queing skills, but if you don't GRIND for money, you will be effectively completely useless even with LVL5 skills.

You are just substituting one kind of grind for another kinf of grind. This might be a question of perspective, but for me its the same thing.

Grind will never be eliminated, it is very much a relative thing from person to person. Where I have a disdain for grinding experience, you seem to have a disdain for grinding to earn in-game currency. Both are relative perceptions and preferences, and there is nothing wrong with that.

A sandbox can certainly have player based economy, its fine really, but we need to remember that these are games, they do not need to necessarily follow the free-market economy in real life. There is nothing saying that the economy must be the driving factor of a sandbox, in fact, a free-market economy simulation in a MMO brings the exact same problems with itself like it does in real life.

Once again, how can you have a player-driven economy and not have it be a large part of the game?

Its actually one of the things i think why sandboxes are not as popular, because the economical libertarian model is by its very -definition- concerned about individual wealth and not the collective, it is therefore, essentially, anti-social. Which is a bad thing for an MMO.

I sincerely mean no disrespect here, but it sounds like you have a problem with capitalism. Eve's model is a replication of real world economics, but also in that you get a return on effort. If you want to be wealthy, you have to earn it, there is no one there who is going to give you a handout. There should be a guarantee of equal opportunity, but not of equal results.

If the collective mentality prevailed, everyone would be equal, and there would therefore be no incentive for anyone to achieve anything, because by doing so, whatever 'extra' could be earned would be taken and given to another in order to enforce the collective.

PS: Because this might be misunderstood: economy and combat are not the only parts of a game, especially an MMO, focusing on either is a big mistake. What I am advocating is interdependant game design.

Sandbox game design is dependent on player actions, and because of this these player actions involve the economy and pvp. If you remove those elements the world isn't persistent, nor is it virtual. It would simply be a set of static content that players run-through, i.e. a themepark.

This is very off-topic, my bad.

Originally posted by Royalkin

A player-driven economy is fine. A player driven economy as the center of your game-design is a bad idea, or at least for me its a bad idea because I don't enjoy playing the market.

Ok, thats fine. Your entitled to your opinion and preferences.

EvE is a perfect example of this, there is not an aspect in the game world that does not revolve around money and the economy.

Yes, this is because the vast majority of items in the game are produced by players, which is a player-driven economy, which is a consequence of it being a sandobx. You cannot have a player-driven economy without it affecting the game in a large way. I don't see a way to have both a player-driven economy, and not have it be a large part of the game.

There is a difference between player driven economy and free market/libertarian player driven economy, its also not a consequence of being a sandbox.

A sandbox can be a game where everyone is self-sufficient and your victory-condition is creativity or execution through gameplay, not wealth. (see Minecraft) Interesting to note is that a game like Minecraft, if imagined on the scale of an MMORPG, would still have a player-driven economy with a barter-system, PVP, Combat, PVE etc.

Yet the economy would not have any significantly larger impact on the gameplay than PVE for example.

Its just another disguised progression system, it doesn't really solve anything of what you say in your second paragraph. Yes your character can progress by just paying for the subscription and queing skills, but if you don't GRIND for money, you will be effectively completely useless even with LVL5 skills.

You are just substituting one kind of grind for another kinf of grind. This might be a question of perspective, but for me its the same thing.

Grind will never be eliminated, it is very much a relative thing from person to person. Where I have a disdain for grinding experience, you seem to have a disdain for grinding to earn in-game currency. Both are relative perceptions and preferences, and there is nothing wrong with that.

A sandbox can certainly have player based economy, its fine really, but we need to remember that these are games, they do not need to necessarily follow the free-market economy in real life. There is nothing saying that the economy must be the driving factor of a sandbox, in fact, a free-market economy simulation in a MMO brings the exact same problems with itself like it does in real life.

Once again, how can you have a player-driven economy and not have it be a large part of the game?

Its actually one of the things i think why sandboxes are not as popular, because the economical libertarian model is by its very -definition- concerned about individual wealth and not the collective, it is therefore, essentially, anti-social. Which is a bad thing for an MMO.

I sincerely mean no disrespect here, but it sounds like you have a problem with capitalism. Why yes I do, comming from one of these socialist states like Germany I indeed have a problem with the libertarian model or free-market economy, I much more prefer social market economy. Eve's model is a replication of real world economics, but also in that you get a return on effort. If you want to be wealthy, you have to earn it, there is no one there who is going to give you a handout. There should be a guarantee of equal opportunity, but not of equal results.

Except there is no equal opportunity in a capitalitic system. The people with more capital have "more equal" an opportunity. That is essentially what capitalism is and what it always was. Pure work and dedication does not get you further in real life and make you more wealthy than Bill Gates.

Success in EVE is randomly generated, just like in real life, it is based on luck. Do you get ganked by pirates, do you hit a day with a good stock market, do you get scammed, etc.

Unforseen things happen and can throw you back to the stone-age (just like in real life).

This might really be my perspective, but I feel nobody wants to play a simulation of real life, because i  play real life 24/7 already anyways. Why not make the system -better- or -different- from RL instead of copying a flawed system in the first place.

If the collective mentality prevailed, everyone would be equal, and there would therefore be no incentive for anyone to achieve anything, because by doing so, whatever 'extra' could be earned would be taken and given to another in order to enforce the collective.

I think this is a flawed argument. I am currently developing a ruleset for a sandbox MMO with no economy at all, it is set in a post-scarcity society, there is no money, no shortage on resources.

It does not necessitate an economy to make a sandbox at all.

PS: Because this might be misunderstood: economy and combat are not the only parts of a game, especially an MMO, focusing on either is a big mistake. What I am advocating is interdependant game design.

Sandbox game design is dependent on player actions, and because of this these player actions involve the economy and pvp. Player agency can entirely be based on different things than economy or PVP. Change in the world does not need to come from either of those. There is societal changes, creative challenges, terraforming, etc. I would urge you to understand that just because you might not find these sollutions appealing for one reason or another, that it doesnt mean they don't exist.

If you remove those elements the world isn't persistent, nor is it virtual. It would simply be a set of static content that players run-through, i.e. a themepark.

 

This is very off-topic, my bad.

I absolutely understand why certain solutions seem to be cast in stone and unappealing, mostly because we use the same conventions IRL, but also because most MMORPGs and RPGs rely on the fact they were/are created around a very distinct -power fantasy-.

What I'm advocating is that there are other, viable solutions to design-problems that do not involve the beaten path of power and vertical progression.

I don't think that I want to see PO focused on economy LIKE Eve, but I certainly want the player economy to be developed in depth such that it's piece of the overall gameplay pie is equal to or slightly greater than all other portions respectively. All of the recent MMOs, majority of which are themeparks, have done very poorly in the "amount" or "weight" of player economy with respect to the overall game. Indeed they have taken Bioware's philosophy in that "they include crafting and economy because that's what players expect in an MMO".

Now, these companies' companies implementations have, in my view, been lackluster. It's like them saying "Hey, I'm going to make you dinner" and we arrive to see that dinner is a cold bologna sandwhich, chips and a room temperature soda with no fizz. What I, and others I imagine, would prefer for dinner is a fresh salad, a 20 ounce Tbone steak, a baked potato with the works, a nice vegetable medley to compliment, a top bill wine or beer and completed with a slice of your favorite pie. Vegetarians edit as needed.

Only a couple of games in my view have come near the latter. UO, SWG (preNGE), EvE, Ryzom, ATiTD and maybe WURM are on my list of those who have done so with their crafting/economic systems.

Yes, I want to see their player economic crafting system be such that a person could play a non-adventuring character and build a merchantile powerhouse such that they are rightly considered for a place on a player government council. Or such that their aid or withholding of could influence kindgom wars and other politics.

That makes for a more intriguing game world. 

As a veteran MMORPG gamer, I'm very interested in this title.  After reading the blogs I can say  I like what I hear so far.  I encourage other's to take the time to visit their website & get familiar with their design philosophy.   Let's hope what they have on paper translates into the vision they have described for us.  I wish them all the best.

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by Royalkin

After reading these blog posts, I'm much more enthusiastic about this project, and especially so with the outline of how they plan to implement the heirearchy and mechanics of 'social units'. Also with that, they hint at numerous opportunities for the socio-politically inclined player(s), such as the following,

"...the political structures of these entities will be varied. Some will be actual kingdoms with power vested in a single monarch. Some will be oligarchies. Others will be more democratic—even a direct democracy is possible.

[Coming from Eve, wherein the mechanics really don't support anything other than oligarchy and autocratic personality cults, I find this appealing.  Hopefully, the mechanics will enforce the rule of law when a 'kingdom' is established as a democracy, and prevent a potential tyrant from amassing total power.]  

The economic structures of kingdoms will be varied as well. The kingdom may tax its members on their earnings to fund its operations, and that tax rate could vary from nil to 100%. Ayn Rand to Karl Marx and everything in between.

The combination of politics and economics will create a matrix of variety in kingdoms, and that matrix is further complicated by alignment, creating a three-dimensional structure of options. If you can imagine it, you can likely custom-tailor a kingdom to deliver."

 

Also, they seem to be aware of the mistakes made by others in the past and are eager to innovate, both of which are refreshing changes,

"We want to mirror some of the amazing things that occurred in Ultima Online and EVE Online, but we also want to strike out on our own path.

We also want to avoid some of the missteps that have happened in other games. We want to ensure that there's always enough space so that new settlements and kingdoms can form. We want to avoid the problem of choke points that restrict access to key resources, making whomever got to those points first the de facto "winners" in the economy.

We're going to design Pathfinder Online so that each level of social organization arises when the game is ready for it. Slowly adding these increasing levels of sophistication will allow the society of the game to ramp up gradually and with good cohesion. As new players join, they'll always have ways to become a part of that process."

 

Lastly, I like their choice of time based progression, rather than grinding out experience. This allows me to use my time in game to pursue other things.

In the end, if your a sandobx fan, I would definitely keep an eye on Pathfinder Online. I will be.

Which is what I am extremely weary off. I do not want to see yet another EVE p2w system.

In fact, I don't want to see another game focused on economy in the first place, but it seems to me that CCP and all its developers, even those that quit, can't put that drug down.

Originally posted by BlackUhuru
That little red box is actually very large, when the game launches they will only allow 4.5k players each month. As more people are allowed in and spread out they will introduce more of the world as needed.

Pathfinder onlines game launch will be unlike anything we have seen before! Starting out with only 4.5k players on day one and introducing 4.5k players every month there after.

I'm on my iPhone so it's hard for me to type out a full description of there plans for launch but I recommend going to the message boards on the Paizo website and read up on it, very interesting game design and launch philosophy.

So capping at at about 18k playerbase total....Dont see many more then that playing that style of game.

Originally posted by Royalkin

A player-driven economy is fine. A player driven economy as the center of your game-design is a bad idea, or at least for me its a bad idea because I don't enjoy playing the market.

Ok, thats fine. Your entitled to your opinion and preferences.

EvE is a perfect example of this, there is not an aspect in the game world that does not revolve around money and the economy.

Yes, this is because the vast majority of items in the game are produced by players, which is a player-driven economy, which is a consequence of it being a sandobx. You cannot have a player-driven economy without it affecting the game in a large way. I don't see a way to have both a player-driven economy, and not have it be a large part of the game.

Its just another disguised progression system, it doesn't really solve anything of what you say in your second paragraph. Yes your character can progress by just paying for the subscription and queing skills, but if you don't GRIND for money, you will be effectively completely useless even with LVL5 skills.

You are just substituting one kind of grind for another kinf of grind. This might be a question of perspective, but for me its the same thing.

Grind will never be eliminated, it is very much a relative thing from person to person. Where I have a disdain for grinding experience, you seem to have a disdain for grinding to earn in-game currency. Both are relative perceptions and preferences, and there is nothing wrong with that.

A sandbox can certainly have player based economy, its fine really, but we need to remember that these are games, they do not need to necessarily follow the free-market economy in real life. There is nothing saying that the economy must be the driving factor of a sandbox, in fact, a free-market economy simulation in a MMO brings the exact same problems with itself like it does in real life.

Once again, how can you have a player-driven economy and not have it be a large part of the game?

Its actually one of the things i think why sandboxes are not as popular, because the economical libertarian model is by its very -definition- concerned about individual wealth and not the collective, it is therefore, essentially, anti-social. Which is a bad thing for an MMO.

I sincerely mean no disrespect here, but it sounds like you have a problem with capitalism. Eve's model is a replication of real world economics, but also in that you get a return on effort. If you want to be wealthy, you have to earn it, there is no one there who is going to give you a handout. There should be a guarantee of equal opportunity, but not of equal results.

If the collective mentality prevailed, everyone would be equal, and there would therefore be no incentive for anyone to achieve anything, because by doing so, whatever 'extra' could be earned would be taken and given to another in order to enforce the collective.

PS: Because this might be misunderstood: economy and combat are not the only parts of a game, especially an MMO, focusing on either is a big mistake. What I am advocating is interdependant game design.

Sandbox game design is dependent on player actions, and because of this these player actions involve the economy and pvp. If you remove those elements the world isn't persistent, nor is it virtual. It would simply be a set of static content that players run-through, i.e. a themepark.

 

This is very off-topic, my bad.

very well thought out though, and I agree that the poster you were responding to seems to have more of a problem with Capitalism than the game itself.

just subscribed to the newsletter, let's hope it works and also hope that the "easy game lovers" avoid it.

just a question, is this full 3d? or like UO graphics (2.5D) or???

Originally posted by TweFoju

just a question, is this full 3d? or like UO graphics (2.5D) or???

As far as I know, it's full 3D, as for the art style no one knows. There are no screenshots, nor has there been anything posted on the art style. I doubt they will go full realism though, my guess is something similar to Guild Wars' style.

Mostly agreed with AdamTM here. EVE economic system is rather unappealing. It's good when you're trying to simulate a cutthroat winner-take-all world, which is what EVE is about, but otherwise it's a pretty underwhelming system for anyone who just wants to get something done.

From what I've seen on the blogs, Pathfinder can do more interesting stuff, especially with the strict contract systems and stuff.